H.Res. 635

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.

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

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-

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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, will Mr. Hensarling yield that time he promised to yield me so I may yield it to Mr. Crowley?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

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

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.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act. This bill potentially weakens the Federal civil service by increasing the probationary period for career civil servants and those in the Senior Executive Service from 1 year to 2 years.

I might add, almost no private sector company I know of would have a 2-year probationary period because they know it would make it hard to recruit talented employees.

Unlike what has just been said in terms of protections that remain in place, during the probationary period, Federal employees have very little due process or appeal rights if disciplinary action is taken against them, and the action we would take today would be to extend those diluted rights instead of providing them with robust rights of every civil servant beyond the probationary period. They can be fired without notice. They have limited rights to an attorney or representative, and they generally may not appeal their removal.

Due process protections are critical to ensuring the integrity of the Federal civil service. In fact, that is the very heart of having a professional civil service.

These protections help prevent the politicalization of the workforce and protect whistleblowers from retaliation, which our committee, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has passionately documented as a very real danger in the past.

The Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act is a solution in search of a problem. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has not held one single hearing to determine whether extending the probationary period an additional year for every single Federal job in the competitive and Senior Executive Service is something that agencies need or want to help them better manage their workforce. Not a single hearing, and this would have a profound impact on every Federal agency.

In February of 2016, the Government Accountability Office issued a report which my friend from Kentucky cited at the request of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The request asked GAO to examine the rules and trends relating to the review and dismissal of employees for poor performance. Now supporters of this bill are using this report as a basis for extending the probationary periods of Federal civil service employees; however, nothing in this report calls for doing that. In fact, the title of the report is ``Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance.'' The focus ought to be, the GAO says, on improving the supervision of the probationary period we have in place.

In conducting its study, GAO found that supervisors do not always have the skills necessary to do that and help address employee performance issues during the probationary period. GAO also found that supervisors sometimes do not even use the probationary period to make performance-related decisions about an employee's ability to do their job and may not always know when the probationary period even ends.

The report's recommendations were mainly focused on ensuring qualified supervisors have the training and skills they need to deal with poor performers

and making better use of the existing probation period for all new employees.

Instead of focusing on addressing the gaps identified by GAO and encouraging agencies to implement the recommendations made in that report, Congress is now attacking Federal employees and the merit-based system.

I am especially concerned about the bill's impact on recruiting the workforce of the future. Currently, 40 percent of the current Federal workforce is either eligible for retirement or soon will be--40 percent. Federal agencies need to be able to recruit their replacements and get the requisite skill sets we need for these challenging jobs, just like the private sector is challenged with that.

Extending the probationary period to 2 years, governmentwide, creates a climate of more uncertainty, less protection, and diminishes, clearly, the attraction of Federal service for many people, especially those whom we want to be attracted to the civil service, especially millennials.

Some of my colleagues have referenced the 2-year probationary period for Department of Defense civilian employees enacted in the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act of last fiscal year. They argue that it should serve as precedent for the rest of the Federal Government.

There are a few things I need to point out about that. First, the Department of Defense did not request an extension of the probationary period or even indicate a need for it. Second, now that the 2-year probationary period for civilian defense employees has been enacted, the Department isn't even making use of this new authority.

According to the former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Peter Levine, who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March of this year on civilian personnel reform, ``the Department has done little to take advantage of that legislation.''

Mr. Levine also warned that changing the law to address a small number of problem employees could hurt recruitment and retention and worker productivity. He stated: ``If legislation that is intended to address a problem with 1 percent of the workforce is perceived as threatening and hostile by the other 99 percent, it may undermine morale and reduce the Department's ability to attract and retain the capable employees that it needs. The civilian workforce will not become more productive if problems with a small number of poor performers is addressed with measures that are perceived as a declaration of war on all employees.''

In closing, 2 weeks ago, Congress passed legislation that would pave the way toward evidence-based policymaking, and we all supported that. For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, ought we not see the evidence of whether lengthening the probationary period is materially different and what impacts, both positive and negative, it would have for Federal agencies and employees?

