Transcripts For CSPAN CFPB Director Kraninger Testifies On The Agencys Semi-Annual Report To... 20240713

Discrimination should be able to decide their own election processes at cspan. Org. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus Kathleen Kraninger talks about payday lending practices and regulatory rules before the Senate Banking committee. This is an hour and 20 minutes. This meeting will come to orer. Issued its cfpb report which outlines the bureaus work between september 201 an march 2019 including rule makings and supervisor activities. Mr. Crapo it also provides insight into what the cfpb plans to undertake in the work period. Since stepping into her role last december, director kraninger has demonstrated a commitment to making sure americans have access to a wide range of products and services to meet their needs, fostering innovation and vigorously protecting consumers. Reflecting this commitment to the cfpbs mission, director kraninger conducted a crosscountry listening tour with the full spectrum of stake holders in her first mopthopes john. The directors conversations with consumers, industry, and fellow federal and state regulators have improved cfpb engagement, informed their supervision an regulatory processes and improved agency transparency. In a semiannual report, director kraninger also highlighted that the cfpb has taken steps to strengthen the consumer mark place by providing Financial Institutions clear rules of the road that allow them to offer consumers a range of high quality, Innovative Financial ervices and services and products. On september 10, cfpb issued three new policies to promote innovation and reduce regulatory uncertainty. These policies include the Trial Disclosure Program policy, the compliance assistance sandbox policy, and the no action letter policy. Each of these policies are intended to contribute to an environment that allows innovation to flourish safely and ensure that Consumer Needs are met in increasingly efficient and effective ways. Earlier this year, the cfpb announced a proposal to update the mandatory underwriting provisions of its 2017 small dollar lending rule. Updating this rule is an important step toward ensuring the availability of credit that is essential to so many consumers. Who druggle struggle to access or qualify for other options. And basing rules on solid evidence and legal support. As the cfpb continues to move forward on this rule making process, i encourage the cfpb to coordinate with other financial regulators on an approach to small dollar lending to create a consistent framework across all institutions. In order to promote and expand small dollar lending and credit options. In july, the cfpb released an advanced notice of proposed rule making seeking stake holder comment on potential amendments to its ability to repay qualified mortgage rules. Cabria and cfpb director kraninger noted it exacerbates an unlevel Playing Field a that fannie and freddie should play by the same rules as everyone else. The cfpbs actions are cabria a positive step and i can and i continue to encourage the but roes efforts to find a permanent solution to the qualified mortgage standard that provides certainty to consumers, lenders an investors alike. Last week, the cfpb announced the formation of a task force that will be devoted to examining ways to modernize an ar monoize federal Consumer Financial laws. Especially those pertaining to consumer credit. The Banking Committee has spent sig can time this congress evaluating how the fair credit reporting act or fcra, should operate in an increasingly Digital Economy and other firms serve functions similar to the original consumer reporting agencies. Look forward to reviewing the cfpbs task force on Consumer Financial laws reck mndations so it continues to function as originally intended in a digital world. While im greatly encouraged by many changes and initiatives at the cfpb under director kraningers leadership it remains clear the fundamental structure they have cfpb must be reconsidered to make it more transparent and accountable. I continue to support transitioning the cfpb to a Bipartisan Commission from a single director, subjecting the cfpb to appropriations, and providing a safety and soundness check for prudential regulators. On september 17, 2019, the cfpb and department of justice filed a brief in the u. S. Supreme court urging the court in the cfpb to elah law vs. Review the constitutionality of the bureaus leadership structure. Ive long argued that the cfpbs structure lacks sufficient accountability and look forward to the Supreme Court taking up review of this case. During this hearing i look forward to hearing more about key initiatives thealt cfpb in the last year. Director kraningers prioritiers in cfpb in the upcome work period and additional legislative opportunity to provide widespread access to Financial Products an services. Director kraninger, i thank you for joining the committee this morning to discuss the cfpbs activities an plans. Senator brown. Senator brown thank you, mr. Chairman. We created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stand up for students and Service Members and hardworking americans to protect them from big banks and crooked corporations that rob them of their homes an jobs and savings. After 10 months on the job, its clear why President Trump selected you to head the cfpb. We know he can count on you to protect wall street banks and payday lenders and