[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 196 (Friday, December 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9573-H9585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PRESERVING ACCESS TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACT OF 2017

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 635, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1699) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to modify the 
definitions of a mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage, to amend 
the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 to 
modify the definition of a loan originator, and for other purposes, 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 635, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 115-42 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1699

       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 2017''.

     SEC. 2. MORTGAGE AND LOAN ORIGINATOR DEFINITIONS.

       (a) 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''.
       (b) Loan Originator Definition.--Section 1503(4)(A) of the 
     Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 
     2008 (12 U.S.C. 5102(4)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) does not include 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 clause (i) 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) notwithstanding subclauses (I) and (II), 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 bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1699, the 
Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. It is an important bill 
that is cosponsored by a bipartisan--I repeat, bipartisan--group of 
members, and it was approved by the Financial Services Committee with a 
strong bipartisan vote of 42-18.
  In fact, this proposal has a long track record of bipartisan support 
with a similar bill having passed the last Congress with votes from 
both Republicans and Democrats.
  I want to thank my colleague, Representative Barr, the chairman of 
our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee for his leadership in 
introducing this legislation and for leading congressional efforts to 
help Americans, particularly those of lower and moderate incomes, to 
help them achieve a greater level of financial independence and being 
able to achieve their American Dream of homeownership.
  Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Under the CFPB's regulations, many 
small-balance manufactured home loans are now being considered ``high 
cost.'' This means that many people, particularly those with lower and 
moderate incomes who want to buy a manufactured home, aren't able to 
buy that home.
  Their access to credit is being unfairly restricted through no fault 
of their own. Lenders are leaving the market. Five County Credit Union 
in

[[Page H9574]]

Maine, Zia Credit Union in New Mexico, Manhattan Bank in Montana, and 
the list goes on and on and on. Lenders are leaving the market.
  As we know, many consumers who live in rural areas, including those 
in the Fifth District of Texas who I have the pleasure and honor of 
representing, they just don't have access to rental options or other 
affordable housing. So the CFPB rules are unfairly penalizing rural 
residents and working families, many of whom happen to be retirees, 
single moms, working families, veterans, and they simply want to buy a 
manufactured home that they can live in. They are being denied that 
opportunity.
  So here in Washington, inside the very elite beltway bubble, there is 
simply not an appreciation for manufactured housing and the role that 
plays in our vital affordable housing component.
  But let's listen to what the American people tell us outside of the 
beltway. A 75-year-old retiree from Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, said 
he purchased a manufactured home because ``it was affordable, and it 
was in a desirable location.''
  A 57-year-old single mom from Albuquerque, New Mexico, purchased a 
manufactured home. She said: ``It provided the best value for the 
money. There were no other housing options available. I searched for 
over a year to find affordable housing. All of the site-built homes in 
the area were over $100,000, which was out of my price range.'' 
Manufactured housing is within the price range of many working 
Americans.
  A 28-year-old single mom of two from Jenera, Ohio, she had been 
renting. She wanted her own home. And when she purchased it, she said, 
she ``found this, allowed us to own a home for less than we would have 
to pay to rent another.''
  Stories like this are commonplace all over America, Mr. Speaker. And 
it is why it is so important that we recognize the rights of our fellow 
citizens to give them the opportunity of affordable housing. You can't 
protect consumers by protecting them out of their homes. Manufactured 
housing is affordable housing.
  So we have a regulation from an agency that is supposed to be 
protecting consumers, but, instead, it is preventing families from 
purchasing affordable housing. We must change that.
  We have to pass this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1699. With just a few 
minor clarifications to the definition of mortgage originator, loan 
originator, and high-cost mortgage, this bill will ensure that 
consumers of small-balance mortgage loans have access to the mortgage 
credit they need. These minor technical clarifications will help 
preserve consumer choice and financing options for those seeking to buy 
a manufactured home.
  Now, some on the other side of the aisle will say: Well, this 
eviscerates important consumer protections. Well, number one, loans 
under this bill will still be covered by the Truth in Lending Act, the 
Fair Housing Act, the ability to repay rules, Equal Credit Opportunity 
Act, and all of the consumer protection laws passed by the various 
States.
  So let's support working Americans. Let's support affordable housing. 
Let's support Mr. Barr's H.R. 1699.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 in opposition to H.R. 1699 which would undermine 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and 
eliminate consumer protections for some of the country's most 
vulnerable borrowers.
  Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill paints it as a measure that 
purports to preserve access to manufactured housing. So I want to be 
very clear about what this bill is and what it is not about, and who 
will win and who will be harmed if this bill is signed into law.
  This isn't about regulatory burdens, reducing access to credit. The 
lending volume in the manufactured housing industry has gotten back to 
where it was before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau put new 
regulations in place.

  This isn't about credit unions and community banks not being able to 
enter the manufactured housing market. Many credit unions already 
underwrite mortgage loans and chattel loans for manufactured housing. 
But what H.R. 1699 is about is one-stop-shop megainstitutions like 
Clayton Homes, owned by billionaire Warren Buffett, which has almost 
half of the market share for manufactured housing lending.
  His manufactured housing empire profits in every imaginable way in 
this sector from producing housing, to selling housing, to originating 
the loans that take advantage of vulnerable customers and leave them 
with virtually no way to refinance.
  This bill makes it easier for financial titans like billionaire 
Warren Buffett to earn even more profits at the expense of some of the 
most vulnerable consumers in this country.
  I show this ad because they would have you believe that Clayton Homes 
is separate from all of the other entities that they have under Clayton 
Homes. One would think that, simply, Clayton Homes is the seller of 
these mortgages. But they are under different names. They are under 
Vanderbilt. They are under HomeFirst. They are under Benjamin Moore, 
and they are under Oakwood Homes.
  So sometimes people think perhaps, if they are not getting the kind 
of service that they want when they are looking for a mortgage, that 
they will go to some other place other than Clayton. But they end up 
literally going to other entities owned by Clayton Homes.
  This is a Warren Buffett bill. This is a Clayton bill. And to tell 
you the truth, this institution is not in the business of originating 
legislation for one particular business. This is what this is all 
about. And I will show you how they do it.
  They have different names on their operations, but the ads all look 
the same. ``We will beat the match. We will beat the match.'' Same ads 
for Tru Value and the other entities owned by them, but they all belong 
to Warren Buffett and Clayton.
  This bill, again, would harm manufactured housing consumers who are 
typically more vulnerable than the average homeowner. They are low-
income buyers, rural buyers, minority buyers. And reports from the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Manufactured Housing 
Institute, and the Center for Public Integrity have all shown us that 
this measure would not create access to affordable housing; but it 
would, instead, allow an incredibly profitable industry to make even 
more money at the expense of low-income and rural homeowners, even if 
the industry itself asserts that it has been growing and highly 
profitable, even in the years after Dodd-Frank, and the Consumer 
Bureau's mortgage protections have been in place.
  So just take a look at this. If you take a look back what was 
happening in 2003, where they had 18 percent share in the market, now 
they have 39 percent. This is all Clayton, 39 percent. And their 
portfolio includes about $12.5 billion in customers.
  So I would like to just reiterate again that this is about Warren 
Buffett and this is about Clayton. Let me just share with you that 
Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett has also been touting its 
post-Dodd-Frank Act profitability of manufactured housing.
  Clayton Homes is Berkshire's highly profitable manufactured housing 
subsidy, and it earned a total of $744 million in 2016, a 33 percent 
increase over 2014. Yes, that is a 33 percent increase after the Dodd-
Frank Act rules were in place. Unfortunately, this is the same Clayton 
Homes that was the subject of a multipart Seattle Times and Center for 
Public Integrity joint investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, The Seattle Times did a scathing series on Clayton. I 
include in the Record these articles that were done by The Seattle 
Times. Everyone should avail themselves of this damaging information.

