On the recordFebruary 14, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, number one, just for the Record, it is Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania and Mr. Pittenger from North Carolina. Since we serve with these colleagues, it would be nice to learn their names. Mr. Speaker, what the ranking member is proposing is to take away credit opportunities for those who need it the most. The greatest credit program is a competitive marketplace. And, unfortunately, the policy that she is advocating, this Second Circuit court case, has cut credit opportunities in half. That means people are paying more. In many respects, this is a more usurious result than what the ranking member is otherwise claiming will happen without the Second Circuit decision. Again, I alluded to it in my opening statement, but we have the definitive academic study. We don't have to guess at this, Mr. Speaker. They studied those with lower credit scores in the Second Circuit. And what did they find out? I will quote from the study. The results presented in figure 3 indicate that the FICO increase was caused by a decline--a decline--in lending to lower quality borrowers. Thank you, Second Circuit. The pattern is most obvious for the lowest quality borrowers, those with FICO scores below 625. The growth rate for these borrowers in Connecticut and New York was a negative 52 percent. Mr. Speaker, that means they had their credit opportunities cut in half.…





