Rules Committee · Jan 9, 2026
H.Amdt. 145: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 263–147
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The Affordable HOMES Act allows the Secretary of Energy to send recommendations to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development regarding changes to energy conservation standards for manufactured homes. These recommendations must consider cost-effectiveness, life cycle costs, and the initial purchase price of the homes. It also requires taking into account factory construction techniques, climate zones, alternative energy methods, and payback periods for added costs. Additionally, the act cancels a specific energy conservation rule for manufactured housing published on May 31, 2022.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly targets reducing the initial purchase price of the most affordable home type.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Increases the availability and affordability of housing common in rural areas.
- Scored +5
Does this make housing cost less?
Aims to reduce the initial purchase price of manufactured homes by focusing on cost-effectiveness.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Repeals previously established energy conservation standards, which may lead to lower energy efficiency.
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Prioritizes initial cost over strict energy efficiency mandates.
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
Reduces the power of federal energy mandates by repealing specific rules.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 263 yes · 147 no
01/09/2026 · Roll call 12 · recorded as “On Passage”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Lower Purchase Prices: The bill requires recommendations for standards to include estimates of the impact on the initial purchase price of manufactured homes (SEC. 2 (a)(2)).
-
Cost-Effectiveness: Recommendations must be based on the cost-effectiveness of the standards, considering both construction and operating costs (SEC. 2 (a)(2)(1)).
-
Practical Standards: The bill ensures that factory construction techniques and limitations unique to manufactured homes are considered (SEC. 2 (a)(2)(3)(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Removal of Previous Standards: The act states that the energy conservation standards for manufactured housing published on May 31, 2022, shall have no force or effect (SEC. 2 (b)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly targets reducing the initial purchase price of the most affordable home type. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Increases the availability and affordability of housing common in rural areas. Would business owners be better off under this? — Benefits manufacturers of homes by reducing strict energy mandates. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural residents and farmers are primary users of manufactured housing. Would retired people be better off under this? — Supports affordability for those on fixed incomes who may choose manufactured homes. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides more affordable housing options. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors often rely on manufactured housing for low-cost retirement living. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — May lower the barrier to entry for first-time homebuyers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Aims to reduce the initial purchase price of manufactured homes by focusing on cost-effectiveness. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Lowering the cost of entry-level housing can assist low-income individuals. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Increased affordability of manufactured housing may provide more options for those needing low-cost shelter.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Manufactured homes are prevalent in rural areas; making them more affordable supports rural housing development. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Repeals previously established energy conservation standards, which may lead to lower energy efficiency. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Prioritizes initial cost over strict energy efficiency mandates.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Reduces regulatory burdens on manufactured home builders by repealing specific energy standards.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Reduces the power of federal energy mandates by repealing specific rules.
- 1/12/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1/9/2026
- The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 147 (Roll no. 12).
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 263 - 147 (Roll no. 12). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H595)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 5184.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4593, H.R. 5184 and H.R. 6938. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4593, H.R. 5184, and H.R. 6938 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and provides for one motion to recommit on each bill.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 977. (consideration: CR H595-604)
- 1/7/2026
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 977 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4593, H.R. 5184 and H.R. 6938. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4593, H.R. 5184, and H.R. 6938 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and provides for one motion to recommit on each bill.
- 12/30/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-419.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 365.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 12/3/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 16.
- 11/19/2025
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- 10/14/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/8/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jake AuchinclossDemocrat · Massachusetts
Chuck EdwardsRepublican · North Carolina
Mike FloodRepublican · Nebraska
Craig GoldmanRepublican · Texas
Jefferson ShreveRepublican · Indiana