                        [From the Seattle Times]

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

                   (By Mike Baker and Daniel Wagner)


                           First of a series

       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.

[[Page H9575]]

       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.


                         Clayton always profits

       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 Sova 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.''
       (Update: After publication, Berkshire Hathaway's Omaha 
     headquarters sent a statement on behalf of Clayton Homes to 
     the Omaha World-Herald, which is also owned by Berkshire.)


                             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 Jim 
     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.
       Berkshire Hathaway quickly bought up failed competitors' 
     stores, factories and billions in troubled loans, building 
     Clayton Homes into the industry's dominant force. In 2013, 
     Clayton provided 39 percent of new mobile-home loans, 
     according to a Times/CPI analysis of federal data that 7,000 
     home lenders are required to submit. The next biggest lender 
     was Wells Fargo, with just 6 percent of the loans.
       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 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

[[Page H9576]]

     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 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 
     warning.
       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, D.C., 
     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-

[[Page H9577]]

     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 3o 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. Mr. Speaker, the investigation found 
that Clayton locked one disabled veteran in Tennessee, Ms. Dorothy 
Mansfield, into an expensive loan even though the required monthly 
payment would leave her with only $27 a month to cover the rest of her 
living costs.
  Worst, it was a no-documentation loan, meaning that no one even 
bothered to verify Dorothy's income. The investigation also found that 
Clayton Homes' in-house lender, Vanderbilt Mortgage, charged minority 
borrowers substantially higher rates, on average, than their White 
counterparts.
  Unfortunately, this appears not to have been an isolated incident as 
Federal data reveals that Vanderbilt Mortgage typically has charged 
African-American borrowers who make more than $75,000 a year more than 
White people who make only $35,000 a year.
  Other Clayton Homes borrowers were quoted inexpensive loan terms only 
to see interest and fees rocket once they had put down a nonrefundable 
deposit or paid out large amounts of money to prepare their land for 
installation of the manufactured home.

                              {time}  0930

  Just like subprime mortgage loan borrowers who were preyed on before 
the financial crisis, many consumers who purchased manufactured housing 
were convinced to take out high-cost loans based on false promises that 
they would be able to refinance to lower rates in the future.
  Former Clayton Homes salespeople have confirmed that they have 
pressured customers 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.
  Under this bill, some of our most important consumer protection laws 
that prevent this kind of steering, like the Truth in Lending Act, the 
Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act, and the Home 
Ownership and Equity Protection Act, would no longer apply to 
manufactured housing retailers and salespeople that offer credit to 
borrowers, even if those salespeople do the same things traditional 
loan originators do, like referring customers to a creditor or 
assisting them in applying for credit.
  So, if enacted, H.R. 1699 would allow abusive lenders to charge over 
14 percent interest before consumer protections are triggered--more 
than four times what the average borrower is paying on a home loan.
  In the coming years, this number could very well grow to 16, 17, and 
likely 18 percent as interest rates rise back to normal. Even worse, 
the bill also makes it legal for Clayton Homes sales personnel to steer 
borrowers toward high-cost loans, loans from other parts of the Clayton 
conglomerate that are not in their best interests, a practice that 
Congress banned for all loan originators after the financial crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to manufactured housing, consumers are 
already exposed to significant risks, high interest rates, the 
inability to refinance and, in many cases, depreciation that starts as 
soon as the manufactured home is sold. Nevertheless, the House is 
considering a bill that rolls back key protections for these already 
financially vulnerable consumers.
  It would do away with a number of protections current law attaches to 
many high-cost loans, such as stiffer penalties for bad-acting lenders, 
additional disclosures for investors and consumers who purchase high-
cost mortgages, mandatory counseling so that borrowers know what they 
are getting into, and even the ability for borrowers to have their loan 
rescinded if lenders don't follow the law. It would do away with all of 
this.
  As the Consumer Bureau noted in its study of the manufactured housing 
industry, individuals who apply for manufactured housing loans 
``include customers that may be considered more financially vulnerable 
and thus may particularly stand to benefit from strong consumer 
protections.''
  Now, in addition to the Consumer Bureau's report, investigative 
reporting has provided names and stories of individuals who have fallen 
victim to the market practices and policies described by the Consumer 
Bureau.
  Finally, when a nearly identical measure was considered by the House 
last term as H.R. 650, the Obama administration issued a veto threat 
and said they ``strongly oppose'' the bill because it would ``put low-
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.''
  This bill rolls back consumer protections amidst evidence that the 
manufactured housing industry needs more oversight and is, at its 
heart, a dangerous giveaway to a sector that already profits handsomely 
at the expense of vulnerable borrowers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rip-off bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, before the morning is over, I hope to 
have some additional time to yield to the ranking member so she can 
continue her diatribe against President Obama's favorite billionaire 
and Democrat financier, Warren Buffett.
  Until then, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the sponsor of the legislation and the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Monetary 
Policy and Trade.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1699, the 
Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act.
  Homeownership, for many, is part of the American Dream, but overbroad 
and burdensome regulations arising out of the Dodd-Frank financial 
control law are limiting the ability of Americans to realize that 
dream.
  A one-size-fits-all regulation issued by the CFPB makes it harder for 
lenders to offer mortgages to hardworking Americans who simply want to 
buy a manufactured home. By expanding the range of loan products 
considered ``high cost'' under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection 
Act, the CFPB has failed to recognize the unique nature of manufactured 
housing loans.
  Due to the increased legal liabilities and stigma associated with 
making these so-called high-cost mortgages, many lenders have simply 
stopped making these loans altogether. In fact, according to the 
government's own Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, origination of 
manufactured housing loans of $75,000 or less has plummeted by 22 
percent since this regulation went into effect. This data clearly 
showed that there is a negative impact of these Federal rules on the 
availability of credit for manufactured homes.
  While virtually all mortgage market segments have been growing in the 
last few years, HMDA data clearly shows continued declines in small 
dollar loans for manufactured homes.
  As a result, this regulation is harming low- and moderate-income 
families, particularly in rural areas, and existing homeowners are 
harmed because they will not be able to sell their homes. These 
regulations are hitting Americans in rural areas of modest means the 
most.
  Take, for example, the hospital worker in Kentucky. And, yes, Mr. 
Speaker, this is about the hospital worker in Kentucky, not Warren 
Buffett. This hospital worker applied for a loan of $38,500 to finance 
a manufactured home. He had an 8 percent down payment. His monthly 
income was $2,200 per month--plenty to cover the all-in

