This bill weakens reforms enacted after the financial crisis that kept banks from offering low-income families high-fee loans they can't afford. The entire YEA statement is misleading fluffed hyena dung. Let's break it down. 1) "This bipartisan bill..." I don't care if it's bipartisan. Just because it's a rare case of non-partisanship doesn't make it worthwhile. 2) "...would improve access to credit..." Improving access to credit for any borrower of any portion of the income spectrum isn't automatically noble or smart if the credit provided can't be repaid. At a certain point for everyone - regardless of income or wealth - there is diminishing returns for all parties involved when access to credit is increased. Given Dodd/Frank wasn't over-reaching or harming the residential real estate market, this unnecessarily weakens a protective control against unfit borrowing. (Unless you're goal is to increase short term real estate values and/or transactions to get paid in commissions, fees, or flip profits, then it stinks.) 3) "and qualified mortgages..." While one could argue that credit-risk is partially mitigated in the mortgage world because of the intrinsic value of the real estate backing the loan (especially residential real estate since everyone needs to live somewhere) as compared to a car, college, personal loan (which has less appealing or no collateral). But that mitigated risk is reflected in the lower interest rate, and shouldn't be reflected in the borrower universe. Because an increase to the borrower universe increases the demand pool which drives up costs thus hurting the very people this purports to help. And, given housing is an illiquid asset, shoe-horning into a tight credit situation can be widely problematic because getting out is always much more work. 4) "...for low- and middle-income borrowers, which is a worthwhile goal." See all point before, but to summarize, aside from life-sustaining care, no one is helped if they're afforded something they cannot repay to the detriment of their future. Dodd-Frank was an appropriate response to an unchecked industry who's recklessness hurt many innocent responsible people. It was not the Russian Revolution and state seizure of all assets and means of production in response to a garbage monarchy. It's not perfect, but that's mainly because it didn't go far enough. ...I probably could've just indicated I concur the NAY statement since, as Gil said in Ground Hog Day "That about sums it up for me". But I'm wordy and like most people, I want to get my own words in, which no one will likely read, but it's cathartic for me. "This bill weakens reforms enacted after the financial crisis that kept banks from offering low-income families high-fee loans they can't afford."