Coordinated Counterterrorism Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the affordability crisis has spread to nearly every facet of American lives. Utility bills are skyrocketing across the country. Trump's disastrous tariffs are being passed on to the American consumer. Grocery prices are up, making it hard for families to put food on the table, and Republicans delivered their latest blow

with failing to extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits which will result in soaring healthcare premiums for more than 20 million Americans. In many cases, Americans are seeing monthly premiums either two, three, or four times higher than they were last year for their healthcare insurance.

To make matters worse, we are in the midst of a housing crisis that is crushing American families' dreams. We are witnessing historically high home prices, coupled with a devastating shortage of housing. The cost of buying a home feels out of reach for too many, while rent is simultaneously ballooning at an unsustainable rate. Manufactured homes, however, are an important component of our affordable housing stock.

We should all be concerned about the cost of buying a new home, but this bill does not solve this crisis. In fact, it only makes housing affordability worse.

First, it revokes the Department of Energy's May 2022 energy conservation standard for manufactured housing, robbing residents of $5 billion in savings. Manufactured homes are often far less efficient than other homes, costing owners about 70 percent more per square foot in utility bills. Many low-income residents have reported foregoing basic necessities like food or medicine in order to keep their lights on.

To suggest that the Department of Energy standards for manufactured homes negatively impact affordability is entirely false. As I stressed, it is entirely false. When talking about affordability, it is imperative that we also consider the cost of actually living in these homes, and energy use is a big part of that. This is even more important at a time when electricity costs are up 13 percent nationwide.

If my Republican colleagues really want to get at the root cause of the current housing affordability crisis, they should look at Trump's disastrous tariffs on essential building materials and appliances, not energy efficiency standards that actually lower monthly energy bills.

Now, this bill also strips the Department of Energy of its congressionally-directed authority to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes and sends the responsibility to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, an agency with a history of failing to protect manufactured housing residents from high energy costs.

Prior to the passage of a bipartisan bill called the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007 when George Bush was President, he signed that into law, and HUD was then responsible for setting energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes. However, the agency, HUD, failed to act, leaving residents without an updated energy code since 1994. It is no wonder that 44 percent of manufactured housing residents face a high energy burden.

Now, the Department of Energy in May 2022 set a standard that was long overdue that said that manufactured housing residents had gone without a modern standard for nearly 30 years before the Department of Energy issued a final rule, and they did so. As a result, the standard that exists now, which this bill would repeal, essentially saves about $475 a year in savings on utility bills; but this bill repeals those savings. It repeals the DOE standards, and that is what is unacceptable about this bill. We should be fighting to raise the standard of living of manufactured housing residents, not lowering it with higher costs.

That is why I strongly oppose the bill. The affordability crisis is quite literally hitting home for millions of Americans, and H.R. 5184 would only saddle residents with even higher utility bills at a time when they can least afford it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that my colleague from Massachusetts offered an amendment to improve the bill during the subcommittee markup, unfortunately, his amendment fell short of addressing the fatal flaws in this underlying bill.

The amendment allows the Department of Energy to make efficiency recommendations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development on energy conservation standards. While this change is better than completely writing the Department of Energy out of the process like the original bill did, the fact of the matter is that this bill still nullifies the Department of Energy's manufactured housing rule standard for energy efficiency and, therefore, jeopardizes billions in savings for American families.

Additionally, the bill, as amended, does not specify what HUD should do with the recommendations from the Department of Energy. Even if the Department of Energy submitted recommendations, HUD is likely to ignore them. Let us not forget that when HUD had sole authority to issue energy codes for manufactured housing prior to 2007, the agency failed to act.

Again, it is important to ask: Why should we entrust HUD to act differently now?

This bill undermines the Department of Energy's authority to set efficiency standards and will rob much-needed and long-overdue savings from manufactured housing residents. I still strongly oppose the bill, as amended. Families who live in manufactured housing deserve to have efficient and safe homes. Let's fight to raise their standard of living, not lower it.