[[Page H9578]]

housing costs of $675 per month. The payment he would have been 
investing in his own home would have been less than what he was 
spending on rent. But he couldn't get financing. He contacted his local 
banks and credit unions, but they no longer finance manufactured homes.

  This is not about Warren Buffett. This is about helping low-income 
Americans achieve the American Dream. The reasons for this crippling 
lack of credit are unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in Washington, 
D.C., at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and their ``high-
cost'' loan regulations and the definitions of mortgage originator and 
loan originator established in the Dodd-Frank Act.
  These regulations fail to take into account the unique circumstances 
associated with manufactured housing and the fixed costs associated 
with the purchase of any home, large or small. They fail to recognize 
the simple, mathematical fact that fixed costs on smaller loans 
translate into higher percentages of the total loan. They fail to 
recognize that even if interest payments on manufactured homes are more 
than your average home, the payments are still more affordable than the 
all-in cost of a site-built home or even rent in many markets.
  This is especially the case when one considers that purchasing a 
manufactured home as opposed to renting allows these owners to build 
equity leading to financial stability for their families.
  This bipartisan bill, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing 
Act, recognizes the unique nature of manufactured housing, something 
that bureaucrats in Washington don't know anything about. They don't 
know anything about what goes on in rural America. This fixes these 
government-caused problems by modifying the definition of loan 
originators and mortgage originators to exclude manufactured housing 
retailers and sellers from the definition of a loan or mortgage 
originator, so long as they are only receiving compensation for the 
sale of the home and not engaged in loan offerings.
  The legislation also increases the thresholds for high-cost loans to 
accommodate manufactured home purchases of up to $75,000.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, it accommodates manufactured home purchases up to 
$75,000 while maintaining the tough restrictions on lenders to prevent 
any borrowers from being taken advantage of. Yes, that is right, this 
preserves those consumer protections.
  As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to protect the American 
people from regulations that harm their ability to purchase an 
affordable home for themselves and their families. We need to end 
government policies under the guise of consumer protection that are 
actually protecting Americans right out of homeownership. It is not 
consumer protection, Mr. Speaker, when you deny people affordable 
housing.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and I applaud 
both Democrats and Republicans who support this commonsense solution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, what you just heard was 
a description of what some who represent some of these rural 
communities are doing for them or not doing for them. They say: 
Vulnerable consumer, you can have a loan at 18 percent. We know you 
can't afford it, and we will just come and repossess your manufactured 
housing when you can't pay.
  For the chairman, I will take all the time that he would yield to me 
to continue this discussion and let people know exactly what is going 
on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison), who is a true Congressional Progressive Caucus champion and a 
senior member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to this conversation based on people I know who 
live in manufactured housing. A lot of folks call it mobile homes or 
trailer parks. We call it manufactured housing. But I have walked those 
places, sat in those rooms, and just been with my neighbors, friends, 
and constituents who live in manufactured housing. I appreciate them 
tremendously. They are wonderful folks. The folks I know are just part 
of those 17 million people who live in manufactured housing.
  If Congress got rid of manufactured housing, the national 
homeownership rate would fall about 6 percent. So manufactured housing, 
no doubt, is important and is an affordable alternative for many 
people.
  But that doesn't mean the lender can rip them off. That doesn't mean 
the lender can pick their pockets, and that doesn't mean that the 
lender can let some big monopoly reach in the borrower's pockets and 
take their money away from them.
  Just because the loan payment on manufactured housing might be lower 
than rent doesn't mean they get to up the skim. They have still got to 
be fair to people.
  Look, for folks who are watching this debate, it is important to 
understand what we are really talking about. I am going to boil it down 
as best I can. We are saying: If you live in manufactured housing and 
if the loan is going to be extra high in the interest rate, if the 
interest rate is 6\1/2\ or 8\1/2\ above the annual percentage rate, 
which could bring you as high as the ranking member said, 18 percent, 
then certain things kick in for you.
  If they are going to charge borrowers that kind of interest rate, the 
law says we are going to look out for them by saying that the lender 
has to explain the consequences of default--it will ruin the borrower's 
credit--that the lender has to disclose the loan terms in the monthly 
payments, that the lender has to ensure that the borrower receives 
homeownership counseling. And this is really important: under another 
regulation, the lender is forbidden from being the dealer and steering 
that person to a lender. In the case of Clayton Homes, they are both.

  They will sell the borrower the unit and give them the loan. They 
will say: Hey, do you know what? We are going to sell you a nice new 
unit here. Don't worry about borrowing or where to look for a loan. We 
got you covered. We are in that business.
  They are a monopoly. What is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is that all 
those protections that a high-cost-loan borrower is about to face this 
legislation takes away. That is all we are talking about here. We are 
saying that if a borrower is going to get a high-cost loan, then he 
should get certain protections. The borrower should get information and 
counseling. People should tell the borrower what is going to happen if 
he defaults.
  They are saying: Hey, man, that is getting in the way of my money. We 
don't want you telling them what their rights are because that is 
interfering with the millions and millions that we are going to get off 
of them. A dumb consumer works out for our monopoly just fine, a smart 
one not so much.
  That is what this is all about.
  Now, I want to just say--giving my friends on the other side of the 
aisle the best of intentions--that we do have a philosophical debate 
here. We believe that the problem--if there is one--of people lending 
in this market is not that there are consumer protections, but it is 
that there is a huge monopoly.
  If the Congress wants to fix the problem of manufactured housing 
lending, then break up that monopoly. If the Congress wants to get more 
entrants into the market and get some downward competition in price, 
then break up the monopoly.

