invest in innovation in scientific research, things that help power our economy. their budget assumes that the transportation trust fund will run dry in a few months. that's not accounted for within their budget numbers. so that's what the republican budgets do, both the house budget and the senate budget. there's no way to remedy those problems in conference because any point between those two is bad for america. the only way to remedy it would be if we were able to instruct the conferees to adopt the house democratic budget proposal that we put forward a few weeks ago, which actually provides additionally tax relief to working families. it significantly increases the child tax credit. if you are a working family and

want to make sure your child is in quality health care, you are going to get a little bit more tax relief or if you have an elderly loved one at home that you want to make sure has quality care you getal little more tax relief. if you are a two-worker family, we scale back the marriage penalties. the democratic budget actually provides more tax relief for working americans while the republican budget provides tax increases to working families. . it increases transportation by closing a lot of the tax breaks in the code that actually encourage american companies to move jobs and capital overseas, we get rid of those loopholes and say let's invest the money here in america. that's what the democratic budget does. but the rules don't permit us to instruct the conferees to do the right thing and adopt that alternative which does reflect

the values and priorities of the people around the country, but there are two little things where the senate budget is actually min kuhl -- minusculely better than the house budget, but they are important things. they are important things that passed in the senate with a large democratic vote and some republican senators as well. one is a provision to say let's provide a fund, let's provide room in the budget for earned paid sick leave. so that moms and dads who have kids who are sick at home don't have to choose between forgoing their income and caring for their kid at home. they don't have to choose between worrying about making their rent payment or mortgage payment or their grocery bill payment on time, and making sure their kids are cared for when they are sick. that's part of the senate budget. so we are asking our colleagues

to instruct the conferees to at least adopt that one little glimmer of good news in the senate budget. the other difference relates to the house proposal to turn medicare into a voucher program at the end of the budget window. what does that plan do? what it does is it shifts the risks of higher costs within the medicare system on to the backs of seniors. the congressional budget office has shown that for those seniors who choose to remain in the traditional medicare program their premiums would go up significantly. that's what the house budget does. it voucherizes the medicare program. the senate budget does not. so we are asking our colleagues to accept the senate version which is not good when it comes

to medicare generally, but at least on this one point is better than the house bill. so that, mr. speaker, is our motion to instruct. i wish we could instruct the conferees to adopt the democratic budget proposal, which, as i said, says to working families we hear you, we know you're working harder than ever, we know you feel like you're on a trend mill. we know a lot of you feel like you're falling behind. we have a budget to help you. the republican budget doesn't do that. doesn't help at all. but at least maybe in these two little things we can send a signal today that we understand that working families are struggling and we want to make sure that we do something to help them. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be so stuck in their washington ways that they can't -- they

just can't see or recognize a positive solution when one's presented. i remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that we are mired in the worst recovery, economic recovery in the modern era. the worst economic recovery in the modernera. slowest, there are a fewer people working right now than there were when the recession began. that's what the other side has brought us. they want to double down on these policies. the american people clearly understand that there's a better way. there are positive solutions we ought to be putting in place. i want to talk about specifically the medicare proposal because the distortion and mischaracterization of the positive patient-centered solution we put forward in the area of medicare continues over and over and over from our friends on the other side. it really doesn't contribute to the important work, the important conversation that we must have as a nation.

the fact of the matter, mr. speaker, is that as you know and the american people know, the medicare program's going broke. that's not representative price saying that, that's not me saying that, that's the medicare actuaries. the folks that are charged with letting us know as a nation how's the program doing from a financial standpoint? and what they say is that it's not doing very well. and it's getting worse and worse and worse. in 2030, the fact of the matter is that the program will not be able to provide the services that have been promised to seniors. so the solution for our friends on the other side is what? do nothing. stick your head in the sand. don't worry about that. don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain. nothing. what they are destineying seniors in this country to inherit in a very short period of time is a medicare program that doesn't provide the

services as promised. i can tell you, mr. speaker, that as a formerly practicing physician, folks are concerned. i hear from my medical colleagues daily, literally daily, concerns that they have about our health care system, especially about the medicare program and about the challenges that exist because of governmental intervention. because of the rules and regulations that are heaped upon more rules and regulations to make it more difficult for them to even care for patients. what do we believe is the appropriate thing to do? we think we ought to save and strengthen and secure medicare. that's the right solution. so in spite of the mischaracterization of our friends on the other side about the proposal that we put forward, it is indeed, to save and strengthen and secure medicare and the fact of the matter is seniors understand than-l and appreciate that and desire us as a body to come together and solve that challenge. solve that challenge together. i invite my friends to join us in working together for a

mossive solution. further, i want to -- do want to thank my colleague for bringing this motion to the floor today because this is an important debate that we are having. and the debate is very fundamental. it's about how we are to build a stronger nation. how we are to provide greater opportunity for all americans. what we believe is that we recognize that the economy is not moving as it should. the wages are stagnant. the economy is underperforming. at the very least our friends on the other side ought to admit that we can do better. it's a bit troubling to see that the policies that they continue to champion look remarkably similar to the sorts of policies that have been tried and frankly failed over the past six years. while our nation has piled up trillions of dollars of more debt, our economy hasn't grown as it should. this has been the worst recovery in the modern era leaving

millions of americans still struggling to make ends meet. our budget, our budget's a balanced budget, mr. speaker. we adopt add plan that would grow our economy empower individuals, empower families and job creators in our local communities, all the while holding washington accountable and protecting our nation. our budget, if you recall, mr. speaker, balances in less than 10 years. it does so without raising taxes. in contrast, to the budget of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and the president's budget, i might add, that never ever, ever gets to balance. we reduce spending at the governmental level by $5.5 trillion over a 10-year period of time. higher than any previous budget proposal. we call for fair and simpler tax code and to promote job creation and help the economy. we repeal obamacare in its entirety and all the taxes and regulations so we can put in place patient centered health care. putting patients and families and doctors in charge of health care not washington, d.c.

expanding opportunity for access to quality, affordable health coverage. as i mentioned, we have a plan to save and strengthen and secure medicare and medicaid. things that are absolutely vital o for the american people and they understand that. our budget provides for a strong national defense through a robust funding of troop training and equipment and compensation. we promote innovation and flexibility in the area of medicaid so we can save that program, provide flexibility in the area of nutrition assistance and education and other programs. our budget proposes to cut waste and eliminate redundancies and end the practice of washington picking winners and losers in our economy. all the while calling for reforms to our nation's regulatory assistance to improve transparency and effectiveness and efficiency and accountability. mr. speaker, we have endorsed an optimistic vision. a vision for america's future by credibly, credibly addressing our fiscal and economic challenges so that we can deliver real results for the

american people. since both the house and the senate have passed our respective budgets, we must now work together to iron out any differences that there may be between the two and we need to come to an agreement for a unified fiscal year 2016 budget. this conference committee is the next vital step in the days to come and will sit down and discuss how to advance these positive solutions in order to secure more economic growth and opportunity. hold washington accountable for patient centered health care and ensure a strong national defense. we look forward to working with the senate and the house conference committee and follow that with passage in this congress of a unified budget to balance the budget in this nation in less than 10 years. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida -- georgia reserves his time. and the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. i would remind my colleague that when president obama was sworn in we were losing 780,000 jobs per month.

