Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to restore some of the transportation funding that was cut drastically in this bill. This is my second of two amendments to increase funds for the innovative TIGER transportation grant program. This amendment increases fiscal year 2016 TIGER funding to $500 million, thereby restoring TIGER to the 2015 level. States, local governments, and transit agencies depend upon the TIGER program to finance projects to repair aging infrastructure and develop new highway and transit systems. A safe, efficient, modern, and accessible transportation system is vital for a growing economy. Madam Chair, we cannot afford to cut TIGER below the current funding level, and I am here this evening to urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and invest in infrastructure for the 21st century. I recognize that a point of order has been raised on this issue, but I also recognize that what I am advocating is vital for this economy and for this country. I would hope that somehow we would be wise enough, creative enough, and caring enough to dispense with the rule, as it has been identified on my first amendment, and move forward in a very creative way to do what is necessary to help our failing infrastructure in this country. The stories about the failing bridges, the stories about the unsafe highways, the stories about the need for transit system improvements are stories that we hear, day in and day out. Given the information that has been made available to us about the needs for infrastructure repairs, I would hope that we would not simply treat this in such an ordinary fashion and apply the rule that basically says: Well, if I did not find the money to fund it, then somehow it cannot be in order. Certainly, this amount of money is not easy to locate; certainly, I do not have an answer to where this money would necessarily come from, but I would hope that my colleagues would take into consideration again the desperate need of our economy and our communities and not rule this out of order. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman and Congresswoman Corrine Brown for organizing this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order Hour on Transportation Infrastructure Spending. Last night, the House passed H.R. 2353 to extend the federal surface transportation programs for two months, through July 31st. If these programs had been allowed to expire, all federal transportation funding to states and local governments would have stopped on May 31st, and numerous constructions jobs on highways, bridges and transit systems could have been cancelled. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, this needless crisis brought uncertainty to 6,000 critical construction projects across the country, and left 660,000 good-paying construction jobs hanging in the balance. I voted for this bill, but I did so reluctantly because what we really need is a multi-year transportation bill that will bring our nation's transportation system into the 21st century. A multi-year transportation bill with robust funding for highway, bridge and transit construction will create thousands of good jobs and provide certainty to states and local governments. Federal investment in our nation's transportation system is essential. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the public infrastructure of the United States a grade of ``D+'' in 2013 and estimated that we will need to invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 in order to improve the condition of our infrastructure. Rebuilding our nation's transportation infrastructure creates jobs that are desperately needed throughout the country. The economy is still struggling to recover from the recession. The unemployment rate is 5.4 percent nationwide and is significantly higher in some minority and disadvantaged communities. Transportation funding is clearly good for the economy. Congressional Republicans have had months to prepare a multi-year transportation bill. Unfortunately, all they did last night is punt the deadline two months deeper into the critical summer construction season. I urge my Republican colleagues to work with us over the next two months so we can finally pass a multi-year transportation bill before the July 31st deadline. Congressional Republicans are further jeopardizing our nation's transportation system by slashing funding for TIGER. TIGER--formally known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery--is a nationwide competitive grant program that creates jobs by funding investments in transportation infrastructure by states, local governments, and transit agencies. TIGER funds innovative projects that generate economic development and improve access to safe, reliable, and affordable transportation alternatives. Earlier this year, the President requested $1.25 billion for TIGER in fiscal year 2016, as part of an expanded TIGER program that would provide $7.5 billion for TIGER over 6 years. This expanded TIGER program will create jobs, encourage innovation, and modernize transportation infrastructure for the 21st century. I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging full funding of the President's $1.25 billion request for TIGER in FY 2016, and a total of 146 Members of Congress signed my letter. Nevertheless, the House Republicans' version of the FY 2016 Transportation and Housing Appropriations (THUD) bill provides only $100 million for TIGER. That's an 80 percent cut from FY 2015 and a small fraction of the President's request. This kind of drastic cut in TIGER will needlessly cripple highway and transit construction plans that are already struggling due to the uncertainty surrounding the future of the transportation bill. We need more federal investment in transportation infrastructure, and we need it now! That is why I am introducing the TIGER Grants for Job Creation Act. This bill will provide an emergency supplemental appropriation totaling $7.5 billion dollars over the next six years for job creation through investments in transportation infrastructure. This emergency supplemental appropriation will fully fund the President's proposal for an expanded TIGER. Passage of an emergency supplemental appropriation will provide funding for TIGER free from sequestration and without reducing funding for other important domestic priorities. It will also allow states, local governments, and transit agencies to begin immediately to plan projects and prepare grant applications. Thus, it will ensure an efficient use of funds and timely job creation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the TIGER Grants for Job Creation Act and fully fund the President's request for TIGER, and I urge my colleagues to pass a multi-year transportation bill to bring our highways, bridges and public transit systems into the 21st century.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, as night fell she entered, like a light: on October 17, 1910, Rosie (Willie) Thurmond was born on a small rural farm in Lexington, Mississippi. Alfred and Missouri (Polk) Thurmond were resilient and spiritually fulfilled parents who taught their daughter to love and always be faithful to God, church and family. Rosie was the eldest of four Thurmond children: Alfred, Jr. (departed), Joseph (departed), and an only sister, Juanita. In living out her parents' expectations of her, in a way, Rosie's own narrative is suggestive of other God fearing women pioneers' stories. No different than the likes of Harriet Tubman who escaped slavery to become an important abolitionist, Rosie possessed the same strength of character, which inevitably called her to migrate from one place to another, and then all at once return for others. Many times she traveled back to the Jim Crow South and northern states. Who will never remember that Rosie went by Amtrak and Greyhound bus to liberate family and friends from various forms of oppression? Ultimately, she would selflessly welcome many of her people to the same sense of freedom she found in southern California. Los Angeles, was the warm and sunny place she fondly called her home. The length and quality of this blessed woman's life is to be examined by the use of nonlinear contexts, spaces, stories, memories, photographs and God-filled times that span the miraculous course of one hundred and four years. So long a journey. Hers was a supply of great love and great associations. Rosie lived just long enough to put some of the pieces of the great mysteries of this life together. Her sunrise was like her sunset-- deepening in a Word and a Love that has always been. On March 3, 2015, as night fell she returned to the Light. Because she was born in the early 1900's and lived in a segregated cotton county, Rosie's timely life was certainly full of social, political, economic, and educational hardships. Because of rigid anti- black laws, she faced insurmountable obstacles. Being a person of color and growing up in the South meant she had little if any genuine recourse in a racial caste system. Thus, Rosie would only travel a limited path toward academic achievement. As a girl child, with plaited hair, she was forced to leave the Sharp Rural School in the fourth grade to work alongside her parents in sweltering fields throughout Holmes County. She knew an early life of August heat and sweat, March rainfall, floods and manual labor, which can scarcely be understood by young people today. She often shared the details of her small farm life. Her recollections were of ``quiet songs,'' saving dimes, forgotten relics, and homemade remedies, like lard salves and Vicks vapor rubs, which she promised could cure everything from fevers to the flu. Rosie told the old childhood stories about growing food, making soap, washing clothes by hand, hanging them on a line to dry, plucking birds, fetching water from wells, gathering