                              {time}  0945

  But if the Congress just tells the monopoly you can charge these 
people more now, you don't have to give them the protections, you don't 
have to inform them, you can steer them, and you have got to get a 
really high-cost loan before they get any protections, then all that is 
going to do is benefit the firm that is already occupying this market 
space.
  The firm that already sells the unit and gives the loans, the one 
that has all the advertising set up, the one that has all the sales 
force set up, the one that has all the infrastructure already set up, 
the monopolists will be the ones who will benefit from this 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H9579]]

  

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 
from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ELLISON. The theory of this legislation is that consumer 
protection is why you have seen some entrants, some lenders, not be in 
this space. Our knowledge and our facts indicate that it is because we 
have got a big, giant monster that controls the whole market.
  If Congress wants to do something for manufactured housing residents, 
we can do it, we can do it now, and we urge Members to vote ``no'' on 
this piece of legislation.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Barr) for his continued commitment to issues surrounding the 
availability of affordable manufactured housing. He has been a patient 
champion on this and many other issues that impact Americans seeking 
access to mortgage financing.
  The legislation we consider today amends the Truth in Lending Act to 
specify that a retailer of manufactured housing is not a ``mortgage 
originator'' subject to requirements under that act. Similarly, the 
bill specifies that such a retailer is generally not a ``loan 
originator.''
  So what do we mean with regard to these technical concerns? They mean 
that more people in Missouri and Kentucky and every other State will 
have access to manufactured housing.
  Certain regulations stemming from Dodd-Frank constricted credit for 
manufactured homes. This legislation would help consumers by restoring 
access to financing that is currently blocked.
  If you want more access to credit, if you want more competition, you 
need to support this. What has happened is that the rules and 
regulations have constricted the ability of banks and credit unions to 
be able to make these kinds of loans.
  Housing options in rural America aren't necessarily the same as those 
offered in other parts of the Nation. Our rural communities can face a 
severely limited affordable housing stock, making the availability of 
and financing for manufactured housing all the more important.
  That may not be significant to every Member of this body, but it is 
certainly important to me and my constituents. Roughly 10 percent of 
them live in manufactured housing. It is important to the more than 20 
million Americans living in manufactured housing today and the many 
Americans who will turn to manufactured housing to fulfill their 
housing needs.
  As someone whose first home was actually a manufactured home, I can 
tell you that this is extremely important to lots and lots of people in 
communities in my district.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested 
this legislation will dilute consumer protections. In reality, this 
bill maintains consumer protections. H.R. 1699 allows, for example, 
continued CFPB oversight of manufactured housing loans, requires that 
consumers be provided with the full litany of disclosure requirements, 
and maintains the ``ability to repay'' requirements established in 
Dodd-Frank. The idea that this legislation guts consumer protections, 
Mr. Speaker, is simply not true.
  There has also been the charge that this legislation would help 
retailers that originate mortgages. To be clear, H.R. 1699 does not 
exempt parties that are actual mortgage originators. If a retailer is 
compensated for acting as a mortgage originator, the legal requirements 
that apply to other mortgage originators will still apply to them after 
passage of this bill.
  Manufactured housing provides not just a housing alternative, but an 
opportunity for individuals and families to become homeowners. This 
legislation ensures manufactured housing remains available and 
affordable, without eroding important consumer protections.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Congresswoman 
Waters, for standing up for consumers.
  As I stand here today, first, let me just say I echo all of the 
comments of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and I, too, rise 
in opposition of H.R. 1699, a bill that would put the lowest income and 
most vulnerable consumers at risk of becoming victims of predatory 
lending. This bill would increase the chances of consumers being 
steered into higher cost loans when they could otherwise qualify for 
lower cost alternatives.
  As an aside, it is quite interesting to sit here and listen to my 
colleagues on the other side have such great interest in affordable 
housing and low-income residents, and yet, as I have sat on the 
Financial Services Committee, I have watched them repeatedly cut funds 
to the budget for low-income residents and not stand up for some of the 
statements when former Director Richard Cordray came in to talk about 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and what they have done to 
stamp out this type of predatory lending.
  It is also quite interesting, and I would be remiss not to mention, 
that last week President Trump appointed the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, to lead the Bureau, yet he is the 
same man who spent years trying to eliminate this organization, a man 
who did not stand up for low-income, affordable housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I will end by saying I think we need someone who can 
stand up for consumers, and I am pleased to hear my colleagues say that 
they believe in consumer protection and that they are going to advocate 
for those with low income and they are going to stand up against 
predatory lending. So it should be interesting, as we move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition to H.R. 1699.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this 
subject to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect I might be one of the few Members of Congress 
whose first house was a manufactured house. Not only that, but I 
represent a district where 50 percent of the homes are manufactured 
housing.
  I think that it is important that we kind of separate the two 
discussions. If the CFPB were looking at the abuses and going after the 
abusers that I have heard talked about from the other side, there might 
not be a discussion today, but that is not what the CFPB did.
  What the CFPB did is say that all balloon notes are bad. I can't find 
any bank, from the East Coast to the West Coast, that will come into 
New Mexico and lend $33,000 for a used mobile home and put it on a 30-
year note. You can tear up a mobile home within days.
  So balloon notes are simply made in order for people to come in and 
check. They didn't use them to maybe put bad adjustments and higher 
interest rates or anything. They just want to be able to look.
  So they generally put these loans on a 5-year basis. At the end of 5 
years, if everything is good, we continue to roll it. We don't start 
from scratch. We don't charge you prejudicial interest.
  But all balloon notes were made illegal by the CFPB. They were 
declared to be prejudicial in their nature when they weren't.
  Qualified mortgages were another way that they shut off the lending 
for the manufactured housing in our district. Owner-seller financing 
was another way.
  What happens in New Mexico, somebody will buy a trailer house, a 
manufactured home. They will live in it, pay for it, buy another one, 
and over their lifetime accumulate 10 or 15. Then, when they retire, 
they begin to sell one at a time.
  If you sell more than one or two, the CFPB said: You are now a 
broker-dealer, and we are not going to let you operate unless you 
become licensed. So it shut off much of the access of just one seller 
selling to another.
  We brought the CFPB in. We brought Kelly Cochran, about 5 years ago, 
to