My colleague from Massachusetts mentioned support from the housing group. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from five major organizations that deal with manufactured homes: Americans for Financial Reform, Grounded Solutions Network, National Association for State Community Service Programs, Next Step Network, and ROC USA.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Thune, Leader Schumer, Speaker Johnson, and

Leader Jeffries: We write to you as representatives of

organizations that advocate for and support the production of

affordable homes for lower-income families, urging you to

oppose H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act. This bill would

result in high energy costs for families who live in new

manufactured homes, undermining their affordability at a time

when those families are having trouble paying their bills.

Manufactured homes have long been--and must remain--a key

source of housing for many limited-income residents. Yet some

of these homes are built with poor insulation, air sealing,

and windows, leaving residents with unaffordable monthly

energy bills. These costs are a burden for the residents, who

have a median household income of roughly $40,000.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) last

updated energy requirements for manufactured homes more than

three decades ago in 1994. Unfortunately, those outdated

rules have allowed the continued construction--up to the

present day--of homes that are poorly insulated and sealed.

In response to HUD's inaction, Congress stepped up in 2007 by

directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to set energy

efficiency standards for the homes. Standards finalized by

DOE in 2022 would significantly improve affordability, with

energy bill savings that far exceed the modest added

construction costs.

While DOE and its national labs have much greater building

energy expertise, HUD already has an active compliance

program for its manufactured home standards, and cooperative

use of that infrastructure would improve compliance with the

DOE standards and ease the compliance burden for

manufacturers by creating one enforcement mechanism.

Unfortunately, the timely and effective implementation of the

cost-saving standards has faced opposition, including

litigation, from segments of the industry.

H.R. 5184 would revoke the 2022 DOE standards, and it would

go further, eliminating DOE's authority to set standards for

manufactured homes altogether. This would leave only HUD's

three-decade-old code in place, along with the unlikely

prospect that HUD and the Manufactured Housing Consensus

Committee would suddenly update energy efficiency standards

after decades of inaction. While many manufactured homes

already are built well above the DOE standard, many others

are still built to the baseline HUD Code level.

Congress can and must take steps to improve housing

affordability, including expanding production of homes in

which families can afford their energy bills and be safe and

comfortable during extreme weather. H.R. 5184 would have the

opposite effect, locking in the unaffordable and harmful

status quo for too many families who live in manufactured

homes.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote against H.R. 5184.

Sincerely,

Americans for Financial Reform.

Grounded Solutions

Network.

National Association for State Community Services Programs.

Next Step Network.

I don't want to read the whole thing, but this was addressed to the House bipartisan leadership.

It says: ``We write to you as representatives of organizations that advocate for and support the production of affordable homes for lower income families, urging you to oppose H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act. This bill would result in high energy costs for families who live in new manufactured homes, undermining their affordability at a time when those families are having trouble paying their bills.''

I won't get into the rest of it, but I just wanted to point out that many more organizations that deal with manufactured homes, than what was cited by my colleague from Massachusetts, oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I listened to the gentleman from Colorado, but I just want to stress that this bill isn't about resolving conflicting standards or regulatory confusion on the part of the Federal Government.

This is about the fact that the Department of Housing and Urban Development failed to act for decades on energy efficiency, leaving a 1994 energy code untouched for over 30 years.

Now, when the Department of Energy is seeking to put in place a standard, well, what happens? First of all, when it was supposed to go into effect, President Trump this summer basically postponed it.

Now, they are trying to remove the standard entirely, but removing the Department of Energy's authority to set efficiency standards will only leave residents unprotected from high energy costs.

The Department of Energy is required by statute to consult with HUD in setting efficiency standards, and

DOE has worked extensively with HUD on this for years.

Technically, HUD can still update the energy code for manufactured homes, but they have been severely delinquent in doing so. Just as I mentioned, HUD has had over 30 years to set a stronger standard, and they just choose not to.

H.R. 5184 does not magically rewrite history. Giving HUD sole authority now does not take away the fact that the agency left manufactured housing residents with energy bills that are 70 percent more per square foot compared to site-built homes for decades.

