HR-6900-119
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, and Energy and Commerce, 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.
Sponsored by Mike Thompson (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand or create tax credits and deductions across five major cost-of-living categories: housing (expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, adding homebuyer and renter credits), energy (restoring and expanding clean energy production and efficiency credits), child and dependent care (expanding the Child Tax Credit and childcare credits), education (expanding college tuition credits and workforce deductions), and healthcare (expanding health insurance premium tax credits and Medicaid coverage). Most provisions would take effect for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Who benefits
Low-income renters and households seeking affordable housing; first-time homebuyers; landlords and real estate developers who build or rehabilitate affordable housing; domestic violence survivors seeking housing protections; disabled veterans whose disability payments would be excluded from income calculations; Native American tribal communities and rural residents gaining access to expanded housing credits; formerly incarcerated individuals, foster youth, and kinship caregivers facing housing barriers; clean energy producers and manufacturers; homeowners making energy efficiency improvements; electric vehicle buyers; families with children, including those claiming the Child Tax Credit; working parents paying for childcare; licensed family childcare providers; adoptive families; college students, including those with prior felony drug convictions; early childhood educators; tipped and overtime workers; performing artists; low-wage workers claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit; individuals purchasing health insurance on the ACA marketplaces; and people in states that did not expand Medicaid.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers broadly, who would bear the cost of reduced federal revenue through higher deficits or future tax increases. Existing affordable housing developers who benefit from current LIHTC rules may face new cost-oversight requirements and acquisition basis limitations. Local governments would lose the ability to condition LIHTC project approvals on local support or contributions, reducing their land-use leverage. Fossil fuel energy producers and conventional vehicle manufacturers may face increased competition from subsidized clean energy and electric vehicle alternatives. Private health insurers may face increased enrollment pressure and cost-shifting from expanded premium subsidies. Competing businesses in sectors not receiving credits may face an uneven competitive landscape. States that have already expanded Medicaid may see federal resources directed disproportionately toward non-expansion states.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that housing costs, childcare expenses, and healthcare premiums have outpaced wage growth for decades, and that targeted tax credits are a proven, market-based mechanism to address these burdens without direct government spending mandates. They point to the existing LIHTC program's track record — financing roughly 3 million affordable units since 1986 — as evidence that credit expansions produce measurable results, and note that the bill's new homebuyer credit, renter credit, and expanded Child Tax Credit would directly reduce out-of-pocket costs for tens of millions of working- and middle-class families. They further contend that restoring clean energy credits would lower household energy bills while supporting domestic manufacturing jobs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's broad array of tax credits would add substantially to the federal deficit without addressing the structural supply-side constraints — such as zoning restrictions and permitting delays — that drive up housing and energy costs in the first place. They contend that expanding refundable credits increases complexity and fraud risk in the tax code, and that provisions like the prohibition on local approval requirements for LIHTC projects override legitimate state and local land-use authority. They further argue that restoring energy credits recently modified or repealed by other legislation undermines congressional budget discipline and that the cumulative fiscal cost could crowd out other federal priorities or require future tax increases on a broad population.
Constitutional context
The bill operates squarely within Congress's taxing and spending power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, which grants broad authority to lay and collect taxes and provide for the general welfare. Revenue provisions originating in the House satisfy the Origination Clause (Art. I, §7, cl. 1). No active constitutional tension areas — such as the unresolved realization question from Moore v. United States (2024) — are directly implicated, as the bill relies on credits against realized income rather than taxation of unrealized gains.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to direct private investment through the tax code across multiple sectors; the IRS and Treasury implement regulations; housing credit agencies at the state level administer LIHTC allocations subject to new federal criteria; courts retain jurisdiction to review any provisions challenged on statutory or constitutional grounds.
Historical precedent
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, is the most direct precedent; it has been expanded multiple times, including by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, which increased state allocations by 12.5%. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 similarly used tax credits across energy, healthcare, and manufacturing sectors to address cost-of-living concerns at comparable scale.