PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Dec 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1231 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1231 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1231 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1231 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-12 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed START Housing Act of 2025 would renew and revise the Recovery Housing Program, changing its specified years to 2026–2031. States with greater need would receive priority. States receiving funds would have to add program support to existing state or local resources and plan for participants to move to other housing when their eligibility ends.
This Act may be cited as the Supporting Transition And Recovery Through Housing Act of 2025 or the START Housing Act of 2025.
by striking 2019 through 2023 and inserting 2026 through 2031
Among the States, priority shall be given to States with the greatest need
a State shall use such funds received under this section only to supplement the level of State or local funds that would, in the absence of the receipt of funds under this section, be made available for related housing and recovery services.
developing a plan to support individuals receiving stable housing in connection with funding under this section with transfer to other housing at the end of the individuals’ eligibility.
The bill would amend section 8071 of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act by replacing the years 2019–2023 with 2026–2031 in subsection (a). This provision does not specify a dollar amount.
Section 8071 of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (42 U.S.C. 5301 note) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) by striking 2019 through 2023 and inserting 2026 through 2031
The bill would delete language referring to a period of no more than two years and the phrase “whichever is earlier.” Because the surrounding existing law is not supplied, these deletions alone do not establish the full remaining limits on participants’ eligibility.
(B) by striking for a period of not more than 2 years or; and (C) by striking , whichever is earlier;
For the existing duty in subsection (b)(1), the bill would add a requirement to act through the Office of Community Planning and Development, in consultation with the Office of Special Needs Assistance. The underlying duty and its deadline are not reproduced.
in paragraph (1), by inserting , acting through the Office of Community Planning and Development in consultation with the Office of Special Needs Assistance, before not later than
The bill would replace “allocated to” with “prioritized for” in subsection (b)(2)(A). It would also require priority among states based on greatest need, as determined by the Secretary using four factors: higher average unemployment and lower average labor force participation during 2019–2023, higher age-adjusted drug overdose death rates, and higher unsheltered homelessness rates from the latest required annual count. The new language does not specify weights for these factors.
in subparagraph (A), by striking allocated to and inserting prioritized for
(B) Priority Among the States, priority shall be given to States with the greatest need, as such need is determined by the Secretary based on the following factors: (i) The highest average rates of unemployment based on data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for calendar years 2019 through 2023. (ii) The lowest average labor force participation rates based on data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for calendar years 2019 through 2023. (iii) The highest age-adjusted rates of drug overdose deaths based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (iv) The highest rates of unsheltered homelessness as determined by the most recent annual point-in-time count of persons experiencing homelessness required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360 et seq.).
The bill would add “low-barrier” after “effective” in subsection (c)(2), without defining that term in the supplied text. It would also add an expectation that participants have access to stable housing when leaving the program; that wording does not guarantee housing.
(A) in paragraph (2)— (i) by inserting , low-barrier after effective; and (ii) by inserting before the period at the end the following: with an expectation that persons participating in the program have access to stable housing upon exiting the program
As a condition of receiving funds, states would have to use the money to add to the state or local funding that otherwise would support related housing and recovery services. They could not use it to replace that funding.
(4) Supplement not supplant As a condition of receiving funds under this section, a State shall use such funds received under this section only to supplement the level of State or local funds that would, in the absence of the receipt of funds under this section, be made available for related housing and recovery services.
States receiving funds would have to consult with public housing agencies and groups called “continuums of care.” The consultation would assess needs for using the funds and develop a plan to support participants’ transfer to other housing when their eligibility ends.
(5) Consultation Each State that receives amounts pursuant to this section shall consult with continuums of care and public housing agencies to assess needs for implementing funds and developing a plan to support individuals receiving stable housing in connection with funding under this section with transfer to other housing at the end of the individuals’ eligibility.
The bill would replace subsection (f) with permission for the Secretary to use up to 2 percent of available program funds for technical assistance, publishing best practices, and outreach to grant recipients or potentially eligible participants. This would permit, rather than require, those uses of funds.
by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following new subsection: (f) Technical assistance The Secretary may use not more than 2 percent of the funds made available under this section for technical assistance, to publish best practices, and to conduct outreach to grantees or potentially eligible participants.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated December 18, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Financial Services on February 12, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-18T09:07:25Z. 2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. 2025-02-12: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-12. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status cannot be fully assessed without accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. General program eligibility and need-based priorities do not alone warrant such a finding. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 18, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI