There are a couple of ways to view legislation pending in Congress that would expand the definition of homelessness to include the "precariously housed," such as families that are doubling up under one roof.

It might seem, in light of the decline in chronic homelessness in the past couple of years, an attempt to redefine the problem so that government agencies charged with addressing it can continue their work. (When is the last time you heard a federal entity announce, "Problem solved -- let's close up shop"?)

It might seem a calculated attempt to broaden concern about a constituency with very little political pull. Or it might be simply an attempt to reconcile conflicting definitions. The Education Department has a broader definition of homelessness than HUD, for example.

An interesting twist: The proposal is supported by Republicans -- but opposed by some Democrats and advocates for the homeless, who express concern that already limited funding and shelter beds would be shifted from the most needy to those who at least have a roof over their heads.

The recent housing crisis has injected urgency into the debate. A family that has lost its residence and has to rely on the kindness of friends for a place to sleep might not be counted as homeless by federal officials, but the members would call themselves homeless if anyone asked.

The current crisis is a temporary one, however -- and any federal response ought to be temporary as well. A federal effort to help the temporarily and precariously housed should not become permanently ensconced.