Absent such evidence and careful study, I certainly am not willing to take the risk that this bill will not do more harm to both agencies' ability to recruit and retain qualified employees and that it would not be used to arbitrarily punish hardworking Federal employees.

However, if the GAO studies the impact of this policy at DOD and finds that this new policy has been wonderful for morale and has indeed improved employee performance and helps employee recruitment, then sign me up. But I do think we ought to rely on data and hearings before the requisite committee when making such a major change to how we manage our Federal workforce.

I plan on offering an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that would arm us with the information we need to make an evidence-based decision regarding an extension of the probationary period of the Federal workforce, which is what we ought to be doing before consideration of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record statements in opposition or expressing deep concern about this legislation from the American Federation of Government Employees; the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers; the National Treasury Employees Union; and a group of organizations, including the Government Accountability Project, the Liberty Coalition, the Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, November 28, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), which represents

approximately 700,000 federal and District of Columbia

employees, in more than 70 agencies across the nation, I

strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 4182, the ``Ensuring a

Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017,'' introduced by

Representative James Comer (R-KY) when it comes to the floor

this week. If enacted, this legislation would arbitrarily

extend the probation period for a minimum of two years for

newly hired federal employees. AFGE opposes this legislation

as it does not address any issues surrounding employee

performance evaluation or management's ability to properly

evaluate employees during the probation period. Instead, all

it will do is penalize federal workers and weaken their due

process rights.

The extension of probation periods for competitive service

federal employees from one year to two years is unnecessary

and damaging to due process and the merit system. Candidates

for federal jobs are put through an extensive selection

process prior to being hired and one year is sufficient time

for a competent manager to determine if a new employee has

the ability to accomplish the duties for which he or she was

hired.

Specifically, H.R. 4182 would extend the probation period

to a minimum of two years after completion of a ``formal

training'' program or after the date on which a required

license is granted. Such a change could leave employees in

probation limbo for many years. For example, government

agencies require initial training for prolonged periods of

time that could result in employees serving three to five

year probation periods, or longer. Employees should not be

subject to an almost perpetual state of probation because of

comprehensive agency training, certification or licensing

programs.

Additionally, extending the probation period reduces the

due process rights of employees. While on probation,

employees have few civil service protections and almost no

appeal rights in the event of an adverse action. Civil

service protections and the merit system exist to protect the

government from politicization. Without these rights,

employees on probation will have little to no protection

against discrimination and employer retaliation and more

exposure to termination not based on cause, but rather

arbitrary and unjust reasons.

Extending the probation period does not solve any problems

regarding poor performance. Supervisors should be responsible

and held accountable for identifying and addressing issues of

poor performance of new employees quickly and efficiently.

Supervisors need better training to manage new employees.

Extending the probation period does nothing to better train

supervisors nor does it provide any accountability for

supervisors to effectively manage new employees.

Please Vote NO on H.R. 4182, ``Ensuring a Qualified Civil

Service Act of 2017.''

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Kahn,

Director, Legislative Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is my dear friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is a perspicacious member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, someone who grasps these issues fundamentally, and is my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair the schedule on the amendments.

I thank the Chair for that clarification.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), who is a professor and a very able member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Will the gentleman yield?

Did my colleague just say there was not a single hearing on a bill that affects the entire Federal Government?

Did we act on evidence-based policymaking? Were there studies and data that showed how successful extending the probationary would be for all of these Federal agencies?

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as indicated, I appreciate the intent of my friend from Montana, but this is a bad bill. We ought to be studying the effect of the existing pilot program at the Department of Defense to see how it works, and we ought to be adopting the GAO recommendation of better training for supervisors whom the GAO found, frankly, were ill-equipped to evaluate employees during a 1- or 2-year probationary period.