[[Page H9580]]

walk through these and say: Please, we understand what you are trying 
to do. No one wants to be protecting those who are violating consumer 
rights, but just get it within its lane.
  Kelly Cochran was there for almost an hour and admitted that she was 
not aware of the many things brought up that were on-the-ground 
problems. They never changed them. Mr. Cordray continued to assert that 
he had solved all the problems, when he had never solved any of the 
problems.
  Most of the banks in New Mexico--and I live right on the Texas line--
in that region of Texas and New Mexico, just quit offering to finance 
manufactured housing. That meant the people who needed it the most had 
no access to credit.
  We discussed these items in the open hearings many times with the 
CFPB Director, Mr. Cordray, and it just seemed like they could never 
get focused on those.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Mexico an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. PEARCE. This bill today is simply saying that we have people with 
a need, and they have to be able to get access to loans to finance 
houses to live in. It is the way I began. It is the way I want other 
people in New Mexico to begin. Let's just restore order to the market. 
That is what we are trying to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a senior member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with two 
things quickly in my 2 minutes. I want to deal with the CFPB's 
directorship, but let me start with clarifying a few things.
  First of all, manufactured housing is the cornerstone of affordable 
housing in this country. Nobody argues that. Manufactured housing is in 
every State in this Union. In my State of Georgia, it accounts for 12 
percent of all the affordable housing units. In some States, it is even 
higher than that.
  I just simply want to clarify why I support the bill. It is because 
of two things:
  One, it is because of the devastating Federal regulations that are on 
it for these hundreds of thousands and millions of customers. What it 
is doing is making the American people unable to purchase manufactured 
housing. I think we have to look at that.
  It is also eroding the home values of existing owners of manufactured 
housing.
  Our bill simply moves to correct it by doing three things: we just 
simply do some technical clarifications to the definition of ``mortgage 
originator,'' ``loan originator,'' and ``high-cost mortgage.''
  Let me just say this. I was an original sponsor of Dodd-Frank. What 
we put in there, we made sure that mortgage protection and Dodd-Frank 
is protected in here, including anybody steering anybody into any kind 
of loans with predatory implications. So all that is in there.
  This is a great debate. There are two sides to it. But when you look 
at it, it is the millions of Americans who are suffering from the 
inability to get the mobile homes, the inability to keep them, and all 
we are doing is simply making these minor adjustments.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I do want to clarify about the CFPB 
Director, and I want the American people to listen to me.
  In section 1011 of Dodd-Frank, paragraph 5, it states this: the 
Deputy Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board shall be 
appointed by the Director and serve as acting Director in the absence 
or unavailability of the Director.
  We wrote this. This is the law. We must abide by it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the vice chairman of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1699, the Preserving 
Access to Manufactured Housing Act.
  As the vice chairman of the Financial Institution Subcommittee and 
the cosponsor of this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  Representative Barr's bipartisan bill--and I really appreciate the 
comments from Mr. Scott, my colleague from Georgia on this bill--will 
remove misguided barriers that block access to affordable manufactured 
homes while preserving consumers' protections.
  It is important to keep in mind that the challenge of finding 
affordable housing is not exclusively an urban problem. Housing 
affordability is a challenge in many rural areas, including parts of my 
district.

                              {time}  1000

  Manufactured homes can be a solution to this affordability challenge. 
They can give many low- to moderate-income families the chance at 
homeownership.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the current regulatory environment is 
taking competition out of this market to the detriment of consumers.
  Nationwide, 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes. In my 
State of Pennsylvania, manufactured homes comprise almost 5 percent of 
the housing stock. Manufactured homes account for 73 percent of all new 
homes sold under $125,000, and the average income of a manufactured 
home purchaser is less than $40,000 per year.
  The manufactured housing business also sustains thousands of 
families. Sixteen thousand workers in Pennsylvania are employed in this 
industry. Unfortunately, the misguided rules from Washington threaten 
to choke off access to manufactured housing.
  The Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act will address these 
harmful rules that are making manufactured homes unaffordable for 
perspective customers while preserving important consumer protections. 
It is important to keep in mind that the Truth in Lending Act and State 
consumer protection laws will still apply after enactment of this 
legislation.
  Representative Barr's bill is narrowly focused, common sense, and a 
bipartisan effort to target a specific challenge facing perspective 
purchasers of manufactured homes. The bill will preserve access to this 
affordable option for millions of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the 
Progressive Caucus who is always on the side of consumers.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the lady for yielding to me and 
for her continued advocacy for all consumers, particularly the low-
income consumers who are affected by this legislation.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1699, a bill that guts consumer 
protections for buyers of manufactured homes.
  For years, the manufactured housing industry has preyed on low-income 
households, pushing them into high-interest mortgages. Under this bill, 
buyers of manufactured homes would effectively get less protection than 
any other home buyers.
  On top of that, the bill would encourage higher interest rates on 
loans for manufactured homes, taking a bigger bite out of families' 
paychecks.
  This manufactured housing bill is actually part of a multiprong 
attack on safeguards implemented by the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. President Trump has placed OMB Director Mick Mulvaney at the 
CFPB to destroy it from within, while Republicans in Congress are 
chipping away at consumer protections from the outside.
  Americans deserve better. I really urge my colleagues to stand up for 
consumers and vote ``no.''
  You know, it is easy to go after those people who live in these 
trailer parks who are trying to make their way, who are struggling to 
make ends meet, and this bill adds another layer of problem for them by 
allowing for higher interest rates. It is just wrong. We should be 
voting ``no.''
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

[[Page H9581]]