firewood for potbelly stoves, picking cotton, and marching the long dusty miles to and from Zion Hill AME. But what child could bear such a trying life? A child who knew who her Heavenly Father was, a child who thought to pray in the Spirit at all times and on every occasion. According to Rosie, color did not matter. She didn't hate nobody. She loved everybody. So even though racism and poverty made it extremely difficult for girls of color to advance, the same systematic measures of disparity that created a strong sense of depression and rage in others, cultivated Rosie's individual desire for change, and her unwavering commitment to the embodiment of peace, and her quest for equal access to greater opportunities. What was once, always shall be; and now imagine a life devoted to service and prayer. As a young door keeper in the house of the Lord, Rosie would rise afore the sun, boil a kettle, and travel to the little white church house altar, long before the other congregants gathered there. And far before Rosie left Lexington for Jackson, and Jackson for California, she carried ``God's will be done'' prayers, and cadences like ``If I Can Help Somebody'' along the old Tchula road. She served God by singing spirituals and hymns with His choirs. She went to Sunday school, prayer meetings and revivals. As a beginning usher, she distributed bulletins, service programs, and paper stick-fans. She collected the tithes and offerings. Young Rosie was adept at it. As a symbol of her friendship and deep love for a young man from her hometown, she courted and then married the late Abner Cross in 1929. They settled on the Roger plantation in the Rose Bank community. The Rose Bank Baptist Church soon became her new place of worship. In the midst of the Great Depression and attacks on Pearl Harbor, their union brought forth the lives of four children: Earlene, Lonnie (departed) James, (departed) and Gerlee (departed). As fate would have it, Gerlee died of pneumonia at age seven. And then Rosie faced the trials of a mother's deepest anguish. When asked how she endured the loss of a child, she often said her faith in God healed the wounds of that grief. When more seasons changed, and her marriage ended, she did not give up or sit down and grieve. Rosie continued to trust in God for comfort, peace, hope and direction. Alas: She left Lexington and her family in order to see if she could live differently in Jackson, Mississippi. Her new way of living developed in parallel. Rosie experienced the innovations of city life. She loved the modern amenities of a grander place of greater size and population. She liked the nuances of going to downtown Jackson or ``Little Harlem'' for Cotillions. But more relevantly, she was glad to be an usher for the Blair Street Baptist Church. However, there were still recollections of rural life and the family she left behind. Nonetheless, Rosie gladly worked at the Old Baptist Hospital on State Street. She was a nightshift cook for disabled children, doctors and nurses. While in Lexington she also worked and studied diligently to become a beautician. It seems only fitting that Rosie's ordered steps would start her out on a new journey. In the summer of 1951, Rosie decided that she would move to Los Angeles, California. She boarded a westbound Amtrak train, with a small suitcase, and a letter of recommendation from a White employer who praised her exceptional domestic work and cooking skills. Although she was leaving the only state that she had ever known, she traveled with a great sense of optimism. Further assured by her unwavering faith in GOD, and a belief that the outcome of this westward journey would welcome her into a land ripe with the new possibilities, she eagerly moved in with her close friends George and Frankie Sims. She stayed with them until she was able to secure a day job and save enough money to rent her own housing. During this time, she also began attending various worship services around Los Angeles. She was in search of a new church home. Eventually her diligence led her to First African Methodist Episcopal Church at 8th and Town Avenue. This church would later become the foundation for FAME. During her membership at FAME, Rosie served in various capacities. She was a Sunday school teacher, and a member of both Usher Board No. 1 and the Sarah Allen Women's Missionary Society. As Rosie continued to settle into the blessings of her new California life, the Sims introduced her to their good friend Clarence Tilles (departed). Clarence was a kind and gentle man of great integrity. They would marry in 1952 and remain together and in-love until his death in 1990. While Rosie embraced newlywed life, she began to encounter some of the familiar racial inequalities that were rampant in the South. Although the city of Los Angeles did not practice some of the more overt segregation policies found in southern states, there was extreme discrimination in housing, which prevented many minorities from renting apartments or purchasing homes in specific areas of the city. Despite these constant obstacles, Rosie and Clarence were finally able to rent a modest two bedroom apartment near downtown Los Angeles. They moved into the William Meade Housing Project, which is located near historic landmarks like The San Antonio Winery, Olvera Street and Union Station. Because of the loud barking that came from the neighboring Ann Street Animal Shelter, the William Meade Housing Project was also known as ``Dog Town.'' Nevertheless, Rosie and Clarence's new home provided a deep sense of belonging and community, which would later be enhanced by the arrival of deeply missed members of Rosie's Mississippi family. The new settlers included her daughter (Earlene), her granddaughter (Mary) her mother (Missouri), her Aunt (Lee), her brother (Alfred Jr.), her Sister (Juanita), her nieces (Debra, Denise, Shelia and Rochelle) and nephews (Dyke and the late Bernard Redmond). Rosie and Clarence would also host numerous friends and family as they vacationed or relocated to California. She called the old red brick, William Meade Housing Project home for over 40 years. She not only helped raise her grandchildren and great-grandchildren there, she was also able to establish close knit ties and bonds with generations of families in her community. She also participated and volunteered to fill bags in a community based outreach program that fed disadvantaged families in the project. This is yet another example of how Rosie devoted her life to family and to the service and care of others. When Clarence went home to be with God, Rosie moved across the street from her second home: The First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles. Before becoming physically unable to do so, Rosie attended three services every Sunday for over twenty years. She also attended prayer meetings every Wednesday at Noon. Yet even as her memory faded, and her eyesight weakened and her gait became more unsteady, she persevered. She told anyone who asked her how she was doing that I'm slow but sure. Again, Rosie's was a steady upright walk with the Lord. As she did in childhood, Rosie faithfully began each day of her older life in prayer. She was often overheard calling out the names of family and friends in her evening petitions to God. When she felt like she could not go any further, she took to her easy chair and received the spiritual nourishment she required by watching The Church Channel from sun up until sundown. It has been said that the things you do for yourself are gone when you are gone, but the things you do for others remain as your legacy. Rosie leaves an incredible legacy for her family and friends to value. Since Rosie lived such a rich yet unembellished life, not a soul has to worry about how to divide the love she left behind. During the last several years, Rosie lived at the St. John of God Retirement and Care Center in Los Angeles. She was blessed to have many visitors. Although sometimes when her memory failed her, she would lean over to see who she thought you might have been. When guessing failed and she could not recall, Rosie would often shake her head and say that she had so many relatives and loved ones that she could not remember them all by name. She would simply look you in your eyes and say, ``You know your name.'' Those beloved names include her devoted Daughter Earlene Dye, her loving sister Juanita Redmond, 11 grandchildren, 21 great-grandchildren, and 15 great-great- grandchildren, a great number of relatives and friends and members of her extended church family. The end is in the beginning and lies far ahead.--Ralph Ellison.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, next month, almost 4 million students will graduate from college, but on Monday, more than 16,000 students--students who have sacrificed countless hours and resources--were robbed of the opportunity to achieve this goal. These students are the victims of Corinthian Colleges, which closed its doors yesterday amidst ongoing State and Federal investigations regarding the school's fraudulent and predatory recruiting tactics. Corinthian's closure marks the end of one of the Nation's largest for- profit colleges, an industry wrought with fraud and deception. The story of Corinthian starts with the rising cost of college, combined with repeated cuts to other affordable public educational options like community college or HBCUs. The combination of these factors led to the explosive growth of a for-profit college industry that quickly began to prey on low-income, minority, and veteran students by enticing them with the false promise of a quality education and good jobs. These promises were simply untrue. Corinthian repeatedly misrepresented the quality of its programs and lied about the job placement rates of its graduates. By doing so, Corinthian lured in the country's most vulnerable student populations, whose Federal loan and grant dollars were used to line the pockets of its CEO, investors, and shareholders. As a result, Corinthian and the for-profit college industry as a whole absorbed one-quarter of all the Federal student aid, more than $30 billion annually. During the Great Recession, Corinthian alone nearly doubled its revenue due to the enrollment of millions of vulnerable unemployed workers who were even more susceptible to the enticing offer of a quality education and future employment. Make no mistake, these people preyed on at-risk students and workers. They took advantage of the next generation of America's leaders, and they used the economic distress and uncertainty our young people were dealing with for their own economic gain. As Corinthian continued its deceptive practices, the school had 162 failing academic programs, more than any other for-profit college in the country. During this Congress, I have continued my lifetime of work on this subject, which began in the California General Assembly. I have repeatedly called on the Department of Education to close Corinthian and offer full loan forgiveness for all its students. Last month, I was proud to endorse the Corinthian 100 and their efforts to obtain full debt relief. Today, joined by my Senate colleague, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, I am introducing the CLASS Act, a piece of legislation that will help restore students' legal rights against for-profit institutions. We need this for a key reason. As Corinthian knowingly deceived its students, it also included in its enrollment agreements provisions that limited students' access to courts and shielded Corinthian from liability for its misconduct. These included mandatory arbitration and measures that prohibited students from joining together to form a class action lawsuit. As a result, even though Corinthian Colleges has closed its doors, students are still suffering because they do not have a legal outlet to address their harms. If students are to receive any relief, they are at the mercy of the Department of Education and the good faith of Corinthian Colleges itself, the same institution that has already deceived them and saddled them with debt. The CLASS Act attempts to remedy this problem by prohibiting any school receiving Federal funding from including any restrictions on students' ability to pursue legal claims against it in court. Essentially, this bill serves as the students' strongest line of defense against any future fraudulent conduct by restoring their rights to have their day in court. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a stand against the practices of Corinthian Colleges and other predatory for-profit institutions by supporting this legislation and fighting for our students' right to an honest, quality education. Mr. Speaker and Members, we still have a lot of for-profit colleges out there that are treating our students in the same manner that Corinthian has--deceiving them--and who are guilty of fraud. We must take responsibility in this Congress to protect our students.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). She serves on the Financial Services Committee and is a strong supporter of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck). He is the next gentleman that you are going to hear from this side of the aisle. He is the author of the legislation that certainly would have given small businesses a seat at the table of the CFPB. He worked very hard on this bill, and he is one of those persons on our committee who reaches across the aisle all the time on bipartisan efforts.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want the Members of the House to pay very close attention to this bill today because this bill represents tricks and games in ways that people don't often understand. But this is a prime example of how you take a good idea and mess it up. So I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1195, a measure that is, again, a shining example of how far Republicans will go to squander compromise, consensus, and good faith to advance an ideological anticonsumer agenda. The bill before us today is just the latest instance of Financial Services Committee Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It makes clear their commitment to do all they can to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let me say that again. They have spent so much time--amendment after amendment, attempt after attempt-- to try and gut and dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they have gone so far with this bill to undermine our efforts to be of assistance to small businesses and include them in a stronger advisory way to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because they hate the Bureau so much. Well, again, they do all they can to undercut this Bureau, an agency with an extraordinary record of success protecting consumers, reining in bad actors, and ensuring that we do not return to the predatory practices that put this Nation on the verge of economic collapse less than 10 years ago. Mr. Chairman, as originally written, H.R. 1195 was a good and decent measure offered by my colleague, Mr. Heck from Washington State, and, again, I applaud him for his leadership. The straightforward proposal offered by Mr. Heck would codify two of the advisory boards that the CFPB voluntarily created related to community banks and credit unions, while also creating a new small business advisory board for small businesses. Along with many other requirements of the Bureau, these boards create additional avenues for input from the entities that they have been given the power to regulate under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. So here is what we are talking about. The Bureau itself had created a number of advisory committees. Mr. Heck saw room for strengthening the ability of small businesses to have an advisory role, and so he created this bill. But, because, again, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, the Republicans, hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so much, they decided that they were going to play tricks and games and create an opportunity to reduce the funding so they could try and limit the Bureau's ability to do its work by adding all of these amendments. I am going to point out the tricks of these amendments as we go along here today. So in a rare show of bipartisanship, the Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 1195 by a vote of 53-5. Many of my Democratic colleagues supported the proposal, just as we have supported the many efforts of the CFPB to be responsive to the unique needs of small businesses, community banks, and credit unions. But, as usual, that bipartisanship was short-lived, as Chairman Hensarling added an amendment designed to pay for this measure by undermining the CFPB's authority and independent funding. I find it ironic that this House has determined now is the time to offset the cost of legislation. Don't forget, we have the pay-for kings and queens on that side of the aisle. They said, they worked for, and they made a big issue that everything must be paid for, except when they decide to try and slip something in that they don't pay for. And they have done that on this floor with some of these bills that we will be talking about. But with this bill, they decided a new kind of trick; and that is, let's find a way to take it from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because not only will this pay for it, but this will reduce their ability to do their job paying for other things. Just last week, the House majority voted to repeal the estate tax without paying for it at a staggering cost of $269 billion. At a time when far too many Americans are struggling with stagnant wages and historic income inequality, my Republican counterparts seem all too willing to add to the Nation's deficit in order to pass giveaways for the richest 0.2 percent of Americans. Yet when it comes to a reasonable bill to enhance the voice of small businesses, community banks, and credit unions, which they claim to care so much about, the Republicans insist that the only way to pass the legislation is by cutting the CFPB--an agency that 84 percent of small-business owners support, according to polling from the small- business majority. The truth of the matter is that, after several years of attempting to cap CFPB funding, the Republicans have chosen to transform Mr. Heck's bill into a vehicle to make drastic cuts to the CFPB's budget. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim otherwise, the CFPB itself estimates Chairman Hensarling's poison pill amendment will cut its budget by about $45 million over the next 5 years and by $100 million over the next 10 years, capping it substantially less than the amount that they are currently able to request. That means this vote is one to weaken an agency with the explicit mission of standing up for consumers and taxpayers who have been subject to the deceptive practices of unscrupulous corporations. The chairman's amendment guarantees that this otherwise bipartisan proposal will never become law, garnering significant opposition in the Senate and a veto threat from the Obama administration, who said this measure was ``solely intended to impede the CFPB's ability to carry out its mission of protecting consumers in the financial markets,'' and further, they said, ``could result in, among other things, undermining critical protections for families from abusive and predatory financial products.'' Mr. Chairman, Republicans could have chosen any number of offsets to account for the cost of this proposal or, as they have done so many times before, waive their CutGo rules. Make no mistake about the intent of the Hensarling amendment. It is designed to back Democrats into a corner by attaching an unacceptable provision cutting CFPB's budget to a proposal that Democrats supported in committee. The important work of the CFPB will not be undermined on our watch, and this backdoor attempt to cut its budget sets a dangerous precedent of using bipartisan bills as a way to sneak through measures that undermine the Bureau's independence and its ability to protect consumers. Mr. Chairman, we don't understand on this side of the aisle why it is that our Republican friends hate the CFPB so much and have done so much to undermine them, to undercut them, and to try to reduce their funding. They know as well as we know that prior to the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that we put into Dodd- Frank's reforms, consumers had no protections in the Government of the United States of America. Our regulatory agencies were not doing their jobs. They say they were focused on safety and soundness. But who was working for the consumers? Nobody. And so now we have a Bureau working for the consumers that is doing a wonderful job. And here we have every attempt that you can dream of, every scheme that you can think of, being levied by our friends on the opposite side of the aisle because they want to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As I have said, this is not going to happen on our watch. They can try any trick that they want. We are on to it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for offering this measure, which will ensure that the concerns of our Nation's veteran-owned businesses are represented on the small business advisory board this legislation creates. Madam Chairman, our Nation's veterans heroically put their lives on the line for this country. And when they come home and decide to start a small business, they are carrying forth that patriotic duty by taking another risk for the betterment of our Nation. Just as our Nation has a responsibility to care for those who return from battle, we too have a duty to ensure those who have served in our Armed Forces have a voice at the table, in whatever vocation they enter. Early on, the CFPB recognized the unique needs of servicemembers, veterans, and their families by creating an office targeted to address their needs. Likewise, small businesses owned by veterans comprise a subset of our Nation's economic backbone that should not be ignored. This amendment ensures that the CFPB is made aware of their views, perspectives, and interests in the same manner as all small-business owners. But Madam Chairman, while I support this amendment and believe in its goals, I remain strongly opposed to the underlying bill, which would impose cuts to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and would set a precedent that could ultimately lead to a time when the Nation's leading consumer advocate is cash-strapped, underfunded, and financially unable to ensure that the views of veteran business owners--or any other business owners--are appropriately taken into account.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think that we have done a very good job on this side of the aisle of exposing what is happening on the opposite side of the aisle as simply an attempt to try and gut and demean the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let me just deal with this argument that they made about the cost of renovation for the CFPB. Bloomberg Businessweek, in an article, entitled, ``Republican Attacks on a CFPB Office Renovation Don't Add Up,'' found that Republicans took liberties with their math. Using data from a report prepared by the CFPB's inspector general, Bloomberg found that renovation would only cost $421 per square foot, if you inflate the price by including rental of temporary space and paying for movers, compared to the GOP claim of $590. Actual construction costs are only $283 per square foot, half of what the Republicans claim. However, and I think this is very interesting, there is one very expensive renovation happening in Washington, D.C., right now. It is the Cannon House Office Building, which houses Members and committees of the House of Representatives. All end costs for the renovation of the Cannon Building approved by Speaker Boehner will be $753 million, or $911 per square foot, much pricier than the Bellagio or the Burj Khalifa. If we want to talk about what is high cost, take a look at ourselves right here in Congress for what we are doing. Having said that, I just wonder why the continued attempts on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Maybe it is because somebody else is being protected. Let's look at some of the work of the Bureau: a January 2015 settlement against J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo for $35.7 million after uncovering a scheme where loan officers illegally referred customers to affiliated businesses in exchange for cash and marketing services. Look at a July 2014 settlement against Rome Finance for $92 million for a predatory lending scheme that targeted servicemembers by hiding finance charges, withholding information from billing statements, and engaging in illegal debt collection practices. Another settlement from July 2014 against payday lender ACE Cash Express for $10 million for intentionally trapping consumers in a cycle of debt, a practice formalized in their employee training materials, as well as illegal debt collection practices, including harassment. I could go on and on and on how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken on some of the biggest corporations, the biggest businesses in this country to protect consumers. What is it you are afraid of? What is it you are worried about? Why are you trying to kill the agency that is protecting consumers rather than applauding them for making sure that the consumers don't continue to be taken advantage of the way they were prior to 2008 when we didn't have any consumer protection? I ask you to question yourselves about why you hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so much. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I first need to remind the gentleman from Illinois that Mr. Heck worked hard to put small business advisory at the table and to codify the other businesses that the CFPB had already put at the table. They snatched it right away from the table. They took away small business. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who is the cochair of the Progressive Caucus and a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, a year and a day ago today, 276 innocent Nigerian schoolgirls were tragically taken away from their boarding school and their family. One year later, more than 200 of these girls are still missing, and Boko Haram continues to prey on the Nigerian people. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is just one example of the appalling acts of terror committed by this group, who, according to the Human Rights Watch, have killed more than 2,000 people and forced 800,000 children to be displaced from their homes. We simply must do more to combat their efforts. I commend President Obama for publicly expressing his willingness to assist Nigeria in its efforts to dismantle this group. Additionally, I encourage the incoming President of Nigeria, President Buhari, to remain committed to his pledge to implement an aggressive effort to combat Boko Haram and to protect his citizens. I hope, with the anniversary of these attacks upon us, we are all regalvanized to do what we can to bring back our girls and protect our other innocent citizens from any future attacks. I thank Congresswoman Frederica Wilson for her leadership on this issue.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. I know Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much, but there is one thing we can be united in saying. It is that we should not reward criminal behavior. We cannot let people who are out there making obscene profits by ripping off low-income Americans use that money to buy influence that rolls back consumer protection laws. That is why I am introducing this amendment that bans bad actors from receiving any benefit from these new provisions. If the House accepts this amendment, companies that break the law will not be rewarded by being handed a weaker set of standards. These weaker standards do away with a number of protections current law affords to high-cost loans. They include stiffer penalties for bad actor lenders and additional disclosures for investors and consumers who purchase high-cost mortgages, as well as mandatory counseling so borrowers know what they are getting into and even the ability of borrowers to have their loans rescinded if lenders don't follow the law. We know it is needed because we know there is fraud out there. I have submitted for the Record an investigation by The Seattle Times and the Center for Public Integrity, which, while shocking, is not in the least bit surprising to those of us who have been paying close attention to the predatory practices that often plague low- and middle-income home buyers. The article details a wide array of unfair, deceptive, predatory, and abusive lending practices, such as housing manufacturers steering low-income borrowers into expensive, high-interest financing arrangements with companies that they also own. If this amendment were to pass today, any company that engaged in this kind of practice or any company that was convicted of mortgage fraud under Federal or State law would be prohibited from taking advantage of these loosened standards. Some may argue that, like current law, this amendment will hurt the industry. I am not concerned. The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform found that 2014 marked the fifth consecutive year of annual industry production increases. Meanwhile, mobile home manufacturing giant Clayton Homes, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, profited to the tune of $558 million in 2014--more than double its earnings from just 2 years earlier. This amendment is for veterans like Dorothy Mansfield, who should be honored for her sacrifice to this country. Instead, she was targeted just 18 months after being steered into a predatory market she couldn't afford. Mansfield was facing foreclosure. It is for Active-Duty servicemembers whose homes were illegally foreclosed upon while they were battling overseas, or for their families who were overcharged as they remained at home. It is for low-income borrowers who, like all of us, are at a disadvantage when they negotiate their first home loans with companies that have probably negotiated hundreds just that week. For many, the American Dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare as they determine how to put food on the table and gas in the car while dealing with the loans that they have been steered into but cannot afford. So, if we are going to remove these basic protections for veterans and servicemembers, for low-income borrowers, and for many others, let's at least do everything we can to protect them from the predators and the fraudsters we have learned about. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my chairman, Mr. Hensarling, this debate is not about McDonald's, it is not about Burger King, and it is not about the National Tire and Battery Company. This is about our constituents who want to be homeowners, who are gouged, who are misled, and who are steered into companies that are going to provide kickbacks for their loan originators. We need to get rid of some of these myths. The myth that we have heard today is we need H.R. 685 to ensure access to credit for low- income households. Well, let's talk about the facts. The cost of title insurance is opaque. Borrowers are responsible for paying for title insurance, but title insurance pricing is basically negotiated between the lender and the title insurance company. The pricing and sales system is completely nontransparent, making it impossible for borrowers to shop for better prices on title insurance. In addition, when borrowers spend money on inflated title insurance premiums, it makes homeownership less sustainable. High title insurance prices mean borrowers have less money to put toward a down payment or to put toward improvements to their home. Even The Wall Street Journal agrees. Here is a quote from an article from March 28, 2014: ``Title insurance can cost hundreds of dollars for modest houses and thousands for multimillion-dollar properties. Yet many home buyers don't focus on the product, or the price, until they sit down at the closing.'' The article went on to describe that ``upstart insurers and agencies are challenging the status quo.'' Two insurers are ``marketing directly to consumers on the Internet, offering online quotes to home buyers who plug in basic information about the property, such as location, purchase price and loan amount. And they are offering savings of up to 35 percent off what established firms charge.'' But these upstart companies have had a hard time in securing market share because they don't have the profits to afford to offer kickback- like arrangements. The CFPB has taken reasonable steps on the affiliated title insurance issue, carefully considering the industry comments in their proposed rule and deciding that the harm to consumers was too great to exclude affiliated title. The inclusion of title insurance, qualified mortgage points, and fee caps serves to limit title insurance pricing from even greater excesses. As Professor Adam Levitin of Georgetown University, a Democratic witness at the hearing on H.R. 685, concluded: ``To the extent that we are concerned about ensuring greater availability of credit to consumers, exempting title insurance from the HOEPA and QM point and fee caps is a terrible idea as it virtually guarantees that consumers will be gouged with increased title insurance costs which make homeownership more expensive.'' Make no mistake; Wall Street always argues that consumer protection will hurt access to credit when they want to stop those efforts dead in their tracks. In fact, we heard these same arguments in the early 2000s as the industry lobbied against consumer protection. In 2007, Representatives Brad Miller and Mel Watt introduced, or reintroduced from 2004, a bill supported by consumer groups to curb predatory lending practices which also would have held financial companies that securitize mortgages liable for certain violations. That bill eventually was included in Dodd-Frank as title XIV of the bill. But remember that Bear Stearns spent $500,000 lobbying against Miller's bill and another piece of proposed mortgage legislation right up until the investment bank cratered in March of 2008. Simply, in wrapping up this debate, it is clear that there should be a cap on fees. It is clear that when consumers try and sit down at a closing and try to do the best job that they can to protect their dollars so that they can have money left to fix up the house that they are trying to buy or they can have enough money to ensure that they are able to make the mortgages, they don't want to be steered in ways that some of these loan originators have done and continue to do. They don't want to be steered to affiliated businesses who will simply kick back some of those profits to the lender who sent them to them in the first place. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to just consider what you are spending your time on. Consider whom you are advocating for. Consider that you are advocating for people who are making lots of money. They don't really need your advocacy. They do very well because they have got high-paid lobbyists walking the halls of Washington, D.C., following us around from our offices to the toilets. Consider that if this time were better spent really supporting the reforms in Dodd-Frank and supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we would be doing a better job for our constituents than coming in here trying to protect the biggest and the richest firms who are doing very well out there. Don't forget, prior to Dodd-Frank, there was no real protection for consumers. That is why we have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They are doing a great job; and they are providing us with the research, they are providing us with the investigations, and they are providing us with the information that we should be using to protect consumers rather than coming on this floor and in our committees trying to denounce them, trying to make sure that they are not able to do business, trying to defund them, trying to discredit them, and trying to do everything that they can to keep them from being effective. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is just about that: protecting our consumers in ways that they were not protected before we had the great subprime meltdown and the great crisis that was created in this country. We should all be trying to do our very best not to return to 2008, not to return to a time where we were destroying communities, where boarded-up homes for blocks and blocks and blocks in communities were driving down the value of other homes in those communities. We should be trying to do everything that we can to make sure that we care about homeownership. I hear from the other side of the aisle that somehow we don't care about people owning homes. But what I really hear when I listen to that is that they don't care what price they have to pay in order to get in a home; they don't care if they are gouged with high fees; they don't care if they are extended credit that they can't afford; they don't care that they are going to lose these homes; and finally, they don't really care whether or not they are going to get modifications so that they can stay in the homes. As a matter of fact, many of our consumers who have tried their very best to save their homes have been turned down by the very financial institutions that put them in the position that they happen to be in. Many of those financial institutions we bailed out, and we have gotten nothing in return for much of those bailouts that we have done. So we have an opportunity to respect not only our constituents and our consumers, but to respect the fact that we have finally evolved to the point where we have reforms. I know and I hear from time to time that somehow we on this side of the aisle believe that the Dodd-Frank reforms are cast in concrete, that there can be no modifications, no changes. Well, you heard the chairman say that we passed out 11 bills. We passed out, in a bipartisan way, bills that some of us kind of held our nose and passed out because we wanted to show that maybe these particular bills were not that harmful and maybe weren't harmful and that we could work in a bipartisan way even though some of them questioned some of the work that had been done in Dodd-Frank. I have said and many other members of the committee on my side of the aisle have said that we are willing to make technical corrections; we are willing to make some modifications that make good sense, but we are not willing to destroy the reform that we did, that we worked so hard for. Dodd-Frank is extremely important, and we should be about this business of implementing these reforms so that we can protect our consumers. I am taken aback and I am surprised that many of our Members who are here advocating for the rich lenders, for the people who caused the problem in the first place, can go back home and look their consumers in the eye and tell them they are really working for them, they are really working to make sure that they can own a home. They don't really know, and I don't think that many of those are going back and saying: Well, let me tell you what I did today. I made sure that there was no