per month. we were in a nose dive. it took a little while to climb out of that deep valley, but we have now had 61 consecutive months of positive job growth, 12.1 million jobs. longest streak in history. so job growth coming back. we got a ways to go. no doubt about it. we need to do even better. that's why i don't understand a republican budget that the congressional budget office tells us was slow -- would slow down economic growth in the next couple years. that's what the nonpartisan budget pros tell us. it will slow down economic growth. our republican colleagues say they don't have enough yet we have a budget, the congressional budget office says next couple years we'll slow it down. just as we continue to grow at record levels. they also have a budget as i indicated that says to people

who are out there working hard, you're going to get squeezed even harder on your take-home pay. you're working harder than ever but you know what? we are going to increase the tax burden on working families. let me say a little thing about this medicare voucher plan. the way to reduce our health care costs is to move toward a system that rewards the delivery of value rather than volume in our health care system. and, in fact, one of the great untold success stories we know over the last couple years has been because we have begun to move in that direction, we have saved trillions of dollars, over a drill dollars without sacrificing quality. the problem with the medicare voucher plan is it doesn't improve health care by changing the incentives to move toward more value and more quality rather than quantity and volume, it actually saves medicare money

by shifting the risk of higher costs on to seniors. the congressional budget office says under their plan those who choose to stay in the fee-for-service system would pay 50% more in terms of premiums. so that is the real world impact of that proposal. now, what are the priorities of our republican colleagues. we keep hearing this is a balanced budget. just isn't show. -- isn't so. this is phony argument. this budget says it's repealing the affordable care act and yet it only claims balance because of the revenues generated from the affordable care act they claim to repeal. that would make enron accountants blush. what else? this thursday in this house we are scheduled to vote on a proposal to get rid of the estate tax on estates for

couples of over $10 million. $10 million, that's about 5,500 people a year. a cruise ship fits more people than that. . here's what it does. of all the states in the country, let's be clear that republican budget looks out for and what the bill they're bringing to the floor this week looks out for. this blue, the 99.85%, those are the estates that already not impacted at all. the bill they're bringing to the floor of the house this week is for that tiny little sliver of red, .15% of estates. that's what the republican budget is all about, and that's what they're looking out for in the budget that cuts our kids'

education funding, cuts our investment in scientific research and increases the tax burden on working families. that's what it's all about and guess what, this estate tax cut for estates couples over $10 million, it's not factored into the republican budget. that loses $268 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. that's not accounted for in the budget they're talking about today. so four days from today -- actually two days from today, they're going to bring to the floor a bill that busts their own budget. that's pretty amazing and to claim that it balances is just a phony claim. finally, while it's providing those big tax breaks to estates over $10 million doesn't close a single tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the

deficit. not one. not for corporate jets, not for hedge fund managers, not a one tax loophole closed when they claim they want to reduce the deficit. so when you dig a little deeper mr. speaker, this republican budget is wrong for the country. it's great for folks who've already climbed that ladder. most people that want to climb the ladder want to keep the ladder. those yanked the ladder and said we're on the top, forget about the rest. and now i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to one of the people who will be designated as one of my fellow conferees, the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much mr. speaker, and thank you so much mr. van hollen. i could just sit down and say i

agree with everything that the gentleman has said but i want to add my voice to this debate and rise to support the democratic motion to instruct these conferees. as mr. van hollen has said, there are provisions in the senate version that are very, very worthy of our adopting. there is the reserve fund unpaid sick leave and it also rejects the house provision on medicare premiums support the vouchers. now, i've been a member of this budget committee for over five years, and i could tell you while i have an appetite for leftovers, this has just been warmed over too many times. this budget is just another variation of the same themes that we have seen in the past several years. and what are they, what is this thing? the majority party has

recommitted themselves to benefit the wealthiest 1% of americans while balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. now, i know there are many people unfortunately on both sides of the aisle who are not all that concerned about the poor. they figure that poor has done this to themselves, but what has the middle class done to deserve being hallowed out even more while we provide tax breaks for the wealthiest .2%? what have hardworking men and women and cities and mayors all over this country done so that we just ignore infrastructure improvements, ignore devolving money to the states all in the name of providing tax breaks

for the richest of the rich? now, there's -- the commonsense approach would be to adopt our democratic motion to instruct conferees and it would be very much in league with what the bipartisan actions we've seen over there in the senate. i mean it's been historic, miraculous to see 61 senators, both senators from my state, both parties voting to establish the deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow workers to earn sick paid leave. filibuster majority. sick paid leave is not only good for americans the 13 million working men and women who don't have sick paid leave when they need it but millions are unable to take care of their sick kids or their parents or their spouses because they can't afford to do it. workers are -- they have agonizing choices when their kids fall ill.

nearly a quarter of working adults have reported that they've lost or come close to losing their job, mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute. ms. moore: 3 1/2 days of pay loss is equivalent to a month's groceries. people can't afford to do it. it's not only good for our poem, it's good for our economy as well. people won't use emergency rooms as much. there are 1.3 million emergency room visits every year because we don't have sick leave. people won't come to work, pass communicable diseases with paid sick leave. again, the medicare voucher is just a sham, mr. speaker. senior citizens and people with disabilities rely on this for their health security, and i guess the republicans have said it time and again that they

would like to see medicare wither on the vine and adopting the provisions in the house budget will in fact accomplish that. so i urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct conferees and i thank the gentleman and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves his time, and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: thank you mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, my colleague from georgia, mr. woodall a member of the budget committee and rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my chairman for yielding me the time. i have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from maryland. i'm just categorically opposed to the motion to instruct he offers here today but it's good we are doing motions to instruct because what we have an opportunity to do, mr. speaker, for the first time since i was elected to this

body five years ago is send house members and senate members together and actually establish a budget of the united states. mr. speaker, i wasn't teasing. i was elected four years and four months ago, and this is the first time that we've been able to come together and not just on a budget, on a balanced budget, on a balanced budget under the idea that it might be immoral to pay for our benefits today on the backs of our children yet to be born, that that might just be the wrong thing to do. mr. speaker, in particular in this motion to instruct, what troubles me is the attempt to do away with the medicare premium support program that we've been working so hard to establish. if anyone has a mom or dad who's on medicare, if anybody's on medicare themselves they experienced two things. they've experienced going into the doctor's office and questioning some provision of benefits, asking the question

about whether or not this should be provided, whether or not this is the right cost and they've had a physician say they've had a hospital attendant say what do you care, medicare's going to pick that up. you know it's true. every single person that's had that happen in their family and the result of that is a medicare program that will not be there for us. mr. speaker, i don't know if everybody across the country knows but everybody in this chamber knows that most american families pay more in medicare and social security taxes than they do in income taxes. the highest tax burden on most american families is not the income tax. it's the tax we pay for the promise that social security and medicare will be there for us when we need it the most. and there is only one budget we got to vote on in this town that solves that medicare issue, that says you know what

we know the program's going to go bankrupt and we know there are no easy solutions but we're going to make the tough decisions today. we're not going to put it off until tomorrow. my friend from maryland said he wished the rules were different so we can just substitute the democratic budget for this, for the budget that was passed in this house. of course, that budget raised taxes by $2 trillion and did nothing to solve this problem, nothing to solve this problem. the medicare premium support system holds the promise of keeping the commitments that we have made to every single working american through the medicare and social security programs. if you didn't want to take tough votes, don't run for congress. if you didn't want to be in the solutions business you just want to be in the blame business, don't run for congress. if you want to be in the

business of restoring the faith of the folks who pay that heavy tax burden, that the promises we make today will be there for them tomorrow, there is but one budget on capitol hill that fills that need and this house had the wisdom to pass it. this house had the wisdom to pass it, mr. speaker. i'm so proud that when we had an opportunity to either kick the can down the road or make the tough decisions we said not on our watch will we break more of these promises. and it's all done by giving patients more choice. imagine that radical idea, give patients choice in their medical decisions. folks love their medicare, mr. speaker, but they don't love it as much as they love their medicare advantage. have you seen those numbers? folks love their medicare advantage. first time in medicare history we gave patients choice, it's

the most popular program in medicare for reasons unbeknownst to me this administration has been trying to stomp the life out of that program since the day it was elected. but the program persists because the american people love it. you want to talk about doubling down on something mr. speaker, we're doubling down on patient choice. we're doubling down on the idea that if you put americans in charge of their own health care decisions they will make better decisions than the government will on their behalf. we cannot fail at this. we cannot fail. we owe america a balanced budget. and we owe america the confidence that the promises we made in exchange for the highest tax bill that they pay will be there for them when they retire. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. my friend and colleague from georgia mentioned tough

choices. it's interesting that the republican budget chooses not to cut one corporate tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. apparently that's too tough a choice for our republican colleagues. not to close the corporate jet tax break, not to cut the tax break that benefits hedge fund managers. they don't cut a single one of those tax breaks to help reduce our deficit. but they do want to increase the premiums on seniors who choose to stay in the traditional medicare program so they may call it a choice but for most americans if i say your preem yum's going to go up 50%, yeah, you can choose to have your premium go up or you can go somewhere else. that's not a heck of a real

