[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2178-H2188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
         PRESERVING ACCESS TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACT OF 2015

  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 189, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 650) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to modify the 
definitions of a mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 650

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Access to 
     Manufactured Housing Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. MORTGAGE ORIGINATOR DEFINITION.

       Section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second subsection (cc) and 
     subsection (dd) as subsections (dd) and (ee), respectively; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(C) of subsection (dd), as so 
     redesignated, by striking ``an employee of a retailer of 
     manufactured homes who is not described in clause (i) or 
     (iii) of subparagraph (A) and who does not advise a consumer 
     on loan terms (including rates, fees, and other costs)'' and 
     inserting ``a retailer of manufactured or modular homes or 
     its employees unless such retailer or its employees receive 
     compensation or gain for engaging in activities described in 
     subparagraph (A) that is in excess of any compensation or 
     gain received in a comparable cash transaction''.

     SEC. 3. HIGH-COST MORTGAGE DEFINITION.

       Section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (aa) (relating to 
     disclosure of greater amount or percentage), as so designated 
     by section 1100A of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010, as subsection (bb);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (bb) (relating to high cost 
     mortgages), as so designated by section 1100A of the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Act of 2010, as subsection (aa), and 
     moving such subsection to immediately follow subsection (z); 
     and
       (3) in subsection (aa)(1)(A), as so redesignated--
       (A) in clause (i)(I), by striking ``(8.5 percentage points, 
     if the dwelling is personal property and the transaction is 
     for less than $50,000)'' and inserting ``(10 percentage 
     points if the dwelling is personal property or is a 
     transaction that does not include the purchase of real 
     property on which a dwelling is to be placed, and the 
     transaction is for less than $75,000 (as such amount is 
     adjusted by the Bureau to reflect the change in the Consumer 
     Price Index))''; and
       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) in subclause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) in the case of a transaction for less than $75,000 
     (as such amount is adjusted by the Bureau to reflect the 
     change in the Consumer Price Index) in which the dwelling is 
     personal property (or is a consumer credit transaction that 
     does not include the purchase of real property on which a 
     dwelling is to be placed) the greater of 5 percent of the 
     total transaction amount or $3,000 (as such amount is 
     adjusted by the Bureau to reflect the change in the Consumer 
     Price Index); or''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher) 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).


                             General Leave

  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to thank Chairman Hensarling and 
the leadership that he has shown in his ability to work with us and 
allow us to do these commonsense pieces of legislation that help our 
districts all over this country, especially my home State of Tennessee 
and the Eighth Congressional District. So I just want to definitely 
make sure I thank him for his leadership and support.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the sponsor of H.R. 650, the 
Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. Access to affordable 
housing is of vital importance to families in my district and all 
across the United States. Unfortunately, due to CFPB mortgage 
regulations that do not reflect the unique nature of the manufactured 
home sales process, access to financing for manufactured homes is in 
serious jeopardy.
  Manufactured housing serves as a critical option for those who cannot 
otherwise afford to buy a home. Homes are commonly available at lower 
monthly payments than what it costs to rent. And the average price of a 
manufactured home is less than $43,000, compared to an average price of 
$177,000 for a site-built home. Almost three-quarters of families 
living in manufactured homes have annual incomes under $40,000.
  But this important source of homeownership for American families is 
being threatened by current high-cost mortgage rules that are too 
inflexible and often lead to the denial of financing for certain homes, 
particularly those that are lower priced, more affordable options.
  Since the CFPB's Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ``high 
cost'' rules consider cost as a percentage of a loan, smaller size 
loans, like manufactured home loans, often violate points and fee caps. 
Manufactured home loans are typically associated with fixed interest 
rates, full amortization, shorter loan terms, and the absence of 
alternative features, such as balloon payments, negative amortization, 
no down payment loans, et cetera, to allow them to satisfy conservative 
and prudent underwriting standards, and H.R. 650 won't change this.
  Because of the resulting ``high-cost'' designation and increased 
lender liability associated with it, some lenders have stopped making 
manufactured housing loans altogether, and others have stopped 
originating loans under $20,000. Many community owners have said that 
their tenants are being forced to sell their homes well below market 
value to cash buyers because potential buyers can't find financing. 
These below-market sales don't just hurt sellers; they hurt every 
homeowner in the community who feels a huge loss on the equity of their 
home.
  Additionally, since the CFPB's rule on the loan originator definition 
has gone into effect, retailers have been forced to stop providing 
technical assistance to consumers during the process of home buying. 
This bill modifies the definition of high-cost loans so that 
manufactured housing loans are not unfairly swept under the high-cost 
loan designation simply due to their size.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would help ensure the availability of 
financing options for manufactured homes while preserving the necessary 
consumer protections in the Dodd-Frank Act and the SAFE Act. Let me say 
that one more time. This bill would help ensure the availability of 
financing options for manufactured homes while preserving the necessary 
consumer protections in the Dodd-Frank Act and the SAFE Act.
  H.R. 650 not only preserves Dodd-Frank's core consumer protections, 
but it helps consumers by restoring access to financing. Such financing 
enables working families and retirees to obtain housing that is much 
cheaper than renting or conventional home mortgage options.
  CFPB, HUD, and State oversight of manufactured lending will continue. 
Consumers will continue to have the wide range of mortgage protections 
established by Dodd-Frank, including the QM ``ability to repay'' 
requirement, the prohibition on steering incentives, the prohibition 
against steering a consumer to a loan that has predatory 
characteristics, the prohibition on mandatory arbitration, loan term 
disclosure requirements, and the other State and Federal laws.
  This bill is about ensuring access to affordable housing, especially 
in rural America, where rental properties are not as abundant as in 
urban areas. This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support by groups 
including the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers 
Association, the Manufactured Housing Institute, the National 
Organization of African Americans in Housing, the National Association 
of Federal Credit

[[Page H2179]]

Unions, the National Association of Mortgage Professionals, the 
California Association of Mortgage Professionals, and numerous 
manufactured housing State associations.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a compromise from last year's bipartisan 
bill. In an effort to gain even more support on both sides of the 
aisle, we introduced a bipartisan compromise again this Congress. This 
is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. It is an affordability of 
housing issue for rural America. We cannot forget about rural America, 
Mr. Speaker. These are my constituents and the constituents of many 
folks here who serve in this body.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to support this. With 
that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 650, which would 
undermine the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and eliminate consumer 
protections for some of the country's most vulnerable borrowers.
  Mr. Speaker, the talking points describe this bill as one that 
preserves access to manufactured housing. But the reality is that we 
have learned this bill is a solution to a problem that does not exist. 
We agreed that this issue needed additional study last year, and 
reports we have received from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
the manufactured housing industry, and the Center for Public Integrity 
have all shown us that this measure would not create access to 
affordable housing but would instead allow an incredibly profitable 
industry to make even more money by charging exorbitant interest rates 
and fees to low-income borrowers.
  The industry itself asserts that it has been growing and is highly 
profitable even with the Dodd-Frank mortgage protections in place. In 
fact, according to its trade association, the manufactured housing 
industry recorded shipment increases in every month of 2014. The 
Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform found that 2014 
marked a ``fifth consecutive year of annual industry production 
increases.''
  Even one of the world's investors, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren 
Buffet, has been touting the post-Dodd-Frank profitability of 
manufactured housing. In a letter to his shareholders, he pointed out 
that Clayton Homes, Berkshire's highly profitable manufacturing housing 
subsidiary, earned a total of $558 million in 2014--an increase of 34 
percent over 2013. Yes, that is a 34 percent increase, even after the 
Dodd-Frank rules were in place.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is the same Clayton Homes that was 
the subject of a recent Seattle Times-Center for Public Integrity joint 
investigation that found this manufactured housing empire profits in 
every imaginable way--from producing the housing, to selling the 
housing, to originating loans that take advantage of vulnerable 
consumers and leave them virtually no way to refinance.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I insert this article into the Record. This, again, 
is a scathing article that was produced by The Seattle Times.