cap on fees and that the lenders can charge whatever they want working with the affiliated companies; and this cap at 3 percent that they have come up with in Dodd-Frank reforms doesn't make good sense, and they should be able to charge you whatever they want to charge you. I don't think that we have Members who are here on this floor today that are advocating that we get rid of these caps and that we allow these lenders to have these relationships with the affiliated companies where they keep steering the business into them, steering the business into them. How many of those who are advocating have asked the lenders: How much money are you making back on these loans, on these fees that you are allowing the affiliateds to charge them? Do you really get a share in those profits? Do you really get a kickback? If so, let's have some transparency. Let's shine some light on how much money you are making. I bet you one thing. I bet you none of them will tell you: We are not making any money. We are just doing this because, well, we are just doing it because, oh, we think that this is a better way to do it. So I am asking my colleagues in this House to reject this legislation. We have been on this floor today on two important bills, one on manufactured housing where, again, we have advocates on the opposite side of the aisle who would like to see the manufactured housing industry make more money on the poorest of people, on the most vulnerable in our society. They would like to charge interest rates above prime interest, 10 percent above prime interest. As we have stated, when the interest rates begin to rise, this means that it can go beyond 14 percent to 15, 16, 17, and 18 percent. We don't know how high it could go; yet the time that we have spent advocating for the richest of the rich who are in this business to be able to gouge these poor people and the time that we are spending again on another bill that would allow the richest of the rich to gouge poor homeowners who don't know and don't understand all these fees that they are being charged and the fact that we have a cap that they want to remove, why are they spending their time representing those who really don't need their representation? I would ask my colleagues to reject both of these bills. I would ask my colleagues to stand up for the least of these. I would ask my colleagues to make sure they remember the lessons of 2008, and they are reminded of the fact that not only are families destroyed, but whole communities have been destroyed by what took place with this subprime meltdown and this crisis that took us into a recession, almost a depression. We can't forget these lessons; we can't afford to forget these lessons. We are Representatives of the people. Representatives of the people don't act that way. Representatives of the people don't forget. They do everything in their power to make sure that they provide a safety net, that they provide some protection, that they look out for them, that they are their voice inside this place where we are making public policy, that the public policy includes them, that the public policy does not forget them, that the public policy is not the public policy that is designed and supported by the richest 1 percent in this country, but really, the public policy comes out of the voices of all of those who have been sent here from all over this Nation from some of the richest communities to some of the poorest communities. We talk about jobs and the need for the creation of jobs, but I don't hear the opposite side of the aisle talking about that. I don't hear them talking about how we can create really more housing opportunities for those who want to buy and for those who have to rent. I don't hear any talk about what we can do to provide economic development in this country, how we can repair the infrastructure, make sure that our bridges are working, that our water systems are working, that our roads are in good shape. I don't hear that. I hear time being spent on how we can help the richest of those who don't need our voice, who don't need our help. It is time to stop this madness. It is time to call it what it is. It is time to ask: Why is it that the richest of the folks in the businesses in this country who have so many paid lobbyists, who are up and down these halls every day, get so much representation? Why is it they have so much influence? Why is it they have been able to direct the public policy in ways that the average citizen cannot do? I want to tell you--you talk about the middle class. Yes, there is an erosion of the middle class because of the way that the middle class is not really represented. We allude to the representation, but it is really not here. I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation, to not allow anybody on this floor to tell them that this is in the best interest of consumers because it is not. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members, I reiterate that H.R. 650 would remove consumer protections afforded to borrowers of high-priced mortgage loans under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, as enhanced by Dodd-Frank, for manufactured housing loans that currently receive such protections, and I read off some of those protections. I further want to share that these lenders want to be able to originate these high-priced loans at 14 percent and even more when the interest rates change, but they want this bill to change the definition of a ``mortgage originator'' so that the licensing and antisteering requirements of Dodd-Frank would not apply to manufactured housing. Not only are they going for protection for higher priced loans and higher fees, they want to change the definition so they don't look like they are originating loans, and they don't want to come under the law in terms of what we require for protection for higher priced loans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 650, which would undermine the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and eliminate consumer protections for some of the country's most vulnerable borrowers. Mr. Speaker, the talking points describe this bill as one that preserves access to manufactured housing. But the reality is that we have learned this bill is a solution to a problem that does not exist. We agreed that this issue needed additional study last year, and reports we have received from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the manufactured housing industry, and the Center for Public Integrity have all shown us that this measure would not create access to affordable housing but would instead allow an incredibly profitable industry to make even more money by charging exorbitant interest rates and fees to low-income borrowers. The industry itself asserts that it has been growing and is highly profitable even with the Dodd-Frank mortgage protections in place. In fact, according to its trade association, the manufactured housing industry recorded shipment increases in every month of 2014. The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform found that 2014 marked a ``fifth consecutive year of annual industry production increases.'' Even one of the world's investors, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffet, has been touting the post-Dodd-Frank profitability of manufactured housing. In a letter to his shareholders, he pointed out that Clayton Homes, Berkshire's highly profitable manufacturing housing subsidiary, earned a total of $558 million in 2014--an increase of 34 percent over 2013. Yes, that is a 34 percent increase, even after the Dodd-Frank rules were in place. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is the same Clayton Homes that was the subject of a recent Seattle Times-Center for Public Integrity joint investigation that found this manufactured housing empire profits in every imaginable way--from producing the housing, to selling the housing, to originating loans that take advantage of vulnerable consumers and leave them virtually no way to refinance. So, Mr. Speaker, I insert this article into the Record. This, again, is a scathing article that was produced by The Seattle Times. [From the Seattle Times and The Center for Public Integrity, April 7, 2015] The Mobile-Home Trap: How a Warren Buffett Empire Preys on the Poor EPHRATA, Grant County.--After years of living in a 1963 travel trailer, Kirk and Patricia Ackley found a permanent house with enough space to host grandkids and care for her aging father suffering from dementia. So, as the pilot cars prepared to guide the factory-built home up from Oregon in May 2006, the Ackleys were elated to finalize paperwork waiting for them at their loan broker's kitchen table. But the closing documents he set before them held a surprise: The promised 7 percent interest rate was now 12.5 percent, with monthly payments of $1,100, up from $700. The terms were too extreme for the Ackleys. But they'd already spent $11,000, at the dealer's urging, for a concrete foundation to accommodate this specific home. They could look for other financing but desperately needed a space to care for her father. Kirk's construction job and Patricia's Wal-Mart job together weren't enough to afford the new monthly payment. But, they said, the broker was willing to inflate their income in order to qualify them for the loan. ``You just need to remember,'' they recalled him saying, ``you can refinance as soon as you can.'' To their regret, the Ackleys signed. The disastrous deal ruined their finances and nearly their marriage. But until informed recently by a reporter, they didn't realize that the homebuilder (Golden West), the dealer (Oakwood Homes) and the lender (21st Mortgage) were all part of a single company: Clayton Homes, the nation's biggest homebuilder, which is controlled by its second-richest man-- Warren Buffett. Buffett's mobile-home empire