DOE's energy sector experts are best positioned to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes, and it is the only agency that has successfully produced modernized standards. Those standards would save $475 a year on utility bills and have a real impact on Americans' wallets, safety, and security. Of course, though, President Trump doesn't want that, so he set aside the standard, and now they want to eliminate it completely. All that is going to do is raise utility bills tremendously for people who live in manufactured homes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we need to do a lot more to address housing affordability, but let me assure everyone that this bill is not the solution because it doesn't do anything to bring down costs. In fact, it only raises costs on hardworking American families, particularly hurting low-income, rural, and senior households.

I think there is a misunderstanding on the other side of the aisle about the Department of Energy's process in setting efficiency standards for manufactured homes, so let me just clear a few things up.

The Department of Energy would not issue an energy conservation standard if the benefits of the rule did not far outweigh the costs. DOE is required by statute to consult with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is also specifically required to ensure that the standards are cost effective based on the impact on the purchase price of the home as well as the total life cycle construction and operating costs.

Affordability is really at the core of the statute that directs the Department of Energy to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes, and as such, affordability is a guiding principle in the Department's May 2022 final rule that set the efficiency standards.

In fact, in order to accommodate price-sensitive, low-income purchasers, DOE adopted a tiered approach in the

final rule based on the size of the manufactured home. This standard is projected, as I have said, to save manufactured housing residents $5 billion, even when you include the upfront costs.

In fact, in the first year of home ownership, energy savings greatly exceed the marginal increase that might come from the initial purchase. The bottom line is that the benefits in energy savings to the consumer immediately offset any increase in purchase price. I think it is important to reiterate that affordability is about more than just the purchase price.

A lower purchase price doesn't mean anything if you are spending 70 percent more per square foot on energy bills like manufactured housing residents currently are. Over 40 percent of manufactured housing residents face a high energy burden, meaning that more than 6 percent of their income is going toward energy costs.

Given the recent trends in energy costs, it is more important now than ever that we maintain the Department of Energy's standard to protect these residents from even higher energy bills.

I think if my Republican colleagues really wanted to address housing affordability, they would be speaking out against Trump's tariffs. These are tariffs that the President has put on essential building materials. That is the problem right now. Hopefully, today, the Supreme Court eliminates these tariffs, but right now the increased costs of manufactured housing is primarily based on the tariffs. That is what is driving up the costs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side keep talking about efficiency standards driving up costs but, in fact, it is not the case. The costs that are driving up manufactured home prices is because of Trump's disastrous tariffs.

President Trump has issued tariffs on essential building materials on inputs, like lumber, gypsum, steel, and even appliances and cabinets. These tariffs are driving up the costs of new construction, renovations, and affordable housing development.

Tariffs are raising construction and renovation costs and disrupting supply chains, placing upward pressure on home prices. Trump's tariff policies are not only undercutting the supposed goal of reducing the cost of living for Americans but they are also exacerbating the housing crisis by slowing the production of housing and adding exorbitant costs to the process.

The ever-changing tariff landscape, because we don't even know what it is from one day to the next with him, is creating uncertainty for homebuilders and putting the dream of buying a new home out of touch for perspective home buyers. Even the National Association of Home Builders has criticized Trump's tariffs as harming housing affordability and driving up costs. American consumers are feeling the pinch and paying the price for Trump's tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for my Republican colleagues to look in the mirror because what is really contributing to the housing crisis in a major way is Trump's tariffs, not energy conservation standards that save American consumers money. Stop demonizing efficiency standards, not only in this bill but on so many occasions, and start addressing the root of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, that is President's Trump's bad policies. I don't know if anything has come forward yet. Hopefully, today the Supreme Court is going to throw these tariffs out, and maybe we will have some relief. That is the problem here.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress again the nature of this bill is totally the opposite of what the Republicans say. It should be titled the unaffordable homes act because electricity prices are rising across the country. Americans are going into debt to heat their homes this winter.

President Trump has failed on his day one promise to bring down prices for American families. Instead, his big, ugly bill is projected to increase electricity prices by an additional 61 percent.

How are American families supposed to shoulder the financial burden as they struggle to afford the cost of their daily necessities that have been inflated by his senseless tariff policies?