choice for most seniors who are struggling financially. sure it's a pay-to-stay plan but you got to pay a lot more in premiums, according to the congressional budget office. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office. so, yeah the democratic budget does make the decision to close some of those special interest tax breaks to help reduce the long-term deficit so we don't have to increase the costs and risks to seniors on medicare, so we don't have to increase the costs to student loans and start charging students interest while they're still in college. no, we don't do that. they're right. we don't -- we think those are the right decisions that we made, not to increase the cost of student loans and not to increase the costs and risks of seniors on medicare. yes, we choose to cut some of

those special interest tax breaks instead, and we certainly don't think that we should be providing another big tax break to those estates in the country worth more than $10 million. . i'm pleased to yield three minutes to another person who will be designated a conferee, member of the budget committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from maryland for yielding. i like to watch -- read the comic strip in the paper every day, the wizard of id. the budgets we have seen coming out of the house and senate are like that budget. he casts a magic spell, he went poof, and all of a sudden we created a balanced budget that's going to solve all this nation's problems in the next 10 years. i don't think there are many gullible people out there who

actually believe that will be the case. but we know some things for certain in this budget. we know that many, many important government investments are going to be cut beyond any reasonable limit. and to dangerous limits. we know, for instance, that within a matter of months, the highway trust fund is going to run out of money. we have $2 trillion worth of unmet infrastructure needs currently on the drawing board. this budget, these two budgets, cut funding to make up some of that incredibly necessary infrastructure work. this budget slashes money for innovation, for research. the one greatest advantage this country has in the global economy is our innovative talent. this budget says we can wait for that. not in this world is moving 100 miles an hour, we can't wait for that. every time we cut research, we are setting back, again, our greatest advantage for years.

and as my colleague from maryland mentioned, education devastating cuts to head start, k through 12 education. the one thing that can guarantee a hardworking american family's children the opportunity to succeed and have a life that they dream about. so i fully support our motion to instruct. i think we deal with two problems that clearly face us and face working families throughout our country. the ability to actually care for yourself if you're sick or your family member and not lose income. something virtually every industrialized nation has. we can do that. when my friend from georgia talked about making hard choices, this is an easy choice. let's not worry about too many of the hard choices. let's make the easy ones that can help. we can do comprehensive immigration reform which is contemplated in the democratic budget. that not only helps reduce the

deficit, it solves one of our most daunting national challenges. we could do that. that would be an easy choice. but we do have hard choices to make. the republicans want to voucherize the medicare system. they say it creates choice. it also puts insurance companies back in charge of seniors' health care. i'm not sure american seniors look forward to that scenario. so we want to do a different -- go in a different direction. again, providing sick leave so that people can take care of their families without losing their income. and also involving doingway with the medicare voucher system. we think that this will help make the budget a better budget. it's still a disastrous budget, but i urge that we accept the motion to instruct. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a wonderfully contributing member of the budget committee, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three meant. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. i was recently asked, what issue keeps you up at night? and i answered in an instant, our government's debt. a debt that has doubled in just eight years. a debt that now exceeds the size of our entire annual economy. a debt that is generating interest costs that are now eating us alive. roughly a quarter trillion dollars a year just to rent the money that we have already spent. the congressional budget office warns us in 10 years interest costs will exceed our entire defense spending if we continue down the road we are on. admiral mullen wasn't just blowing smoke when he said that in his professional military judgment the greatest threat to

our national security was our national debt. because before you can provide for the common defense and provide the general welfare, you have to be able to pay for it. and the ability of our country to do so is coming into grave doubt. for four years this house has passed budgets that put our nation back on the path to fiscal solvency and begun paying down this enormous debt that is sapping our prosperity and threatening our futures and for four years the senate simply refused to act. as the gentleman from georgia said we just kick the can down the road. last november's election changed that. now the senate has also passed a budget that balances in 10 years. now for the first time in many years we have the fleeting opportunity to invoke a conference process and put this nation back on the road to solvency. time's not our friend and we

don't have much of it left. the conference committee must have full latitude to act on a budget that both houses can agree to. and the democrat motion would hamstring that conference. my friend from maryland on behalf of house democrats says this budget isn't right for america. well, america needs to know that the democratic budget never balances. it would continue our country down the road of debt and doubt and despair that we have been on during this -- these long, cold years. the gentleman from maryland criticizes premium support to save medicare. americans need to know that the medicare trustees themselves are screaming this warning at us that without reform medicare will bankrupt within 15 years. that means if you're 50 years or younger it won't be there for you. when the democrats say don't reform medicare, what they mean is they are quite all right with that system collapsing on an

entire generation of americans. mr. speake to solvency and recovery is the conference process that can produce a plan to balance the budget and all that stands against that, an unfettered conference process, is this motion. as i said, we don't have much time left. with the time we have left let's -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. how much time? mr. price: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mcclintock: with my remaining time let me suggest with the time our country has left we do something worthy of our time here. that we balance our budget, redeem our debt, and save our country i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. i would just make two points. the first as i mentioned earlier

one of the great untold success stories of the affordable care act reforms as well as other reforms in the health care system in recent years is that we have dramatically reduced the costs of health care on a per capita basis. in other words the increased costs per person of health care have been dramatically slowed down according to the congressional budget office, which has helped save medicare and other health care programs by over $1 trillion. that's the rye way to do it. by realigning the incentives so we are rewarding value in our medicare system not volume. as opposed to the republican voucher plan which saves money by shifting the risk on to seniors. the other point, we talked about this over and over, it just ain't so that the republican budget balances. again, it requires the revenue

from the affordable care act. that amount of revenue. in order to balance. at the same time they say they are getting rid of it. two days from now, they are going to add over $268 billion to the deficit by getting rid of the estate tax for estates over $10 million. that's not accounted for in their budget. it puts their budgets out of balance. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to another member of the budget committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i would join in urging my colleagues to defeat this democratic motion to instruct the conferees. i do so very much tied to the working families that i talk to back home because working families back home believe in balancing the checkbook. they have to do it every day in their lives. what they say to me is, why in the world can't you guys do the same up in washington, d.c.?

and in that regard, if we were to go the other route, take in mind the president's budget proposal going from running structural $500 billion a year deficits to $1.1 trillion a year deficits. this is moving in the wrong direction if we go with the instructions. i think that when i talk to working families back home what they tell me is we got to deal with problems as they come along. doing nothing's not an option. so when there is a hole in the roof they are out there with tin or shingles and they are repairing the roof. when there is a problem with the septic tank, they are out there with a shovel digging and trying to fix it. the same regard, i think what the committee and what the conference has come up with, with regard to looking at a way of saving medicare to be very, very instructive. as has already been noted within 15 years the actuaries say that the medicare fund will be out of money. doing nothing is indeed not an option. and i think philosophically you

have to look at this and say, did medicare d work? it has worked. this is giving choice. in essence, 50 million seniors get to decide the fuhr of medicare versus 15 nonelected bureaucrats in washington, d.c. finally i would say what's important about this, i think from the standpoint of working families is what they tell me is that will borrowing from peter to pay for paul never works. it doesn't work in their budgets at home. it shouldn't work in washington d.c. and yet with this proposal to come up with paid sick leave, a lot of people would love that. but it ought to be addressed at the state level. states run on balanced budget requirements. a number of states are coming with proposals to that effect. but if we do it here in washington, d.c., at the very time when we are running structural $500 billion deficits, it means we are handing the bill off to the kids to pay for this. we are indeed borrowing from peter to pay for paul.

it's for those reasons i urge defeat of the motion to instruct and would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. and the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: mr. speaker how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has 2 1/2 minutes. -- 12 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from maryland has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. price: who has the right to close, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has the right to close. mr. price: may i inquire as to whether or not the gentleman has any more speakers? mr. van hollen: i do not. i'm prepared to close. mr. price: i appreciate the -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: i appreciate the comments that have been made by my colleagues to bring into

focus the positive solutions that we have been working for with our budget. i reluctantly propose the motion to instruct as it compromises the ability of the conference committee to fashion the best possible solution. i will say, mr. speaker, however, that the distortions that have been presented i think , they have gone past frustrating the american people. they anger the american people about the distortion of positions here in washington. the american people are smarter than that. our side of the aisle, we are interested in making certain that we assist all americans. every single american. so that he or she has the greatest opportunity to realize the greatest amount of success in their own dreams, their own lives in the way that they deem to be most appropriate. not with washington dictating to them what they must do. i want to touch on a couple of very specific issues that have been mentioned by my friend from

maryland and others on the other side of the aisle. our proposal our balanced budget proposal gets to balance within 10 -- a 10-year period of time. it increases growth. the growth is important mr. speaker, our friends mentioned it on the other side of the aisle, as if the policies that have been in place over the past six years had some madge magical solution that it increased growth in this contry. the fact of the matter mr. speaker, is that as we see in this the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan congressional budget office, as my friend from maryland says, these are the projections of growth that the congressional budget office has had over the last four years. four years ago, 3.0%. the average, mr. speaker, as you well know, is about 3.3% over the last 40 years. that's in the economy. growing every year, 3.3% on average. and the projection four years ago was that it would be 3%. three years ago it was down to 2.9%.