shady debt collectors and other companies that prey on hardworking americans. Under your leadership under President Trumps leadership this agency has chosen corporations over workers over and over again, has chosen big banks over consumers over and over again. Since you took over, you and your appointees have overruled the recommendations of consumer experts an allowed crooked companies to lie to, to cheat, and to steal from hardworking americans and then you let them get away with it. The consume brother text bureau is supposed to protect consumers, thats your entire job, to protect consumers from predatory loans and from predatory payday loan that lead to endless cycles of debt. You instead chose to protech the interests of President Trump and hi payday lending patrons. Consumers pay the price since august when the payday loan rule was scheduled to go into effect, americans have paid more than 1 billion in fees to payday loan shark. Thats 1 billion out of the pockets of consumers and its consumers without a lot of money that are using payday lending. A billion dollars out of the pockets of consumers because the agency that was supposed to look out for them decided to instead look out for payday lenders yusm also could have protected servicemens and their families. But instead the Trump Administration betrayed them when you stopped making sure companies followed the protections for Service Members and their families. You also could have strengthened the bureaus enforce. Of fair lending laws that returned hundreds of millions of collars to victims of discrimination and agencies in the agencys first seven years. Instead you continued President Trumps attacks on fair lending laws. In fact, instead of proteching consumers, you dismantled the bureaus office of fair lend, you put a trump political appointee with a history of racist and sexist writings, and weve spoken about those in this committee before, in charge of fair lending. Youre trying to repeal a 2015 rule that required lenders to report basic loan information to ensheer they are ensure they are not discriminating. As a result since you took over, the bureau has not brought a single case against a company for discriminatory lending practices. Not one single case against a company for discriminatory lending practices. Last i checked, discrimination hasnt ended in this country in trumps america. You and the Trump Administration, you have turned your backs on student loan borrowers. The bureau could have help prod tect the 44 million americans with Student Loans from the widespread mistakes and errors and mismanagement by the companies that handled their loans and that have cost them thousands of dollars. But again, you betrayed the people the president promised to look out for. Hearing that word betrayed these days used a lot, how the president betrayed workers in the midwest. How the president has betrayed our allies in the middle east. And day after day betrayed workers in this country yusm sided with education secretary devos an refused to examine federal student loan servicers to make sure theyre not cheating people with Student Loans. G. A. O. And department of educations inspector genre ported that the congressmen that manages federal Student Loans wrongly denied tens of thousands of teachers, nurses, firefighters, servicemens and other dedicated Public Servants the loan forive forgiveness they earned. This isnt my opinion, this is g. A. O. And department of educations Inspector General you protected those companies while hard working American Families paid the price. I guess i should expect nothing less from an administration that consistently looks like a retreat for wall street executives. Under your leadership, crooked corporations have no insentives to follow the law. If they get caught they know theyll get hit with nothing more than a slight slap on the wrist for ripping off consumers. How in the world do you explain to hardworking americans why this bureau isnt protecting them . To be sure, youve done the role asked of you by the president of the united states. Youve protected company, not workers, not consumers, thats ndefensible. Its now your opportunity to make your initial statement, the loor is yours. Coip thank you ms. Kraninger thank you for an opportunity to provide an update on the bureaus work. Preventing harm to consumers is the most important job of the cfpb. We prevent harm by educating consumers to protect themselves. We prevent harm by having clear rues of the road for regulated entities. We prevent harm by using supervision and enforcement. And we protect by providing for consumer choice. While prevention isnt always possible its always the goal. Saving consumers from financial headaches, setbacks and devastation. The semiannual report and my written testimony provide a rundown of our activities in the first half of fiscal year 2019 and a preview of more recent initiatives, some of which ill take the opportunity to highlight now. First our efforts to provide clear rules of the roads so companies and consumers know what is lawful and what is not. Last week the bureau finalized a rule that provides need red leaf to smaller lenders for reporting under the Home Mortgage disclosure act or hmga and under the consume brother text act. Additionally last month the bureau announced policies to support inknow varkse deuce uncertainty and enhance consumer choice. The bureau announced its first no action letter under the new policies. It is designed to help keep funding streams open for our Nations Housing counselors who have assisted millions of americans attain the dream of owning a home. Second, where we cannot prevent harm to consumers we use our enforcement tools to hold bad actors accountable. Every case is managed by bureau attorneys seeking justice in the public interest. In fiscal year 2019 we announce 2d2 public enforce. Actions and settled six previously filed lawsuits including in a public fair lending enforce. Action the bureau settled with one of the nations largest hmda reporters for violating hmda and regulation c. We took action against an individual who broke a contract Offering High interest loans to veterans. And we tooks against a Student Loan Company that violate the Consumer Protection act. Further the bureau roes actions in 2019 resulted in orders requiring a total of over 770 million in consumer relief and nearly 186 million in civil money penalties. I note these figures not as a measure of accomplishment but to underscore the fact that the bureau continues to appropriately utilize its enforcement tool. Third we continue to promote a culture of compliance lew our supervisor tool and empower consumers through education. Earlier this year we launch and initiative, start small, save up, to help prepare americans to handle an unexpected financial event. As part of the initiative we released a new savings book het to help individuals create a path toward reaching their savings goal and we are looking at other ways to move the needle on savings in america. For example the bureau partnered with h r block to study savings and tax repounds. The refunds. Studies show encouragement through a simple email increased a consumers likelihood of saving a portion of their tax refund. It also found that one in five consumers who took advantage of the specific savings features continued to save eight months later. We will continue to engage in research about the about what works to promote a habit of savings and overall financial well being. Fourth i have a few recent announcements to demonstrate the bureau is committed to using the tools Congress Gave us as effectively and efficiently as possible. Last week the bureau handled its two millionth Consumer Complaint. To ensure the bureaus work continues to be informed by this input i announce ladst month well continue publication of the Consumer Complaint database andwell be enhancing the day be database by providing new tools an graphics to enhance submissions and putting that data into con tegs. Also last week i announced the establishment of a task force to examine the existing regulatory framework. The task force will make recommendations for improving financial laws and regulations and enhancing consumer understanding of marks an products. We are accepting applications from individuals who are interested in serving on the task force and welcome recommendations from members of congress. Just yesterday im proud to announce, just two days ago, imse im proud to announce the new moan loan ombudsman issued his first annual report. The report covers two years and analyzes complaints submitted by consumers. The bureau also set aside memorandum of understanding to the department of education consistent wits statutory responsibility to share Consumer Complaint information information. Before i close id like to touch on one final issue of clarity around the constitutionality of the bureaus structure. As you are aware, i joined the governments recent brief in the Supreme Court to hear the case cfpb law. This matter is in litigation so consistent with lang stonding bureau practice im not going to discuss it at length. But i do want to highlight a few key points. From the bureaus earliest days the constitutionality of the directors removal provision has been raised to challenge League Action by the bureau in pursuit of our mission. Litigation other this question continues to cause significant delays in some of our enforcement and regulatory action. I believe this dynamic will not change until the constitutional question is revolved. Either by congress or the Supreme Court. My position on this question will not stop the bureau from fulfilling our statutory responsibilities. We will continue to defend the actions that the bureau takes now and has taken in the past. Again, i thank you for this opportunity to discuss the bureaus work and look forward to your questions. Senator crapo thank you, director. My first question is related to access to credit. I ask it in this context. Its already been expressed by senator brown, a concern about the level of enforcement activity. I appreciate your reviewing the agency is enforcing the law. It seems to me that in addition o stopping bad actors from harming consumers, an important thing to do to protect and strengthen consumers is to increase access to safe credit. Could you discuss first of all whether that is one of the important objectives you have and how youd seek to achieve that. Ms. Kraninger thank you, senator. The access to credit is part of the mission of the bureau. Comes into play in dodd frank under innovation in particular, innovation an access. It is an important part of what we do. We do have to be thoughtful and judicious and deliberate in our rule making activities to consider the implications on access to credit. The actions that we take, and there are a number of areas where we are being thoughtful about that. I would highlight the innovation policies pause that clearly is an area where we are seeking more innovation from the industry, from Financial Technology companies from others who have ideas about how we can reach those underbanked and unbanked individuals in our society and bring them into Financial Services that are going to help them bill their financial well being and so that opportunity is something that weve had sim posea on. Symposia on. Were engaged in that and look forward to them coming forward to talk about how we can do. Senator crapo thank you for that weve talked about this, but would you highlight again, one thing we can do for those who are not banked and find it difficult to access credit is to make sure that the Credit System that they can participate in is safe and that it is strong and robust. Available to them. Can you just comment a little further on the importance of that. Ms. Kraninger yes, senator. That is an important part of our job, a competitive, fair, transparent market will promote that an thats a mission we were given. I think one thing i can talk a little bit more about is alternative data and the opportunity to look at that in underwriting. The bureau did issue one no action letter under its prior policy to a company calledup start. We have since had a lot of information on how upstart has used alternative data both employment and education information, to again make those kinds of determinations and provide greater access to credit. We did issue a blog recently, our head of fair lending and head of innovation talked about the opportunity that Companies Like upstart are providing to individuals who are unbanked and underbanked to bring them in to safer products. And thats something well continue to do. Senator crapo thank you. E adoption of innovative policies has the ability to increase the ease and efficiency to a wider spectrum of consumers as weve been discussing. A lack of regulatory certainty and clear guidance regarding the use of new financial techling in can stifle the development and the integration of innovative practices. Can you describe how the cfpbs recent policy guidance regarding his Sandbox Program and the no action letter, the compliance sandbecomes program can have, can help our firms that do provide services get Greater Regulatory clarity and enhance financial innovation . Ms. Kraninger one of the premises of those policies is certainly encouraging some of these Innovative Companies and entities to come forward with their ideas. It is something that we that is challenging to do. Again, a company entering this space does not have the same history of regulatory engagement as traditional institutions do and so coming forward to ask questions, to look for ways to be compliant with financial, with Consumer Financial Protection Laws, thats what theyre trying to do, thats what were trying to promote is that conversation with those entities. There is a real opportunity with the trial disclosure policy, i believe, to get better information to consumers, simple information to consumers at the right time, since they have what they need to make the best decision for themselves and really looking forward to frankly even traditional Financial Institutions coming forward with some great ideas in that space. The sandbox as well, theres going to be a lot of back and forth other how effective the products are and what the opportunities are that are beneficial to consumers. Part of the application process is raising beth the benefits and to consumers and thats what to consumers and thats what the applicants will have to articulate to us and go back and forth on. Senator brown thank you. Sit its reasonable to consider a paybay loan rule that allows consumers who get into financial trouble to pay back as little as 1 of a loan . Ms. Kraninger are you asking about an Interest Rate . Senator brown i ask that because the apps is sort of selfevident but this chart shows you let scammers and shady debt collectors pay 1 or less of ams they owe. This cfla paid 1. 1 of the amount they owe to consumers. Howard law paid. 07 of the debt they owed. The scam they made. And mckinnon paid. 2 . So you gave these corporations and these scammers a huge discount on what they owed to hard working american whom they cheated. Why is it that these scammers that take advantage of Service Members or Seniors Students deserve Debt Forgiveness but working families dont deserve the same treatment. Ms. Kraninger thank you for giving me more context on that question, senator. S you know, every case is fact and circumstance specific. Its led by bureau attorneys in terms of the opening decision of that case, the closing decision of the case, the recommendation and the discourse we have inside the agency over whether to sue or settle. There are certainly opportunity costs there with our decisions to sue which we have taken. In many cases under my leadership and prior leadership. Senator brown you can answer this for the next five minutes. When its consumers who are hurt and saddammers scammers that benefit, the person the little bit of money they get, what message does this send . Its not only consumers get nothing close to restitution. Its the message it sends to other scammers that they have a friend, they have a friend in the white house and they have a friend at the cfpb. Let me move on. During your confirmation i raised concerns that youd side with 9 9 11 scammers and others about the arguments that the cfpb is unconstitutional. Do you remember that . Ms. Kraninger i do. Senator