We ought to have a hearing, and my friend from Montana might even agree with this, since he is the newest Member, one of the newest Members of our committee. Our committee is the locus for government- wide initiatives such as this.

We have not had a single hearing on this bill, or, frankly, on this subject, and I think that is a huge mistake. We are putting the cart before the horse; so I think we ought to return to a more empirical- based policymaking, especially when it is a policy that will affect every future Federal employee, and those numbers are huge, given the baby boom bulge ready to retire. That is 40 percent of the workforce, and it has to be replaced.

So while I very much appreciate the intent of my friend from Montana, it is in that context I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, under H.R. 4182, the probationary period for all Federal employees is extended for an additional year, regardless of the job they are hired to do. All new employees are punished equally, and supervisors are given no new tools to improve their use of the existing probationary period.

In February 2016, as I have mentioned before, the GAO reports studying the rules and trends relating to review and dismissal of employees for poor performance, suggests that the Office of Personnel Management look into whether there are certain occupations, due to the nature or complexity of the position, in which the probationary period should be extended beyond 1 year or not.

We heard testimony before the Rules Committee from a number of colleagues who represent areas with big Federal concentration, Federal employee concentrations with specialized agencies, such as the weather service in Oklahoma and CDC in Atlanta where a 2-year probationary period may very well impede the ability to hire the skilled workers we need.

The report goes on to say that it is something that should be looked into. It does not call for a government-wide extension of the probationary period. That is why I filed this amendment to require the GAO to conduct a study on the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies that have used this tool, a 2-year probationary period.

A 2-year probationary period for civilian employees at DOD was enacted in 2016, and as the largest Federal agency, this extension would provide a good case study on the potential impacts: good, bad, and indifferent on the legislation before us. It is a study we ought to do before we adopt a bill.

Some of my colleagues believe that since extending the probationary period has been working out so well, it ought to be extended across the entire Federal Government. There are a few things I need to point out for us. This policy only affected those who were hired after November 25, 2015, the day the law went into effect.

Secondly, the former Under Secretary of Defense, as I mentioned in earlier statements, Peter Levine, testified before the Armed Services Committee that the Department has done little to take advantage of that legislation. That is his testimony. Therefore, there are only a small number of employees who have completed the 2-year probationary period, and it is too soon to declare it a success or failure.

That is why my amendment would have the GAO give us guidance. How has it worked? Has it helped? Has it hurt? Are there some things we haven't anticipated that we need to address?

The study would also look into whether extending the probationary period has any effect on the ability of an agency to recruit and retain. And, again, I pointed out 40 percent of the existing workforce is eligible for retirement now or in the next few years. That is a huge number of people. And we have got to worry about recruitment.

Gathering the data is a necessary first step, not a last step or an afterthought, before deciding to change a law with such profound impact on Federal agencies. This bill, as I said to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), may yet prove to be a good idea, but we don't know. There remain a lot of questions about the efficacy of this proposal. It is risky, and it can have terrible negative consequences that we haven't even foreseen and some of which we can predict today.

Two weeks ago, this body adopted a policy of evidence-based policymaking, so let's put it into implementation with this bill. Let's look for some evidence, empirical evidence, systematically done to justify the adoption of such a sweeping bill.

Mr. Chairman, I call for the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4182.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, highly skilled Federal employees are essential to a government that serves its citizens. Skilled Federal workers ensure that functions of government, from delivering mail to protecting the homeland, are carried out successfully.

Federal jobs and the skills required to perform them vary significantly across government. Some employees review patents, some work in human resources, and others work in law enforcement.

While the jobs, skills, and training required may be different from job to job, the expectation that the Federal Government hires qualified candidates is universal.

One tool agencies and managers have to ensure a qualified workforce is the probationary period--a period of time used to evaluate whether a new hire

can effectively perform the duties of the position.

Under current law, most new hires are required to complete a probationary period of 1 year before receiving full employment status. Most new employees complete the probationary period and are hired as permanent employees.