from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the land of moose, maple syrup, and lobster, 
a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. He forgot pine 
trees, but that is okay.
  Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to stand up and support H.R. 1699, 
Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, and I salute Congressman 
Andy Barr from Kentucky to bring this forward.
  Maine, Mr. Speaker, has some of the highest homeownership rates in 
the country. We love our homes in Maine. I represent the rural part of 
our State, and in our State, Mr. Speaker, we have times of the year 
where the weather is pretty tough.
  If you are building a home that is not manufactured in a warehouse, 
sometimes you literally cannot build that home because of the weather, 
the snow, and the cold, and what have you. But there is nothing more 
important, Mr. Speaker, nothing more important than making sure moms 
and dads across America and across Maine have an option, have as many 
options as possible to house their kids, to take care of their kids, 
and make sure they are safe. Manufactured housing, in many parts of the 
country, is the only affordable option.
  Now, H.R. 1699 makes a small, technical change such that folks who 
want to get into a home and want to take part in the great American 
Dream of homeownership have the opportunity to get a loan to do this.
  Government, Mr. Speaker, is supposed to help our families, not get in 
the way. Here is an example of us being able to remove an unnecessary 
restriction that hurts our families and prevents them from having an 
opportunity to get in their first home.
  We need more options, not less, Mr. Speaker. Let's help our families 
and not get in the way. I salute Mr. Barr for this great bill. I am 
fully in support of this. Let's help our families get into manufactured 
homes if this is what they want and this is what they can afford.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  First, let me just say that I recognize some of the issues in the way 
that have been described by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), 
and I think that he is on the right track in how we can deal with 
giving assistance to those who want to own manufactured housing and 
assistance to those who want to own more than one manufactured house 
and are looking toward their retirement, and I support that. He has 
given a new definition to me for balloon payments and how it works in 
this industry, and I want to work with him to get something done.
  What I want to do is separate out the fact that these owners of 
manufactured housing need some protections in law. We don't want to 
strip out all these protections for them. They deserve to be treated 
fairly. If they are going to be charged high interest rates, they 
deserve to have the protections that everybody else has. I mean, it is 
not fair that some of us can buy homes at market rate, at 4.25 percent 
or whatever, and they have to pay 18 percent because they are 
considered a high risk, and they can't even refinance these homes.

  I want to show you some of the advertising from Clayton where they 
talk about ``Repos Available.'' They have got plenty of them because 
they repossess these homes. And I just want to say that, in addition to 
this monopoly of Clayton's, the way that they treat people when they 
fall behind in their payments, they don't want to do loan 
modifications--they don't do them, really.
  As a matter of fact, they hire these people off the street, 
basically, who come and harass these homeowners and treat them 
extremely bad, and they talk to them about the fact that they want this 
mortgage, they want this money paid, and they will tell them--we have 
got documentation where they tell them: Don't pay your medical bills. 
You pay, or we are going to come and repossess this.
  I want to tell you, I have the greatest respect for the least of 
these. Whether you are in the urban area, whether you are in the rural 
area, you deserve the respect and support from your government. And I 
want you to know, for those who represent these areas, let's stop being 
on the side of the people who exploit them, and let's get on the side 
of the consumers.
  In this last election, we heard a lot about the fact that people in 
small towns and rural areas were upset with their government and felt 
nobody cared about them. I want them to ask the people who represent 
them: Whose side are they on?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a distinguished member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I want to congratulate 
my friend, Andy Barr, for bringing this bill back to the floor of the 
House to be on the side of the consumer, to be on the side of 
affordable choices, to be on the side of truly affordable housing in so 
many areas where there is no alternative.
  Many in the urban areas of our country, the East and West Coast 
elites who make financial policy, have no understanding of living out 
in the country. They don't realize we don't have stick-built 
alternatives in many rural areas of our country.
  As a former community banker down in Ashley County and Chicot County, 
Arkansas, the most affordable, best alternative for many of our 
families is a manufactured home, working with a relative for a plot of 
land. Dodd-Frank has made that unaffordable and unavailable.
  And to that point, I want to say I got a letter from a pal at the 
Army National Guard who said: I was turned down on a loan that would be 
cheaper, larger, and better for my family.
  It was better than the house, the 60-year-old house, that he was 
renting. That is why we need this bill, and I thank the chairman for 
bringing it to the floor today.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), another distinguished member of the House 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes. The 
majority of these homes are in rural America. In fact, more than 6 out 
of 10 manufactured homes are located in rural areas. In my home State 
of Minnesota, manufactured homes are the State's largest source of 
affordable homeownership.
  Unfortunately, a provision in Dodd-Frank has put homeownership out of 
reach for these Americans. Specifically, Dodd-Frank and the CFPB 
modified the criteria and expanded the types of loans from lenders to 
manufactured home buyers, which are considered to be ``high cost.''
  As a direct result, lenders are struggling to make these loans 
because of a high legal risk associated with this ``high cost'' 
definition, ultimately harming low-income buyers in Minnesota. The 
consumers are being harmed in Minnesota and around the country.
  This is why Republicans and Democrats have come together in support 
of H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, 
authored by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), our friend, to help 
millions of Americans become homeowners.
  This legislation provides clarity and certainty regarding the changes 
made by Dodd-Frank and the CFPB. H.R. 1699 will ensure that home buyers 
in rural and low-income areas are able to afford manufactured housing 
and are not unfairly targeted by the very agency that was created to 
protect them.

  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to achieving the American Dream, 
government should not be standing in the way. As Members of Congress, 
it is our duty to stand up for and against this continued overreach, 
support the American Dream, and vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1699.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a distinguished member of the Financial 
Services Committee.

[[Page H9582]]

  

