What Didn’t Make It

Six texts preceded the enacted law. Almost everything that was lost was lost at one of four moments — plus a fifth, slower one, where the dollar authorizations went a few at a time.

1. NDAA conferenceDec 7, 2025

   The whole Senate package fell out of the defense bill. Nothing was individually cut — the vehicle died. Chairman Hill: “Given our Conference has not seen any text, it’s unclear how we could support its inclusion in the NDAA.”

   nlihc.org (opens in a new tab)

2. Senate substituteMar 2–12, 2026

   The Senate merged its bill with the House’s housing title. Casualties: S. 2651 Secs. 203, 211, 505 and 704, the entire House community-banking title, and roughly nine other House housing sections — most of which came back in May.

   everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

3. House amendmentMay 19–20, 2026

   The deal negotiated with the White House and Speaker Johnson. Casualties: the 7-year build-to-rent divestiture, multi-agency testimony, and CFPB rulemaking authority. RAD, Build Now, PRICE, CDBG-DR, the MTW cohort and the VALID Act were cut here and restored in June. The Eviction Helpline, cut in March, was not restored.

   financialservices.house.gov (opens in a new tab)

4. The four-principals deal (SA 5823)Jun 16–22, 2026

   The final trade between Scott, Warren, Hill and Waters. Casualties: three of the twelve community-banking sections, and the permanence of the CDBG-DR authorization, which came back with a 3-year sunset.

   banking.senate.gov (opens in a new tab)

5. By attritionDec 2025 – Jun 2026

   The authorizations of appropriations were not deleted at any single moment. They went one at a time as the House’s “no new spending” posture held, and Sec. 1202 of the enacted law closes the door: “No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this Act.”

   govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

What NLIHC, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, legal-aid and tenant organizations asked for. The largest single block of substance that died — the Continuum of Care reform package — sits here.

1. Cut from the billSenate substitute · Mar 2–12, 2026Still in play

   Reducing Homelessness Through Program Reform (S. 2651 Sec. 505)

   The largest single block of substance that died. The section incorporated S. 2234 wholesale: raise the ESG administrative cost cap from 7.5 to 10 percent; allow unified funding agency designations for up to two years with annual or biennial applications; move the Continuum of Care to a two-year NOFO cycle and a two-year grant term; cap permanent supportive housing affordability periods at 15 years; make up to six months of rent and utility arrears an eligible rapid-rehousing activity; raise the project administrative threshold from 3 percent to the greater of $70,000 or 5 percent; allow remote and video inspections with pre-inspection up to 60 days before leasing; count program income toward the required match; add tribal provisions; fund e-snaps IT modernization at $5 million; commission a National Academies evidence review and a housing/health-care coordination demonstration; make the Advisory Committee on Homelessness permanent; and order GAO audits of coordinated entry and of documentation requirements.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   Dropped by the Senate substitute in March 2026 and never restored in any later text.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source states a reason. The National Alliance to End Homelessness said on Mar 9, 2026: “We are disappointed that ROAD no longer contains important provisions that would have strengthened and protected the Continuum of Care Program.”

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Mike Rounds; Sen. Tina Smith; Sen. Jack Reed; Sen. Mike Crapo; National Alliance to End Homelessness; NLIHC; Campaign for Housing and Community Development FundingVeterans & HomelessnessAdvocatesRural & TribalPHAs

   In the law instead

   Two fragments. The voucher inspection streamlining in S. 2234 Sec. 5(2) is law as Sec. 405 — though it also came in through the House’s own text and the Choice in Affordable Housing Act. And the ESG 60 percent shelter-and-outreach waiver is law as Sec. 503, but that was a different S. 2651 section (Sec. 506), not part of this package.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 2234 (opens in a new tab) — Reducing Homelessness Through Program Reform Act. Pending in Senate Banking with no reported action. Live but stalled. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero hits for “Continuum of Care” and zero for “unified funding agency.”

