Legislation limiting migrant and local families’ time in shelter drew fierce debate on Beacon Hill Wednesday, with Republicans arguing it did not address the root problem of migration issues in Massachusetts and Democrats pitching it as a necessity to keep shelter services sustainable.

The proposal, which cleared the House on a 121-33 vote, caps migrant and local families’ time in shelter at nine months unless they are employed or in job training, offers tax incentives to businesses to provide job training to shelter residents, and shuttles $245 million more to the system this fiscal year.

Top House Democrats argued the time limits are necessary in the face of declining tax revenues, little federal help, unabating demand on services, and an expected $2 billion shelter spend over fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

Rep. Alice Peisch, who led talks in the House on shelter reforms, said the time limits — which would last until April 1, 2025 or when a cap on the number of families allowed in shelter is lifted — are an “effort to keep the program … sustainable.”

“We don’t want to find ourselves in the position 9-12 months out where we have $0 for this program and we have thousands of families on the street,” Peisch told reporters. “We are not closing off the program at the entry level. We are trying to give everyone an opportunity to transition into their new lives here.”

But Beacon Hill conservatives, who have little sway over policy matters in a Legislature with Democratic supermajorities, attacked the spending bill as failing to tackle the core issue of migration into Massachusetts.

Rep. Todd Smola, the ranking Republican on the House’s budget writing committee, questioned what families should do when they reach the maximum time they are allowed in shelter.

“What is the solution? Are we going to boot all these people out of the shelters? Are we going to send in the SWAT and say ‘sorry, but you can’t be here any longer?’ I don’t think anybody’s really answered that question,” he told the Herald. “This system is broken. It does not work. It is a vacuum cleaner that is sucking up money of the taxpayers.”

Senate budget chief Michael Rodrigues had the same question.

“Any time you talk about any sort of proposal, there are unintended consequences that you need to think through,” he said. “Whenever you limit time, it begs the question what happens when that time expires? Then what?”

The House proposal offers people with a job or who are in workforce training and pregnant women or those with a disability the option to extend their stay in taxpayer-funded shelters for an additional three months.

House Democrats largely charge the Healey administration with drafting regulations that govern how people are supposed to exit emergency shelters when they run out of time and the reapplication process.

A successful amendment from Rep. Frank Moran, a Lawrence Democrat, requires officials to give families 90-day notice before their shelter benefits are terminated and bars officials from ending shelter benefits of more than 150 families a week.

Even some advocacy groups for homeless people have criticized the nine month time limit.

Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless Associate Director Kelly Turley said she is “very concerned about any artificial time limits” given the realities of Massachusetts’ housing market and families’ ability to find stable living conditions.

“We believe that this would disproportionately impact families with disabilities, larger families, newly-arrived immigrant families, and Black and Latinx families that face housing discrimination as they’re trying to exit shelter into new housing,” she told the Herald.

A Republican-backed amendment to the bill that would have put in place a residency requirement for emergency shelter was met with stiff opposition from Democrats, who easily shot it down.

Rep. Paul Frost, an Auburn Republican, proposed a six-month residency requirement, arguing it was a “reasonable” policy change that would “stop the flow” of people coming from out of state who then rely on state benefits. He unsuccessfully pushed for a similar measure in November.

“I’m not advocating to just get rid of the whole thing. But we can’t take any more people from out of state, no matter where they’re from. We can’t do it,” he said from the House floor.

Peisch said there is a “serious question of constitutionality” hanging over Frost’s proposal that “would result, I would imagine, in significant amount of litigation, which … would undoubtedly take time in terms of implementation.”

“The proposal before us in the bill, which puts a restriction on this program, is designed to make sure that the program remains sustainable, is operated more efficiently,” Peisch said.

Frost countered Peisch, telling his colleagues that Gov. Maura Healey’s unilateral decision to cap the number of families in state-run shelters at 7,500 survived its own court challenge last year.

“Let’s take our chances in court today. Let’s take our chances there. We got to do something and this ain’t gonna do it,” he said.