I hear from my constituents every day that affordability is their top concern, and we should be focused on advancing bipartisan legislation to end this affordability crisis. Instead, my Republican colleagues are trying to repeal the Department of Energy's energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing through this bill.

Mr. Speaker, these standards were thoughtfully developed in consultation with HUD to balance upfront costs and long-term affordability. These standards are sorely needed as energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing haven't been updated for over 30 years.

As a result, electricity bills for manufactured homes are 70 percent higher than site-built homes. It is cruel and senseless to try to overturn energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing as families are facing unprecedented increases in their electricity bills.

The Department of Energy's manufactured home efficiency standards are estimated to save homeowners $475 per year on their utility bills. Collectively, these standards would save 17 million Americans $10 billion over 30 years.

These efficiency standards are good for our wallets, and they are good for the economy. It is really unconscionable for Congress to consider overturning these standards amid this affordability crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5184 because it will lead to higher costs for hardworking American families, especially higher electric bills that are spiking under Republican policies.

Despite President Trump's promise that he was going to lower electric bills, he was going to cut them in half, electricity prices are up by over 13 percent over last year and much higher in many places. Americans have been hammered with about $86 billion in rate increases. In Florida, the Republican utilities commission just passed along the highest rate increase in the history of our State. Some are characterizing this as the largest rate increase in the history of the country.

The Republican big, ugly bill is also driving prices higher, along with Trump's illegal interference with clean energy projects that were ready to come on line and help lower prices. That is just not smart, and neither is this bill that would gut the Department of Energy's ability to set energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes. These were goals given by Congress in a bipartisan way years ago to help our neighbors save money back home.

Yes, Americans are facing a housing affordability crisis, but they are also facing an energy affordability crisis. Republicans are using this bill to try to prevent a false choice between tackling both of those problems, but Republicans have done nothing to address the economic instability of hardworking American families.

Just ask my neighbors back home in Florida. Florida has more manufactured homes than any State in the country, about 800,000 manufactured homes, so that is 10 percent of all manufactured housing in the United States. What the Republicans will not tell you is that manufactured homes often have very poor insulation. They use about 50 percent more electricity than other types of construction.

Utilities in Florida do not offer any efficiency programs designed for manufactured homes, so there is no help there. As a result, it is incredibly difficult for the people living in these homes to pay their electric bills. It is only getting worse with longer, hotter summers fueled by climate change.

At the end of the year, my hometown newspaper actually took a look at the soaring electric bills for manufactured homes. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Tampa Bay Times article of December 30, ``For Tampa Bay's mobile home residents, high electric bills can be a crisis.''

For Tampa Bay's Mobile Home Residents, High Electric Bills Can Be a

Crisis

(By Emily L. Mahoney and Max Chesnes, Dec. 30, 2025)

Energy efficiency standards for mobile homes haven't been

updated in decades, allowing leaky walls to sap budgets.

Rebecca Parris rushes to the bank before it closes.

The power could be shut off soon to her 960-square-foot

mobile home in St. Petersburg, she fears, if she doesn't pay

Duke Energy her overdue bill. The deep red ``Action Required:

Bill Past Due'' banner on a Dec. 16 email from the company--

and the handful that came before it--makes her heart pound.

A neighbor chips in $95, and she speeds over to Bank OZK to

cash the check. This month's crisis is narrowly averted. But

she's already thinking about next month.

``I've worked my ass off my whole life,'' said Parris, 67,

still sitting in the driver's seat of her car from her dash

to the bank. ``But it's been really hard.''

Mobile homes have long been an affordable option for people

with fixed or lower incomes, when a big down payment and

mortgage are out of reach. But beyond the smaller purchase

price lurks a hidden danger: Because of outdated

manufacturing standards, mobile homes can have much higher

electric bills than traditional houses.

For a series of stories on energy affordability, the Tampa

Bay Times asked readers to submit information about their

electric bills. Hundreds responded, and many said they paid

higher bills this year than ever before. Yet even in this

climate, mobile home residents stood out--some with bills

ranging from $300 to $500, roughly comparable to houses twice

their size.