   Source: everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

2. Cut from the billSenate substitute · Mar 2–12, 2026No vehicle located

   Eviction Helpline (House-passed Sec. 406)

   Require HUD, within one year of enactment, to establish a hotline for tenants of covered federally assisted rental units to call for help with eviction-related matters — promoted and visible, available in English and other languages, accessible to people with disabilities, and staffed for call volume. Assistance would have directed callers to resources including legal aid and informed them of their rights and responsibilities as tenants, under an authorization expiring in seven years.

   Versions

   House-passed (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   Cut by the Senate substitute in March 2026. Ranking Member Waters asked for its restoration on Mar 22; the House did not restore it in May — the one House-origin housing section the House itself let go.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source states why the House declined to restore it. HUD Secretary Turner’s May 15, 2026 letter raised objections to renter-dispute provisions in the bill; whether that drove the decision is not documented.

   Who pushed for it

   Rep. Maxine Waters; House Financial Services Democrats; legal-aid and tenant organizationsAdvocatesPHAs

   In the law instead

   A cousin, not a replacement. Sec. 1001(c) requires HUD to stand up a renter outreach resource — a toll-free number and a website — within 180 days, but it is scoped to renters of homes owned by large institutional investors and its purpose is investor-ban information, not eviction help.

   Where the fight is now

   No revival vehicle located as of August 29, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero hits for “helpline” or “hotline.” Its single “toll-free” hit is the Sec. 1001(c) renter outreach resource.

   Source: financialservices.house.gov (opens in a new tab)

3. Cut from the billSenate substitute · Mar 2–12, 2026Still in play

   Voucher security-deposit and unit-holding assistance

   Add a new Sec. 8(o)(23) to the U.S. Housing Act letting a PHA use current- and prior-year voucher assistance to pay security deposits — rent, utilities and other HUD-approved deposits — and fees to hold a unit during inspection and approval, capped at one month’s rent per purpose, counted toward the PHA’s renewal allocation baseline, with HUD setting a percentage cap. Security deposits and holding fees are two of the most commonly cited reasons a voucher holder loses a unit between issuance and lease-up.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   Rode into S. 2651 as part of Sec. 505 and fell out with the rest of that section.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Mike Rounds; Sen. Tina Smith; Sen. Chris Coons; Sen. Kevin Cramer; National Alliance to End Homelessness; NLIHCAdvocatesPHAs

   In the law instead

   Nothing.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 2234 (opens in a new tab) — Reducing Homelessness Through Program Reform Act (Sec. 5(3); the same idea is in S. 890 Sec. 5(b), the Choice in Affordable Housing Act). Both bills pending in committee. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero hits for “security deposit” and zero for “holding fee.”

   Source: govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

4. Never in any versionStill in play

   The tenant protections advocates asked for

   A right to counsel in eviction proceedings, a source-of-income discrimination ban, just-cause eviction standards, a national eviction database, rent regulation, reauthorization of Emergency Rental Assistance, and new voucher or down-payment-assistance funding.

   Versions

   None — it never appeared in any version of the bill. See the version crosswalk.

   How it fell out

   None of these was in S. 2651, any House version, or the final law. Senate Banking’s bipartisan frame excluded them from the outset, so they were never cut — they were never in.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   NLIHC; National Alliance to End Homelessness; National Housing Law Project; tenant unionsAdvocates

   In the law instead

   A thin set of protections, by design: the RAD tenant lease and management-plan addendum plus civil money penalties in Sec. 212; the new MTW cohort’s express bar on rent reform, time limits and work requirements in Sec. 505; the Sec. 503 clause requiring HUD to deny an ESG waiver to any recipient that relocates or threatens to relocate people or their property without offering housing options; and the Sec. 1001(c) renter outreach resource.

   Where the fight is now

   Separate vehicles (opens in a new tab) — Eviction Right to Counsel Act of 2025 (Booker; Summer Lee) among others. In committee. These were never ROAD provisions and were never expected to be. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: “just cause” appears zero times. The only two uses of “eviction” are HOME funds eligible for “eviction prevention” under Sec. 501 and “Eviction rates” as an MTW reporting metric under Sec. 505(h).