brown you testified it was not your position to decide whether cfpb was constitution ale. You said, im quote, im aware of the constitutional questions, i think theyre important but theyre not for me in this position to answer. The director has the responsibility to carry out the law as written and thats my focus. Based on this testimony i was surprised when a few weeks ago you sent a letter to congress stating, i have decided that the bureau should adopt the department of justices view that the forcause removal provision is unconstitutional. If someone comes to congress and commit tots do one thing and does another, is that lying to congress . Ms. Kraninger senator, i was aware obviously of the constitutional question from the moment of my nomination. We discussed it at the hearing in my confirmation process and it surgeonly was not a decision that i had to take at that time. And i still firmly believe that in terms of settling this question, as i said in my opening statement, it is for the Supreme Court and congress to settle it. At the same time the executive branching and all of us as executive Branch Officials have a responsibility to uphold the constitution. And in the face of this petition to the Supreme Court in this particular case it did come to me far decision on my position and the position the bureau would take. Thats the decision thats jut lined in our senator brown i think it speaks to your credibility when you said you wouldnt speak on issues of constitutionality and then you did. Which reflects on other thingus may have said over time. I want to turn become to the Public Service loan forgiveness. Congress designed the program to help hardworking americans who take jobs we hope they take to serve this country and their communities. Its clear the management of this program under the company fia has been a pleat train wreck. Fewer than 1 of workers, fewer than 1 of workers have restheaved loan forgiveness they earned. The cfpb has done nothing for more than two years about it. Will you commit to the public that youll open an enforcement investigation of fia, the company supposed to manage these Student Loans . Ms. Kraninger i can tell you i take very sleers thinkly the responsibility we have to all consumers and particularly to students. We do have that responsibility. I hired, as i said i would, a private Education Loan ombudsman who issued his first annual report. We have engaged the department of education to work through what i think is hopefully going to be the best outcome for consumers and thats to have the federal Government Agencies united in the understanding of our respective responsibilities and how were going to move forward. Theyre moving forward forward on the m. O. U. Thats statutorily required and moving forward on other areas including how we will carry out our responsibilities. Senator brown i hope so but nothing fundamental has happened. Its still 1 of workers who received the loan forgiveness they earned as they served the public as we asked them. O keep in mind, fia is a taxpayer funded modele. Will you protect people paying off their Student Loans or will you protect secretary devos and this company . Ms. Kraninger i will carry out my responsibility to protect consumers. Ill recognize myself. Director kraninger, since you were sworn in, i believe that the bureau has tone an impressive job of putting forward policies that are not that not only provide important Consumer Protections, which is in the forefront here but also certainty and clarity to regulated entities. We need both. I believe that under your leadership you made a lot of significant strides in becoming more efficient and transparent and i want to commend you for that. Now, in your in what areas of the bureaus operations have you seen the most improvement and what areas do you feel continue to be addressed . Along those lines, the cfpb has announced it is looking at potential ways to modernize federal Consumer Financial laws. As more consumers, thats all us, use to move to utilize digital technologies, what are some of the challenges youre facing there . Ms. Kraninger thank you, senator. Im proud of our commitment to transparency and to promote the discourse. Reasonable people will disagree over a number of topics. Trying to push forward, again, advance notice of proposed rulemakings and requests for information, to bring the public into the discussion as we are considering rulemaking actions, has been important. Having symposium to talk through some of the more challenging topics. We had one on the definition of abusiveness. Economic on the analysis factors. We had another coming up on Small Business lending. And our responsibilities under 1071 of doddfrank. So those are all things that i think were doing very well and were going to continue to do to engage in that kind of discourse and work with all of the stakeholders in this area to move forward. You mentioned the task force and im also excited about that opportunity. To provide both the bureau and the Congress Perhaps some ideas from experts in this area as to where we should go to help modernize the laws and the regulations to address the digital age that we find ourselves in. Thats also a positive thing and i think in terms of our modernization efforts, we are looking at how this applies in a number of contexts, particularly to electronic disclosures. The fall rulemaking agenda hasnt been released yet but we are going to be looking at credit card arena, we are tackling