 [From the Seattle Times and The Center for Public Integrity, April 7, 
                                 2015]

  The Mobile-Home Trap: How a Warren Buffett Empire Preys on the Poor

       EPHRATA, Grant County.--After years of living in a 1963 
     travel trailer, Kirk and Patricia Ackley found a permanent 
     house with enough space to host grandkids and care for her 
     aging father suffering from dementia. So, as the pilot cars 
     prepared to guide the factory-built home up from Oregon in 
     May 2006, the Ackleys were elated to finalize paperwork 
     waiting for them at their loan broker's kitchen table.
       But the closing documents he set before them held a 
     surprise: The promised 7 percent interest rate was now 12.5 
     percent, with monthly payments of $1,100, up from $700.
       The terms were too extreme for the Ackleys. But they'd 
     already spent $11,000, at the dealer's urging, for a concrete 
     foundation to accommodate this specific home. They could look 
     for other financing but desperately needed a space to care 
     for her father.
       Kirk's construction job and Patricia's Wal-Mart job 
     together weren't enough to afford the new monthly payment. 
     But, they said, the broker was willing to inflate their 
     income in order to qualify them for the loan. ``You just need 
     to remember,'' they recalled him saying, ``you can refinance 
     as soon as you can.''
       To their regret, the Ackleys signed.
       The disastrous deal ruined their finances and nearly their 
     marriage. But until informed recently by a reporter, they 
     didn't realize that the homebuilder (Golden West), the dealer 
     (Oakwood Homes) and the lender (21st Mortgage) were all part 
     of a single company: Clayton Homes, the nation's biggest 
     homebuilder, which is controlled by its second-richest man--
     Warren Buffett.
       Buffett's mobile-home empire promises low-income Americans 
     the dream of homeownership. But Clayton relies on predatory 
     sales practices, exorbitant fees, and interest rates that can 
     exceed 15 percent, trapping many buyers in loans they can't 
     afford and in homes that are almost impossible to sell or 
     refinance, an investigation by The Seattle Times and Center 
     for Public Integrity has found.
       Berkshire Hathaway, the investment conglomerate Buffett 
     leads, bought Clayton in 2003 and spent billions building it 
     into the mobile-home industry's biggest manufacturer and 
     lender. Today, Clayton is a many headed hydra with companies 
     operating under at least 18 names, constructing nearly half 
     of the industry's new homes and selling them through its own 
     retailers. It finances more mobile-home purchases than any 
     other lender by a factor of six. It also sells property 
     insurance on them and repossesses them when borrowers fail to 
     pay.
       Berkshire extracts value at every stage of the process. 
     Clayton even builds the homes with materials--such as paint 
     and carpeting--supplied by other Berkshire subsidiaries.
       More than a dozen Clayton customers described a consistent 
     array of deceptive practices that locked them into ruinous 
     deals: loan terms that changed abruptly after they paid 
     deposits or prepared land for their new homes; surprise fees 
     tacked on to loans; and pressure to take on excessive 
     payments based on false promises that they could later 
     refinance.
       Former dealers said the company encouraged them to steer 
     buyers to finance with Clayton's own high-interest lenders.
       Under federal guidelines, most Clayton mobile-home loans 
     are considered ``higher-priced.'' Those loans averaged 7 
     percentage points higher than the typical home loan in 2013, 
     according to a Times/CPI analysis of federal data, compared 
     to just 3.8 percentage points for other lenders.
       Buyers told of Clayton collection agents urging them to cut 
     back on food and medical care or seek handouts in order to 
     make house payments. And when homes got hauled off to be 
     resold, some consumers already had paid so much in fees and 
     interest that the company still came out ahead. Even through 
     the Great Recession and housing crisis, Clayton was 
     profitable every year, generating $558 million in pre-tax 
     earnings in 2014.
       The company's tactics contrast with Buffett's public 
     profile as a financial sage who values responsible lending 
     and helping poor Americans keep their homes.
       Berkshire Hathaway spokeswoman Carrie Soya and Clayton 
     spokeswoman Audrey Saunders ignored more than a dozen 
     requests by phone, email and in person to discuss Clayton's 
     policies and treatment of consumers. In an emailed statement, 
     Saunders said Clayton helps customers find homes within their 
     budgets and has a ``purpose of opening doors to a better 
     life, one home at a time.''


                             First, a dream

       As Buffett tells it, his purchase of Clayton Homes came 
     from an ``unlikely source'': Visiting students from the 
     University of Tennessee gave him a copy of founder Jim 
     Clayton's self-published memoir, ``First a Dream,'' in early 
     2003. Buffett enjoyed reading the book and admired Tim 
     Clayton's record, he has said, and soon called CEO Kevin 
     Clayton, offering to buy the company.
       ``A few phone calls later, we had a deal,'' Buffett said at 
     his 2003 shareholders meeting, according to notes taken at 
     the meeting by hedge-fund manager Whitney Tilson.
       The tale of serendipitous dealmaking paints Buffett and the 
     Claytons as sharing down-to-earth values, antipathy for Wall 
     Street and an old-fashioned belief in treating people fairly. 
     But, in fact, the man who brought the students to Omaha said 
     Clayton's book wasn't the genesis of the deal.
       ``The Claytons really initiated this contact,'' said Al 
     Auxier, the Tennessee professor, since retired, who 
     chaperoned the student trip after fostering a relationship 
     with the billionaire.
       CEO Kevin Clayton, the founder's son, reached out to 
     Buffett through Auxier, the professor said in a recent 
     interview, and asked whether Buffett might explore ``a 
     business relationship'' with Clayton Homes.
       At the time, mobile-home loans had been defaulting at 
     alarming rates, and investors had grown wary of them. Kevin 
     Clayton was seeking a new source of cash to relend to 
     homebuyers. He knew that Berkshire Hathaway, with its perfect 
     bond rating, could provide it as cheaply as anyone. Later 
     that year, Berkshire Hathaway paid $1.7 billion in cash to 
     buy Clayton Homes.
       Clayton provided more than half of new mobile-home loans in 
     eight states. In Texas, the number exceeds 70 percent. 
     Clayton has more than 90 percent of the market in Odessa, one 
     of the most expensive places in the country to finance a 
     mobile home.
       To maintain its down-to-earth image, Clayton has hired the 
     stars of the reality-TV show ``Duck Dynasty'' to appear in 
     ads.
       The company's headquarters is a hulking structure of metal 
     sheeting surrounded by

[[Page H2180]]

     acres of parking lots and a beach volleyball court for 
     employees, located a few miles south of Knoxville, Tenn. Next 
     to the front door, there is a slot for borrowers to deposit 
     payments.
       Near the headquarters, two Clayton sales lots sit three 
     miles from each other. Clayton Homes' banners promise ``$0 
     CASH DOWN.'' TruValue Homes, also owned by Clayton, 
     advertises ``REPOS FOR SALE.'' Other nearby Clayton lots 
     operate as Luv Homes and Oakwood Homes. With all the 
     different names, many customers believe that they're shopping 
     around.
       House-sized banners at dealerships reinforce that 
     impression, proclaiming they will ``BEAT ANY DEAL.'' In some 
     parts of the country, buyers would have to drive many miles 
     past several Clayton-owned lots, to reach a true competitor.


                        Guided into costly loans

       Soon after Buffett bought Clayton Homes, he declared a new 
     dawn for the moribund mobile-home industry, which provides 
     housing for some 20 million Americans. Lenders should require 
     ``significant down payments and shorter-term loans,'' Buffett 
     wrote.
       He called 30-year loans on mobile homes ``a mistake,'' 
     according to notes Tilson took during Berkshire Hathaway's 
     2003 shareholders meeting.
       ``Home purchases should involve an honest-to-God down 
     payment of at least 10% and monthly payments that can be 
     comfortably handled by the borrower's income,'' Buffett later 
     wrote. ``That income should be carefully verified.''
       But in examining more than 100 Clayton home sales through 
     interviews and reviews of loan documents from 41 states, 
     reporters found that the company's loans routinely violated 
     the lending standards laid out by Buffett.
       Clayton dealers often sold homes with no cash down payment. 
     Numerous borrowers said they were persuaded to take on 
     outsized payments by dealers promising that they could later 
     refinance. And the average loan term actually increased from 
     21 years in 2007 to more than 23 years in 2009, the last time 
     Berkshire disclosed that detail.
       Clayton's loan to Dorothy Mansfield, a disabled Army 
     veteran who lost her previous North Carolina home to a 
     tornado in 2011, includes key features that Buffett 
     condemned.
       Mansfield had a lousy credit score of 474, court records 
     show. Although she had seasonal and part-time jobs, her 
     monthly income often consisted of less than $700 in 
     disability benefits. She had no money for a down payment when 
     she visited Clayton Homes in Fayetteville, N.C.
       Vanderbilt, one of Clayton's lenders, approved her for a 
     $60,000, 20-year loan to buy a Clayton home at 10.13 percent 
     annual interest. She secured the loan with two parcels of 
     land that her family already owned free and clear.
       The dealer didn't request any documents to verify 
     Mansfield's income or employment, records show. Mansfield's 
     monthly payment of $673 consumed almost all of her 
     guaranteed income. Within 18 months, she was behind on 
     payments and Clayton was trying to foreclose on the home 
     and land.
       Many borrowers interviewed for this investigation described 
     being steered by Clayton dealers into Clayton financing 
     without realizing the companies were one and the same. 
     Sometimes, buyers said, the dealer described the financing as 
     the best deal available. Other times, the Clayton dealer said 
     it was the only financing option.
       Kevin Carroll, former owner of a Clayton-affiliated 
     dealership in Indiana, said in an interview that he used 
     business loans from a Clayton lender to finance inventory for 
     his lot. If he also guided homebuyers to work with the same 
     lender, 21st Mortgage, the company would give him a discount 
     on his business loans--a ``kickback,'' in his words.
       Doug Farley, who was a general manager at several Clayton-
     owned dealerships, also used the term ``kickback'' to 
     describe the profit-share he received on Clayton loans until 
     around 2008. After that, the company changed its incentives 
     to instead provide ``kickbacks'' on sales of Clayton's 
     insurance to borrowers, he said.
       Ed Atherton, a former lot manager in Arkansas, said his 
     regional supervisor was pressuring lot managers to put at 
     least 80 percent of buyers into Clayton financing. Atherton 
     left the company in 2013.
       During the most recent four-year period, 93 percent of 
     Clayton's mobile-home loans had such costly terms that they 
     required extra disclosure under federal rules. Among all 
     other mobile-home lenders, fewer than half of their loans met 
     that threshold.
       Customers said in interviews that dealers misled them to 
     take on unaffordable loans, with tactics including last-
     minute changes to loan terms and unexplained fees that 
     inflate loan balances. Such loans are, by definition, 
     predatory.
       ``They're going to assume the client is unsophisticated, 
     and they're right,'' said Felix Harris, a housing counselor 
     with the nonprofit Knoxville Area Urban League.
       Some borrowers felt trapped because they put up a deposit 
     before the dealer explained the loan terms or, like the 
     Ackleys, felt compelled to swallow bait-and-switch deals 
     because they had spent thousands to prepare their land.