   Source: nlihc.org (opens in a new tab)

Administrative-burden and lease-up items from the voucher program. Several were never in a ROAD text at all; they belong to the Choice in Affordable Housing Act, whose name the enacted Sec. 405 carries.

1. Cut from the billSenate substitute · Mar 2–12, 2026Still in play

   Voucher third-party income verification

   Add a new Sec. 8(o)(5)(C) letting a PHA accept a third-party income calculation and verification already completed for another federal program’s eligibility determination in the preceding 12 months, provided there had been no change in income or family composition — plus a prior-year income rule permitting the PHA to use income as determined for the prior calendar year, accounting for any interim redetermination.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   Carried in S. 2651 Sec. 505(d); cut in the March substitute and never restored.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Mike Rounds; Sen. Tina Smith; NAHRO; PHADA; CLPHAPHAs

   In the law instead

   Nothing in the Act. This is one of the higher-value administrative-burden reductions available in the voucher program, and it interacts directly with the HOTMA income-determination rules taking effect Jan 1, 2027.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 2234 (opens in a new tab) — Reducing Homelessness Through Program Reform Act (Sec. 5(1)). Pending in Senate Banking. HUD could reach part of the same result administratively under existing HOTMA verification flexibility; no PIH notice doing so has been located. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero hits for “third-party”; its four “third party” hits are unrelated.

   Source: govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

2. Never in any versionStill in play

   Voucher landlord signing bonuses and the Housing Partnership Fund

   S. 890 would have paid a landlord a one-time signing bonus of up to 200 percent of the monthly housing assistance payment for bringing a new unit in a low-poverty census tract into the program, paid annual bonuses to PHAs employing at least one dedicated landlord liaison, and funded both through a Herschel Lashkowitz Housing Partnership Fund at $100 million a year for fiscal years 2025 through 2029.

   Versions

   None — it never appeared in any version of the bill. See the version crosswalk.

   How it fell out

   Never carried by S. 2651, any House version, or the final law. The enacted Sec. 405 is a fragment of the bill whose name it carries.

   Why, and who opposed

   Structural rather than substantive: the fund is an authorization of appropriations, and the House position throughout was that the package would generate no new spending. Sec. 1202 of the enacted law states that no additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Act.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Chris Coons; Sen. Kevin Cramer; NAHRO; National Apartment AssociationPHAsAdvocates

   In the law instead

   A reporting metric, and only that: Sec. 505(h) requires the MTW cohort reports to include “Average cost per landlord incentive.” The statute measures a thing it does not fund.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 890 (opens in a new tab) — Choice in Affordable Housing Act of 2025 (Coons–Cramer) (Secs. 5(a) and 5(d)). Pending in Senate Banking; no action located. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: “landlord incentive” appears once in the enrolled text — the Sec. 505(h) MTW reporting metric.

   Source: govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

3. Never in any versionStill in play

   Small Area Fair Market Rent mandate

   Require HUD to designate metropolitan areas using ZIP-code-level Small Area Fair Market Rents in “not less than 3 times” the number of areas previously designated.

   Versions

   None — it never appeared in any version of the bill. See the version crosswalk.

   How it fell out

   No ROAD or H.R. 6644 version carried it.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Chris Coons; Sen. Kevin Cramer; mobility-focused advocatesPHAsAdvocates

   In the law instead

   Nothing on vouchers — and do not be misled by the term appearing in the law. “Small Area Fair Market Rent” shows up twice in the enacted text, both times in Sec. 213 (Build Now), as one prong of the test that exempts a CDBG entitlement community from the housing-growth penalty. That is a metric, not a voucher policy.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 890 (opens in a new tab) — Choice in Affordable Housing Act of 2025 (Sec. 8). Pending in Senate Banking. SAFMR expansion is also achievable by HUD rulemaking without legislation. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: “Small Area Fair Market Rent” appears twice, both inside the Sec. 213 exemption test.

