HR-8878-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Sylvia Garcia (D-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to allow local grant recipients to apply for waivers to exceed existing spending caps on federal homelessness assistance funds for fiscal years 2027 through 2030. Recipients seeking a waiver would be required to submit a detailed plan, demonstrate local need, solicit public input, and align their request with their existing Consolidated Plan. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would be required to approve or deny waiver requests within 60 days and would be prohibited from approving waivers for recipients that relocate or threaten to relocate individuals without first providing housing or shelter options.
Who benefits
People experiencing homelessness in jurisdictions that receive waivers and can direct more funding toward their needs. Local governments and Continuums of Care (regional homelessness planning bodies) that currently find the spending cap too restrictive for their local conditions. Homeless service providers and nonprofits (subrecipients) who may receive more funding. Communities with high-cost housing markets where existing caps may be insufficient. Indirectly, neighborhoods and businesses that may see reduced visible homelessness.
Who is hurt
Jurisdictions that do not apply for or receive waivers would see no change in their funding flexibility, potentially widening disparities between localities. Subrecipients in areas where a recipient revokes a waiver could face funding disruptions. Taxpayers broadly, if waivers lead to higher overall federal expenditures. Individuals experiencing homelessness in jurisdictions that use expanded flexibility in ways that do not prioritize housing-first approaches, since the bill does not mandate specific spending strategies beyond the anti-relocation provision.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a single national spending cap cannot account for the vast differences in housing costs, population density, and service needs across the country — a cap adequate for rural Mississippi may be wholly inadequate for Los Angeles or New York. They contend that the bill's built-in safeguards, including public input requirements, alignment with local Consolidated Plans, and the prohibition on approving waivers for recipients that displace people without providing housing alternatives, ensure accountability while giving communities the flexibility they need to address homelessness effectively. The time-limited scope (FY2027–2030) also allows Congress to evaluate outcomes before making any changes permanent.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that waiving spending caps without corresponding increases in appropriations simply redistributes existing funds rather than solving the underlying resource shortage, and that the flexibility could allow localities to spend on approaches — such as enforcement or temporary shelter — that research suggests are less effective than permanent supportive housing. They contend that the 60-day approval window and broad "local needs" justification standard give HUD limited ability to ensure funds are used effectively, and that the absence of outcome-reporting requirements means Congress would have little data to evaluate whether the waiver program actually reduced homelessness before it sunsets in 2030.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under Congress's Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8), which allows the federal government to attach conditions to grants to state and local governments. No significant constitutional tension is present — the bill modifies an existing grant program's administrative structure and does not compel state or local action, consistent with anti-commandeering principles under the Tenth Amendment.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (HHS Secretary) gains limited new discretionary authority to approve or deny waivers, but that authority is constrained by a 60-day deadline, mandatory public disclosure of all requests and decisions, and a statutory prohibition on approving waivers for recipients that displace individuals without housing alternatives.
Historical precedent
The McKinney-Vento Act has been amended multiple times since 1987 to adjust grant conditions and administrative flexibility, and HUD has previously used waiver authority in other housing programs (e.g., CDBG waivers during COVID-19) to allow localities to exceed standard spending limits in response to emergencies.