PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 1, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to specify that a retailer of manufactured housing is generally not a "mortgage originator" subject to requirements under that Act. Similarly, the bill amends the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 to specify that such a retailer is generally not a "loan originator" subject to requirements under that Act.
(Sec. 3) In addition, the bill increases the annual percentage rates and transaction values at which mortgages for certain dwellings are considered "high-cost mortgages" under TILA.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 256 - 163 (Roll no. 651). (text: CR H9573)
House roll call 651 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 256 - 163 (Roll no. 651).(text: CR H9573)
House roll call 651 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 193 - 227 (Roll no. 650).
House roll call 650 · Individual votesFloor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Waters, Maxine (CA) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the same back to the House forthwith with an amendment to protect consumers from excessive costs and predatory lenders.
Ms. Waters, Maxine moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Financial Services. (text: CR H9583)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1699.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 and H.R. 1699. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 under a structured rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 1699 under a closed rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 635. (consideration: CR H9573-9585)
Rule H. Res. 635 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 635 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 and H.R. 1699. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4182 under a structured rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 1699 under a closed rule, with one hour of general debate, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 308.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 115-416.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 115-416.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 42 - 18.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.1699 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.1699 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.1699 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.1699 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.