   Source: govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

4. Never in any versionNo vehicle located

   Small-PHA regulatory relief

   The provisions associated with the Small Public Housing Agency Efficiency Act family — changing the small-PHA definition, relaxing PHA Plan and inspection frequency, and PHAS/SEMAP relief.

   Versions

   None — it never appeared in any version of the bill. See the version crosswalk.

   How it fell out

   These appear in no version of S. 2651 or H.R. 6644. The last time this family became law was the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018, which gave small PHAs streamlined inspections, small-project environmental review relief, a troubled-agency appeals process, and the utility and wastewater spending stabilization that produced the Small Rural Frozen Rolling Base.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   NAHRO; small and rural PHAsPHAsRural & Tribal

   In the law instead

   Only oblique relief: Sec. 405’s remote and video inspections in a rural or small area, and Sec. 501’s HOME Section 3 and NEPA relief for small projects.

   Where the fight is now

   No revival vehicle located as of August 29, 2026.

   Source: nahro.org (opens in a new tab)

Provisions that developers, builders, local governments and land-use reformers fought over — in both directions. The headline casualty of the whole bill, the 7-year build-to-rent divestiture, is here.

1. Cut from the billHouse amendment · May 19–20, 2026No vehicle located

   7-year build-to-rent divestiture, with tenant first look and right of first refusal

   The Senate substitute paired its ban on single-family purchases by large institutional investors with a disposal obligation. For four categories of excepted purchase — newly constructed homes, build-to-rent communities, renovate-to-rent, and 55-and-over housing — the investor would have had to sell the home to an individual homebuyer within seven years, subject to a tenant right of first refusal and a 30-day “first look” window, with compliance deemed satisfied if no buyer emerged within 60 days of advertising.

   Versions

   Senate substitute (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   Neither the Senate’s original bill nor the House-passed text contained an investor ban at all, so the divestiture existed in exactly one version.

   Why, and who opposed

   A 13-group industry letter (NMHC, NAA, NAHB, MBA, Nareit, the Real Estate Roundtable and others, Mar 5, 2026) argued the rule would “effectively eliminate the production of Build-to-Rent”; NAHB estimated roughly 40,000 single-family starts and 72,000-plus rental units a year at risk; a 76-member bipartisan House letter followed on Apr 23, 2026. Sen. Warren defended it — after seven years of benefits, private equity “has to … make [homes] available for families to buy.” Sen. Schatz, the lone Democratic no on Mar 12, said the rule was “written wrong,” objecting to the drafting rather than the goal.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Elizabeth Warren; Senate Banking DemocratsDevelopersAdvocatesLenders

   In the law instead

   Nothing like it. The enacted Sec. 1001(b)(3)(A) goes the other way: nothing in the section may be construed to “require any large institutional investor to divest or otherwise sell any single-family home purchased before the date of enactment of this Act.” The tenant first look and right of first refusal survive in one narrow place — Sec. 1001(a) excepted-purchase category (E), purchases made pursuant to a program to boost homeownership, which must provide the right of first refusal and a 30-day first-look period. The concept is now a condition of an exception, not an obligation on the whole build-to-rent book.

   Where the fight is now

   No revival vehicle located as of August 29, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: “divest” appears once in the enrolled text — in the rule of construction that forbids forced divestiture. “first look” and “right of first refusal” appear once each, both in Sec. 1001(a)(2)(E).