two years ago 2.5%. this year, 2.3%. this is lost jobs, lost opportunity. fewer dreams realized. all because of the policies coming out of washington, d.c. . and our friends on the other side want to double down on those policies. our budget that gets to balance -- which our friends on the other side of the aisle, their budget never does. the president's budget never gets to balance, something folks back home can't do, they can't do in their personal lives, can't do in their businesses, our budget gets to balance and increases growth. increases growth. because that's what we got to do. we have to increase growth in this economy so that more dreams can be realized, more jobs can be created, wages can be increased. the way you increase wages is to increase the vitality of the economy, not have washington dictate it to people. and then this tired, this tired

old characterization of our proposal to save and strengthen and secure medicare and the way that it's characterized is to voucherize it. what is this nonsense, mr. speaker? the american people know it. what we propose to do is to save medicare, not allow it to die on the vine, which is what our friends on the other side of the aisle want to do, because when you read their policies they don't do anything to address the insolvency of medicare that's coming in a very short period of time -- not according to me but according to the medicare trustees and that means that seniors won't be able to get -- provided the services they've been promised. that's not the right thing to do, mr. speaker. our friends on the other side talk about the tax loopholes. and goodness knows we've been for cutting tax loopholes before closing tax loopholes was cool. we just can't get folks to rally to the cause in a

positive way. from our friends on the other side of the aisle. and my friend knows -- from maryland knows the way that is fashioned is in the ways and means committee. it's not in the budget committee. the budget committee lays out the vision, lays out the plan, lays out the parameters that are able to be utilized. as my friend from maryland knows, the ways and means committee is actively working right now, actively working right now on appropriate tax reform and the tax reform proposal that was put together by our side of the aisle last year that demonstrated our willingness and desire to close loopholes and to end special treatments through the tax code. we believe everybody ought to be treated equally in the tax code, not have washington picking winners and losers which our friends on the other side tend to desire. and then this -- again, this distorted notion about health care costs and where health care costs are going right now health care costs are down. that's right mr. speaker.

who are they down for? they're down for the federal government. who are they not down for? the american people. that's who they're not down for. what we've done with the president's health care program is to shift huge costs, huge costs to the american people. if you're an individual out there, you make $40,000 $30,000, $40,000 $50,000 right now and the coverage you're able to purchase right now because of obamacare has a deduction, has a deductible in your health plan between $6,000 and $12,000 which countless americans have right now, let me suggest, mr. speaker, you don't have health coverage because you can't afford the deductible. but that's the proposal that our friends on the other side of the aisle embrace. that's the one they want to put forward. and who are they harming? they're harming the american people and the american people know it. they know there's a better solution, they know there's a positive way, a

patient-centered solution to get health care back on track and that's what we propose in the area of health care. with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve. i think i got one more speaker who is -- who's desirous of coming to the floor and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: well mr. speaker, i'm going to continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. so is the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: let me inquire, mr. speaker, how much time remains on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland still has 2 1/2 minutes -- five minutes. mr. price: well, as i await one of our members who is heading to the floor to share his concerns about the motion to instruct, let me just revisit once again the positive

solutions that we put forward in our budget. this is a balanced budget for a stronger america. it's a budget that gets to balance within a 10-year period of time and does so without raising taxes. it recognizes that the american people have realized, not the full glory of obamacare yet, but they've seen enough and they recognize that it's harming not just their health care, it's harming the economy. and so we repeal all of obamacare. yes, all of it. taxes, regulations mandates, all of it. and we do so again not just because it is harming the economy but as a formerly practicing physician i can tell you it's harming the health care of the american people. we eliminate the independent payment advisory board. mr. speaker, as you know that's the panelists, a 15-member panel that was prescribed for by the affordable care act, boy obamacare, that stipulates to physicians whether they'll pay the doctor for services rendered to seniors, not just

before the care being provided but after the fact. harming the ability of seniors to be able to access quality care in this country. we provide for a strong national defense, the resources necessary for a strong national defense and do so at a level above the president's level. we secure our future in the area of medicare and medicaid and provide an idea for how we make certain that the social security disability trust fund does not go broke and move forward in a positive way. we restore the issue of federalism increasing choices and opportunity for the american people at the local level, whether it's in medicaid or nutrition assistance or in the area of education or other programs. and then finally, mr. speaker we cut waste and corporate welfare and improve accountability. we do so by ending the practice of washington picking winners and losers. we call for reform for the regulatory system so we increase transparency and efficiency and effectiveness

and accountability. there's a positive solution, positive solution that american people have been crying out for. they've been crying out for not just solutions here but leadership here in washington. as my colleagues on our side of the aisle talked about how enthusiastic they are about the opportunity to have the senate and the house come together, come together for a positive solution in the area of budget process and budget activity. so i'm pleased that the gentleman from maryland brought the motion to instruct forward. as i say, i reluctantly have to oppose it because i think it compromises and ties the hands of individuals within the conference committee. so i urge a no vote on the motion to instruct and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for the remainder of the time. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, the republican budget doesn't balance.

you can't claim the revenues from the affordable care act at the same time you claim to repeal the affordable care act. you can't claim balance and then two days later bring to the floor of the house a bill that provides tax breaks to american estates over $10 million that's not accounted for in the budget that you claim balance. so it doesn't balance. it actually does increase the tax burden on working families. how? again, it phases -- it gets rid of the increase of the child tax credit. it gets rid of the bumpup in the earned income tax credit. it eliminates the affordable care act tax credits and it eliminates the higher education deduction that helps families afford to send their kids to college. so in fact, it is increasing the tax burden on working

families. who's it not increasing the tax burden on? folks at the very, very top. the chairman of the committee talked about economic growth. we need economic growth. history has taught us that economic growth comes when you have a country where the hard work of americans and the increased worker productivity is translated into higher pay and benefits so they can go out and spend money on goods and services in the economy and everybody can move forward again. what we got in this budget is the same old same old. this is trickled down economics all over again. this is based on the theory that has been disproven in the real world that you grow the economy by cutting tax rates for millionaires. we tried that in the early 2000's. what happened? surprise surprise.

the incomes of folks at the very top went up. incomes of everybody else flat. what else went up? deficits went up. the chairman says the republican budget is a budget for all americans. two days from today, they're going to bring to the floor a bill that gets rid of the estate tax for those over $10 million. .15%. about 5,500 american families. as i said earlier, you can put more people on a cruise ship. that's who the republican budget looks after. now, look, the democratic budget takes the opposite approach. it actually provides tax relief for working families. yes, we do close some tax breaks for special interest to help reduce our long-term deficit. we also call for increasing the minimum wage for millions of americans who are working hard every day and yet at the end of

the year the amount they earn still puts them below the federal poverty level. that's not right. we also call for equal pay for equal work. today is equal pay day. today is the number of days since the end of last year, the number of days more that women have to work to achieve the same pay as men in the workplace. that's not right, and the democratic budget addresses that issue. we also say it's not right that corporations should be able to cut their employee pay or cut their work force and still get a tax deduction for c.e.o. and executive bonuses over $1 million. pay your c.e.o.'s whatever you want. pay whatever executives whatever you want but why should they get a tax deduction for those bonuses if they're not increasing the pay of their own workers? that's not right. that's what the democratic

budget says, we should get rit of that inequity and actually use the tax code, not to incentivize corporate jets but actually to incentivize greater pay for more workers. and this motion to instruct also says for goodness sakes, let's do what the senate agreed to do. let's do what the senate agreed to do. let's call for an earned paid sick leave provision so that families don't have to say thatt in order to take care of a sick loved one at home they have to forgo the paycheck that allows them to pay the rent and the mortgage and put food on the table. and yet, we do not believe that you should turn medicare into a voucher plan. we have put forward proposals for reform to move to a system that rewards value over volume. and by the way, mr. speaker, despite passing on the risks of