some of this in the Debt Collection rule. Just thinking about how we can get simpler, clearer information to consumers in what is a complex set of laws, frankly. Thats mr. Shelby [talking simultaneously] consumers is going to be, isnt it . Ms. Kraninger yes, senator, i agree. Shell shell how important is it for mr. Shelby how important is it for the financial regulators to create a Regulatory Environment that is conducive to innovation and also what impact do you foresee that, through your job here, proposed policies that would have on firms offering new products and services . Thats very important to the marketplace. Ms. Kraninger im excited about the innovation policies and as i just spoke a little bit about disclosures, about the trial disclosure policy too. Bringing information to consumers at the right time, having it be simple and clear. Providing clear direction to industry, as youve noted. Thats what were trying to do, both through the innovation policies and our other rulemaking efforts and guidance efforts. With those clear rules, again, everyone understands and can innovate and can grow and can provide the services that consumers need and want. And so thats something that were going to continue to work our way through. Mr. Shelby isnt it very important to have an informed consumer . In other words, that they understand what theyre doing . When they make a decision. Ms. Kraninger yes, senator. Thats a key part of our responsibility as an agency. Education was part of our purview and its something that were really working hard to build. Mr. Shelby i want to get into costbenefit analysis. Last time before you came before this committee, we discussed right here the role of costbenefit analysis at the bureau and everywhere else. How can your organization utilize economists and Economic Analysis in its overall operations, including in the rulemaking process . In other words, weigh cost and benefits for any rule. Ms. Kraninger yes. Senator, as you know, thats something thats critically important to me and i think part of this discussion with the public, to actually outline those costs and benefits. Mr. Shelby shouldnt that should be important to everybody, shouldnt it . Ms. Kraninger i agree, sir. Its something were committed to. Im excited that i have a new head of the office of research. They have the responsibility currently for doing that Economic Analysis, to support our rulemaking. And cost benefit analysis should be part of all of our processes and decisions and thats something that im working to weigh into the process. Does it mean the hard dollar amount when we can quantify is the only basis for any decision . But talking about benefits and costs and weighing them and trying to quantify them is important. Mr. Shelby thank you. My times up. Mr. Menendez thank you, mr. Chairman. Director, last time you were here before the committee, you and i discussed the severe problems in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. This is a program that congress put in place to allow Public Workers like teachers, firefighters and military Service Members to have their Student Loans forgiven if they make payments for 10 years. But 99 out of every 100 Public Servants who apply for Debt Forgiveness are rejected. According to a recent n. P. R. Report in 2018, the cfpb launched an effort to find out why the program is failing our Public Servants. But secretary Devos Department of education seems to have successfully stonewalled those efforts. Is it true that in response to a letter from senator warren and myself, uconn fess that, quote, since december, 2017, Student Loan Services have declined to produce information requested by the bureau for Supervisory Examinations related to loans held by the department based on the departments guidance . Ms. Kraninger yes, that was in the letter. Mr. Menendez is it also true that the bureau submitted a Supervisory Examination request to the department of education in january of 2019 of this year, and since then, the department of education failed to respond to the cfpbs request as disclosed by the department in a june letter to senator murray and congresswoman delauro . Ms. Kraninger yes. If i could give a little additional context. Mr. Menendez well get to additional context in a moment. Thats a true statement, correct . Ms. Kraninger yes. Mr. Menendez secretary devos, the secretary of education, has made it abundantly clear that she prioritizes Loan Services over teachers and Public Workers. But you dont have to follow her lead. In fact, your predecessor, mick mulvaney, was still able to examine federal Student Loan Services, despite devos opposition. When he faced similar obstruction by the department, he followed the recommendation of career enforcement attorneys and sought a court order to compel some of the largest Student Loan Services to turn over documents to the bureau. These Actions Prove that the cfpb can still work to protect federal student borrowers, despite the irresponsible actions of secretary devos. Why has the bureau, under your leadership thus far, failed to use all the tools at its disposal, including seeking court orders, to conduct proper oversight . Ms. Kraninger i believe that it behooves the federal government to actually act in a more united manner thats going to be better for consumers. Its certainly going to be more consistent. I have met with secretary devos. I hired the private Education Loan omnibus. Were moving forward with the m. O. U. That is