New employees who fail to demonstrate that they are a good fit for the position, however, are transitioned out of government during the probationary period, but the current 1-year trial period is not sufficient for complex Federal occupations. Potential employees deserve ample time to learn about the job and demonstrate they are able to perform all critical aspects of a Federal position, and supervisors deserve ample time to evaluate new hires.

What is a manager supposed to do in this case? Does the supervisor take a gamble and offer permanent status to an untested employee or risk missing out on a potentially skilled employee? This is a real dilemma. Supervisors throughout the Federal workforce have described this exact scenario in their advocacy for this bill.

According to the Government Managers Coalition, managers tend to err on the side of releasing borderline employees in cases like this, and it can be a very frustrating decision for them to make. They have already devoted a significant amount of time and resources into training the new hire.

However, managers would rather not risk hiring an employee who is on the fence at the end of a probationary period. This is because a manager is pretty much stuck with an employee after the probationary period. It is difficult to remove a permanent employee for poor performance or misconduct.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the procedural hurdles to removing a permanent employee can take from 6 months to 1 year. The evidence is clear, the probationary period needs to be extended.

In 2015, the GAO reported that chief human capital officers throughout the Federal Government would benefit from an extension of the probationary period, especially in occupations which are complex or difficult to assess. Federal manager groups have been asking for a longer probationary period for years.

In congressional testimony earlier this year, the national president of the Federal Managers Association, Renee Johnson said: ``FMA advocates extending the probationary period. This would benefit both the government and employees by allowing supervisors to make decisions based on the employees' performance as fully trained employees--not just guessing at how they will perform after the training is completed.''

The Government Managers Coalition, a group of five organizations that represent the interests of over 200,000 supervisors, managers, and executives serving throughout the Federal Government, supports an extension of the probationary period.

I include in the Record a letter of support from the Government Managers Coalition signed by the heads of the FAA Managers Association, Federal Managers Association, Professional Managers Association, National Council of Social Security Management Associations, and Senior Executives Association; and a letter from the Professional Managers Association.

Government Managers Coalition,

November 29, 2017.

United States Congress,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Government

Managers Coalition (GMC), which is comprised of five major

federal sector professional associations collectively

representing the interests of over 200,000 supervisors,

managers, and executives serving throughout the federal

government.

Our coalition is supportive of H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a

Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017 (the EQUALS Act),

introduced by Representative James Comer. We appreciate Rep.

Comer's efforts to take the lead on this important

legislation and the consideration earlier this month by the

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The GMC has

advocated for an extended probationary period for over a

decade. We encourage you to support the measure when it comes

to the floor later this week.

The EQUALS Act would grant agencies the authority to extend

the probationary period for competitive service appointments

and supervisors. In addition, this legislation would align

appointments under competitive and senior executive service

with the two-year trial period served under excepted service

appointments, bringing consistency to hiring throughout

government.

Extension of the probationary period is supported by a 2015

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, GAO-15-191.

Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) commented to GAO that

often supervisors within federal departments and agencies are

not given sufficient time to accurately review performance

before the probationary period is complete. The CHCO

recommended an extension of the probationary period to the

GAO in order to accurately assess an employee's abilities in

the federal workforce. In addition, Congress has already

approved a two-year probationary period for employees at the

Department of Defense, as part of the Fiscal Year 2016

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), P.L. 114-92.

The GMC's mission is to promote good government initiatives

that foster effectiveness and efficiency throughout the

federal government. We believe that this legislation will

allow employees sufficient time on the job to demonstrate

their abilities as well as allow for proper assessment. The

measure will also ensure that supervisors have the

opportunity and authority to fulfill their performance

management responsibilities that may not be feasible under

the current one-year probationary period.