                             Promise denied

       A couple of years after moving into their new mobile home, 
     Kirk Ackley was injured in a backhoe rollover. Unable to 
     work, he and his wife urgently needed to refinance the costly 
     21st Mortgage loan they regretted signing.
       They pleaded with the lender several times for the better 
     terms that they originally were promised, but were denied, 
     they said. The Ackleys tried to explain the options to a 21st 
     supervisor: If they refinanced to lower payments, they could 
     stay in the home and 21st would get years of steady returns. 
     Otherwise, the company would have to come out to their rural 
     property, pull the house from its foundation and haul it 
     away, possibly damaging it during the repossession.
       They both recall being baffled by his reply: ``We don't 
     care. We'll come take a chainsaw to it--cut it up and haul it 
     out in boxes.''
       Nine Clayton consumers interviewed for this story said they 
     were promised a chance to refinance. In reality, Clayton 
     almost never refinances loans and accounts for well under 1 
     percent of mobile-home refinancings reported in government 
     data from 2010 to 2013. It made more than one-third of the 
     purchase loans during that period.
       Of Washington's 25 largest mobile-home lenders, Clayton's 
     subsidiaries ranked No. 1 and No. 2 for the highest interest 
     rates in 2013. Together, they ranked eighth in loans 
     originated.
       ``If you have a decrease in income and can't afford the 
     mortgage, at least a lot of the big companies will do 
     modifications,'' said Harris, the Knoxville housing 
     counselor. ``Vanderbilt won't even entertain that.'' In 
     general, owners have difficulty refinancing or selling their 
     mobile homes because few lenders offer such loans. One big 
     reason: Homes are overpriced or depreciate so quickly that 
     they generally are worth less than what the borrower owes, 
     even after years of monthly payments.
       Ellie Carosa, of Napavine, Lewis County, found this out the 
     hard way in 2010 after she put down some $40,000 from an 
     inheritance to buy a used home from Clayton priced at about 
     $65,000.
       Clayton sales reps steered Carosa, who is 67 years old and 
     disabled, to finance the unpaid amount through Vanderbilt at 
     9 percent interest over 20 years.
       One year later, Carosa was already having problems--peeling 
     paint and failing carpets--so she decided to have a market 
     expert assess the value of her home. She hoped to eventually 
     sell the house so the money could help her granddaughter, 
     whom she adopted as her daughter at age 8, attend a local 
     college to study music. Carosa was stunned to learn that the 
     home was worth only $35,000, far less than her original 
     down payment. ``I've lost everything,'' Carosa said.


                  `Rudest, most condescending' agents

       Berkshire's borrowers who fall behind on their payments 
     face harassing, potentially illegal phone calls from a 
     company rarely willing to offer relief.
       Carol Carroll, a nurse living near Bug Tussle, Ala., began 
     looking for a new home in 2003 after her husband had died, 
     leaving her with a 6-year-old daughter. Instead of a down 
     payment, she said, the salesman assured her she could simply 
     put up two acres of her family land as collateral.
       In December 2005, Carroll was permanently disabled in a 
     catastrophic car accident in which two people were killed. 
     Knowing it would take a few months for her disability 
     benefits to be approved, Carroll said, she called Vanderbilt 
     and asked for a temporary reprieve. The company's answer: 
     ``We don't do that.''
       However, Clayton ratcheted up her property-insurance 
     premiums, eventually costing her $803 more per year than when 
     she started, she said. Carroll was one of several Clayton 
     borrowers who felt trapped in the company's insurance, often 
     because they were told they had no other options. Some had as 
     many as five years' worth of expensive premiums included in 
     their loans, inflating the total balance to be repaid with 
     interest. Others said they were misled into signing up even 
     though they already had other insurance. Carroll has since 
     sold belongings, borrowed money from relatives and cut back 
     on groceries to make payments. When she was late, she spoke 
     frequently to Clayton's phone agents, whom she described as 
     ``the rudest, most condescending people I have ever dealt 
     with.'' It's a characterization echoed by almost every 
     borrower interviewed for this story.
       Consumers say the company's response to pleas for help is 
     an invasive interrogation about their family budgets, 
     including how much they spend on food, toiletries and 
     utilities.
       Denise Pitts, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Vanderbilt 
     collectors have called her multiple times a day, with one 
     suggesting that she cancel her Internet service, even though 
     she home-schools her son. They have called her relatives and 
     neighbors, a tactic other borrowers reported.
       After Pitts' husband, Kirk, was diagnosed with aggressive 
     cancer, she said, a Vanderbilt agent told her she should make 
     the house payment her ``first priority'' and let medical 
     bills go unpaid. She said the company has threatened to seize 
     her property immediately even though the legal process to do 
     so would take at least several months.
       Practices like contacting neighbors, calling repeatedly and 
     making false threats can violate consumer-protection laws in 
     Washington, Tennessee and other states.
       Last year, frequent complaints about Clayton's aggressive 
     collection practices led Tennessee state officials to contact 
     local housing counselors seeking information about

[[Page H2181]]

     their experiences with the company, according to two people 
     with knowledge of the conversations.


                        Treated like car owners

       Mobile-home buyers who own their land sites may be able to 
     finance their home purchases with real-estate mortgages, 
     which give them more federal and state consumer protections 
     than the other major financing option, a personal-property 
     loan. With conventional home mortgages, companies must wait 
     120 days before starting foreclosure. In some states, the 
     foreclosure process can take more than a year, giving 
     consumers a chance to save their homes.
       Despite these protections, two-thirds of mobile-home buyers 
     who own their land end up in personal-property loans, 
     according to a federal study. These loans may close more 
     quickly and have fewer upfront costs, but their rates are 
     generally much higher. And if borrowers fall behind on 
     payments, their homes can be seized with little or no 
     wanting.
       Those buyers are more vulnerable because they end up being 
     treated like car owners instead of homeowners, said Bruce 
     Neas, an attorney who has worked for years on foreclosure and 
     manufactured-housing issues in Washington state.
       Tiffany Galler was a single mother living in Crestview, 
     Fla., in 2005 when she bought a mobile home for $37,195 with 
     a loan from 21st Mortgage. She later rented out the home.
       After making payments over eight years totaling more than 
     the sticker price of the home, Galler lost her tenant in 
     November 2013 and fell behind on her payments. She arranged 
     to show the home to a prospective renter two months later. 
     But when she arrived at her homesite, Galler found barren 
     dirt with PVC pipe sticking up from the ground.
       She called 911, thinking someone had stolen her home.
       Hours later, Galler tracked her repossessed house to a 
     sales lot 30 miles away that was affiliated with 21st. It was 
     listed for $25,900.