promises low-income Americans the dream of homeownership. But Clayton relies on predatory sales practices, exorbitant fees, and interest rates that can exceed 15 percent, trapping many buyers in loans they can't afford and in homes that are almost impossible to sell or refinance, an investigation by The Seattle Times and Center for Public Integrity has found. Berkshire Hathaway, the investment conglomerate Buffett leads, bought Clayton in 2003 and spent billions building it into the mobile-home industry's biggest manufacturer and lender. Today, Clayton is a many headed hydra with companies operating under at least 18 names, constructing nearly half of the industry's new homes and selling them through its own retailers. It finances more mobile-home purchases than any other lender by a factor of six. It also sells property insurance on them and repossesses them when borrowers fail to pay. Berkshire extracts value at every stage of the process. Clayton even builds the homes with materials--such as paint and carpeting--supplied by other Berkshire subsidiaries. More than a dozen Clayton customers described a consistent array of deceptive practices that locked them into ruinous deals: loan terms that changed abruptly after they paid deposits or prepared land for their new homes; surprise fees tacked on to loans; and pressure to take on excessive payments based on false promises that they could later refinance. Former dealers said the company encouraged them to steer buyers to finance with Clayton's own high-interest lenders. Under federal guidelines, most Clayton mobile-home loans are considered ``higher-priced.'' Those loans averaged 7 percentage points higher than the typical home loan in 2013, according to a Times/CPI analysis of federal data, compared to just 3.8 percentage points for other lenders. Buyers told of Clayton collection agents urging them to cut back on food and medical care or seek handouts in order to make house payments. And when homes got hauled off to be resold, some consumers already had paid so much in fees and interest that the company still came out ahead. Even through the Great Recession and housing crisis, Clayton was profitable every year, generating $558 million in pre-tax earnings in 2014. The company's tactics contrast with Buffett's public profile as a financial sage who values responsible lending and helping poor Americans keep their homes. Berkshire Hathaway spokeswoman Carrie Soya and Clayton spokeswoman Audrey Saunders ignored more than a dozen requests by phone, email and in person to discuss Clayton's policies and treatment of consumers. In an emailed statement, Saunders said Clayton helps customers find homes within their budgets and has a ``purpose of opening doors to a better life, one home at a time.'' First, a dream As Buffett tells it, his purchase of Clayton Homes came from an ``unlikely source'': Visiting students from the University of Tennessee gave him a copy of founder Jim Clayton's self-published memoir, ``First a Dream,'' in early 2003. Buffett enjoyed reading the book and admired Tim Clayton's record, he has said, and soon called CEO Kevin Clayton, offering to buy the company. ``A few phone calls later, we had a deal,'' Buffett said at his 2003 shareholders meeting, according to notes taken at the meeting by hedge-fund manager Whitney Tilson. The tale of serendipitous dealmaking paints Buffett and the Claytons as sharing down-to-earth values, antipathy for Wall Street and an old-fashioned belief in treating people fairly. But, in fact, the man who brought the students to Omaha said Clayton's book wasn't the genesis of the deal. ``The Claytons really initiated this contact,'' said Al Auxier, the Tennessee professor, since retired, who chaperoned the student trip after fostering a relationship with the billionaire. CEO Kevin Clayton, the founder's son, reached out to Buffett through Auxier, the professor said in a recent interview, and asked whether Buffett might explore ``a business relationship'' with Clayton Homes. At the time, mobile-home loans had been defaulting at alarming rates, and investors had grown wary of them. Kevin Clayton was seeking a new source of cash to relend to homebuyers. He knew that Berkshire Hathaway, with its perfect bond rating, could provide it as cheaply as anyone. Later that year, Berkshire Hathaway paid $1.7 billion in cash to buy Clayton Homes. Clayton provided more than half of new mobile-home loans in eight states. In Texas, the number exceeds 70 percent. Clayton has more than 90 percent of the market in Odessa, one of the most expensive places in the country to finance a mobile home. To maintain its down-to-earth image, Clayton has hired the stars of the reality-TV show ``Duck Dynasty'' to appear in ads. The company's headquarters is a hulking structure of metal sheeting surrounded by acres of parking lots and a beach volleyball court for employees, located a few miles south of Knoxville, Tenn. Next to the front door, there is a slot for borrowers to deposit payments. Near the headquarters, two Clayton sales lots sit three miles from each other. Clayton Homes' banners promise ``$0 CASH DOWN.'' TruValue Homes, also owned by Clayton, advertises ``REPOS FOR SALE.'' Other nearby Clayton lots operate as Luv Homes and Oakwood Homes. With all the different names, many customers believe that they're shopping around. House-sized banners at dealerships reinforce that impression, proclaiming they will ``BEAT ANY DEAL.'' In some parts of the country, buyers would have to drive many miles past several Clayton-owned lots, to reach a true competitor. Guided into costly loans Soon after Buffett bought Clayton Homes, he declared a new dawn for the moribund mobile-home industry, which provides housing for some 20 million Americans. Lenders should require ``significant down payments and shorter-term loans,'' Buffett wrote. He called 30-year loans on mobile homes ``a mistake,'' according to notes Tilson took during Berkshire Hathaway's 2003 shareholders meeting. ``Home purchases should involve an honest-to-God down payment of at least 10% and monthly payments that can be comfortably handled by the borrower's income,'' Buffett later wrote. ``That income should be carefully verified.'' But in examining more than 100 Clayton home sales through interviews and reviews of loan documents from 41 states, reporters found that the company's loans routinely violated the lending standards laid out by Buffett. Clayton dealers often sold homes with no cash down payment. Numerous borrowers said they were persuaded to take on outsized payments by dealers promising that they could later refinance. And the average loan term actually increased from 21 years in 2007 to more than 23 years in 2009, the last time Berkshire disclosed that detail. Clayton's loan to Dorothy Mansfield, a disabled Army veteran who lost her previous North Carolina home to a tornado in 2011, includes key features that Buffett condemned. Mansfield had a lousy credit score of 474, court records show. Although she had seasonal and part-time jobs, her monthly income often consisted of less than $700 in disability benefits. She had no money for a down payment when she visited Clayton Homes in Fayetteville, N.C. Vanderbilt, one of Clayton's lenders, approved her for a $60,000, 20-year loan to buy a Clayton home at 10.13 percent annual interest. She secured the loan with two parcels of land that her family already owned free and clear. The dealer didn't request any documents to verify Mansfield's income or employment, records show. Mansfield's monthly payment of $673 consumed almost all of her guaranteed income. Within 18 months, she was behind on payments and Clayton was trying to foreclose on the home and land. Many borrowers interviewed for this investigation described being steered by Clayton dealers into Clayton financing without realizing the companies were one and the same. Sometimes, buyers said, the dealer described the financing as the best deal available. Other times, the Clayton dealer said it was the only financing option. Kevin Carroll, former owner of a Clayton-affiliated dealership in Indiana, said in an interview that he used business loans from a Clayton lender to finance inventory for his lot. If he also guided homebuyers to work with the same lender, 21st Mortgage, the company would give him a discount on his business loans--a ``kickback,'' in his words. Doug Farley, who was a general manager at several Clayton- owned dealerships, also used the term ``kickback'' to describe the profit-share he received on Clayton loans until around 2008. After that, the company changed its incentives to instead provide ``kickbacks'' on sales of Clayton's insurance to borrowers, he said. Ed Atherton, a former lot manager in Arkansas, said his regional supervisor was pressuring lot managers to put at least 80 percent of buyers into Clayton financing. Atherton left the company in 2013. During the most recent four-year period, 93 percent of Clayton's mobile-home loans had such costly terms that they required extra disclosure under federal rules. Among all other mobile-home lenders, fewer than half of their loans met that threshold. Customers said in interviews that dealers misled them to take on unaffordable loans, with tactics including last- minute changes to loan terms and unexplained fees that inflate loan balances. Such loans are, by definition, predatory. ``They're going to assume the client is unsophisticated, and they're right,'' said Felix Harris, a housing counselor with the nonprofit Knoxville Area Urban League. Some borrowers felt trapped because they put up a deposit before the dealer explained the loan terms or, like the Ackleys, felt compelled to swallow bait-and-switch deals because they had spent thousands to prepare their land. Promise denied A couple of years after moving into their new mobile home, Kirk Ackley was injured