The current one-year probationary period is often

insufficient to assess an employee's performance in more

technical and complex jobs, of which there are many in the

federal government, and may in fact place an employee at risk

of termination before having had the opportunity to

effectively demonstrate their abilities. The reality is that

many technical jobs require agency classroom training,

mentoring and on-the-job training for employees to become

proficient. Often, the supervisor does not see the employee

during those times, and is unable to observe the employee's

performance. In front-line public service roles, such as with

the Social Security Administration (SSA) or the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), employees must not only learn

material, but also need to be able to effectively interact

with citizens. The EQUALS Act would ensure that employees are

provided with the opportunity to not only receive training,

but also to effectively demonstrate their abilities.

Extending the probationary period will in no way penalize an

employee who is performing well and progressing in their

training and responsibilities.

The GMC would appreciate your support of this legislation.

In light of ongoing agency reorganization efforts, it is now

more important than ever to ensure federal managers making

personnel decisions have a comprehensive toolset available

that represents both flexibility for agencies and fairness

for affected federal employees. We look forward to passage of

this legislation, as well as other commonsense federal

workforce reform bills resulting in an improved federal

government that can better serve the American public. Should

you require additional information or want to discuss this

issue further, please contact Rachel A. Emmons with the

National Council of Social Security Management Associations

(NCSSMA).

Sincerely,

Andy Taylor,

President, FAA Managers Association.

Renee M. Johnson,

President, Federal Managers Association.

Thomas R. Burger,

Executive Director, Professional Managers Association.

Christopher Detzler,

President, National Council of Social Security, Management

Association.

Bill Valdez,

President, Senior Executives Association.

In the letter, the coalition members write that they have ``advocated for an extended probationary period for over a decade,'' and that this legislation will allow employees sufficient time on the job to demonstrate their abilities as well as allow for proper assessment.

The individuals they represent see the difficulties associated with the current system in their day-to-day lives. They understand the problems associated with the arbitrary nature of the current 1-year probationary period.

The EQUALS Act addresses these problems and moves toward a system better suited for the modern workforce. The bill will extend the probationary period for new hires in the competitive service and initial appointments for managers to 2 years after the completion of formal training or licensure.

The concept of a 2-year probationary period is not new. Congress extended the probationary period for new hires at the Department of Defense to 2 years in 2015. This bill brings the rest of the government in line with the Department of Defense standards. The EQUALS Act also recognizes the variety of positions and training requirements throughout the Federal Government. The EQUALS Act requires the 2-year period to begin upon the conclusion of the formal training or licensure process.

This is important, because under current law, time spent in training counts against the probationary period. This means that a Federal job with long training, by the time a probationary employee completes the training, the supervisor often has little or no time to evaluate the employee's performance.

For example, training for new hires at the Internal Revenue Service takes 1 year. By the time a new IRS employee completes training, the manager has to make a decision whether to keep the employee without having seen the employee do the job.

As Ms. Johnson testified before Congress: ``New employees must often master broad and complex policies and procedures to meet their agencies' missions, necessitating several months of formal training followed by long periods of on-the-job instruction. In occupations where training takes substantial time, supervisors may only have a few months of work to judge employees' performance.''

According to data from the Office of Personnel Management, most formal training programs last less than 1 month. For those positions, the inclusion of formal training in the probationary period does not do any harm.

However, for those positions that have long training periods, the EQUALS Act will make a big difference. The EQUALS Act also helps ensure managers are doing their jobs. Under the bill, agencies must notify supervisors prior to the completion of a probationary period so that the supervisor is reminded to make a decision about a probationary employee.

The bill also requires agencies to certify that an employee has successfully completed a probationary period and to provide justification for that decision.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to make sure we are clear about what the EQUALS Act does and does not do. The EQUALS Act does not remove or change any due process rights for probationary period employees. Probationary employees will still have due process protections. Probationary employees have access to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Office of Special Counsel. Each of those offices are empowered to hear appeals from probationary employees, and that will not change when H.R. 4182 becomes law.

This bill is a much-needed fix to the Federal hiring process. It will allow the Federal Government to select the best and brightest civil servants to serve the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I think it is important to define what the probationary period is and what it is not.