  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the overregulation of Dodd-Frank, coupled with 
unfettered agencies like the CFPB, have hurt Americans from Wall Street 
to Main Street. But today, Mr. Speaker, I am not here to talk about 
Wall Street or Main Street but a little two-lane street in Cassville, 
Georgia, named ``Mac Johnson.''
  Cassville is a rural community that has a small post office, a little 
country store, and a lot of hardworking people who call it their home. 
Many of the people who live in Cassville work at one of the many 
factories in the local area.
  While these hardworking Americans are not the upper middle class, 
they are the backbone of America's economy. And like 22 million other 
Americans, many of them live in a manufactured home. Along Mac Johnson, 
you will find a number of manufactured homes--some on individual lots, 
some on farmland, and some in quaint, little mobile home parks.
  As it is across the Nation, almost half of those living in these 
homes have incomes of less than $30,000 a year, and many are retired or 
disabled. Historically, manufactured homes have allowed families, who 
couldn't afford the cost of a traditionally constructed house, the 
ability to achieve the American Dream.
  However, the CFPB has expanded enforcement of regulations that were 
designed for mortgage lending on traditional homes to include 
manufactured home retailers. This has made it much more difficult for 
consumers to obtain financing for these homes.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. Speaker, this bill reins in Federal regulations just enough to 
give needed relief to the manufactured housing industry and allow 
families access to these affordable homes.
  I fully support this bipartisan bill, which gained the support of 
two-thirds of the Financial Services Committee industry, and I commend 
my colleague from the great State of Kentucky for bringing this bill 
forward.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  This bill before us today, H.R. 1699, as I understand it, would 
eliminate the safeguards for manufactured homes that were put in place 
to protect consumers through the Dodd-Frank legislation, which included 
the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  The American people are looking at us and asking: What is Congress 
doing?
  After everything went down after the 2008 crash, we saw how 
irresponsible folks on Wall Street were, many within the banking 
industry, the nonbank banks, and what they were doing. And the answer 
here is to take away even further protection for the American consumer.
  The attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an attack 
on everything America stands for. More than 12 billion in ill-gotten 
gains have been returned to the American taxpayer through the CFPB.
  The CFPB stands up for them when others have let them down. So, 
naturally, from its inception, the Republicans have done everything 
they possibly could to knee-cap this important agency. Now a Republican 
White House is attempting to destroy it from the inside out.
  The Great Recession brought millions of Americans a foreclosure 
notice and a pink slip, through no fault of their own. They were 
victims of a financial system that didn't look out for consumers. There 
weren't enough referees on the playing field, but they did look out for 
big banks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, will Mr. Hensarling 
yield that time he promised to yield me so I may yield it to Mr. 
Crowley?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I don't have enough time 
for the ranking member. On this side of the aisle, we are fully 
subscribed. I have lots of Members who wish to speak in favor of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Budd), yet another distinguished member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank my 
friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), for his leadership on 
this vital issue.
  Mr. Speaker, in regulation and in life, one size simply does not fit 
all. A requirement that works for one type of business may not work for 
another type of business.
  Right now, the law treats those who make loans on manufactured houses 
similarly to those who are refinancing mortgages on their homes. The 
reality is that these are completely different transactions.
  Buying a $20,000 manufactured home is simply not the same as 
financing a $200,000 home with a 30-year mortgage. The borrower is in a 
different position with very different needs. The lender is making a 
loan that is often secured differently for a much smaller amount, but 
with similar paperwork and similar costs.
  The Federal Government, since Dodd-Frank, has been treating both of 
these transactions similarly from a regulation perspective. It has hurt 
borrowers trying to buy a piece of their American Dream.
  In The Wall Street Journal, lenders suggested that they would not 
make these loans if they continued to suffer under this faulty 
regulation scenario. One lender says that about one-third of its 
sales--6,100 homes--would be affected. That is 6,100 American families 
who would lose out on homeownership, on building equity, and on making 
an investment instead of paying rent.
  The bill simply says: Look, the person making a $20,000 loan on a 
manufactured home is not the same as a bank or a mortgage broker 
originating a 30-year fixed rate mortgage and should not be treated in 
the same way. It is a commonsense solution, and that is why it has 
gotten bipartisan backing.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how 
much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the 
debate on this bill, and I think everyone can easily recognize that we, 
on this side of the aisle, are trying to protect our most vulnerable 
consumers. People who live in manufactured housing and mobile homes in 
trailer parks need to be respected and given the same protections as 
anybody else with a mortgage.
  I would say to those who are here supporting a bill that would allow 
interest rates on these mobile homes and on this manufactured housing 
to increase with no protections are putting their constituents at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a big ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017, legislation of 
which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.
  In west Tennessee, where I am from, and in other rural areas across 
the country, there is no doubt that manufactured housing is a critical 
and affordable option for many families. In fact, more than 8\1/2\ 
million families--that is roughly 22 million Americans--have chosen 
this option because of the affordability and the value. Where I am 
from, one out of ten west Tennesseans has chosen manufactured housing 
as the best option to make their home.

  For this reason, our legislation is essential to protecting consumer 
choices and financing options for those seeking to buy a manufactured 
home, while also leaving in place important consumer protections.
  In fact, close to 60 percent of new manufactured homes sell for less 
than $70,000, and are usually available at lower monthly payments than 
what it

[[Page H9583]]

costs to rent. Manufactured homes are offered as a fixed rate, fixed 
term option.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this commonsense, bipartisan 
legislation, which will allow many Americans seeking the American Dream 
of owning a home to continue to have access to affordable manufactured 
housing.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small 
Business Committee.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 1699. I 
spent 40 years of my career developing land and actually buying 
manufactured housing, which makes it possible for families who cannot 
afford a stick-built home, in many cases, to be able to buy a 
manufactured house. I have seen firsthand the critical role that 
manufactured housing plays in the development of local communities and 
the ability for a family to buy their first home.
  As we have seen far too often, regulatory overreach by the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau has impeded and stopped, in many cases, the 
ability for consumers to receive financing for manufactured housing, 
and has placed unnecessary requirements on retailers. This legislation 
addresses this overreach by making commonsense reforms to increase the 
availability and financing for manufactured housing, while maintaining 
important protections for consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have heard this morning, unfortunately, is an 
assault on affordable housing from too many people on the other side of 
the aisle. We have Washington elites who are deciding that low-income 
people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves. We have too 
many people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who want to 
take them out of their affordable homes--manufactured homes--and are 
saying: No, go rent, go find someplace on the street.
  Here is the reality: when Washington elites at the Orwellian named 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau decided to make these manufactured 
housing loans ``high cost,'' we saw a 22 percent drop in these type of 
loans being made. But what we know is that this is vital for so many 
working Americans.
  I heard from one consumer in Windsor, New York:

       I was falling behind on my own site-built mortgage 
     payments. I was drowning in debt. I needed a cheaper housing 
     alternative that would meet the needs of my family. The 
     manufactured home payment cut my overall housing expense by 
     57 percent.

  Mr. Speaker, that is just one example. I have story after story from 
consumers who this is their only option for affordable housing. But too 
many of my friends on the other side of the aisle say: No, no, we can't 
allow you to do that. You might pay a little higher interest rate.
  Well, here is a news flash, Mr. Speaker: their monthly payment is 
lower and they get to own their own home.
  Washington elites have tried price controls before. They have been 
tried since the dawn of man, and it always leads to shortages.
  We don't want to shortchange working Americans for affordable 
housing. We want to protect the vulnerable in society and we want to 
allow them to have affordable housing. That is why it is so important 
that today we pass H.R. 1699. Protect affordable housing, protect 
freedom, and let's vote this in today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, thank you to Chairman Hensarling and 
Congressman Barr for working with me to make housing more affordable 
for Arizona families.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to 
Manufactured Housing Act. Manufactured housing is an important form of 
affordable housing in Arizona, particularly for rural and underserved 
communities. More than 300,000 families in Arizona live in manufactured 
homes. Low- and moderate-income families count on manufactured homes as 
an affordable choice.
  Just last week, we had the honor of working with Habitat for Humanity 
to help Ed, a Vietnam veteran living in Tempe, spread gravel and 
improve his front yard. Ed first moved to the Valley in 1950 and bought 
a manufactured home a few years ago.
  If Ed wanted to use his VA eligibility to purchase a home, the 
realtor would be able to connect Ed with a number of lenders who offer 
VA home loans. However, if Ed wanted to purchase a manufactured home, 
he would be instructed to go to a table by himself and sift through the 
countless brochures and loan programs to decide which lender is best. 
This is a daunting and discouraging process for most borrowers, 
especially for first-time homebuyers.
  Current regulations harm existing manufactured homeowners and 
potential buyers by curtailing consumer access to manufactured home 
loans or assistance in the home-buying process. These regulations 
unintentionally make it more difficult to match borrowers with lenders 
who can help them in a timely and efficient manner.
  H.R. 1699 is a commonsense fix for Ed and the hundreds of thousands 
of Arizonans who own or are looking to own manufactured homes. The bill 
ensures that regulations give homebuyers more options, better advice, 
and greater 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.
  It was a privilege to meet Ed and thank him for his service to our 
country. We should make it easier, not harder, for veterans and fellow 
Arizonans like him to purchase a home of their choice. I urge members 
of both parties to join me in supporting H.R. 1699.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 635, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. In its current form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Maxine Waters of California moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 1699 to the Committee on Financial Services with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM EXCESSIVE HOUSING COSTS AND 
                   PREDATORY LENDERS.