                        Clayton wins concessions

       The government has known for years about concerns that 
     mobile-home buyers are treated unfairly. Little has been 
     done.
       Fifteen years ago, Congress directed the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development to examine issues such as loan 
     terms and regulations in order to find ways to make mobile 
     homes affordable. That's still on HUD's to-do list.
       The industry, however, has protected its interests 
     vigorously. Clayton Homes is represented in Washington, DC, 
     by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), a trade group 
     that has a Clayton executive as its vice chairman and another 
     as its secretary. CEO Kevin Clayton has represented MHI 
     before Congress.
       MHI spent $4.5 million since 2003 lobbying the federal 
     government. Those efforts have helped the company escape much 
     scrutiny, as has Buffett's persona as a man of the people, 
     analysts say.
       ``There is a Teflon aspect to Warren Buffett,'' said James 
     McRitchie, who runs a widely read blog, Corporate Governance.
       Still, after the housing crisis, lawmakers tightened 
     protections for mortgage borrowers with a sweeping overhaul 
     known as the Dodd-Frank Act, creating regulatory headaches 
     for the mobile-home industry. Kevin Clayton complained to 
     lawmakers in 2011 that the new rules would lump in some of 
     his company's loans with ``subprime, predatory'' mortgages, 
     making it harder for mobile-home buyers ``to obtain 
     affordable financing.''
       Although the rules had yet to take effect that year, 99 
     percent of Clayton's mobile-home loans were so expensive that 
     they met the federal government's ``higher-priced'' 
     threshold.
       Dodd-Frank also tasked federal financial regulators with 
     creating appraisal requirements for risky loans. Appraisals 
     are common for conventional home sales, protecting both the 
     lender and the consumer from a bad deal.
       Clayton's own data suggest that its mobile homes may be 
     overpriced from the start, according to comments it filed 
     with federal regulators. When Vanderbilt was required to 
     obtain appraisals before finalizing a loan, company officials 
     wrote, the home was determined to be worth less than the 
     sales price about 30 percent of the time.
       But when federal agencies jointly proposed appraisal rules 
     in September 2012, industry objections led them to exempt 
     loans secured solely by a manufactured home.
       Then Clayton pushed for more concessions, arguing that 
     manufactured-home loans tied to land should also be exempt. 
     Paul Nichols, then-president of Clayton's Vanderbilt 
     Mortgage, told regulators that the appraisal requirement 
     would be costly and onerous, significantly reducing ``the 
     availability of affordable housing in the United States.''
       In 2013, regulators conceded. They will not require a 
     complete appraisal for new manufactured homes.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. The investigation found that Clayton 
locked one disabled veteran in Tennessee, Dorothy Mansfield, into an 
expensive loan even though the required monthly payment would leave her 
only $27 to cover the rest of her living costs. Other borrowers were 
quoted inexpensive loan terms only to see interest and fees skyrocket 
once they had put down a nonrefundable deposit--or paid out large 
amounts of money to prepare their land for installation of the home. 
Just like subprime borrowers in the financial crisis, many looking to 
purchase manufactured housing were convinced to take out high-cost 
loans because they were sold false promises that they would be able to 
refinance to lower rates in the future.
  Former Clayton salespeople have blown the whistle. They are coming 
forward, and they are talking. They have attested that they have 
pressured consumers to use Clayton-affiliated financing even if it 
wasn't the best deal, and some even received kickbacks for putting 
customers into more expensive loans.
  If enacted, H.R. 650 would allow abusive lenders to charge up to 
nearly 14 percent interest before consumer protections are triggered, 
more than four times what the average borrower is paying on a home 
loan. There is not one Member of Congress who would pay or is paying 14 
percent interest, 12, 13, 11 percent interest. This is outrageous.
  In the coming years, this number could very well grow to 16 percent, 
17 percent, and likely 18 percent as interest rates rise back to 
normal. Even worse, the bill would also make it legal for Clayton sales 
personnel to steer borrowers toward high-cost loans--loans from other 
parts of the Clayton conglomerate--that are not in their interest--a 
practice we banned for all loan originators after the financial crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to manufactured housing, consumers are 
already exposed to significant risk: high interest rates, the inability 
to refinance, and in many cases, depreciation that starts as soon as 
the manufactured home is sold. Today, we consider a measure that would 
even further roll back key protections.
  This measure would do away with a number of protections current law 
affords to many high-cost loans such as stiffer penalties for bad actor 
lenders, additional disclosures for investors and consumers who 
purchase high-cost mortgages, mandatory counseling so borrowers would 
know what they are getting into, and even the ability of borrowers to 
have their loan rescinded if lenders don't follow the law. They would 
lose all of these protections.
  As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau noted in their study of 
the manufactured housing industry, the individuals who apply for loans 
for manufactured housing ``include consumers that may be considered 
more financially vulnerable and, thus, may particularly stand to 
benefit from strong consumer protections.'' And now, in addition to the 
CFPB's report, we have investigative reporting that puts names, faces, 
and individual stories of woe to the CFPB's description of market 
practices and policy failures.
  Finally, the Obama administration has said that they ``strongly 
oppose'' this bill because it would ``put lowest income and 
economically vulnerable consumers at significant risk of being 
subjected to predatory lending and being steered into more expensive 
loans even when they qualify for lower cost alternatives.''
  Rolling back consumer protections amidst evidence that the 
manufactured housing industry needs more oversight is a dangerous 
giveaway to a sector that already profits handsomely at the expense of 
vulnerable borrowers.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker and Members, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I enter into the Record a letter from Mr. Barney Frank back in 2011, 
a former chairman and former ranking member of our committee, on this 
issue:

       Thank you for your thoughtful letter about the negative 
     impact of the Financial Reform bill on manufactured housing. 
     I'm very proud of the work I have done with the manufactured 
     housing industry for years and was regretful to realize that 
     we did have this problem. I do not think it is necessary to 
     include manufactured housing as part of our effort to prevent 
     abusive mortgage practices, and I am now working with my 
     staff to see if we can find a way to make a change that would 
     deal with the problem you currently point out.

  Mr. Speaker, so much of what the ranking member, my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle is saying--we are

[[Page H2182]]

not messing with those parts of the bill that strengthen protections. 
All we are doing is fixing the unintended consequences that happened 
with the Dodd-Frank bill being so big.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer), my good friend, the chairman of the Financial Institutions 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
  This bill isn't about profits; it is about providing an opportunity 
for American families to have housing choices.
  H.R. 650 is an important bill for communities in my district, the 
Texas 19th District, and communities across America. For most of my 
career, I was in a home building business. For many small communities 
in my district, the town would make efforts to go out and work to 
recruit a new employer.
  Oftentimes, this could be a manufacturer, cotton, or dairy production 
facility. This goal was to help develop the economy and provide job 
opportunities for the folks. However, in many of these communities, 
there is already a limited amount of housing stock available.
  In order for these communities to grow, you have to have sufficient 
housing availability to attract those businesses. You can't grow your 
community if folks don't have a place to live, and so the manufactured 
housing industry has been an integral part of providing housing for 
rural America. Unfortunately, under the new mortgage rules coming out 
of CFPB, the manufactured housing industry is facing some pretty 
significant headwinds and regulatory obstacles.
  Last summer, I had the opportunity to go and visit a manufactured 
housing dealer in my district. The dealer began by telling me stories 
of family after family that were unable to serve because of the new 
mortgage restrictions.
  For some of these young families, this is the first home that they 
may own. It may be a manufactured home worth only $15,000 or $20,000, 
and they are very proud of it. Unfortunately, today, many of the 
families in rural America have run out of places to turn to achieve the 
American Dream and own an affordable home.
  Today, I want to address the issue of consumer protection. When 
consumer protection starts limiting consumer choices, then we have gone 
too far.
  Unfortunately, I think many of the CFPB rules have gone too far. They 
are not only negatively impacting the consumers, but we also have a 
duty to make sure that the people we represent have the opportunities 
to make their own financial decisions about their housing and not the 
Federal Government and not one agency to make that decision for them.
  This bill, H.R. 650, makes important corrections to the definition of 
a mortgage originator under the Truth in Lending Act. It is a 
bipartisan bill that ensures low- and moderate-income families have 
access to credit for the purchase of affordable homes.
  It ensures that the CFPB rules are properly calibrated and don't 
consider small-balance manufactured home loans as high-cost loans under 
the Housing Ownership and Equity Protection Act.
  For those reasons, I thank Mr. Fincher and the bipartisan sponsors 
for their work on this bill, and I support its final passage.
  I just want to mention that, when you look at a lot of these small 
communities--and it has been mentioned, Well, sometimes, people can 
rent, or they can own; and, in some cases, people say, you know--and 
rightfully so--that, sometimes, manufactured housing is a lower cost of 
housing for some of those people.
  Let me say this: in some of these communities, it is not about 
whether you have a choice to rent or to own; in some cases, there is 
just not adequate housing stock in those communities.
  If you want to choke a little small community across America, you 
take away the ability to provide housing. That is one of the main 
infrastructures for any community to grow. In many of these 
communities, there hasn't been a new house built in those communities 
in 30 or 40 years.
  What you are saying to those small communities, because we are so 
intent in protecting Americans and we don't trust them to make their 
own decisions, we are just going to take away any opportunity that 
those small communities have to prosper and grow in the future.
  Now, I don't think that is what the Founding Fathers of this country 
intended. They intended for this to be the land of opportunity. If we 
continue to do these kinds of things, we take away the opportunities of 
Americans that want to live in those communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of this.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important 
for people to know that that letter that was read was back in 2011, and 
that was prior to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's very 
investigative reporting.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters.
  Today, I stand in support of H.R. 650, the Preserving Access to 
Manufactured Housing Act. Manufactured housing serves as an affordable 
and sustainable housing option for roughly 22 million Americans. In my 
State of Alabama, more than 300,000 families reside in manufactured 
housing, which comprises in excess of 14 percent of the State's housing 
market.
  In districts like mine, where we face tremendous economic disparities 
and suppressed rental markets, manufactured housing must remain an 
option. Oftentimes, it is the only safe and affordable mortgage option 
available to families.
  Without this bill, working families and retirees with poor credit or 
limited income can't obtain credit at all and are forced into more 
expensive housing options; and, in some parts of my district, the more 
rural parts of my district, the only option for many is manufactured 
housing.
  H.R. 650 makes a simple but necessary adjustment to these thresholds 
to enable lenders to fully meet the demand for affordable, responsible 
loans for manufactured homes.
  In many ways, Mr. Speaker, this bill is an acknowledgement that 
manufactured housing is different from regular dwelling housing. It is, 
in fact, not real property, but personal property, more like a car than 
it is like a home.
  The fact of the matter is I believe that Dodd-Frank did not 
anticipate--was an unintended consequence of Dodd-Frank--that 
manufactured housing would get wrapped into the regulatory scheme for 
dwelling homes.
  In fact, most of the lenders are not loan originators, as it would be 
in the mortgage context; rather, they are lenders giving limited 
options--I should say giving families, working families, the only 
option in many, many of the jurisdictions, the rural communities, that 
I represent.
  With all due respect, I don't see this as a predatory lending bill. 
This is all about access to affordability. I, like the ranking member, 
strongly advocate against predatory lending, would not be supportive of 
an industry that preys upon the most vulnerable in the community.
  In fact, many of my constituents represent vulnerable communities. 
Instead, I really see this as an opportunity for them, many of the 
communities I represent, to have affordable housing at all.
  It is with that that I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to consider H.R. 650 as an opportunity for rural communities all across 
America to have, as a viable option, manufactured housing.
  I want to repeat something that was very important. In no way does 
this bill take away consumer protections. The consumer protections that 
were established by Dodd-Frank are really important.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. The consumers will continue to have the wide 
range of consumer protections that Dodd-Frank affords and which I think 
many of us agree with.
  Steering would be prohibited. We would still have truth-in-lending 
disclosures, which are critically important, and loan-term disclosures 
that are critically important; and the prohibitation against mandatory 
arbitration and other State laws are not affected.

