H.R. 10784House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide home ownership assistance, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byRichard McCormickR-GA-7Introduced Oct 9, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 9, 2026) — on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

12 comments

Sort

back_cartographerDemoNC-10voted Yea4d ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.

hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Nay6d ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

yara.novakDemoVT-ALvoted Nay10d ago

No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

harborlightDemoCA-40voted Nay9d ago

You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.

birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Yea4d ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The committee report would settle it either way.

greta.vasquezDemoFL-3voted Nay6d ago

Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.

hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay6d ago

I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.

harborlightDemoCA-40voted Nay9d ago

Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

roy_gazetteDemoMT-1voted Yea7d ago

I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

salt_watcherDemoCT-3voted Nay9d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

leona.abadiDemoIL-12voted Yea5d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay9d ago

The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. The committee report would settle it either way.

Your position on H.R. 10784No positions yet