Retired and on a fixed income, Parris has struggled this

year to keep up.

After Hurricane Helene's storm surge flooded her home last

fall, she lost her car, her furniture, a new washer and

dryer. The salt water also damaged her air conditioner, which

she replaced about a month after the storm.

Then she watched this year as her Duke charges climbed:

$170.09 in May.

$258.06 in June, a payment she missed.

$314.85 in July, which ballooned to more than $500 counting

what she still owed.

``It's so so stressful and daunting,'' Parris said. ``I

deal with financial pressures every day like this.''

Rebecca Parris, 67, is struggling to keep up with high

power bills in her 960-square-foot mobile home in St.

Petersburg. ``It's so stressful and daunting,'' she said. ``I

deal with financial pressures every day like this.''

Lowell Ungar, director of federal policy for the American

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a national advocacy

group, said that while codes for traditional houses have been

constantly improving to require builders to make them more

efficient, mobile home regulations haven't budged in decades.

``In terms of their energy equipment and components,

they're not built very well,'' he said, referring to the

homes' insulation, windows and water heaters, for example.

``The federal code hasn't been changed since 1994--and it

wasn't very strong then.''

Unlike other types of housing, mobile homes are only

subject to federal energy standards, not state building

codes. In 2007, Congress recognized that these requirements

were too weak and passed a law directing the U.S. Department

of Energy to update them. That still hasn't happened.

The agency released updated rules in 2022, but delays to

their compliance date, bureaucratic back-and-forth and

pressure from the manufactured home industry has led to a

``long saga'' of delays, Ungar said.

A bill in Congress called the Affordable HOMES Act, a

Republican-sponsored measure that is advancing with the

support of some Democrats, would roll back the Department of

Energy's most recent attempt to update the standards and

block the agency from setting future ones.

Proponents contend that stricter standards will make new

homes cost more for consumers, an agrument that Ungar said is

outweighed by the larger savings on energy bills, which

result in lower monthly costs even with a slightly higher

mortgage.

``It is beyond frustrating that this has dragged on now

for, depending how you count, 30 years since the energy code

was last updated and 18 years since Congress told the

Department of Energy to fix the problem,'' Ungar said.

``Every year, there's tens of thousands of new homes that

stick their residents with these bills for the decades that

people are in those homes.''

Parris blames the poor insulation in her 1970s home for

leaching cool air in the summer. She'll set her air

conditioning to 77 degrees, but the temperature inside rises

to around 87.

Duke representatives have told her that her new air

conditioning may have been installed improperly, Parris said,

and have explained that her kilowatt usage is double what

they would expect of a home her size.

Poor insulation exacerbates costs that are already rising

because of hikes to base rates and--particularly stark this

year--steep hurricane recovery fees from 2024's disastrous

season.

Brad Coath paid more when he bought his mobile home to get

it upgraded with extra insulation. It's paid off, he said, as

he's noticed it holds its temperature well in the summer.

Still, Coath, a 66-year-old retired nurse, has seen the bills

for his St. Petersburg mobile home swell.

He's enrolled in Duke's budget billing program, which

averages out bills across each quarter to make them more

predictable. They went from around $150 to over $200 this

summer, prompting him to cut back on travel and put off

bigger expenses.

``I get so tired of the PSC just rubber-stamping everything

that comes across their desks,'' Coath said, referring to the

Florida Public Service Commission that approves utility

hikes. ``Do these people not get bills? How do I get that

job?''

Duke Energy has emphasized that the storm cost recovery

charge, which is around $32 monthly for a household using

1,000 kilowatt-hours, will fall off bills in March, which is

also when a separate seasonal discount kicks in. Tampa

Electric's hurricane fee, which is about $20 per month for

the same energy use, will last longer, until September 2026.

Both companies noted they have programs to help mobile home

residents improve their efficiency, like home energy audits

that can lead to discounts. Duke, for example, offers rebates

up to $600 for air conditioner replacements to qualifying

mobile homeowners, and smaller rebates for duct repair. They

are funded by all Duke customers through a charge on their

bills.

