John Rose (R-TN)
Housing Supply Expansion Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 11 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Housing Supply Expansion Act of 2025 updates the definition of a manufactured home to include those built with or without a permanent chassis. It requires the Secretary to issue new standards, including distinct labels and data plates, for homes built without a permanent chassis. States must submit initial and annual certifications ensuring their laws treat these homes with parity regarding financing, insurance, and taxes. Failure to submit these certifications would prohibit the manufacture, installation, or sale of certain covered manufactured homes within that State. The Act also allows the Secretary to coordinate with other federal agencies to ensure consistent treatment across federal laws.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +6
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill aims to expand housing supply by standardizing the definition and treatment of manufactured homes without permanent chassis.
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill provides clearer standards and identification for manufactured homes without a permanent chassis, protecting consumers through regulatory consistency.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
By expanding the availability and legality of manufactured homes without permanent chassis, the bill could improve access to affordable housing.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill imposes new administrative mandates and recertification requirements on states.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Parity in State Laws: The bill requires states to treat manufactured homes without a permanent chassis with parity to those on a permanent chassis regarding financing, title, insurance, and taxes (Section 2(c)(1)(A)). This could provide more consistency for people purchasing these types of homes.
-
Standardized Identification: The Secretary will establish standards for distinct labels, data plates, and invoice notations for manufactured homes built without a permanent chassis (Section 2(b)(2)(B)). This ensures that these specific types of homes can be clearly distinguished from traditional manufactured homes.
-
Federal Coordination: The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can coordinate with other federal agencies to ensure manufactured homes are treated consistently across different federal laws (Section 2(d)). This could lead to more uniform treatment of these homes under various federal regulations.
-
State Support: The bill adds provisions for model guidance to support states in submitting required certifications (Section 2(e)(3)). This may help states more easily implement the necessary legal changes.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions Due to State Inaction: If a state fails to submit required certifications, the law would prohibit the manufacture, installation, or sale of "covered manufactured homes" within that state (Section 2(c)(5)(B)). This could limit housing options for people in those states.
-
State Regulatory Burdens: States are required to amend their laws and regulations to include the new definition of a manufactured home and submit both initial and annual recertifications (Section 2(c)(1)(A) and (3)). This places a new administrative requirement on state agencies and officials.
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? — By expanding the availability and legality of manufactured homes without permanent chassis, the bill could improve access to affordable housing. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increased housing supply and standardized manufacturing could benefit middle-class housing options. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improved manufactured home definitions could aid rural development and housing options. Would business owners be better off under this? — Manufacturers of homes without permanent chassis gain a clearer regulatory pathway for sale and installation.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill aims to expand housing supply by standardizing the definition and treatment of manufactured homes without permanent chassis.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill provides clearer standards and identification for manufactured homes without a permanent chassis, protecting consumers through regulatory consistency.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases federal oversight by requiring state certifications and allowing the Secretary to coordinate with other federal agencies. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires the Secretary to maintain a public list of states up-to-date with certifications. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill imposes new administrative mandates and recertification requirements on states.
- 3/17/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/16/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/10/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 12/4/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/25/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Ami BeraDemocrat · California
Emanuel CleaverDemocrat · Missouri
J. CorreaDemocrat · California
Monica De La CruzRepublican · Texas
Warren DavidsonRepublican · Ohio
Mike FloodRepublican · Nebraska
Maggie GoodlanderDemocrat · New Hampshire
Mariannette Miller-MeeksRepublican · Iowa
Tim MooreRepublican · North Carolina
Scott PetersDemocrat · California
Eugene VindmanDemocrat · Virginia