Housing BOOM Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 11, 2025
Bottom line
The Housing BOOM Act proposes a multi-billion dollar federal investment and policy overhaul to boost housing supply, reduce homelessness, and strengthen tenant protections across the United States.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the "Housing BOOM Act," proposes a comprehensive federal strategy to address the housing crisis by significantly increasing housing supply, combating homelessness, and providing tenant support. It authorizes substantial new funding for various housing programs, establishes new loan funds and grant programs, mandates prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements for federally assisted construction projects, and creates new federal offices and councils to coordinate housing policy and eviction prevention.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill directly confronts the nation's severe housing affordability crisis and rising homelessness by investing heavily in new construction, preserving existing affordable units, and supporting vulnerable populations. They contend that the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements will ensure high-quality construction and create good-paying jobs, while tenant support and fair housing initiatives will address systemic inequities in the housing market.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's expansive federal spending and intervention in local housing markets could be overly costly and inefficient, potentially leading to unintended consequences or federal overreach. Concerns could also be raised that the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements might increase construction costs, thereby limiting the total number of housing units that can be built with the authorized funds.
The bill is moderately long and contains numerous programmatic details and cross-references, requiring a dedicated read to fully grasp its scope and implications. The estimated reading time is appropriate for an informed reader.
Sec. 101, Title I
Increase in State Housing Credit Ceiling (LIHTC)
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the State housing credit ceiling for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. It strikes "1.12" and inserts "3.36", effectively tripling the per capita housing credit allocation for states. This change would apply to allocations made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that tripling the LIHTC ceiling is a direct and effective way to stimulate the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units, addressing a critical shortage. They contend that LIHTC is a proven tool for leveraging private investment in affordable housing.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against increasing LIHTC allocations, as it is a widely supported mechanism for affordable housing. However, some critics of tax credit programs in general might argue about their efficiency compared to direct spending.
Tradeoffs
The primary tradeoff is the federal tax expenditure associated with the increased credits versus the benefit of increased affordable housing supply. While effective, it relies on private market incentives rather than direct public provision.
Sec. 102, Title I
Middle-Income Housing Construction Loan Fund
This section establishes a "Middle Income Housing Construction Loan Fund" within the Treasury, authorized at $10 million annually for fiscal years 2026-2030. The fund will provide low-interest loans to nonprofit organizations, public housing agencies, and mission-driven housing developers for rental housing construction or adaptive reuse. These projects must target households earning between 60% and 120% of the area median income (AMI). Priority is given to high-cost, high-opportunity markets.
Sec. 103, Title I
Workforce Housing Block Grant Program
This section establishes a new block grant program, authorized at $5 billion annually for fiscal years 2026-2030, to provide funds to States for developing workforce rental housing. This housing targets households earning between 60% and 120% of the AMI. States must submit equity-based allocation plans addressing racial and income segregation, housing shortages, and economic opportunity. Priority is given to projects in high-cost urban, rural, and rapidly growing suburban areas, especially near employment, schools, healthcare, and transit. The program includes prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.
Sec. 104, Title I
Housing Accelerator Program
This section establishes a Housing Accelerator Program, authorized at $1 billion annually for fiscal years 2026-2030, to provide gap financing for affordable housing projects. Eligible recipients include local governments, affordable housing developers, and public housing agencies. Projects must have site control, all local land use and environmental clearances, secured at least 50% of total development financing, and demonstrate capacity to start construction within 12 months. Projects must maintain affordability for at least 30 years, with specific income targets (40% of units at 60% AMI or 20% of units at 50% AMI). Prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements apply.
Sec. 105, Title I
Increased Funding for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
This section authorizes an additional $4.2 billion annually for fiscal years 2026-2030 for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. CDBG provides flexible funding to states and local governments to address a wide range of community development needs, including housing, economic development, and public services, primarily benefiting low- and moderate-income persons.
Sec. 106, Title I
Increased Funding for HOME Investments Partnership Program, including Childcare Facilities
This section authorizes an additional $1.5 billion annually for fiscal years 2026-2030 for the HOME Investments Partnership Program, a federal block grant program that helps states and local governments create affordable housing for low-income households. Additionally, it authorizes an extra $500 million annually for the same period specifically for projects that build or rehabilitate childcare facilities, with Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements applying to these childcare projects.
Sec. 201, Title II
Increased Funding for Homelessness Assistance and Supportive Services
This section significantly increases authorized appropriations for homelessness assistance programs under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. It authorizes $3.75 billion annually for fiscal years 2026-2030 for subtitle B (Emergency Solutions Grants, etc.) and $4.45 billion annually for fiscal years 2026-2030 for subtitle C (Continuum of Care Program). It also adds new prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements for construction projects assisted by these funds.
Sec. 202, Title II
SAMHSA Center for Unhoused Individuals and Behavioral Health Grants
This section establishes a new "Center for Unhoused Individuals" within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), authorized at $10 million annually for fiscal years 2026-2030. The Center will lead federal efforts to improve mental and behavioral health services for unhoused individuals. Additionally, it creates a new grant program, authorized at $1 billion annually for the same period, for eligible entities (states, municipalities, Indian Tribes) to expand mental and behavioral health and housing services for unhoused individuals, including substance use disorder treatment, harm reduction, and care coordination. Construction projects under this grant program are subject to prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.