According to the MSPB, the probationary period is the final step in the employee screening process when an individual must demonstrate ``why it is

in the public interest for the government to finalize an appointment to the civil service.''

This is not a punitive measure. It is an opportunity for a prospective employee to prove they are qualified to serve the American people through a position in the civil service. These are critically important jobs and we need the best and brightest to fill them. A longer probationary period gives all new hires time to complete their training, learn on the job, and demonstrate that they can perform the role they were hired to do. This is good for our government, good for Federal employees, and good for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not create an exception for alumni of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service programs. It puts them at a disadvantage.

They would have less time than other new hires to prove themselves before managers make a decision whether to keep them or let them go. This could mean fewer Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other national service alumni are retained at the end of the probationary period.

Under the current 1-year system, supervisors often do not have enough time to determine whether a potential employee is a good fit for the job. Managers tend to err on the side of releasing an employee who is on the fence at the end of a probationary period.

New hires to the Federal Government deserve ample time to demonstrate they are able to perform all critical aspects of the job. H.R. 4182 gives them more time.

This amendment would actually put certain groups at a disadvantage in comparison to the rest of the Federal workforce. Alumni of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and other programs would have 1 year to demonstrate the skills and core competencies required for the

Federal job they are seeking. Their colleagues would have 2 years.

The spirit of this amendment is admirable, but the unintended consequence of adopting it will be that the very people the amendment is meant to benefit would be at a disadvantage.

The probationary period is not a punishment. It is an extension of the hiring process and a tool to help ensure a qualified civil service. This amendment would create additional classes of Federal employees and unnecessarily add complexity to an already complex system.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, extending the probationary period is not a new idea. Federal manager groups have advocated for an extended probationary period for more than a decade.

The Government Accountability Office completed a study on the probationary period in February of 2015. In that study, chief human capital officers told GAO a longer probationary period could help supervisors make a performance assessment for those occupations that are particularly complex or difficult to assess. GAO also recommended considering, ``extending the supervisory probationary period beyond 1 year to include at least 1 full employee appraisal cycle.''

As far back as 2005, the Merit Systems Protection Board completed a study and recommended longer probationary periods when an agency deems it necessary to fully evaluate a probationer. It is not necessary to wait for more studies on this issue.

This amendment strikes the entire bill, meaning the current probationary period would remain the same and the problems that GAO and others have identified would persist. This amendment undermines the entire purpose of the bill, which is to allow managers' employees more time to conduct a fair and complete assessment of probationary Federal employees.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 635 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I just had a chance to visit with my colleague from New York. We were talking about, well, the same thing all Members talk about when they get together: those things they have in common, those things that make their day a little bit better, those things they are struggling with that make their day a little bit worse.

I regret that so often we come to the House floor and the debate that we are having seems like we just have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. I am sure it has been your experience. I think you can ask any freshman Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker, ``What is the biggest surprise you have had in your first year in Congress?'' and they will say, ``I am surprised at how hardworking and conscientious and diligent and committed absolutely every single one of my colleagues is, because I was reading in the local paper back home, and it sounded like it was a big cesspool there in Washington, D.C. I am pleasantly surprised at how sincere my colleagues are at working for their 700,000 to 800,000 constituents back home.''

Mr. Speaker, we have two bills that this rule makes in order for debate today, and they are two bills that I will tell you are incredibly well intentioned. I plan to support them. I plan to enthusiastically support them, but they are on issues that are hard in their minutia.

The first bill that is made in order today under a closed rule, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 1699. It is the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act. We had testimony in the committee yesterday, and the discussion was how do we protect buyers of manufactured housing from being exploited while still enabling those Americans who don't have other avenues for purchasing housing to get into that most affordable of housing, manufactured housing. We have common goals to protect people and to empower people, but how do we get that done?

This bill was worked through committee. I believe it is a good compromise. We didn't allow any amendments to this. There were no germane amendments presented in committee, so that is coming under a closed rule today.

