S-4773-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Sponsored by Ron Wyden (D-OR)
What it does
The DASH Act would create a new federal rental voucher program for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, starting with 250,000 vouchers in FY2026 and scaling to 400,000 annually, funded through a permanent direct appropriation. It would authorize up to $10 billion per year for 10 years for the Housing Trust Fund to build and rehabilitate housing for very low- and extremely low-income households, and establish grants to localities that adopt zoning changes to allow denser housing development. Title II would modify and expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), create a new renters' tax credit, a middle-income housing tax credit, a neighborhood homes credit, and a first-time homebuyer refundable tax credit, among other revenue changes.
Who benefits
People experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, particularly unaccompanied youth, families with children, and domestic violence survivors who receive priority for vouchers. Very low- and extremely low-income renters who would gain access to newly constructed or rehabilitated units. Rural residents and farm laborers served by expanded rural housing programs. Tribal communities, whose housing entities are explicitly included. First-time homebuyers who would receive a refundable tax credit. Middle-income renters in markets where a new housing tax credit applies. Localities that adopt pro-density zoning and qualify for competitive grants. Nonprofit and faith-based organizations eligible to provide supportive services. Modular construction companies that could receive pilot program grants. Affordable housing developers who benefit from expanded LIHTC allocations.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers broadly, given the bill's multi-trillion-dollar authorization over a decade. States that fail to meet homelessness-reduction benchmarks would face reductions in federal highway funding, which could affect transportation projects and the workers and communities that depend on them. Landlords and property owners in jurisdictions that adopt density zoning may face increased competition or neighborhood character changes. Localities that do not adopt the bill's preferred zoning methods would be ineligible for competitive grants, effectively penalizing communities that choose to maintain existing land-use rules. Sex offenders subject to lifetime registration requirements are explicitly excluded from voucher eligibility. Existing Section 8 voucher holders could face increased competition for available rental units in tight housing markets if landlord supply does not keep pace with new voucher issuance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States had over 650,000 people experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2023 — the highest count on record — and that the existing voucher system covers only about one in four eligible households due to chronic underfunding. They contend that the bill's "Housing First" approach, which does not condition vouchers on sobriety or program participation, is supported by a substantial body of research showing it reduces long-term homelessness more effectively than treatment-first models. Supporters further argue that the zoning incentive provisions address a structural supply shortage — economists across the political spectrum estimate a national deficit of 3–7 million housing units — and that pairing supply-side construction funding with demand-side vouchers is the most comprehensive federal housing strategy in decades.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's open-ended direct appropriation for vouchers — funding "the amount necessary" for every eligible recipient — creates an uncapped mandatory spending obligation that bypasses the annual appropriations process and could add trillions to the federal deficit over time without meaningful congressional oversight. They contend that the highway funding penalty mechanism used to enforce state homelessness benchmarks is a form of federal coercion that may conflict with the anti-commandeering principles articulated in cases like South Dakota v. Dole and Murphy v. NCAA, since states are effectively compelled to achieve specific social outcomes or lose unrelated federal funds. Opponents also argue that the bill's zoning conditions on federal grants override locally determined land-use decisions that have traditionally been reserved to states and municipalities under the Tenth Amendment.
Constitutional context
The Spending Clause (Art. I, §8) permits Congress to attach conditions to federal funds, but South Dakota v. Dole (1987) requires those conditions to be related to the federal interest in the program — the bill's use of highway funding reductions to enforce homelessness benchmarks may face challenge as insufficiently related. The Tenth Amendment's reservation of land-use authority to states and localities is also implicated by the zoning conditions in Section 114, though the bill uses incentives rather than direct mandates, which courts have generally upheld.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (HUD Secretary) gains significant new administrative authority to allocate billions in grants, set funding formulas, and enforce state benchmarks; checks include annual congressional reporting requirements, competitive grant criteria set by statute, a 10-percent cap on any single agency's capacity-building allocation, and explicit prohibitions on using funds for employee bonuses above 10% of salary.
Historical precedent
The Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program, created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, is the closest direct analogue; the DASH Act would expand that framework significantly, similar in scale ambition to the original Section 8 authorization.