higher health care costs to seniors to that plan, there's no a shred of evidence that that plan in this particular budget will actually do anything in the end to help medicare other than to shift that burden onto seniors. so the republican budget is the wrong way to go for the country. it is a budget based on a failed ideology that somehow we're going to grow our economy through trickled down economics, top-down, trickled down. that failed our economy. let's have an economy based on broadly shared prosperity. let's reject the republican budget accept the motion to instruct and ultimately adopt the democratic alternative. i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion. the question is on adoption of the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher seek recognition? mr. fincher: i call up the bill 650 to amend the truth in lending act to modify the

definitions of a mortgage originator and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the clerk: union calendar a bill to amend the truth in leapeding act to modify the definitions of a mortgage originator and high-cost mortgage. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 189. the bill is considered read, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters will each control 0 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. fincher: i ask members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials under the bill. . i yield myself such time as i may consume. before i start, i want to thank chairman hensarling and leadership he has shown and the ability to work with us and allow to do these pieces of

legislation that help our districts all over our country especially my 8th district of tennessee. i thank him for his leadership and support. i'm pleased to be the sponsor of preserving access to housing manufactured act. access to manufacturing housing is vital to people in my district. unfortunately to cfpb mortgage regulations that do not reflect the home sales process access to financing for manufactured homes is in serious jeopardy. manufactured housing serves as a critical option for those who could not otherwise afford to buy a home. homes are available at lower monthly payments than what it costs to rent and the average price of a manufactured home is less than $43,000 compared to an average price of $177,000 for a site-built home. almost three-quarters of

families living in manufactured homes have annual incomes under $40,000. but this important source of home ownership for american families is being threatened by high current mortgage rules that are too inflexible and lead to the denial of financing certain homes. high cost rules consider cost as a percentage of a loan, smaller sized loans like manufactured home loans often violate points and fees caps. manufactured home loans are typically associated with fixed interest rates full a.m. more 'tisation and balloon payments, negative a.m. torsation, no downpayment loans, et cetera.

because of the resulting high cost designation and increased lender liket associated with it, some lenders stopped making manufacturing loans all together and some have stopped originating loans under $20000. many have said their tenants are forced to sell their homes because potential buyers can't find financing. these below market sales just don't hurt sellers, they hurt every homeowner in the community who feels a huge loss in the equity in their home. the cfpb's loan definition has gone into effect, retailers are forced to stop providing technical assistance to consumers. this bill modifies the definition of high-cost loans so manufactured housing loans are not unfairly swept under the high cost loan designation simply due to their size.

this bill would help ensure the vaket options for manufactured homes while preserving the necessary consumer protections in the dodd-frank act and the safe act. let me say that one more time. this bill would help ensure the vale built of financing options for manufactured homes while preserving the necessary consumer protections in the dodd-frank act. this not only preserves the core protections but helps consumers by restoring access to financing. such financing enables working families and retirees to obtain housing that much cheaper than renting or owning conventional mortgage options. consumers will continue to have the wide range of mortgage protections established by dodd-frank including the q m, ability to repay, the prohibition on steering incentives and steering to a

loan that has predatory characters, the long-term disclosure requirements and other state and federal laws. this bill is ensuring access to affordable housing especially in rural america where rental properties are not as abundant. this bill enjoys broad bipartisan support by groups including the national association of realtors the mortgage bankers association, the manufactured housing institute the national organization of african-american in housing, the national association of federal credit unions, the association of mortgage professionals and the california association of mortgage professionals and numerous manufacturing housing state associations. this bill, mr. speaker, is a compromise from last year's bipartisan bill and in an effort to gain even more support on both sides of the aisle, we introduced a bipartisan compromise this congress. this is not a democrat or republican issue.

it's an affordability of housing issue for rural america. we cannot forget about rural america, mr. speaker. these are my constituents and many folks here that serve in this body. so i urge my colleagues to support this and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from is recognized for as much time as she wishes to choose. ms. waters: i rise in opposition to h.r. 650 which would undermind the d.o.d. frank reform act and eliminate consumer protections. the talking points described this bill as one that preserves access to manufactured housing but the reality is that we have learned this bill is a solution to a problem that does not exist. we agree that this needed

additional study last year and report we have received from the consumer financial protection bureau the manufactured housing industry and the center for public integrity have all shown us that this measure would not create access to affordable housing, but would instead allow an incredibly profitable industry to make even more money by charging exorbitant interest fees and fees to low-income borrowers. the industry itself averts that it has been growing and highly profitable even with the dodd-frank mortgage protections in place. in fact, according to its trade association, the manufacturing housing industry recorded shipment increases in every month of 2014 and the manufactured housing association for regulatory reform found that

in 2014, that 2014 marked a fifth consecutive year of annual industry production increases. even one of the world's investors berkshire hath away, warren buff fet has been boasting the profitability of manufactured housing. in a letter he said the manufacturing housing subsidy, earned $558 million in 2014 and an increase of 34% over 2013. yes, that's a 34% increase even after the dodd-frank rules were in place. unfortunately, this is the same clayton homes that was the subject of a recent "seattle times" center for public

integrity joint investigation that found this manufacturing housing empire profits in every imaginable way from producing the housing, to selling the housing, to originating the loans that take advantage of vulnerable consumers and leave them virtually no way to refinance. mr. chairman, without objection, i would like to enter this article into the record. this, again, is a scathing article that was produced by the "seattle times." the investigation found that clayton locked one disabled veteran in tennessee, dorothy mansfield, into an expensive loan even though the monthly payment would give her $27. other borrowers were quoted inexpensive loan terms only to

see interest and fees skyrocket. once they had put down a nonrefundable deposit or paid out large amounts of money to prepare their land for installation of the home. just like subprime borrowers in the financial crisis, many looking to purchase manufactured housing were convinced to take out high-cost loans because they were sold false promises that they would be able to refinance to lower rates in the future. former clayton sales people have blown the whistle. they are coming forward and are talking and have attested that they have pressured customers to use clayton affiliated financing even if it wasn't the best deal and some even received kickbacks putting customers into more expensive loan. h.r. 650 would allow abusive lenders to charge up to nearly 14% interest before consumer

protections were triggered, more than four times what the average borrower is paying on a home loan. there's not one people of congress who would pay or is paying 14% interest 12, 13, 11% interest. this is outrageous. in the coming years, this number could very well grow to 16% 17% and likely 18% as interest rates rise back to normal. and even worse, the bill would also make it legal for clayton sales personnel to steer borrowers towards high cost loans, loans from other parts of the conglomerate that are not in their interest, a practice we banned for loan originators. mr. chairman, when it comes to manufactured housing consumers are already exposed to significant risk, high interest rates, the inability to refinance and in many cases that

deappreciation starts as soon as the manufactured home is sold. today, we consider a measure that would even further roll back key protections. this measure would do away with a number of protections current law affords to many high cost loans, such as stiffer penalties for bad acting lenders additional disclosures for investors and consumers that purchase high cost mortgages, mandatory counseling so borrowers would know what they're getting into and even the ability of borrowers to have their loan rescinded if lenders don't follow the law. they would lose all of these protections. as the consumer financial protection bureau noted in their stud of the manufactured housing industry, the individuals that apply for loans for manufactured housing include consumers that may be considered more financially vulnerable and thus may particularly stand to benefit from strong consumer

protections. and now, in addition to the cfpb's report, we have investigative reporting that puts names and faces and individual stories of woe to the cfpb's description of market practices and policy failures. finally, the obama administration has said, and they quote, that they strongly oppose this bill because it would, quote, put the lowest income and economically vulnerable consumers at significant risk of being subjected to predatory lending and being steered into more expensive loans even when they qualify for lower cost alternatives, unquote. rolling back that the manufactured housing industry needs more oversight is a dangerous give-away to a sector that profits handsomely at the expense of vulnerable borrowers. so, mr. chairman, and members i would urge my colleagues to

oppose this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. fincher: i yield myself one minute before the gentleman from texas to enter a letter from mr. barney frank back in 2011 former chairman, former ranking member of our committee on this issue. thank you for your thoughtful letter about the negative impacts of the financial reform bill on manufactured housing. i'm proud of the work i have done for years and regretful to realize we did have this problem. it is not necessary to include manufactured housing. and i'm now working with my staff to find a way to make a change to deal with the problem you currently point out. mr. speaker, i want to enter that into the record and so much what the ranking member my colleague the other side of the aisle is saying, we aren't messing with those parts of the