Edward Cifelli, 83, moved to Dade City with his wife almost

20 years ago because the rolling pastureland reminded them of

their longtime New Jersey home.

Electric bills for their double-wide usually hover around

$200, an amount they can manage even as the rent for the lot

their home sits on continues to creep upward.

But in August, their Duke bill hit $300 for the first time

Cifelli can remember. He doesn't understand why utilities

charge residents for hurricanes when those should be an

expected part of doing business in Florida.

``It doesn't seem right to me that we pay a certain amount

of money, and when it gets a little expensive for them, they

make us pay extra,'' he said. ``Old people are always

concerned about outliving their savings, and that's where we

are.''

Mr. Speaker, it says: ``Energy efficiency standards for mobile homes haven't been updated in decades, allowing leaky walls to sap budgets.''

They profile an older woman, a retiree on a fixed income in St. Petersburg, who lives in a 960-square-foot manufactured home. After Hurricane Helene, she has really been struggling. She lost her car. She lost her furniture, her washer and dryer, and her air-conditioning.

Now, her electric bills are soaring because of the costs of hurricane recovery and these longer, hotter summers. Her electric bills this year went from $170 in May to $258 in June to $314 in July. That is not affordable. Energy efficiency standards are needed for future residents so they can save money over the long term.

In this story--and I will recommend it to everyone that is concerned about this issue--there is one expert that goes into this and says that in terms of their energy equipment and components, manufactured homes are not built very well. ``The Federal code hasn't been changed since 1994--and it wasn't very strong then.''

It goes on and says: ``Unlike other types of housing, mobile homes are only subject to Federal energy standards, not State building codes. In 2007, Congress recognized that these requirements were way too weak and passed a law directing the U.S. Department of Energy to update them. That still hasn't happened.'' And it needs to happen.

This expert says that people are saying we need more affordable housing, but if you let folks off the hook for future improvements to manufactured homes, you are simply going to weigh down the people who live in them over time. You are not doing them any favors.

This expert says that every year there's tens of thousands of new homes that stick their residents with these bills for decades. That is not right. We can do better than that.

This bill also would move the authority to set these standards from the Department of Energy to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Well, HUD hasn't set energy standards for manufactured homes since 1994, and it was a bipartisan Congress that moved it back to DOE where they have the expertise to do it.

If these standards were to take effect, the DOE standard would save residents an estimated $475 a year on their electric bill. That is not peanuts, especially for that retiree in St. Petersburg who could use every cent right now.

If anything, Congress should be pressing DOE to strengthen standards. Energy efficiency standards are not the barrier to building affordable manufactured homes. Mr. Speaker, more than 58,000 homes already have been built to higher DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes criteria, most in 2025, because many want to do better for their residents. The technology is there and the building materials are there.

These are the people also mostly being hurt primarily by the Republican policies raising the cost of living, whether it is arbitrary tariffs--and maybe the Supreme Court will give us a little relief from these arbitrary tariffs. People are paying, according to one analysis, up to $1,200 to $1,600 more because of arbitrary tariffs every time they go to the grocery store or for construction materials, canceled energy projects, and the big, ugly bill and cuts to healthcare.

While speaking of healthcare, thanks to the American people speaking out, along with hospitals, doctors, and nurses, every House Democrat and 17 Republicans yesterday voted to extend the ACA tax credits and lower costs. I hope this is catching. I hope this would catch on with our Republican colleagues because people are feeling very insecure when it comes to their family budgets.

You add on something like this where there is no hope for the future to help save money if you are going to live in a manufactured home, your arbitrary tariffs, all this is weighing down on people. If Republicans actually wanted to lower household costs, they would restore tax credits, as well, related to residential clean energy that they gutted as part of the big, ugly bill. They were working to help people save on the high cost of electricity, saving them thousands of dollars on appliances like their AC and heating systems and helping them install solar and batteries or helping them make other home efficiency improvements.