       (a) In General.--No lender or other person may make use of 
     the amendments made by this Act if the lender or person has 
     either been--
       (1) found to have committed or engaged in an unfair, 
     deceptive, or abusive act or practice under Federal law in 
     connection with any transaction with a consumer for a 
     consumer financial product or service; or
       (2) convicted of fraud under Federal or State law in 
     connection with a residential mortgage loan or the extension 
     of any loan in connection with a manufactured or modular 
     home.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``State'' and ``consumer financial product or service'' have 
     the meaning given those terms, respectively, under section 
     1002 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, my amendment is simple. 
It would prevent bad actors from being able to use the exemptions in 
the underlying bill and evade the consumer protections in the Truth in 
Lending Act.
  If a lender has committed or engaged in an unfair, deceptive, or 
abusive act or practice under Federal law in connection with any 
transaction with a

[[Page H9584]]

consumer for a consumer financial product or service; or if they have 
been convicted of fraud under Federal or State law in connection with a 
residential mortgage loan or the extension of any loan in connection 
with a manufactured or modular home, they cannot avail themselves of 
the bill's decreased scrutiny.
  As I have already mentioned, Clayton Homes has nearly a monopolistic 
grip on manufactured housing lending. In 2010, Vanderbilt Mortgage--
Clayton's lending arm--paid a $2.8 million settlement to home buyers in 
North Carolina, after the State attorney general and commissioner of 
banks accused them of fraud for utilizing inaccurate information to 
obtain loans for consumers and for inflating the prices of manufactured 
homes.

                              {time}  1030

  This is the type of abuse that my amendment seeks to address. Making 
sure that lenders who have engaged in abusive practices abide by the 
rules set forth in Dodd-Frank and carried out by the Consumer Bureau is 
especially important now that the Trump administration is attempting to 
undermine the independence of the agency.
  After the illegal move to install Mick Mulvaney as acting Director 
and then his quick move to freeze all the hiring, the supervision, and 
new regulations at the Consumer Bureau, it is clear that abusive 
financial institutions that simply rip off consumers will have free 
rein to continue harming them. That includes not only conglomerates 
like Clayton Homes, but repeat offenders, such as Wells Fargo, an 
institution that has illegally modified mortgages, charged fraudulent 
mortgage rates, and steered borrowers into predatory mortgage loans.
  American families deserve better.
  At an absolute minimum, a lender who has already proven that they 
cannot be trusted to originate responsible loans should not be awarded 
with diminished standards, particularly in an industry like 
manufactured housing, which is typically the only affordable option for 
many financially vulnerable consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, time and time again, my colleagues on the opposite side 
of the aisle talk about how they are for Main Street America and for 
the rural communities that Democrats have forgotten. So why is it that 
they want to allow bad actors to prey upon rural families?
  According to the Housing Assistance Council, while manufactured 
housing only makes up 6 percent of all housing nationally, it makes up 
14 to 15 percent in rural and small town communities. We need to be 
doing more to help rural families, not making it easier for bad actors 
to just rip them off.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, this is a vaguely worded and unneeded 
MTR.
  We continue to hear from our friends from the other side of the aisle 
that we don't have sufficient consumer protections in place, but I 
wonder how denying a low-income family access to credit to buy an 
affordable home is somehow construed as consumer protection. I wonder 
how denying a low-income family the ability to own a home at a lower 
cost with a lower monthly payment somehow can be construed as consumer 
protection. I wonder how a policy that has led to a 22 percent drop in 
the availability of manufactured housing credit can somehow be 
construed as consumer protection.
  Only in Washington could you have such an absurd result, but I have 
good news for all Members of the House. After the passage of H.R. 1699, 
guess what. Manufactured housing loans will still be subject to the 
Equal Credit Opportunity Act. They will still be subject to the Fair 
Housing Act. They will still be subject to the Fair Credit Reporting 
Act. They will still be subject to the Truth in Lending Act. They will 
still be subject to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. They will still 
be subject to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. And the list, 
Mr. Speaker, goes on and on and on.
  What we have heard is an attempt again by Washington elites to take 
away affordable housing. No one who votes against H.R. 1699 ought to be 
able to look themselves in the mirror and claim they are an advocate 
for affordable housing, not when they take it away, not when we have 
seen a 22 percent decrease after the actions of the elites at the so-
called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It shouldn't be done.
  It is time to reject this motion to recommit. It is time to stand for 
low- and moderate-income Americans. It is time to stand for affordable 
housing. It is time for us to vote for H.R. 1699.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on:
  Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 227, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 650]

                               YEAS--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz

[[Page H9585]]


     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bridenstine
     Conyers
     Flores
     Kennedy
     Labrador
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Pocan
     Posey
     Quigley
     Renacci
     Taylor
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1059

  Messrs. FASO, CALVERT, GOODLATTE, KATKO, WITTMAN, and COOK changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CASTRO of Texas, CICILLINE, McEACHIN, KILMER, SCHNEIDER, 
DOGGETT, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Messrs. ELLISON, SARBANES, and GONZALEZ of 
Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I intended to vote ``nay'' on rollcall No. 
650.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 163, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 651]

                               AYES--256

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--163

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bridenstine
     Conyers
     Flores
     Frankel (FL)
     Kennedy
     Labrador
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Pocan
     Posey
     Quigley
     Renacci
     Taylor
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1110

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I must leave for a funeral. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 651.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I missed Friday's votes to be in 
Florida with my wife while she had surgery. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 650 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 651.

                          ____________________