   Source: multifamilydive.com (opens in a new tab)

2. Cut from the billSenate substitute · Mar 2–12, 2026Still in play

   Build More Housing Near Transit (S. 2651 Sec. 211)

   Amend 49 U.S.C. 5309 — the FTA Capital Investment Grants, or “New Starts,” program — to define a “pro-housing policy” as removing regulatory barriers to housing construction or preservation: cutting or eliminating parking minimums, by-right multifamily approval under objective standards, smaller minimum lot sizes, committing public land to affordable housing, and raising or eliminating height limits. A transit applicant showing such policies within walking distance of the facility would have earned one extra point on the five-point project-justification scale.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   Dropped by the Senate’s own substitute and never revived.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI); Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN); Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA); Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT); Up For GrowthLocal GovDevelopers

   In the law instead

   Nothing in transit funding. Sec. 107 does require HUD to publish model zoning guidelines that include transit-oriented development, and Sec. 802 requires USDA–FTA coordination, but neither changes how a transit grant is scored.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 2363 (opens in a new tab) — Build More Housing Near Transit Act of 2025 (House companion H.R. 4576 (Peters–Moore)). Pending in committee in both chambers; a surface-transportation reauthorization is the natural vehicle. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero references to “5309” or “Capital Investment Grant.”

   Source: everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

3. Cut from the billSenate substitute · Mar 2–12, 2026Still in play

   Housing Supply Frameworks — the Senate-only extras (S. 2651 Sec. 203)

   The core of the Senate provision — abolish HUD’s Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse and direct HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research to publish model zoning guidelines and best practices — is law as Sec. 107. Three Senate-only pieces are not: an authorization of appropriations of “such sums as may be necessary” for fiscal years 2026 through 2030; an initial report to Congress within five years of publication plus biennial monitoring reports; and a GAO report.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   The Senate substitute dropped the section entirely — an odd result for a Senate-origin provision. The House amendment restored the House variant in May, which is what became Sec. 107.

   Why, and who opposed

   Ranking Member Waters’s Mar 22, 2026 letter demanded the section’s restoration. No source states why the Senate dropped it in the first place.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester; Sen. John Fetterman; Sen. Mike Crapo; Sen. Thom Tillis; Rep. Brittany Pettersen; Rep. Mike Flood; NLIHCLocal GovDevelopersHFAs

   In the law instead

   Sec. 107 — the House variant. HUD must publish the model guidelines, but with no dollar authorization, no biennial monitoring report and no GAO review to check whether anyone adopts them.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 1299 (opens in a new tab) — Housing Supply Frameworks Act. Pending in Senate Banking. Whether its sponsors will press the appropriations authorization and the biennial reports now that Sec. 107 exists is not something we could establish. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Source: everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

The House-passed bill carried 13 banking sections; the final law kept 9. This is the cluster with the strongest live revival vehicle attached to it.

1. Cut from the billThe four-principals deal (SA 5823) · Jun 16–22, 2026Still in play

   Least-cost resolution exception (House-passed Sec. 607 / House amendment Sec. 906)

   Let the FDIC accept a bid that is not the least-cost option in a failed-bank resolution, and bar global systemically important banks from acquiring in that setting.

   Versions

   House-passed (opens in a new tab)House amendment (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   One of three banking sections traded away in the June four-principals deal.

   Why, and who opposed

   The Senate accepted nine of the twelve banking sections in the June deal. The ABA and ICBA publicly declared themselves satisfied with the nine.

   Who pushed for it

   Rep. French Hill; ICBA; American Bankers AssociationLenders

   In the law instead

   Nothing on resolution. Sec. 905, systemic risk authority transparency, did survive.

   Where the fight is now

   H.R. 6955 (opens in a new tab) — Main Street Capital Access Act (Sec. 701, “Least Cost Exception”). Passed the House 270–155–1 on Jul 21, 2026 (Roll Call 271); awaiting Senate action. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero hits for “least cost” or “least-cost.”

   Source: bipartisanpolicy.org (opens in a new tab)

2. Cut from the billThe four-principals deal (SA 5823) · Jun 16–22, 2026Still in play

   Failing-bank acquisition fairness and concentration-limit waivers (House-passed Sec. 608 / House amendment Sec. 907)

   Change the terms on which large banks can acquire failing institutions under the deposit concentration-limit exceptions.

   Versions

   House-passed (opens in a new tab)House amendment (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   Why, and who opposed

   Traded in the same June deal that took the least-cost exception; the Senate accepted nine of the twelve banking sections.