[[Page H2183]]

  I see this not as a predatory lending bill, but an access to 
affordable housing bill, and I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 650.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Alabama for supporting the legislation.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want 
to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his leadership on this very 
important issue, Mr. Fincher, for being a champion for affordability of 
housing and manufactured housing in particular.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues who are supporting this 
important legislation that I had cosponsored, the Preserving Access to 
Manufactured Housing Act, and it is a bipartisan bill, and that is 
important.
  Affordable manufactured housing is a key source of housing for many 
of our constituents, particularly those living in rural areas, 
including my district in central and eastern Kentucky, many of those 
individuals who could not otherwise afford to buy or even rent a home.
  Unfortunately, due to the regulatory requirements of the Dodd-Frank 
Act, many lenders have stopped offering loans for manufactured houses. 
The loans in question are generally fixed-rate, fixed-termed, fully 
amortized, small-dollar loans that have nothing in common with the bad 
mortgage loans that brought down the housing market in 2008; yet the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has treated retailers of 
manufactured homes as ``mortgage originators,'' despite the fact that 
they do not originate loans.
  Furthermore, the small-dollar amounts of manufactured housing 
triggers high-cost regulatory controls since points and fees represent 
a proportionally larger share of a small-dollar loan than a larger 30-
year mortgage on real property.
  These definitions increase the regulatory and liability burdens on 
retailers and lenders, driving them from the market and resulting in 
higher costs and reduced choice for prospective home buyers.
  In fact, due to the increased lender liability associated with this 
mortgage designation, some manufactured housing lenders have stopped 
making manufactured home loans entirely, and others have stopped 
originating manufactured home loans under $20,000, which is a typical 
price point.
  The legislation before us today does nothing to roll back existing 
protections against predatory lending, as has been said previously by 
my friend on the other side of the aisle, Congresswoman Sewell.
  H.R. 650 merely clarifies the definitions for mortgage originators in 
high-cost loans to correct an unfortunate consequence of these 
regulations that the Federal Government will be protecting homeowners 
right out of their homes.
  This legislation will reduce the bureaucratic red tape, increase 
access to affordable manufactured housing for American families, and 
let me just conclude by saying this in response to some of the 
arguments made by the ranking member. She made the point that 
manufactured home sales are increasing. Well, that is not an argument 
against this legislation.
  On the contrary, it underscores the extent to which Americans are 
relying on manufactured housing in the Obama economy and the need to 
preserve access to lower-priced, more affordable homes, homes such as 
manufactured homes, which commonly are available at lower monthly 
payments than what it cost even to rent. It also reinforces the need 
for this legislation because we need to preserve access to affordable 
housing.
  This argument, this canard that this is somehow rolling back consumer 
protections for lower-income homeowners, this is not true at all. This 
legislation does nothing to roll back consumer protections. I simply do 
not define consumer protection as a law that tries to protect people in 
a way that makes access to housing completely unreachable. That is not 
consumer protection.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
bipartisan piece of legislation that preserves access to affordable 
housing and preserves commonsense consumer protections.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important 
for me to correct statements that have been made more than once by the 
opposite side of the aisle about consumer protections.
  H.R. 650 would remove consumer protections afforded to borrowers of 
high-priced mortgage loans under the Home Ownership and Equity 
Protection Act, as enhanced by Dodd-Frank, for manufactured housing 
loans that currently receive such protections.

                              {time}  1530

  Those protections include:
  Prior to making a high-cost mortgage, the lender must receive written 
certification that the consumer has received counseling from a HUD-
approved counselor or State agency. That would be out. Restrictions on 
loan terms for high-cost mortgages, including the loan payments 
currently only allowed in very limited circumstances; prepayment 
penalties banned; a limitation of due-on-demand features of loans; 
creditors banned from recommending default on an existing loan to be 
refinanced by a high-cost mortgage; no fees can be charged by services 
or creditors to modify or renew or extend a high-cost mortgage; late 
fees capped at 4 percent of past due payments and the pyramiding of 
fees banned; no fees for borrowers to receive a payoff statement; 
charges that qualify for points and fees cannot be financed into 
principal balance; a ban on issuing two loans in order to evade HOEPA 
coverage by splitting fees and rates.
  All of these are protections that would be eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the fact that home sales 
are increasing for manufactured homes is even more of a reason for us 
to want to be protective of some kind of an industry that is growing.
  I represent areas in which there are a number of manufactured homes 
throughout the rural parts of Missouri that are included in the Fifth 
Congressional District. I am a capitalist. I believe that people ought 
to be able to make money. I think they ought to make money in the 
manufactured home industry, and I would like for them to make money in 
the Fifth Congressional District.
  Yet I think that everyone in here would agree that we have all had 
questions about what happens when a car is purchased and the driver 
drives it around the corner and loses about $1,200 in depreciation. 
Nobody I have ever met or had a conversation with said, Oh, I 
understand that. The car depreciates almost as soon as you sign the 
note. What happens is that this is an unintended reason for more, I 
think, congressional oversight of this particular industry because 
these homes also lose value like automobiles. Let me give you an 
example from the Seattle study. This is sad, and I will try and do this 
quickly, Mr. Speaker.
  Tiffany Galler is a single mother who was living in Florida in 2005. 
She bought a mobile home for $37,165. With the loan she purchased from 
21st Mortgage, she then rented the home out. She made payments for 8 
years, payments totaling more than the sticker price of the home. 
Galler lost her tenant in November of 2013, and she fell behind on her 
payments. She arranged to show the home to a prospective renter 2 
months later, but when she arrived at her home site, Ms. Galler found 
barren dirt with PVC pipe sticking up from the ground. She called 911, 
thinking someone had stolen her home, but she found out later that her 
home was 30 miles away and was up for sale for $25,900.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. CLEAVER. That is a real reason for us not only to look at this 
industry but to protect people as it is growing.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Williams), my good friend.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 650, a bipartisan piece 
of legislation that would make commonsense changes to Dodd-Frank and 
restore