in a backhoe rollover. Unable to work, he and his wife urgently needed to refinance the costly 21st Mortgage loan they regretted signing. They pleaded with the lender several times for the better terms that they originally were promised, but were denied, they said. The Ackleys tried to explain the options to a 21st supervisor: If they refinanced to lower payments, they could stay in the home and 21st would get years of steady returns. Otherwise, the company would have to come out to their rural property, pull the house from its foundation and haul it away, possibly damaging it during the repossession. They both recall being baffled by his reply: ``We don't care. We'll come take a chainsaw to it--cut it up and haul it out in boxes.'' Nine Clayton consumers interviewed for this story said they were promised a chance to refinance. In reality, Clayton almost never refinances loans and accounts for well under 1 percent of mobile-home refinancings reported in government data from 2010 to 2013. It made more than one-third of the purchase loans during that period. Of Washington's 25 largest mobile-home lenders, Clayton's subsidiaries ranked No. 1 and No. 2 for the highest interest rates in 2013. Together, they ranked eighth in loans originated. ``If you have a decrease in income and can't afford the mortgage, at least a lot of the big companies will do modifications,'' said Harris, the Knoxville housing counselor. ``Vanderbilt won't even entertain that.'' In general, owners have difficulty refinancing or selling their mobile homes because few lenders offer such loans. One big reason: Homes are overpriced or depreciate so quickly that they generally are worth less than what the borrower owes, even after years of monthly payments. Ellie Carosa, of Napavine, Lewis County, found this out the hard way in 2010 after she put down some $40,000 from an inheritance to buy a used home from Clayton priced at about $65,000. Clayton sales reps steered Carosa, who is 67 years old and disabled, to finance the unpaid amount through Vanderbilt at 9 percent interest over 20 years. One year later, Carosa was already having problems--peeling paint and failing carpets--so she decided to have a market expert assess the value of her home. She hoped to eventually sell the house so the money could help her granddaughter, whom she adopted as her daughter at age 8, attend a local college to study music. Carosa was stunned to learn that the home was worth only $35,000, far less than her original down payment. ``I've lost everything,'' Carosa said. `Rudest, most condescending' agents Berkshire's borrowers who fall behind on their payments face harassing, potentially illegal phone calls from a company rarely willing to offer relief. Carol Carroll, a nurse living near Bug Tussle, Ala., began looking for a new home in 2003 after her husband had died, leaving her with a 6-year-old daughter. Instead of a down payment, she said, the salesman assured her she could simply put up two acres of her family land as collateral. In December 2005, Carroll was permanently disabled in a catastrophic car accident in which two people were killed. Knowing it would take a few months for her disability benefits to be approved, Carroll said, she called Vanderbilt and asked for a temporary reprieve. The company's answer: ``We don't do that.'' However, Clayton ratcheted up her property-insurance premiums, eventually costing her $803 more per year than when she started, she said. Carroll was one of several Clayton borrowers who felt trapped in the company's insurance, often because they were told they had no other options. Some had as many as five years' worth of expensive premiums included in their loans, inflating the total balance to be repaid with interest. Others said they were misled into signing up even though they already had other insurance. Carroll has since sold belongings, borrowed money from relatives and cut back on groceries to make payments. When she was late, she spoke frequently to Clayton's phone agents, whom she described as ``the rudest, most condescending people I have ever dealt with.'' It's a characterization echoed by almost every borrower interviewed for this story. Consumers say the company's response to pleas for help is an invasive interrogation about their family budgets, including how much they spend on food, toiletries and utilities. Denise Pitts, of Knoxville, Tenn., said Vanderbilt collectors have called her multiple times a day, with one suggesting that she cancel her Internet service, even though she home-schools her son. They have called her relatives and neighbors, a tactic other borrowers reported. After Pitts' husband, Kirk, was diagnosed with aggressive cancer, she said, a Vanderbilt agent told her she should make the house payment her ``first priority'' and let medical bills go unpaid. She said the company has threatened to seize her property immediately even though the legal process to do so would take at least several months. Practices like contacting neighbors, calling repeatedly and making false threats can violate consumer-protection laws in Washington, Tennessee and other states. Last year, frequent complaints about Clayton's aggressive collection practices led Tennessee state officials to contact local housing counselors seeking information about their experiences with the company, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations. Treated like car owners Mobile-home buyers who own their land sites may be able to finance their home purchases with real-estate mortgages, which give them more federal and state consumer protections than the other major financing option, a personal-property loan. With conventional home mortgages, companies must wait 120 days before starting foreclosure. In some states, the foreclosure process can take more than a year, giving consumers a chance to save their homes. Despite these protections, two-thirds of mobile-home buyers who own their land end up in personal-property loans, according to a federal study. These loans may close more quickly and have fewer upfront costs, but their rates are generally much higher. And if borrowers fall behind on payments, their homes can be seized with little or no wanting. Those buyers are more vulnerable because they end up being treated like car owners instead of homeowners, said Bruce Neas, an attorney who has worked for years on foreclosure and manufactured-housing issues in Washington state. Tiffany Galler was a single mother living in Crestview, Fla., in 2005 when she bought a mobile home for $37,195 with a loan from 21st Mortgage. She later rented out the home. After making payments over eight years totaling more than the sticker price of the home, Galler lost her tenant in November 2013 and fell behind on her payments. She arranged to show the home to a prospective renter two months later. But when she arrived at her homesite, Galler found barren dirt with PVC pipe sticking up from the ground. She called 911, thinking someone had stolen her home. Hours later, Galler tracked her repossessed house to a sales lot 30 miles away that was affiliated with 21st. It was listed for $25,900. Clayton wins concessions The government has known for years about concerns that mobile-home buyers are treated unfairly. Little has been done. Fifteen years ago, Congress directed the Department of Housing and Urban Development to examine issues such as loan terms and regulations in order to find ways to make mobile homes affordable. That's still on HUD's to-do list. The industry, however, has protected its interests vigorously. Clayton Homes is represented in Washington, DC, by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), a trade group that has a Clayton executive as its vice chairman and another as its secretary. CEO Kevin Clayton has represented MHI before Congress. MHI spent $4.5 million since 2003 lobbying the federal government. Those efforts have helped the company escape much scrutiny, as has Buffett's persona as a man of the people, analysts say. ``There is a Teflon aspect to Warren Buffett,'' said James McRitchie, who runs a widely read blog, Corporate Governance. Still, after the housing crisis, lawmakers tightened protections for mortgage borrowers with a sweeping overhaul known as the Dodd-Frank Act, creating regulatory headaches for the mobile-home industry. Kevin Clayton complained to lawmakers in 2011 that the new rules would lump in some of his company's loans with ``subprime, predatory'' mortgages, making it harder for mobile-home buyers ``to obtain affordable financing.'' Although the rules had yet to take effect that year, 99 percent of Clayton's mobile-home loans were so expensive that they met the federal government's ``higher-priced'' threshold. Dodd-Frank also tasked federal financial regulators with creating appraisal requirements for risky loans. Appraisals are common for conventional home sales, protecting both the lender and the consumer from a bad deal. Clayton's own data suggest that its mobile homes may be overpriced from the start, according to comments it filed with federal regulators. When Vanderbilt was required to obtain appraisals before finalizing a loan, company officials wrote, the home was determined to be worth less than the sales price about 30 percent of the time. But when federal agencies jointly proposed appraisal rules in September 2012, industry objections led them to exempt loans secured solely by a manufactured home. Then Clayton pushed for more concessions, arguing that manufactured-home loans tied to land should also be exempt. Paul Nichols, then-president of Clayton's Vanderbilt Mortgage, told regulators that the appraisal requirement would be costly and onerous, significantly reducing ``the availability of affordable housing in the United States.'' In 2013, regulators conceded. They will not require a complete appraisal for new manufactured homes.