   Who pushed for it

   Rep. French Hill; ICBALenders

   In the law instead

   Nothing.

   Where the fight is now

   H.R. 6955 (opens in a new tab) — Main Street Capital Access Act (Sec. 703, “Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness”). Passed the House Jul 21, 2026; awaiting Senate action. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero hits for “concentration limit.”

   Source: bipartisanpolicy.org (opens in a new tab)

3. Cut from the billThe four-principals deal (SA 5823) · Jun 16–22, 2026Still in play

   Federal Reserve discretionary surplus reduction of $115 million (House-passed Sec. 613 / House amendment Sec. 912)

   Cut the Federal Reserve’s discretionary surplus fund to $6.71 billion effective Sept 30, 2035. This was the House’s budgetary offset — the pay-as-you-go device that let the House say its bill did not increase the deficit.

   Versions

   House-passed (opens in a new tab)House amendment (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   Why, and who opposed

   Removed in the June deal. Its removal is consistent with the final law’s Sec. 1202 “no additional funds” framing, though no source states the Senate’s reasoning.

   Who pushed for it

   Rep. French Hill; House Financial Services RepublicansLenders

   In the law instead

   Nothing.

   Where the fight is now

   H.R. 6955 (opens in a new tab) — Main Street Capital Access Act (Sec. 803, “Discretionary surplus fund”). Passed the House Jul 21, 2026; awaiting Senate action. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The only “surplus” in the enrolled text is a PHA metric — Sec. 505(h)’s “capital backlog needs and surplus fund and reserve levels.”

   Source: bipartisanpolicy.org (opens in a new tab)

4. Cut from the billHouse amendment · May 19–20, 2026Still in play

   Supervisory Modifications for Appropriate Risk-Based Testing (House-passed Sec. 603)

   One of the thirteen banking sections the House passed in February 2026. It is not a separate section in either the twelve-section House amendment title or the final law.

   Versions

   House-passed (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   It vanished in the May consolidation from thirteen sections to twelve. Whether it was merged or dropped was an open question until H.R. 6955 turned up carrying it as a freestanding section, which points to dropped.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   Rep. French Hill; Rep. Andy Barr; ICBALenders

   In the law instead

   Nothing.

   Where the fight is now

   H.R. 6955 (opens in a new tab) — Main Street Capital Access Act (Sec. 303). Passed the House Jul 21, 2026; awaiting Senate action. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Source: govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

5. Never in any versionStill in play

   A permanent central bank digital currency ban

   Bar the Federal Reserve from issuing or creating a central bank digital currency permanently, rather than for a fixed term.

   Versions

   None — it never appeared in any version of the bill. See the version crosswalk.

   How it fell out

   A permanent ban was never in any version. The enacted Sec. 1101 creates a new Federal Reserve Act Sec. 16A barring a CBDC through December 31, 2030. The House amendment’s contribution was the rule of construction that nothing in the section authorizes a CBDC absent an Act of Congress — not permanence.

   Why, and who opposed

   The Senate would not go permanent. Per TIME’s tally, 21 of the 32 House no votes on Jun 23, 2026 cited the CBDC sunset; Rep. Warren Davidson’s framing was “Make it permanent, or take it out.”

   Who pushed for it

   House Freedom Caucus members; Rep. Tom Emmer; Sen. Ted CruzLenders

   In the law instead

   Sec. 1101 — the same prohibition, sunsetting December 31, 2030.

   Where the fight is now

   H.R. 1919 (opens in a new tab) — Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act (Emmer); Senate companion S. 1124 (Cruz). H.R. 1919 passed the House in July 2025 and is awaiting Senate action. Neither bill has been enacted. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Source: time.com (opens in a new tab)

Dollar authorizations, testimony requirements and rulemaking authority. Cumulatively the biggest deletion in the bill’s history, and the one that shapes how much of the Act actually happens.