[[Page H2184]]

clarity to a market that has been hit hard by unnecessary regulations.
  Texas builds or manufactures over 25 percent of the Nation's new 
manufactured homes--almost 12,000 last year. To put that in 
perspective, Texas is home to 19 manufacturing facilities with an 
average of 185 skilled workers per factory. At a time when our Nation 
is still recovering from the financial crisis of 2008, now is the time 
to free small businesses from harmful regulations that only hurt hard-
working Americans. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to 
have access to affordable financing for manufactured homes, especially 
in central Texas, where the average home price for a manufactured home 
is $60,000.
  The one-size-fits-all regulatory approach under the CFPB is clearly 
not working. Instead of protecting potential consumers, the CFPB has, 
once again, gotten it wrong. Treating lending products for manufactured 
housing as high cost and predatory clearly will not protect consumers, 
but it will reduce access to small balance loans.
  With increased lender liabilities, obtaining a high-cost mortgage has 
become nearly impossible. Having critical resources for low- to 
moderate-income families is vital in many parts of rural America. By 
passing the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, Congress can 
correct one of the many unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act. 
This bill is fair, and this bill is logical. It must pass. I urge its 
immediate passage.
  In God we trust.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  Ms. SINEMA. Thank you, Ranking Member Waters, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, manufactured housing is a key form of affordable housing 
in my State, particularly in rural and underserved communities. More 
than 300,000 families in Arizona live in manufactured homes. 
Manufactured homes provide an affordable housing choice for many low- 
and moderate-income families.
  Existing manufactured home owners and potential buyers are negatively 
impacted by current regulations. These rules inadvertently curtail a 
consumer's ability to access manufactured home loans or to receive 
effective assistance in the manufactured home buying process. These 
regulations unintentionally create situations where borrowers are not 
allowed to be matched with lenders who can help them in a timely and 
efficient manner.
  For example, if a Realtor in Arizona works with a veteran who wants 
to use his or her VA eligibility to purchase a home, the Realtor 
connects the veteran with a number of lenders who offer VA home loans. 
Due to the current restrictions placed on retail salespeople, the 
process is different if a veteran shops for a manufactured home.
  Manufactured home sale centers have a marketing table where lenders 
place marketing and lending materials. Manufactured home salespeople 
cannot assist veterans in finding lenders. Instead, when a veteran 
enters the home center, she is instructed to go to the table and sift 
through the countless brochures and loan programs by herself to 
determine which lender is best. There may be a dozen different lenders' 
information displayed on this table. As you can imagine, this is a very 
daunting and discouraging process for most borrowers, especially for 
first-time home buyers.
  Had the salesperson simply been able to point the veteran in the 
direction of a lender that offers VA loans, the veteran would have been 
taken care of immediately and would have been able to have made 
an informed and confident decision.

  H.R. 650 will remedy the unintended consequences of current 
regulations, providing potential home buyers with more options, better 
advice, and more confidence when buying a new home.
  The bill also amends the definition of a ``high-cost mortgage'' and 
corresponding thresholds to ensure that consumers of small balance 
mortgage loans will have the opportunity to access mortgage credit. I 
would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Fincher, for yielding on this important 
measure, and thank you for your leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, it pains me to stand in opposition to my friend, the 
ranking member of the committee, and in support of H.R. 650, but I 
believe that H.R. 650 is a commonsense bill that actually preserves 
financing options for manufactured homes while preserving and 
maintaining consumer protections.
  I want to add too that my friend from Missouri noted the health of 
the industry, and I would like to provide a countercomment on that. In 
the last decade alone--this very tough economic decade that we have 
had--there has been an 80 percent decline in the production of 
manufactured housing in the country. Some 160 plants have closed, and 
there has been a loss of some 200,000 jobs. Therefore, this industry is 
important to our Nation. As a percentage of total housing units, in my 
home State of Arkansas, we have 170,000 units, which is some 13 percent 
of housing units in our State--one of the largest percentages in the 
country.
  For many years, I was a community banker with offices in the 
Mississippi Delta region of Arkansas. For many of our families, 
especially in rural areas, manufactured housing is not only the best 
option for housing, but it is the best option for clean, safe, modern, 
and affordable housing. Often, due to low volumes in these kinds of 
towns, it is the only option, as many of my colleagues have noted.
  However, under the new mortgage rules issued by the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, many of these manufactured housing loans 
are now automatically considered high cost and, therefore, would 
subject both the consumers to higher costs and the lenders to greater 
liability. Therefore, many of my old colleagues in community banking 
offer fewer loans, and that impacts hard-working, low- to moderate-
income families across Arkansas and particularly in rural America, 
families whose only objective is to own a home, to have the dream of 
homeownership.
  The Director of the CFPB has acknowledged that its rules may, in 
fact, have this issue of constraining credit, but as the executive 
director of Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association said in a recent 
letter:

       Most low-income Arkansas families don't have the luxury 
     when it comes to their mortgage options, and many of our 
     member businesses won't last through a few more years of 
     decline in sales.

  Mr. Speaker, I submit this letter for the Record.

                                             Arkansas Manufactured


                                          Housing Association,

     Hon. French Hill,
      House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hill: Congratulations on your election to 
     Congress representing Arkansas' 2nd District and on your 
     selection to the House Financial Services Committee.
       During the campaign, we visited briefly about how the 
     implementation of `The Dodd-Frank Act' (and the avalanche of 
     additional regulation created by the Act) hinders job 
     creation and increases the cost of financial services for 
     Arkansas consumers and businesses. More specifically, we 
     discussed how `Dodd-Frank' has adversely impacted the members 
     of the Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association (AMHA) and 
     their customers--low-to-moderate income homebuyers throughout 
     the state.
       Over the past year, the Consumer Financial Protection 
     Bureau (CFPB) has implemented a number of final rules, issued 
     interpretations of those rules, and clarifications of the 
     interpretations of those rules--all in defense of practices 
     that continue to disrupt consumer lending for low-to-moderate 
     income homebuyers, particularly to purchasers in 
     predominantly rural markets like Arkansas.
       At Congressional hearing about the Dodd-Frank's `Ability to 
     Repay' (ATR) and `Qualified Mortgage' (QM) rules, one of the 
     CFPB's key witnesses testified that the Bureau recognizes ``. 
     . . that concerns about liability under the Dodd-Frank Act's 
     `Ability-To-Repay' requirement might cause creditors to 
     constrain their lending--particularly in the first few YEARS 
     after the rule takes effect.''
       In response to that statement--on behalf of an industry 
     which over the past decade has experienced an 80 percent 
     decline in new home production; the closure of more than 160 
     manufacturing facilities; and the loss of more than 200,000 
     American jobs--I would say that most low-to-moderate income 
     Arkansas families don't have the luxury of taking a `wait and 
     see approach' when it comes to their mortgage options and 
     that many of our member businesses won't last through another 
     `few YEARS' of decline in production and sales.
       Throughout its continued rulemaking, the CFPB has 
     demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about 
     manufactured home lending. And, through the implementation of 
     rules like ATR and QM, the Bureau has created additional 
     challenges for manufactured

[[Page H2185]]

     home purchasers and lenders wishing to offer mortgage loans 
     on manufactured homes.
       As you are undoubtedly aware, lenders which provide 
     specific mortgage products for the manufactured home industry 
     (particularly personal property type `home only' [chattel] 
     loans), community banks and other financial institutions will 
     likely offer fewer manufactured home loan options if such 
     loans are not able to be classified as `qualified mortgages'. 
     The liability created by Dodd-Frank on such loans (classified 
     as `high cost' or `high priced') will prevent most 
     institutions from offering these loans to hard-working 
     Arkansas families.
       You also know that manufactured home loans tend to be lower 
     balance loans. And, while the cost of origination for a 
     $50,000 manufactured home loan may be the same as the cost of 
     origination for a $250,000 `site-built' home loan in `real 
     dollars'--that origination cost (when considered against the 
     lower-balance loan total) will more readily cause that lower-
     balance loan to fall outside the parameters of a `qualified 
     mortgage'.
       The loss of mortgage options for paycheck-to-paycheck wage 
     earners seeking to attain `The American Dream of Home 
     Ownership'--particularly in a state where the median annual 
     household income is around $40,000--will keep many Arkansas 
     families living in rental units or dependent upon government 
     assistance programs for their housing needs.
       The manufactured home industry is asking for your immediate 
     assistance with industry-specific legislation to amend the 
     provisions of Dodd-Frank which are restricting the 
     availability of credit needed by those seeking to purchase 
     manufactured housing. H.R. 650--The Preserving Access to 
     Manufactured Housing Act--would revise the high-cost mortgage 
     triggers for manufactured home loans and make clarifications 
     to the loan originator definition as it applies to 
     manufactured home retailers and their salespeople.
       On behalf of the members of the Arkansas Manufactured 
     Housing Association (AMHA) and the customers that we serve, I 
     would respectfully request that you become a co-sponsor of 
     H.R. 650.
       Thank you for your consideration of this issue of great 
     importance to the manufactured housing industry and our 
     customers--the low-to-moderate income families of Arkansas. 
     Feel free to contact me if you have questions about this 
     request.
           Sincerely,

                                                  J.D. Harper,

                                               Executive Director,
                        Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association.

