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 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 2, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
CJ's Home Protection Act of 2009 - Requires the consensus committee established under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, to develop and submit to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed federal manufactured home construction and safety standards. Requires the Secretary to issue a final order promulgating the standard within 90 days after receiving the proposal.
Amends the Act to require such standards to require each manufactured home delivered for sale to be supplied with a weather radio: (1) capable of broadcasting emergency information relating to local weather conditions; (2) equipped with a tone alarm and Specific Alert Message Encoding, or SAME technology; and (3) compliant with the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) Standard 2009-A Performance Specification for Public Alert Receivers (or its current revision).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Exempts any aspect of the function, operation, performance, capabilities, or utilization of such weather radio or any related instructions from certain requirements regarding: (1) noncompliance with standards or defective nature of manufactured homes; (2) notification and correction of defects by such manufacturers; or (3) the Secretary's regulations pursuant to the authority under such Act.
Requires the Secretary to study and report to specified congressional committees on conditioning the applicability of the requirement to supply weather radios in manufactured homes on the geographic location at which a manufactured home is placed, but only to the extent that such requirement applies to new manufactured homes and new site-built homes.
People & committees
Rep. Ellsworth, Brad [D-IN-8] · D–IN
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 motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H13399-13400)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H13399-13400)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 320.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H13399-13401)
Ms. Waters moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 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.320 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.320 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.320 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.320 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.