1. Cut from the billBy attrition · Dec 2025 – Jun 2026Still in play

   Almost every authorization of appropriations

   The Senate bill attached dollars, or “such sums,” to most of what it created: a HOME reauthorization authorization, up to $30 million for Whole-Home Repairs, “such sums” for the PRICE Act, a reservation of up to $100 million a year from HOME appropriations above $1.35 billion for RESIDE, “such sums” for Housing Supply Frameworks in fiscal years 2026 through 2030, authorizations for the pattern-book grants and the Family Self-Sufficiency changes, and “such sums” for the NeighborWorks Inspector General.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)Senate substitute (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   This one did not happen at a single moment. The authorizations went progressively as the House’s no-new-spending posture held.

   Why, and who opposed

   Ranking Member Waters, at the Dec 17, 2025 markup: “reforms alone will not address the housing crisis — more funding … is required.” Her voucher and down-payment-assistance amendment was offered and withdrawn, as was Rep. Al Green’s disaster-recovery amendment. NLIHC’s July 2026 next-steps list puts “Working with Congress to allocate sufficient funding to programs” second of four.

   Who pushed for it

   Rep. Maxine Waters; NLIHC; Campaign for Housing and Community Development FundingPHAsHFAsLocal GovAdvocatesDevelopersRural & Tribal

   In the law instead

   Exactly one authorization: the Innovation Fund at $200 million a year for fiscal years 2027 through 2031, CPI-adjusted, in Sec. 208(e). Sec. 1202 closes the door on the rest — “No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this Act or any amendment made by this Act.” Note in particular that enacted Sec. 202 carries no dollar figure at all, so descriptions of Whole-Home Repairs as a five-year, $30 million pilot describe the Senate bill, not the law.

   Where the fight is now

   The appropriations process (opens in a new tab) — Annual Transportation-HUD appropriations. Everything the Act creates now competes for money in the ordinary appropriations cycle rather than arriving with its own authorization. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Source: govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

2. Cut from the billSenate substitute · Mar 2–12, 2026Still in play

   NeighborWorks Inspector General (S. 2651 Sec. 704)

   Establish an Inspector General of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation — NeighborWorks America — and authorize “such sums as may be necessary” for that office. NeighborWorks is a congressionally chartered nonprofit without a statutory IG.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   Dropped in the Senate’s March substitute and never restored.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source states a reason. The section carried a “such sums” authorization, which put it in the same category as the other authorizations the House would not take.

   Who pushed for it

   Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN)DevelopersLocal Gov

   In the law instead

   Nothing.

   Where the fight is now

   S. 2484 (opens in a new tab) — NeighborWorks accountability bill (Hagerty); House companion H.R. 6483. S. 2484 referred to Senate Banking; H.R. 6483 referred to Financial Services and to Oversight and Government Reform. Both in committee. Status as of August 16, 2026.

   Proof it is absent: The enrolled text contains zero hits for “NeighborWorks”; the only two “Neighborhood Reinvestment” hits are an incidental Title I eligibility cross-reference.

   Source: everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

3. Cut from the billHouse amendment · May 19–20, 2026No vehicle located

   Multi-agency annual testimony

   Require annual congressional testimony from the heads of Ginnie Mae, FHA, the Rural Housing Service, VA Loan Guaranty and FHFA, in addition to the HUD Secretary.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)NDAA Div. I (opens in a new tab)Senate substitute (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   The House position throughout was HUD Secretary only, and that is what the House amendment carried into law.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   Senate Banking CommitteeLendersHFAsRural & TribalVeterans & Homelessness

   In the law instead

   Sec. 701 — annual testimony from the HUD Secretary before the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees, and no one else.

   Where the fight is now

   No revival vehicle located as of August 29, 2026.

   Source: everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

4. Cut from the billHouse amendment · May 19–20, 2026No vehicle located

   CFPB rulemaking authority on small-dollar mortgages

   Give the CFPB flexibility to amend its rules on loan-originator compensation and on the points-and-fees test as applied to small-dollar mortgages — the change lenders say is needed to make sub-$150,000 mortgages originate at all.