  Mr. HILL. Regarding consumer protection, I agree with my colleagues 
that this bill does not weaken any current laws. It protects consumer 
access to affordable credit; it preserves the consumer's choice; it 
helps Americans achieve financial independence; and it prevents the 
CFPB rules from overprotecting low-income consumers out of the option 
of a manufactured home.
  H.R. 650 is about protecting the American Dream of homeownership. I 
am proud to support this bipartisan bill. I think it is common sense.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Members, I reiterate that H.R. 650 would remove consumer protections 
afforded to borrowers of high-priced mortgage loans under the Home 
Ownership and Equity Protection Act, as enhanced by Dodd-Frank, for 
manufactured housing loans that currently receive such protections, and 
I read off some of those protections.
  I further want to share that these lenders want to be able to 
originate these high-priced loans at 14 percent and even more when the 
interest rates change, but they want this bill to change the definition 
of a ``mortgage originator'' so that the licensing and antisteering 
requirements of Dodd-Frank would not apply to manufactured housing.
  Not only are they going for protection for higher priced loans and 
higher fees, they want to change the definition so they don't look like 
they are originating loans, and they don't want to come under the law 
in terms of what we require for protection for higher priced loans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al 
Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the Honorable Maxine Waters for 
continuing to be a champion for people who have been taken advantage 
of. She has a rich history of fighting for those who are not in a 
position to fight for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess there will be a question of ``Who are you going 
to believe?'' Will it be Maxine Waters, who has for decades been 
fighting for the least, the last, and the lost? Maxine Waters, who is 
known across the length and breadth of this country as a champion for 
poor people, for people who purchase manufactured homes?
  Maxine Waters has said--and I concur with her--that this bill will 
create an opportunity for people to take advantage of those who are 
living at a level of life wherein what they pay for a home must be what 
they can afford, and they cannot afford to lose that home.

                              {time}  1545

  This is why she is so concerned, and I join her in this notion, that 
there is predatory lending taking place if this bill passes. If this 
bill passes, people will be allowed to steer people into homes that 
will have higher interest rates. If this bill passes, there will be 
people who will need counseling but will not get the counseling that 
they need to help them maintain home ownership. If this bill passes, we 
will go back to prepayment penalties. If this bill passes, we will not 
be able to bring back these protections and safeguards that have been 
instated under Dodd-Frank. We will eliminate them, and they will be 
gone forever.
  We need to think before we act and before we vote. This is an 
important vote for those who are not going to be able to stand up and 
fight for themselves, but I thank God that we have got the Honorable 
Maxine Waters on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives 
standing here today to stand up for them.
  So who are you going to believe? There seems to be a difference of 
opinion. When you have differences in opinions, you look to see who has 
been doing what and for how long. She has been fighting for these kinds 
of rights that we are talking about today since she has been in the 
Congress of the United States of America. I am proud to stand with the 
Honorable Maxine Waters.
  I think that if we pass this bill, we will continue to do what many 
want to do, but in an incremental salami way. We will continue to slice 
away at Dodd-Frank. We will continue to do what those who can't repeal 
it in full would do in part, and that is eliminate the protections for 
consumers.
  Mr. FINCHER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, before the 
next Members rise to speak on this bill, I would just like to remind 
everybody that this amount of interest rate that they will be getting 
on these loans, should this bill pass, is 10 percent above the prime 
rate; and from 14 percent it could go up to maybe 18 percent. There is 
no Member of Congress who would pay that kind of interest rate on a 
home loan or manufactured housing or anything else, but we are asking 
the most vulnerable in our society that are targeted to pay this kind 
of entry rate in the interest of getting credit.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I 
want to congratulate her as well on her amazing advocacy on behalf of 
consumers across this country and her leadership on the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are again forced to ask the question: Who calls 
the shots here in Washington and in Congress and on Capitol Hill? We 
shouldn't have to ask that question. It should be the people that call 
the shots. It should be everyday Americans that call the shots here, 
but unfortunately it is big money on Wall Street that continues to call 
the shots. It is big money that is leaning on Congress to water down, 
once again, the Dodd-Frank rules in ways that will harm consumers. With 
the mortgage crisis barely in our rearview mirror, the hidden hand of 
Wall Street is intent on rolling back critical consumer protections and 
stripping away important reforms that have been made to our mortgage 
market.
  Exhibit A for today--and I say ``for today'' because there has 
actually been dozens of exhibits of this kind of legislation that have 
come forth over the last few months authored by Wall Street interests. 
But Exhibit A for today is called Preserving Access to Manufactured 
Housing Act, H.R. 650. Preserving access; it sounds good, but

[[Page H2186]]

it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. That is how they title these things 
around here.
  This legislation would roll back critical consumer protections for 
our Nation's most vulnerable families, undermining a simple proposition 
that the owners of manufactured homes deserve the same protections as 
traditional homeowners; specifically, the legislation would cause 
interest rates to spike and would reintroduce conflict of interest into 
the manufactured home market.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, later on today we will see Exhibit B for 
today. That is called the Mortgage Choice Act, H.R. 685. That is 
legislation that would scrap vital consumer protections put in place by 
Dodd-Frank to prevent unscrupulous lenders from steering consumers into 
higher fee mortgages. That is what is going on around here.
  Of all the areas in need of Congress' attention, the Republican 
majority has chosen to once again focus on giveaways to the Wall Street 
crowd. American consumers deserve better than that, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 650 and later against H.R. 685.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of our committee, and I again want 
to thank him for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but 
more importantly, I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for 
standing up for so many of the downtrodden, the low- and moderate-
income Americans from sea to shining sea who want to realize some piece 
of the American Dream--they want to own a home.
  Now, maybe it is not going to be quite as nice as a home that some 
Member of Congress might live in, you know, but it is going to be their 
home. In this case, it is going to be a manufactured home. I can say 
for many of the people who live, Mr. Speaker, in the Fifth District of 
Texas, if it weren't for manufactured housing, they wouldn't have a 
house.
  As the gentleman from Tennessee so eloquently said as this 
legislation was being marked up in our committee, there are so many on 
the left and the far left who want to protect consumers right out of 
their homes. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely shameful. 
They should have the same equal opportunity to own a home as any Member 
of this body, and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle would 
take it away from them. No, they have got a bumper sticker slogan here. 
You know, they have got Dodd-Frank; we are going to aim at Wall Street. 
But when they aim at Wall Street, they are hitting Main Street. They 
are hitting Main Street, and low- and moderate-income Americans are 
suffering.

  We have bank after bank after bank after credit union after credit 
union, we are talking community financial institutions who are saying, 
without the legislation of the gentleman from Tennessee, they have got 
to get out of the business. You know what that means, Mr. Speaker? It 
means people lose their opportunity to own that first home, which might 
just be a manufactured house.
  First Arkansas Bank and Trust, we heard from them:

       Our bank has a long history of helping consumers, 
     especially those who, for some reason, cannot qualify for 
     secondary market financing at the time. Due to the fact that 
     this type of financing is now overly burdened by the 
     qualified mortgage standards, we have ceased this type of 
     financing.

  I heard from the Central Maine Credit Union. And, by the way, we 
haven't mentioned Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. No, these are 
community financial institutions, Mr. Speaker.
  I am sorry. This comes from Five County Credit Union:

       Since October of 2010, Five County has no longer been 
     offering mobile home loans to its members due to the Federal 
     legislation.

  First National Bank of Milaca. I hope I am pronouncing this right, 
but given that it isn't a money center bank on Wall Street, we are a 
little less familiar with its name. This is in Minnesota.

       The high price mortgage rules have caused my bank to reduce 
     the number of real estate mortgages we make on certain type 
     houses, specifically mobile homes.