This rule also would make in order a structured rule for H.R. 4182, the Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act of 2017.

Again, Mr. Speaker, when you go and read the headlines, it makes it sound like every discussion on Capitol Hill is among a bunch of partisan hacks. It is just not true.

The civil service, an incredibly important part of American Government, has dedicated men and women who show up every day to institute the laws that you and I pass, to be the interpreters of the bridge between the laws that we pass and the way they hit folks on the ground. We all want those employees to be protected from the swinging pendulum of partisanship.

I don't want a Republican President to get elected and fire all the Democrats serving in government. There are some bright-minded scientists, some great folks in law enforcement, some really talented people in education. I don't want them to lose their jobs because of the partisanship of a President.

Similarly, I don't want to see a Democratic President get elected and fire all the folks who are Republicans. There are some fantastic Republican minds in our Department of Agriculture helping our farmers to succeed, our Department of Labor helping our workers to succeed. You go right on down the list, there are strong men and women helping folks to succeed.

But we are also facing a reality that that same civil service system that seeks to protect those hardworking, those exceptional workers trying to serve America, that same system that works to protect them also protects folks who are completely derelict in their responsibilities.

We had that discussion as a conference, as a House. In fact, in a bicameral discussion, it went to the President's desk for his signature, as it came to the VA, to say: Can't we do more to reform a civil service system, to reform Federal labor union provisions so that folks who need the protection, because they are exceptional, continue to be protected; but those folks who are failing our veterans, that those folks cease to be protected from a system that seeks to require accountability? We passed that together. We did that together here, Mr. Speaker. We sent it to the Senate. They did it together. The President signed it into law.

This Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service Act does one thing and one thing only: it extends the probationary period of a new civil service worker from the current 1 year to 2 years.

The Department of Defense has done this already, and it has been working exceedingly well for them. The concern is: Have I been able to adequately assess an employee's ability to perform in a 12-month period?

We are committed to trying to train people up, Mr. Speaker. Nobody is trying to run folks out before they have had a chance to learn their job. The question is: Is a year long enough to uncover the flaws in an employee or is 2 years a wider window?

You will hear folks on the other side say: Rob, why in the world can't you all figure out if an employee is talented in year one?

That is fair.

They will say: Rob, if you are going to train somebody up, why couldn't you get it done in year one?

That is fair.

But as the GAO has looked at this issue, what they found is managers aren't getting that done in year one. Whether it is because they are ineffective as managers or whether it is because they keep trying to give people a second chance and get them trained up is an open question. This bill mandates nothing, but it allows this 2-year window so that managers can give their new employees a good first, second, and third look.

The data suggests that once folks get fully protected by the civil service system, it is very difficult to move underperforming employees out. That work should be done during this probationary period. This bill aims to lengthen that probationary period to 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, reasonable men and women can disagree on these measures. I believe they are important steps in the right direction. But what gives me so much pleasure to come to the floor to bring this rule to you today is the earnestness with which these two bills were presented.

These are common challenges: How do we ensure the very best staff for the American people? How do we ensure access to homes and protection for home buyers for the American people? These are sincere concerns, legitimate disagreements.

If we pass this rule today, we will enable a debating period. We will bring these bills to the floor so that we can air our concerns and challenge our assumptions. I hope, at the end of the day, my colleagues will decide to support this rule and to support the two underlying pieces of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to let my colleagues know that this bill passed out of committee by more than a 2-1 margin, a big bipartisan vote out of committee to reform manufactured housing to provide more access.

Mr. Speaker, I don't profess to be an expert on that, so I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), one of my colleagues from the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), a good friend and authority on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would share with the gentlewoman from New York that I have no further speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raises a lot of important points. I am absolutely concerned about funding the United States Government, but, sadly, in a way that has become systemic as we talk about who we are as a people, Mr. Speaker, we can either be glasses half full or we can be glasses half empty.