   Versions

   S. 2651 (opens in a new tab)Senate substitute (opens in a new tab)crosswalk

   How it fell out

   The House amendment reduced both sections to studies.

   Why, and who opposed

   No source we could reach states a reason. We are not going to invent one.

   Who pushed for it

   Senate Banking Committee; community lenders; CDFIsLendersDevelopers

   In the law instead

   Reports, not rules. Enacted Sec. 401 requires a CFPB report within 270 days on loan-originator compensation, and enacted Sec. 402 requires an evaluation of the points-and-fees test. Neither confers authority to change a rule.

   Where the fight is now

   No revival vehicle located as of August 29, 2026.

   Source: everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

These are in the law. They are on this page only because they were removed at one stage and put back at another, usually smaller than they went in — and because reading a March summary of any of them will tell you something the statute does not say.

1. Sec. 504CDBG-DR permanent authorization (Reforming Disaster Recovery Act)

   Cut at

   House amendment

   Restored at

   The four-principals deal, June 2026

   What it cost

   Permanence became a 3-year sunset. Sec. 504(g) terminates the new HCDA Sec. 124 program three years after enactment — around July 11, 2029 — softened only by Sec. 504(h)’s sense of Congress that the sunset “shall not preclude” Congress appropriating for “a similar successor program.” Chairman Hill: “I appreciate the Senate including a three-year sunset on the CDBG-DR program.”

   Live campaign

   NLIHC and its Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition are pressing for permanent authorization: “Congress has initially authorized the CDBG-DR program for three years. Ideally, the program should be authorized permanently.” For scale, permanent authorization has passed a full chamber three times in seven years — the House once, the Senate twice — but never both chambers in the same Congress.

   nlihc.org (opens in a new tab)

2. Sec. 212RAD unit-cap elimination

   Cut at

   House amendment

   Restored at

   The four-principals deal, June 2026

   What it cost

   Cap elimination became a cap increase — 455,000 to 555,000 units. The restored version also added a tenant lease and management-plan addendum, an annual HUD assessment, civil money penalties, and a bar on sporting, private or for-profit use of PHA property.

   govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

3. Sec. 213Build Now

   Cut at

   House amendment

   Restored at

   The four-principals deal, June 2026

   What it cost

   Softened on restoration: a 10 percent penalty and bonus, a 3-year rather than 1-year Stafford Act exemption, and reallocation keyed to recent unit growth.

   govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

4. Sec. 304PRICE Act (manufactured housing preservation)

   Cut at

   House amendment

   Restored at

   The four-principals deal, June 2026

   What it cost

   Came back with a 7-year sunset and without its “such sums” authorization.

   govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

5. Sec. 505New Moving to Work cohort

   Cut at

   House amendment

   Restored at

   The four-principals deal, June 2026

   What it cost

   Enacted with the NDAA text’s 12/8/5 small, medium and large split and an express bar on rent-reform, time-limit and work-requirement waivers.

   govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

6. Sec. 603VALID Act (appraisal-related provisions)

   Cut at

   House amendment

   Restored at

   The four-principals deal, June 2026

   What it cost

   Restored with added privacy handling, including a “prefer not to answer” option on the URLA.

   govinfo.gov (opens in a new tab)

7. Sec. 107Housing Supply Frameworks

   Cut at

   Senate substitute

   Restored at

   The House amendment, May 2026

   What it cost

   Restored as the House variant: no appropriations authorization, no biennial monitoring report, no GAO report. The Senate-only extras are tracked above as a dropped provision.

   everycrsreport.com (opens in a new tab)

Every “not in the law” statement above rests on a search of the complete enrolled text. Here are the searches and their counts, so you can rerun them yourself against the public copy of the enrolled bill (opens in a new tab). A count of zero is the whole argument; where a term does appear, the note says what the hits actually are, because several of them are easy to misread.