But the Republicans have rejected all of that. They said that is not important. It is more important to give a pass or do a favor for Big Oil companies or the Big Utility companies. Well, we are on the side of the people because they deserve so much better.

Unfortunately, we know the tone the Republicans set last year. I just hoped at the beginning of the year the Republicans would turn the page. Mr. Speaker, 17 did yesterday on healthcare tax credits. I would hope on energy bills they would also look to partner with us to help lower the cost of living. That may be too much to ask for, otherwise they wouldn't be offering bills like these that heap more costs and pain onto our neighbors back home.

Mr. Speaker, American families deserve so much better. This bill needs to be rejected. You need to stand on the side of the people and their pocketbooks for a change.

Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 977, I call up the bill (H.R. 5184) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from enforcing energy efficiency standards applicable to manufactured housing, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 5184.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, since 2020, it is estimated that America's housing market has climbed 57 percent, sidelining first-time home buyers and impacting communities across the country. In fact, polls show that more than four out of five Americans agree that housing affordability is a problem in the area in which they live, with median-priced homes costing more than 50 percent of a typical household's income.

There are many contributing factors to the surge in prices, such as a demand shift and material costs. Inappropriate and duplicative regulatory structures have compounded these issues for the construction of manufacturing housing.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the Department of Energy to set energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing. This duplicates the Department of Housing and Urban Development's longstanding jurisdiction, first granted in the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act, over these standards.

The law also required the DOE to base these new standards on the International Energy Conservation Code, the IECC, which is intended for site-built homes. Builders of site-built homes build according to that specific region, and the IECC reflects those unique characteristics. On the other hand, manufactured homes are built without knowledge of the final location of that home.

Manufactured homes play an essential role in meeting our Nation's demand for affordable housing. In fact, the average income of a manufactured home buyer is $63,000, while the average income for a site-built home buyer is about $143,000.

We must ensure regulatory morass does not deteriorate access to these homes. H.R. 5184, bipartisan legislation led by the gentlewoman from Indiana, eliminates DOE's authority to issue energy efficiency standards for manufacturing housing. Instead, HUD will maintain full regulatory authority, and DOE may provide recommendations throughout the rulemaking process.

This legislation will not diminish the energy efficiency of these homes. Our colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Massachusetts' Fourth Congressional District, issued a Dear Colleague and put it well by saying: This bill in no way diminishes the importance of energy efficiency. It simply ensures HUD, under its affordability mission, is the authoritative voice.

Consumers will continue to be protected by HUD's existing process, and manufacturers will have a regulatory process that will facilitate the efficient construction of affordable homes in the United States.

Homeownership remains a significant aspect of achieving the American Dream. H.R. 5184 helps bring that dream closer to reality for millions of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been working to make sure we bring down utility costs and energy costs across this country, and that means making sure that we have that energy that has been given us.

When we look at what we have been able to do, especially in oil and natural gas production, from the days of Jimmy Carter when we were told that we were supposed to shut down our thermostats, make sure you put a sweater on, walk to work, well, Republicans did something about it and put the laws and regulations into place to make sure.

However, people who live in certain States are going to see their prices going up. Looking at this chart, what we see is when you look at California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, their prices have gone up. We also know that we had the Governors up in New England this year who stated that they were fearful that their consumers were going to pay 40 percent more for power this winter.

Republicans want to do something about that in this country and make sure we get the permitting laws done that we have been working on in committee.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen). He represents Georgia's 12th District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 10th District of Michigan (Mr. James).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), the bill's sponsor, who represents Indiana's Ninth District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans), who represents Colorado's Eighth District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), who represents the 40th District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), who represents the First District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Shreve).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Energy and Commerce has been working on for years is to make sure that we have more power out here for the American people. Just this week in the Energy Subcommittee, we had another hearing on nuclear power to make sure that we are bringing nuclear power back online in this country.

We have got to make sure we have energy out there for the American people so they can go out there and make sure that when they turn on that switch, it is not too expensive.

Once again, let's look at this map of the United States. It is kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker. If I live in California or Michigan or from Maryland up to Maine, why is it that their kilowatt hours are more expensive than the rest of the country?