bill that strengthen protections. all we are doing is fixing the unintended consequences with the dodd-frank bill being so big. with that, i yield five minutes to the chairman of the financial institutions committee, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five mr. neugebauer: this bill isn't ability profits. -- about profits. it's about providing an opportunity for american families to have housing choices. h r. 650 is an important bill for communities in my district texas' 19th district, and communities across america. for most of my career i was in the home building business. for many years in my community we would go out to try to recruit a new employer a manufacturer, a cotton producer the goal was to help the economy and provide job opportunities for the folks. however, in many of these

communities there's a limited amount of housing stock available. in order for the communities to grow you have to have sufficient housing availability to attract those businesses. you can't grow your community if folks don't have a place to live system of the manufactured housing industry has been an integral part of providing housing for rural america. unfortunately, under the new mortgage rules coming out of cfpb, the manufactured housing industry is facing some pretty significant head winds in regulatory obstacles. last summer, i had the opportunity to go and visit a manufactured housing dealer in my district. the dealer began by telling me story of family after family unable to serve because of the new mortgage -- they were unable to serve because of new mortgage restrictions. for some of young families, this is the first home they may own, it may be manufactured home worth $15,000 or $20,000. and they are very proud of it. unfortunately many families in

america have run out of places to go to afford an unhome. when consume brother text starts limiting consumer choices, we have gone too far. unfortunately, i think many of the cfpb rules have gone too far. they're not only negatively impacting consumers but we have the opportunity to make sure the people we represent have an opportunity to make their own decisions about their housing, not the federal government, and not one agency to make that decision for them. this bill, h.r. 650, makes an important -- makes important corrections to the definition of a mortgage originator under the truth in lending act. it's a bipartisan bill that ensures low and moderate income families continue to have access to credit for the purchases -- for the purchase of affordable homes and ensures the cfpb rules are properly calibrated and don't consider the home loans as high cost loans under the home ownership and equity protection act. for those reasons, i thank mr.

fincher and bipartisan sponsors for their work on the bill and support its final passage. i want to mention that when you look at a lot of these small community, and it's been mentioned, well, sometimes people can rent, or they can own, and in some cases people will say, and rightfully so, that manufactured housing is a lower cost of housing for some of those people. but let me say this. in some of these communities, it's not about whether you have a choice to rent or to own, in some cases there's just not adequate housing stock in those communities. if you want to choke a little -- a little, small community across america, take away the ability to provide housing. in many of these communities, there hasn't been a new house built in those communities for 30 or 40 years. what you're saying to those small communities, because we are so intent in protecting americans and we don't trust them to make their own decisions, we're just going to take away any opportunity that

those small communities have to prosper and grow in the future. i don't think that's what the founding fathers of this country intended. they intended for this to be a land of opportunity. and if we continue to do these kinds of things, we take away the opportunities of americans that want to live in those communities system of with that, mr. speaker i encourage passage of this and i reeled back the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i think it's important for people to know that that letter that was read was back in 2011, prior to the consumer protection bureaus very investigative reporting. with that, i yield to the gentlelady, ms. sewell, three minutes. ms. sewell: thank you, ranking member waters. today i stand in support of h.r. 650, to the preserving access to manufactured housing act. manufactured housing serves as an affordable and sustainable

housing option for roughly 22 million americans. in my state of alabama, more than 300,000 families reside in manufactured housing. which comprises in excess of 45% of the state's housing market. in districts like mine where we face tremendous economic disparity and suppressed rental markets, manufactured housing must remain an option. oftentimes it is the only safe and affordable mortgage option available to families. without this bill, working families and retirees with poor credit or limited income can't obtain credit at all and are faced into -- forced into more expensive housing options. in some parts of my district, the more rural neeferts district, the only option for many are manufactured housing. h.r. 650 makes a simple but necessary adjustment to these thresholds to enable lenders to meet the demand for affordable

responsible loans for manufactured homes. in many ways mr. speaker, this bill is an acknowledgment that manufactured housing is different from regular dwelling housing. it is in fact not real property but personal property. more like a car than it is like a home. and the fact of the matter is i believe that dodd-frank did not anticipate -- was an unintended cons quebs of dodd-frank that these manufactured housing would get wrapped into the regulatory scheme for dwelling homes. in fact most of the lenders are not loan originators as it would be in the mortgage context. rather, they are lenders giving limited options i should say, giving families, working family the only option in many, many of the jurisdictions, the rural

communities that i represent. with all due respect, i don't see this as a predatory lending bill. this is all about access to affordability. i, like the ranking member, you know, strong advocates against predatory lending would not be supportive of an industry that preys upon the most vulnerable in the community. in fact many of my constituents represent vulnerable communities. and instead, i really see this as an opportunity for them mombing the communities i represent, to have affordable housing at all. and so, it is with that that i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider h.r. 650 as a -- an opportunity for rural communities all across america to have as a viable option manufactured housing. i want to repeat something that was very important. in no way does this bill take away consume brother texts.

the consume brother texts that were established by dodd-frank are really important. they include the ability to repay requirements. the prohibition of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. sewell: may i ask the ranking member for one minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. sewell: thank you. the consumers will continue to have a wide range of consumer protections that dodd-frank affords and which i think many of us agree with. we would still have truth in lending disclosures which are critically important and loan term disclosures that are critically important and the prohibition against mandatory arbitration and other state laws are not affected. so i see this not as a predatory lending bill but access to affordable housing bill and ask my colleagues to support h.r. 650. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expire the gentlewoman from california

reserves her time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentlelady from alabama for supporting the legislation. i yield now to the gentleman from kentucky whose team almost did it, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to consume. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to thank the gentleman from tennessee for his leadership on this very important issue, mr. fincher, for being a champion for affordability of housing and manufactured housing in plample i want to thank all of my colleagues who are supporting this important legislation that i have co-sponsored, the preserving access to manufactured housing act. it is a bipartisan bill. mr. barr: and that's important. affordable manufactured housing is a key source of housing for many of my constituents, particularly those living in rural areas including my district in central and eastern kentucky. many of those individuals who could not orse afford to buy or even -- could not otherwise

afford to buy or even rent a home. unfortunately, due to the regulatory requirements of the dodd-frank act, many have stopped offering loans for this housing. many are fixed rate, amourtized loans that have nothing in common with the bad mortgage loans that brought down the housing market in 2008. yet the consumer financial protection bureau has treat red tailers of manufactured homes as mortgage originators, despite the fact that they do not originate loans. furthermore, the small dollar amounts of the loans trigger rules because the points in small dollar loans are a higher percentage. this drives them from the market, resulting in higher cost and reduced choice for prospective home buyers. in fact, due to increased lender

liability associated with this mortgage designation, some manufactured housing lend verse stopped making manufactured home loans entirely and others stopped originating manufactured home loans under $20,000 a typical price point. the legislation before us today does nothing to roll back existing protexts against predatory lebbeding. as has been said previously by my friends on the other side of the aisle, congresswoman sewell. 46r789 r. 650 merely clarifies the -- h.r. 6 50678 -- h.r. 650 merely clarifies that the federal government will be protecting home owners right out of their homes this legislation will reduce the bureaucratic red tape, increase access to affordable manufactured housing for american families and let me conclude by saying this in response to some of the arguments made by the ranking member. she made the point that manufactured homes sales are

increasing. that is not an argument against this legislation. on the contrary, it underscores the extent to which americans are relying on manufactured housing in the obe -- obama economy and the need oto preserve access to lower priced more affordable homes. homes such as manufactured home which is commonly are available at lower monthly payments than what it costs even to rent. and it also reinforces the need for this legislation because we need to preserve access to affordable housing. and this argument, canard, that this is somehow rolling back consumer protections for lower income home owners, this is not true at all this legislation does nothing to roll back consume brother texts. and i simply do not define consume brother texts as a law that tries to protect people in a way that makes access to housing completely unreachable. that is not consume brother text. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan piece of legislation that preserves

access to affordable housing and preserves commonsense consumer protections. with that mr. speaker i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the chair will receive a mess act. margaret: mr. speaker a -- the messenger: a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm direct lid the president of the united states to deliver a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i think it's important for me to correct statements made more than once by the opposite side of the aisle about consume brother texts. h.r. 650 would remove consumer protections afforded to buyers under the -- of high priced mortgage loans for manufactured housing loans that currently receive such protections. those protections include, prior to making a high cost mortgage