Is it true that the number of days we have left in this continuing resolution are limited?

It is.

Is it also true that this House has fully funded the government ahead of schedule for the first time since the good people of the Seventh District elected me to Congress?

It is.

This House has nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, this House should be shouting it from the rooftops:

The United States Constitution gives the United States

Congress a job to do. The House has done its. Senate, get to

work.

This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that we have been able to fund all the appropriations bills--there are 12 of them--before the end of the fiscal year since I was elected in 2011. The Senate has passed, I believe, zero appropriations bills so far this year.

Mr. Speaker, let's not give anybody a pass on getting the good work done. Let's do hold people accountable, but let's not chastise ourselves and create an atmosphere of failure.

Success begets success. We succeeded together for the first time in a long time. Let's not waste that opportunity to get that bill across the floor of the Senate.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about civil service protections today. There is not a man or a woman in this Chamber who doesn't want the absolute best Federal workforce that we could find; not one.

The question today is: Do we lock you in and give you all of those ironclad protections that every American knows the civil service system offers?

We all know that it is hard to get fired from a government job. We all know that.

Should we extend the probationary period where folks can be monitored, trained up, disciplined, worked with from 1 year to 2 years?

If that gets us a better Federal workforce to serve the American people, the answer should be a unanimous yes.

I say to my friends who oppose this bill: If it doesn't end up in that result, I will vote with you to repeal it. But I believe it will end up with a more highly qualified workforce, that it will end up with an American taxpayer who feels like they are getting their money's worth.

I will tell you the best thing we can do for our civil service employees is to end the narrative that civil service is a place of failure instead of a place of success, it is to end the narrative that substandard people work for the Federal Government as opposed to exceptional people work for the Federal Government.

I represent employees of the CDC in my part of the world, Mr. Speaker. The Centers for Disease Control is second to no one in the intellectual firepower that they assemble to serve the American people. Those men and women put themselves in harm's way to battle those pandemics that scare the bejesus out of the rest of us. They do it as an act of service, and they should be praised for it.

The best thing we can do for them is to make sure folks don't slip through the cracks and they get saddled with a substandard partner. We want them to have access to an exceptional partner. This bill would do that.

Mr. Speaker, as to access to manufactured housing, the bill from my friend from Kentucky, it is absolutely true that every man and woman in this Chamber wants to protect the American consumer from predatory lending. That is undisputed. But as my friend in Kentucky stated, when do we protect someone right out of the opportunity to have a home? In the name of protecting people, when do we fail those very same people?

We had testimony in the committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, presented credit union after credit union after credit union that would no longer loan money to its members to purchase a manufactured home. They wouldn't do it. They couldn't do it.

Talk about predatory lending if you want to; it is not your local credit union that is doing it. Talk about big Wall Street banks exploiting people if you want to; it is not your local credit union who is doing it.

Talk about people who want to build your community; it is your local credit union.

Yet credit union after credit union said: The men and women whom we strive to serve, we will no longer help access the American Dream. We can't. Why? Because of the regulations coming out of Washington, D.C.

Do we want to protect the American consumer? We do, and we can, but we can't protect them right out of home ownership. We shouldn't, yet we have.

Passing this bill today that my friend from Kentucky brings forward corrects that mistake, puts us back on track for protecting consumers and enabling consumers.

Mr. Speaker, you can pick any day of the week on Capitol Hill, and you can find a way to describe everything that goes on as nefarious, as misguided, as contrived. But, Mr. Speaker, you can also look at days on Capitol Hill and see the earnestness with which men and women work together to move this country forward. That is the day we have today. I hope it is the day we have tomorrow and the next day and the next day.

I urge my friends, support this rule. Support bringing this bill to the floor for manufactured housing. Support bringing this bill to the floor to improve the civil service system.

We can do that with a vote right now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Mexico an additional 15 seconds.

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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), the land of moose, maple syrup, and lobster, a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

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. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), a member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this is a vaguely worded and unneeded