It needs to be talked about, Mr. Speaker. They need to talk to their State Governors, and they need to talk to their legislators and regulators. They are raising the prices for their citizens in those States. We have to make sure we understand what is happening here.

We have to do our part this Congress, but let's look at these States. We are making sure we are working hard in the Energy and Commerce Committee to ensure those rates are low for Americans.

As we have heard from both sides of the aisle today, H.R. 5184 is a commonsense reform to unlock the construction of manufactured housing and increasing housing affordability for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5148, the Affordable HOMES Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), my friend, for her leadership on this very important issue. It has been an absolute pleasure working with her on this bill, which makes manufactured housing less expensive and more accessible to Americans.

I also serve as the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee chairman with the Financial Services Committee. Our Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is responsible and should be solely responsible for manufactured housing codes.

Manufactured homes are more affordable than site-built and even modular homes, in part because they are built to one single Federal code. Regulatory streamlining isn't just a bonus for manufactured housing; it is at the core of what makes these homes cost effective.

That is why this legislation is so important. Inviting a second regulator into the business of manufactured housing codes really undermines a key value proposition for manufactured housing.

Since legislation passed in 2007 mandating the Department of Energy establish energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes, the Department of Energy has struggled to effectively craft and implement these standards.

They released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2010, and it took them 6 years to propose draft standards in 2016. The final standards were released 15 years after enactment in 2022, but then the Department of Energy delayed implementation of the rule because they were unsure of how they would even enforce the rule. We are now approaching 19 years since enactment, and the Department of Energy is still behind schedule.

Unfortunately, the actual content of the final rule is also problematic. The Department of Energy has been sued for this rulemaking for both failing to coordinate with HUD, which was mandated in the statute, and failing to adequately consider costs.

The Department of Energy even admitted in their final rule that their analysis has not ``included any potential associated costs of testing, compliance, or enforcement'' of the mandate.

That is downright embarrassing from an agency tasked with taking cost into account when implementing these standards.

Suffice it to say, the Department of Energy's entry into manufactured housing standards has not gone very well. Their standards are a decade behind schedule, and their rulemaking would significantly increase the costs of these homes. This bill fixes the problem. It puts HUD back in charge of manufactured housing standards, including those related to energy efficiency while still giving the opportunity for HUD to look into this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Housing affordability is the number one issue in the United States economy right now, and manufactured housing is part of the solution. It is housing in the range of $100,000 to $200,000. New manufactured homes are HUD energy code compliant, and some of them even are meeting Energy Star certification standards.

However, we have a challenge. In 2022, under the Biden administration, with the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development sharing enforcement authority for energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, the Department of Energy put forward energy efficiency standards that the Biden-era HUD said they could not enforce.

I want to reiterate that for my Democratic colleagues. The Biden-era HUD said they could not enforce because of what they would do to housing affordability with manufactured housing.

It was projected that at least 25,000 fewer homes would be constructed over the next 10 years, and one Biden-era Office of Management and Budget official said it could add $5,000 to $10,000 of additional costs per key for manufactured housing, all to save what could be a teaspoon of greenhouse gas emissions, about what one Ford F- 150 would emit on one visit to a construction worksite.

This is not a workable scenario because when you have shared enforcement between two agencies that disagree, nothing happens. What this bill does is it puts accountability for housing affordability with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development still needs to incorporate the expertise of the Department of Energy. I want to be clear about this. This does not necessarily lower energy efficiency standards. In fact, HUD could very well decide that they want to raise energy efficiency standards, but they are going to make that decision holistically. They are going to look at the costs.

They are going to look at the total cost of ownership, including the initial purchase price plus the cost of utilities over long-term usage, understanding that many purchasers of manufactured housing don't live there for the 30 years that the Department of Energy was using to amortize the energy costs.

This bill streamlines bureaucracy, and it clarifies accountability. It does not lower energy efficiency standards, but it does lower prices. This is why the National Housing Conference, which is a continuum of affordable housing stakeholders, has endorsed this legislation. I encourage my Democratic colleagues to do so, as well.