the lender must receive written certification that consumer has received counseling from a h.u.d. approved counselor of state agency. that would be out. restrictions on loan terms for high cost mortgages, including balloon payments currently only allowed in certain limited circumstances. prepayment penalties banned. limitation of due on demand features of loans. creditors banned from recommended default on existing loan to be refinanced by a high cost mortgage. no fees can be charged by services or creditors to modify or renew, extend high cost mortgage. fees, late fees capped at 4% of past due payment and pyramiding of fees banned no fees to receive a payoff statement. they cannot be financed into principal balance. ban on issuing two loans in order to evade coverage by splitting fees all of these are

protections that would be eliminated i have yield to the gentleman from missouri two minutes. . >> i would argue that home sales increasing is a reason for us to be protective, some kind of an industry that is growing. i represent areas where there are a number of manufactured homes throughout the rural parts of missouri that are included in the fifth congressional district. i'm a capitalist i believe people ought to make money and ought to make money in the manufactured home industry and i would like them to make money in the fifth congressional district. but everyone in here would agree we have had questions about what happens when a car is purchased and the driver drives it around the corner and loses about $1,200 due to depreciation.

mr. cleaver: you know, the car appreciates almost as you -- depreciates almost as you sign the note. this is an unintended reason for more, i think congressional oversight of this particular industry because these homes also lose value, like automobiles. let me give you an example from the seattle study and this is sad and tiffany, a single mother living in florida in 2005, she bought a mobile home for $37,000 and with the loan she purchased from 21st mortgage and then rented the home out and made payments for eight years

totalling more than the sticker price of the home. she lost her tenant and fell behind in her payments. she arranged to show the home to a prospective renter, but when she arrived at her home site, she found barren dirt with p.v.c. pipe sticking up from the ground. she thought someone stolen her home and her home was 30 miles away and up for sale. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: the home was up for sale for $29,000. that's a real reason for us not only to look at this industry, but to protect people as it is growing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. fincher: i yield two minutes to my good friend from texas

mr. williams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. williams: i thank the gentleman from from tennessee for his leadership. i rise today in support of h.r. 650 a bipartisan piece of legislation that would make commonsense changes to dodd-frank and restore clarity to a market that has been hit hard by unnecessary regulations. texas manufactures 25% of our nation's new manufactured homes almost 12,000 last year. texas is home to 19 manufacturing facilities with an average of 8,00 skilled workers per factory. when we are recovering from the financial crisis of 2008, now is the time to free small businesses from harmful regulations. i cannot emphasize enough how important it is to have access to affordable financing especially in central texas where the average price for a home is $60,000. the one size fits all is clearly

not working. instead of protecting consumers, the cfpb has gotten it wrong. truth in lending products for manufactured housing clearly won't protect consumers but reduce access. with increased lender liabilities obtaining a high cost mortgage has become impossible. having critical resources is vital by passing the preserving access to manufactured housing act. congress can correct one of the many unintended con see questionses of the dodd frank act. this bill is fair, this bill is logical and it must pass. i urge immediate passage and i yield back. in god we trust. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves and the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from arizona two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. sinema: thank you for yielding. manufactured housing a key form of affordable housing in my state particularly in rural and underserved communities. more than 300,000 families in arizona live in manufactured homes. manufactured homes provide an affordable housing choice for many low and moderate income families. existing manufactured homeowners are negatively impacted by current regulations. these rules curtail consumers' ability to access manufactured home loans or receive effective assistance in the manufactured home buying process. these regulations create situations where borrowers are not allowed to be matched with lenders who can help them in a timely and efficient manner. for example, if a realtor in arizona works with a veteran who wants to use his or her v.a. ell gict to purchase a home, they

offer v.a. home loans but due to the current restrictions, the process is different if a veteran shops for a manufactured home. manufactured home sales centers have a marketing table where lenders place lending and marketing materials. they cannot assist veterans in finding lenders. when a vent ran enters the home center, they are instructed to go to the table and sit through the brochures to determine which linder is best. there may be a dozen different leapeders available on this table. this is a very daunting and discouraging process for most borrowers, especially for first-time home buyers. if they could have put them in the direction of a lender that offers v.a. loans, the veteran would have been taken care of immediately and be able to make an informed and confident decision. this will remedy the consequences of unintended

regulations by providing more opons and better advice. the bill amends the definition of a high-cost mortgage and corresponding thresholds to ensure that consumers will have the opportunity to access mortgage credit. and i would encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back and the gentlelady from california reserves. and the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. fincher: i yield to the gentleman from from arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker and thank you, mr. fincher thank you for yielding on this important measure. it pains me to stand here in opposition to my friend, the ranking member of the committee in support of h.r. 650. but i believe that h.r. 650 is a commonsense bill that actually preserves financing options for

manufactured homes while preserving and maintaining consumer protection. i want to add, too, that my friend from missouri noted the health of the industry and i'd like to provide a counter comment on that. there has been an 80% decline in the production of manufactured housing in the country some 160 plants have closed and a loss of some 200,000 jobs and therefore this industry is important to our nation. mr. hill: as a percentage of total housing units in my home state of arkansas we have 170,000 units, which is some 13% of housing units in our state, one of the largest percentages in the country. for many years, i was a community banker with offices in the mississippi delta region of

arkansas and for many of our families, especially in rural areas, manufactured housing is not only the best option for housing, but the best option for clean, safe modern and affordable housing. and often due to low volumes in these kinds of towns the only option, as many of my colleagues have noted. however under the new mortgage rules issued by the consumer financial protection bureau, many of these manufactured housing loans are now automatically considered high cost and therefore subject, both the consumer to a higher costs and the lenders to greater liket and therefore many of my old colleagues in community banking offer fewer loans and that impacts hard working, low to moderate income families across arkansas and particularly in rural america, whose only objective is to own a home.

the director of cfpb has acknowledged that its rules has this issue of constraining credit. as executive director of arkansas manufacturing housing said, most low income car san saw families don't have the luxury when it comes to their mortgage option and many of our member businesses won't last for a few more years of decline in sales. mr. speaker, i would like to enter this letter in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hill: regarding consumer protection, i agree with my colleagues this bill does not weaken any current laws. it protects consumers' access to credit, and helps america achieve financial independence and from overprotecting low-income consumers the option. h.r. 650 is about protecting the

american dream of home ownership. i'm proud to support this bipartisan bill. i think it's common sense and mr. fincher, i yield back and thank you for your leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. the gentleman from tennessee has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady from california has 13 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reate rate h.r. 650 bo remove consumer protections of high priced mortgage loans under the home ownership and equity protection act as enhanced by dodd-frank for manufactured housing loans that currently receive such protection. and i read off some of those protections, but i further want to share that these lenders want to be able to originate these high priced loans 14% and even more when the interest rates

change, but they want this bill to change the definition of a mortgage originator so that licenses and anti-steering requirements of dodd-frank would not apply to manufactured housing. so not only are they going for, you know protection for higher-priced loan and higher fees, they want to change the definition so they don't look like the originating loan and don't want to come under the law in terms of what we require for protection for high-priced loans. i would yield to the gentleman from texas, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the honorable maxine waters for continuing to be a champion for people who have been taken advantage of. she has a rich history of fighting for those who are not in a position to fight for themselves.