  I could go on and on. I have got a stack of these, Mr. Speaker. That 
is why the gentleman from Tennessee, with his able leadership, has 
brought forth legislation--bipartisan legislation, I might add; 
bipartisan, almost half of the Democrats on our committee supported it.
  The ranking member supported it before she was against it. I don't 
quite understand the change of mind. The need is still as great. People 
are still suffering. The low- and moderate-income Americans have been 
falling behind. Here is a chance to let them have an opportunity to get 
into a mobile home. But, no, no, no, no, no, we have got a Wall Street 
bumper sticker slogan here, and it doesn't matter who is going to get 
hurt.
  Well, it does matter. It matters a lot, Mr. Speaker. We need to 
ensure that every American, regardless of their income, in a 
competitive, transparent, innovative capital market, that they have the 
opportunity to finance that mobile home. Every American should have 
that opportunity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FINCHER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Every single American should have that opportunity, 
and it is the gentleman from Tennessee who is hearing their voices and 
is representing their voices on the House floor today.
  Again, I want to thank him for his leadership and thank him for the 
thousands and thousands across the Fifth District of Texas that I have 
the privilege and honor of representing that, just because they are low 
income, he knows--he knows--they still deserve that chance for the 
American Dream. He is fighting for their American Dream.
  This was compromise language, Mr. Speaker. This is not the bill I 
wanted; it is not the bill he wanted. It was compromise language. In 
fact, the ranking member supported even a broader provision in the 
previous Congress. But what has happened is, yet again, the left hand 
doesn't always know what the far left hand is doing; and the far left 
hand has decided that all of a sudden we are going to aim at Wall 
Street banks, and it doesn't matter if any person working at a Walmart 
or working at a Whataburger loses their chance at the American Dream.
  That has to stop. We need to support the legislation of the gentleman 
from Tennessee. I urge the House to adopt it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentleman 
just described this as a consumer protection bill for people who live 
in manufactured housing. We are talking about trailer homes. But yet 
the National Manufactured Home Owners Association is opposing this 
bill, along with the Alliance for a Just Society, Americans for 
Financial Reform, the Center for American Progress, the Center for 
Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Corporation for Enterprise 
Development, Empire Justice, Financial Protection Law Center, the 
Housing Assistance Council, the Leadership Conference on Civil and 
Human Rights, the National Consumer Law Center, National Council of La 
Raza, National Fair Housing Alliance, North Carolina Justice Center, 
U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Are these the far left that he is 
talking about, the people who actually represent folks that live in the 
kind of housing that he is saying that he wants to protect?
  Nearly 7 years ago, our housing collapse resulted in more than 5 
million foreclosures and 10 million jobs lost, and so we enacted Dodd-
Frank to reform Wall Street, to improve consumer protections against 
crippling loans and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. The two bills, H.R. 650 and H.R. 685, would strip many of these 
consumer protections, would allow higher fees and reduce consumer 
protections and permit some of the most abusive and deceptive practices 
that trapped borrowers into unaffordable loans. Those protections were 
hard earned, and they were clearly justified. Eliminating them would 
put us back in the same situation that led to the worst recession since 
1929.
  This bill, H.R. 650, would weaken consumer protections for 
manufactured home loans. This is a bad bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.''
  Mr. FINCHER. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2187]]

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how 
much time we have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 4 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Heck).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how thrilled I 
am to hear that the chair of the committee has seen the light and will 
follow the lead of the gentleman from Tennessee, and I am looking 
forward to him signing on to Congressman Fincher's Export-Import Bank 
reauthorization bill.
  In fact, I wish I could stand here and support this in the name of 
consumer protection, but it isn't. When we had this hearing, the most 
common thread was that we needed more information about what is 
happening out here.
  Well, unfortunately, since that hearing, we have received more 
information. Indeed, The Seattle Times ran an unbelievably in-depth 
article detailing some of the worst practices among manufactured home 
lenders, some of those practices which contributed to the subprime 
bubble and meltdown: not verifying borrowers' income, pushing borrowers 
into unaffordable loans, aggressive debt collection, driving up costs 
through hidden add-ons, overappraising homes, all of these things.
  If you do nothing else, read this essay, which I flat predict today--
write it down--is going to win a Pulitzer Prize. Write it down.
  It has been suggested that lenders could not make a living were they 
held to 8 points over prime, but that doesn't square with reality. What 
is reality? Take out the largest lender, who averages 7 points over 
prime, average all the rest, and it is 3.8 percent over prime.
  Don't tell me lenders can't make a living in the manufactured home 
market unless they are given 10 points over prime. They are making a 
living. In fact, they could double it and still be approximately what 
the single largest does.
  This bill is about relaxing an awful lot of consumer protections 
among our most vulnerable population, requirements to do housing 
counseling, a ban on teaser rates, early provision of disclosures, 
large font statement of the consumers' rights.
  This bill would go backwards on those measures and would expose the 
most vulnerable among us to exploitation. As a consequence, I would 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 650 in the name of consumer 
protection.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  My colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle keep telling us how 
everybody who would make money on the most vulnerable population is 
somehow suffering. They are suffering because somehow they are not able 
to make these loans because they cannot be guaranteed the profits that 
they want to get.
  Let me again just share some information with you. Clayton Homes, the 
largest U.S. mobile home manufacturer, as well as the two biggest 
mobile home lenders, 21st Mortgage Corporation and Vanderbilt Mortgage 
and Finance, are owned by Berkshire Hathaway, an amazingly profitable 
company whose shares trade for $215,000 each.
  Berkshire Hathaway profited to the tune of $19.87 billion, or 12,092 
per share, in 2014. The CEO of Berkshire Hathaway is Mr. Warren 
Buffett, the third richest man in the world.
  Even though the CFPB's rule on manufactured housing was effective in 
January 2014, again, Clayton Homes profited to the tune of $558 million 
in 2014, up from $416 million in 2013 and $255 million in 2012. Why do 
we need to provide this industry with more regulatory relief when they 
are already thriving?
  Note that these profits come on the backs of some of America's lowest 
income households. In fact, 84 percent of the industry's customers make 
less than the U.S. median household income.
  Clayton, again, is a large conglomerate of companies operating under 
at least 18 names, constructing nearly half of the industry's new homes 
and selling them through its own retailers. Many consumers think they 
are shopping around, not realizing that it is just different dealers 
with different names, all operating under the Clayton umbrella.
  Let me just wrap this up by saying that this bill is absolutely a 
giveaway. It is my friends on the opposite side of the aisle deciding 
that it is more important to allow this industry to charge exorbitant 
interest rates and fees to this vulnerable population than it is to try 
and do something about reform.
  We went through a recession--almost a depression--in this country 
because of the way loan initiators came up with these exotic products. 
You want to take us right back to that kind of situation.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. It is not 
needed, and it is absolutely predatory.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to finish up and just hit on several accusations that have 
been made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Before I do, I 
will read a statement from the ranking member last Congress--this was 
back in May 2014--on H.R. 1779, which was the bill before the 
compromise, which had interest rates at 14 percent, not capped at 10 
above prime.

       But I'm going to support the bill, and I'm supporting the 
     bill because I have been embracing opportunities to support 
     rural communities.
       In the same vein, I'm going to support this bill, even 
     though I have some questions about it, because, again, I want 
     my legislators here, my friends, my colleagues, rather, who 
     are from rural areas that are trying hard to make sure that 
     they provide opportunities and they realize the problems of 
     their constituents, I want them to know that we can work 
     together on rural and urban problems, without always being 
     opposed simply because it's urban or simply because it's 
     rural.

  Now, that is before the compromised language, Mr. Speaker. Now, that 
language is significantly less. Once again, we are not doing away with 
the protections that Dodd-Frank makes sure that apply to folks all over 
districts all over our country.
  Think about this. I go home every weekend. I live in a little place 
called Frog Jump. It is a real place in west Tennessee. My county is 
Crockett County, a very rural county that doesn't have a stoplight in 
our county, not a red light in our county. We are that small, 12,000, 
13,000 people.
  I go home to my constituents, the folks in my district, and they tell 
me: Fincher--a lot of them call me by my last name--Fincher, we are 
trying to buy a mobile home--a manufactured home--and we are happy with 
the price, we have been happy with all of the terms of the conditions 
of the manufactured home that we are trying to buy; but, Fincher, we 
can't buy one because Washington has gotten in the way. We are happy 
with the price; we are happy with the terms; we are happy with the 
product, but bureaucrats and politicians in Washington seem to think 
they know more than we know here in Crockett County.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is 
almost like, Do as we say, but don't do as we do. It is almost like 
they are totally against Americans having the right to choose for 
themselves and make the decisions for themselves, so Members of 
Congress should sit high on their horse, know nothing about the 
industry, nothing about how this is going to impact not the people at 
the top, Mr. Speaker.
  If my colleagues are so opposed to making an income and making wealth 
and growing our businesses and making a profit--this doesn't hurt 
Warren Buffett. It hurts the people in Frog Jump and Dyersburg and 
Knoxville, all around this country. We somehow must get back to working 
for the people back home and not listening to the special interest 
groups.
  They have been citing a story in a newspaper somewhere--I don't know 
where--that put all of these accusations out. We are not lessening the 
role of Dodd-Frank when it comes to consumer protections with this 
bill. All we are doing is making sure that Americans, Mr. Speaker, can 
have access to credit and they can own a home for themselves and not be 
told what to do by Washington politicians.

[[Page H2188]]

  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--this is a bipartisan 
bill--please, please don't be scared by the President's veto threat 
yesterday and try to vote for the constituents back home in our 
districts that desperately need this legislation to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 650 is postponed.

                          ____________________