Sec. 301, Title III
Increased Funding for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 Vouchers)
This section authorizes an amount sufficient to increase the number of housing vouchers available under Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 by 1,000,000 from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2035. This represents a significant expansion of the federal government's primary program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market.
Sec. 303, Title III
Office of Eviction Prevention and Grant Funding for At-Risk Tenants
This section establishes an "Office of Eviction Prevention" within HUD, led by a Director, with a mission to prevent evictions and protect tenants. The Office will administer HUD's Eviction Protection Grant Program (authorized at $100 million annually for FY2026-2030), evaluate grantees, identify best practices, and provide technical assistance. It will also coordinate with other federal agencies, establish an eviction database (with privacy protections), and conduct outreach to tenants. An additional $100 million annually is authorized for the Office's personnel and activities.
Sec. 401, Title IV
Interagency Council on Housing Affordability and Preservation
This section establishes the "United States Interagency Council on Housing Affordability and Preservation" as an independent establishment within the executive branch. Composed of heads of numerous federal agencies (including HUD, Justice, Labor, Treasury, HHS, VA, USDA, etc.), its mission is to develop federal policy to preserve and increase affordable housing supply, increase fairness in the rental market, and further fair housing principles. The Council will develop a National Strategic Plan, review federal programs, provide technical assistance, encourage state-level councils, and report annually to the President and Congress. It is authorized at $4.8 million annually for fiscal years 2026-2030.
The bill consistently applies prevailing wage (Davis-Bacon Act) and apprenticeship requirements to construction, alteration, or repair work funded in whole or in part by various new and expanded programs across multiple titles. These requirements mandate that laborers and mechanics be paid not less than local prevailing wages and that a minimum of 15% of total labor hours be performed by qualified apprentices, with exceptions for good faith efforts to secure apprentices.
Sec. 102(e), Sec. 103(f), Sec. 104(d), Sec. 112(g), Sec. 113(e), Sec. 114(g), Sec. 201(b), Sec. 202(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for applying labor standards to federal funding. The repetition ensures clarity for each program rather than being a single, easily missed, cross-cutting provision.
Case for: Proponents argue that these requirements ensure that federal investments in housing also create high-quality, family-sustaining jobs and foster a skilled workforce through apprenticeships. They contend that this prevents a 'race to the bottom' in wages and working conditions.
Case against: Critics might argue that these requirements increase construction costs and administrative burdens for developers, potentially reducing the number of affordable housing units that can be built with the same amount of funding. They may also contend that it limits flexibility for local labor markets.
Estimated impact: These requirements would impact all construction projects receiving federal funds under the bill, affecting potentially billions of dollars in development and thousands of construction jobs.
In addition to increasing general HOME program funding, this section authorizes an additional $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030 specifically for projects that build or rehabilitate childcare facilities, with Davis-Bacon Act requirements applying to these projects.
Sec. 106(b), Title I
Why it matters:This is likely a strategic inclusion to address a related social need (childcare access) within a housing bill, potentially broadening the coalition of support or leveraging an existing funding mechanism for a new purpose.
Case for: Proponents argue that access to affordable childcare is intrinsically linked to housing stability and economic opportunity for families. Integrating childcare facility development into housing programs addresses a holistic need for communities.
Case against: Critics might argue that this diverts funds or focus from the core mission of the HOME program, which is affordable housing. They might suggest that childcare funding should be addressed through dedicated education or social services legislation.
Estimated impact: This would allocate $2.5 billion over five years specifically for childcare facility construction or rehabilitation.
This section includes a "Sense of Congress" statement that the prevailing wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act should apply with respect to rural housing programs of the Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 108(b), Title I
Why it matters:This is a tactical maneuver. A "Sense of Congress" expresses legislative intent without creating a legal mandate. It allows members to signal support for applying Davis-Bacon to USDA programs without having to pass a binding provision, which might face stronger opposition or procedural hurdles.
Case for: Proponents argue that applying Davis-Bacon to USDA rural housing programs would ensure fair wages for construction workers in rural areas, supporting local economies and preventing exploitation, aligning with the broader labor standards in the bill.
Case against: Critics would argue that imposing Davis-Bacon requirements on rural housing could increase costs, making it harder to build affordable housing in areas where construction costs are already challenging, potentially limiting the reach of USDA programs.
Estimated impact: As a non-binding statement, its direct fiscal impact is zero. Its indirect impact is to signal legislative intent and potentially pressure the Department of Agriculture to administratively adopt such requirements or to lay groundwork for future binding legislation.
This section authorizes "an amount sufficient to increase the number of vouchers available under this subsection by 1,000,000 from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2035."
Sec. 301, Title III
Why it matters:This phrasing is a common legislative tactic for authorizing significant, long-term policy goals without immediately attaching a precise, potentially politically sensitive, dollar amount. It sets a policy target while deferring the exact funding decision to future appropriations processes.
Case for: Proponents argue that this open-ended authorization demonstrates a strong commitment to addressing housing insecurity at scale, providing a clear policy goal for future appropriations. It ensures that the legislative framework exists for a major expansion of housing assistance.
Case against: Critics might argue that this lack of a specific dollar amount makes it difficult to assess the true fiscal impact of the bill and could lead to massive, unchecked spending in future years. They may contend it's a way to avoid upfront accountability for a very expensive program.
Estimated impact: While not a specific dollar amount, increasing vouchers by 1 million over 10 years would represent a multi-billion dollar annual commitment, likely tens or hundreds of billions over the decade, making it one of the most significant fiscal provisions in the bill.