and i guess there will be a question of who you're going to believe. maxine waters, who has for decades been fighting for the least, the last and the lost. maxine waters, who the country as a champion for poor people, for people who purchase manufactured homes. maxine waters has said and i concur with her that this bill create an opportunity for people to take advantage of those who are living at a level of life wherein what they pay for a home must be what they can afford and cannot afford to lose that home. this is why she is so concerned

and i join her in this notion that there's predatory lending taking place if this bill passes. if this bill passes, people will be allowed to steer people into homes that will have higher interest rates. if this bill passes, there will be people who will need counseling, but will not get the counseling that they need to help them maintain home ownership. . if this bill passes, we'll go back to prepayment penalties. if this bill passes, we will not be able to bring back these protections and safeguards that have been instated under dodd-frank. we will eliminate them and they will be gone forever. we need to think before we act and before we vote. this is an important vote for

those who are not going to be able to stand up and fight for themselves, but i thank god that we've got the honorable maxine waters on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives standing here today to stand up for them. so who are you going believe? there seems to be a different of opinion. and when you have differences in opinion you look to see who has been doing what and for how long. he's been fighted for these kinds of rights we are talking about today since she's been in the congress of the united states of america. and i'm proud to stand with the honorable maxine waters. i think if we pass this bill, we will continue to do what many want to do but in an incremental way. we will continue to slice away at dodd-frank. we will continue to do what those who can't repeal it in full would do in part and that is eliminate the protections for

consume evers. i yield back. -- for consumers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california reserves this egentleman from tennessee. >> we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. chairman and members, before the next members rise to speak on this bill i would just like to remind everybody that you know this amount of interest rate that they will be getting on these loans should this bill pass is 10% above the prime rate and from 14% it could go up to maybe 18%. there's no member of congress who would pay that kind of interest rate on a home loan or a manufactured housing or anything else but we're asking the most vulnerable in our

society that are targeted to pay this kind of interest rate in the interest of getting credit. i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, three minutes. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to congratulate her as well on her amazing advocacy on behalf of consumers across this country and her leadership on financial services committee. mr. speaker here we are again, forced to ask the question who calls the shots here in washington and in congress and on capitol hill. we shouldn't have to ask that question. it sthoib people that call the shots. it should be everyday americans who call the shots here. but unfortunately, it's big money on wall street that continues to call the shots. it's big money that's leaning on congress to water down once again the dodd-frank rules in

ways that will harm consumers. with the mortgage crisis barely in our rearview mirror the hid -- hidden hand of wall street is intent on rolling back critical consumer protections and stripping away important reforms that have been made to our mortgage market. exhibit a for today. and i say for today because there's actually been dozens of exhibits of these kinds of legislation that have come forth over the last few months, authored by wall street interests but exhibit a for today is called preserving access to manufactured housing act. h.r. 650. preserving access. it sounds good. it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. that's how they title these things around here. this legislation would roll back critical consume brother texts for our nation's most vulnerable families undermining a simple proposition that the owners of

manufactured homes deserve the same protection as traditional home owners. specifically the legislation would cause interest rates to speak and would reintroduce conflict of interest into the manufactured home market. by the way, mr. speaker, later on today we'll see exhibit b for today. that's called the mortgage choice act. h.r. 685. that's leggets that would scrap vital consume brother texts put in place by dodd-frank to prevent unscrupulous lenders from steering consume inteers higher fee mortgages. that's what's going on around here. of all the areas in need of congress' attention, the republican majority has chosen to focus once again on giveaways to the wall street crowd. american consumers deserve better than that and i urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 650 and later against h.r. 685.

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back his time. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. >> i now yield to the chairman of the -- mr. fincher: i now yield to the chairman of the committee, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership and i thank him for standing up for so many of the downtrodden, the low and moderate-income americans from sea to shining sea who want to realize some piece of the american dream. they want to own a home. now maybe it's not going to be quite as nice as a home that some member of congress might live in. you know. but it's going to be their home. and in this case it's going to be a manufactured home. and i can say for many of the people who live mr. speaker, in the fifth district of texas, it wasn't for manufactured housing they wouldn't have a house.

as the gentleman from tennessee sole quently said, if this legislation was being marked up in -- as this legislation was being marked up in our committee, there are so many on the left, and the far left who want to protect consumers right out of their homes. it's shameful mr. speaker. they should have the same equal opportunity to own a home as any member of this body and yet my friends on the other side of the aisle would take it away from them. no they've got a bumper sticker slogan here. they've got dodd-frank, we're going to aim at wall street but when they aim at wall street, they're hitting main street. they're hitting main street and low and moderate income americans are suffering. and we have bank after bank after bank after credit union after credit union, we're talking community financial institutions who are saying without -- without the legislation of the gentleman from tennessee, they've got to get out of the business.

and you know what that means, mr. speaker? it means people lose their opportunity to own that first home which might just be a manufactured house. first eark bank and trust, we heard from them. our bank has a long history of helping consumers, especially those who for some reason cannot qualify for secondary market finance ing at the time. -- financing at the time, due to the fact that this financing is overburdened by the mortgage standards, we have ceased this type of financing. i heard from the central main credit union. by the way, we haven't mentioned golden -- goldman sachs and j.p. morgan. these are community financial institutions mr. speaker. since october of 2010, this comes from -- i'm sorry, five county credit union. five county has no longer been offering mobile home loans to its members due to the federal legislation.

first national bank of, i hope i'm pronouncing this right, malacca, but given that it isn't a money center bank in wall street, we're a little less familiar with its name, this is in minnesota. a high price mortgage rule caused my bank to reduce the number of real estate mortgages we make on certain type of houses specifically mobile homes. i could go on and on. i've got a stack of these mr. speaker. and that's why the gentleman from tennessee, with his able leadership, has brought forth legislation, bipartisan legislation, i might add, bipartisan almost half of the democrats on our committee supported it. the ranking member supported it before she was against it. i don't quite understand the change of mind, the need is still as great. people are still suffering. the low and moderate income americans have been falling

behind. here's a chance to let them have an opportunity to get into a mobile home but no, no, no. we've got to -- we've got a wall street bumper sticker slogan here it doesn't matter who is going to get hurt. it does batter. it matters a lot, mr. speaker. we need to ensure that every american regardless of their income, in a competitive transparent innovative capital market, that they have the opportunity to finance that mobile home. every american should have that opportunity. would the gentleman yield an additional minute. mr. fincher: i would. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: every single american should have that opportunity. if the gentleman from tennessee who is hearing their voices and is representing their voices on the house floor today.

again, i want to thank him for his leadership and thank him for the thousands and thousands across the fifth district of texas that i have the privilege and honor of representing, that just because they're low income, he knows he, knows that they still deserve that chance for the american dream. he's fighting for their american dream. and all we're doing, this was compromise language, mr. speaker. this isn't the bill i wanted. it's not the bill he wanted. it was compromise language and in fact the ranking member supported even a broader provision in the previous congress. but what has happened is yet again, the left hand doesn't always know what the far left hand is doing. and the far left hand has decided that all of a sudden we're going to aim at wall street banks and it doesn't matter if any person working at a wal-mart or working at a what thea deps burger loses their chance of the american dream. that has to stop. we need to support the

legislation of the gentleman from tennessee and i urge the house to adopt it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: it's interesting that the gentleman described this as a consume brother text bill for people who live in manufactured housing. we're talking about trailer homes. but yet, the national manufactured homeowners association is opposing this bill. along with the alliance for a just society, americans for financial reform, the center for american progress, the center for responsible lending, consumer action, corporation for enterprise development. empire justice. financial protection law center. the housing assistance council.

the leadership council on civil and human rights. the national consumer law center. national council of lara sa. national df orb la raza. north carolina justice center. u.s. public interest group are these the far left that he's talking about? the people who actually represent folks that live in the kind of housing that he is saying that he wants to protect. nearly seven years ago, our housing collapse resulted in more than five million foreclosures and 10 million jobs lost and so we enacted dodd-frank to reform wall street, to improve consumer protections against crippling loans and the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau. and this bill, the two bills 650 and 685, would strip manufacture of these consumer protections. would allow higher fees and reduce consume brother text and permit some of the most abusive and deceptive practices that

trapped borrowers into unaffordable loans. those protection -- those protections were hard-earned and clearly justified and eliminating them would put us back in the same situation that led to the worse recession since 1929. and this bill, h.r. 650, would work -- would weaken consume brother texts for manufactured home loans. this is a bad bill and i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expire thsmed gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. fincher: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: wonts -- continues to reserve. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: could you tell me how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has four minutes remaining. and the gentleman from tennessee has five and a half minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: thank you mr. speaker. ky not tell you how thrilled i am to hear that the chair of the committee has seen the light will follow the lead of the gentleman from tennessee and i look forward to him signing on to congressman fincher's export-import bank bill. i wish i could support this in the name of coon soum brother text, but it isn't. when we had this hearing the most common thread was that we needed more information about what is happening out here. well, unfortunately since that hearing, we've received more information. . indeed "the seattle times" ran an unbelievably in depth article dedailying some of the worst practices among -- detailing some of the worst practices among home lenders. some of those which led to the meltdown. not verifying borrowers' income