statutorily required to share complaint information. And we are already discussing how to move forward in an effective way to make sure that were [talking simultaneously] mr. Menendez i agree that if we can work in cooperation, thats great. But let me read to you what the department of education said 48 hours ago. And i quote. The department of education is charged with overseeing the federal student aid portfolio. The cfpb is charged with oversight of the private student loan industry. So, if youre waiting for the department of education to give you permission to oversee the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, youre going to be disappointed. And our Public Servants are going to pay a price. Why dont you do what your predecessor did . Why dont you commit to reinstating the oversight and enforcement of these loans . Ms. Kraninger we are absolutely doing exams of private Education Loans and we are working with the department of education on the federal student Loan Portfolio to make sure that federal Consumer Protection laws, which are the purview of this agency, are followed. And thats something that were going to continue to work through mr. Menendez it hasnt worked so far. They havent cooperated with you at all. Theyve ston stonewalled you every step of the way and made it very clear in this statement 48 hours ago that they only believe you have jurisdiction over private student loan industry and not theirs. So whos going to get hurt here are Public Servants who deserve to have the opportunity to have loan forgiveness as part of their service. And i really urge you to do what your predecessor did and use the enforcement capabilities that you have. Let me quickly ask you, on the q. M. Patch, which has provided over roughly six million Residential Mortgage loans originated in 2018, the bureau estimates that roughly 1 6 or nearly one million loans benefited from the q. M. Patch. I understand that you all are going to allow it to just lapse. How is it that youre going to ensure that if you dont take steps to offer the type of financing that is currently available, how can you describe the steps that the bureaus going to take to prevent the patchs expiration, without causing a major disruption to the Housing Market and our overall economy . Ms. Kraninger senator, a smooth transition is what im committed to. I put that in the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and recognizing that the patch was set to expire and is set to expire in january, 2021, that we are starting this process very early. And we sought comment on how long of an extension would be necessary to support a transition and were looking at the comments back on that now and ill be making a decision in terms of a next step in a proposed rulemaking process [talking simultaneously] mr. Menendez i hope you can commit that your final rule will provide the same opportunity for folks to get into a home as currently available. Particularly people of color have experienced the benefit on the patch and have shown that they are creditworthy borrowers. They should not be denied simply because we want to end the patch without the ability to keep that opportunity available. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for joining us. I want to commend you on some of the very constructive work that i think youve been doing at the cfpb. I also want to pursue the line of questioning that senator menendez raised with respect to the q. M. Patch. So i always have been under the view that its been inappropriate and unfair for the cfpb to outsource the definition of q. M. To the g. S. E. s. And their underwriting standards which occur mostly in a black box. As long as the ability to repay rule is on the books, it seems to me we need a qualified mortgage definition thats simple, fair, straightforward and entirely unam big wowls. Mr. Toomey unambiguous. Mr. Toomey so one of the ways it seems to me we could move in that direction is to make it clear that a depository institution that keeps a mortgage on its books has every incentive to make sure that that is a loan that can be repaid. Im of the view that banks like to get their money back when they make a loan. And that alliance the interest of the lender with the interest of a borrower to have a loan that is affordable to the borrower. We acknowledge that in the legislation that we passed, 2155, and declared that there would be an automatic q. M. Safe harbor for any Financial Institution that keeps the loan on their books, provided that theyre less than 10 billion in size. So im of the view that an 11 billion bank would also like to be repaid. When it makes a loan. Would rather get its money back than not get its money back. So my suggestion is one place to look, and i think you have the discretion and the authority to do this with your definition of q. M. , would be to allow the q. M. Patch to apply to any size institution that keeps the mortgage on its books. And im just wondering what your reaction is to that. Ms. Kraninger thank you for raising it. In that advance notice of proposed rule making that we issued we in fact raised this idea and sought comment on it. Recognizing that as 2155 did include that concept, and that, yes, the risk calculus is the entities that are intending to keep those loans in portfolio, you would anticipate, as you noted, that they would be doing that in a manner that they expect theyre going to actually get their investment back. And so i am very interested in the comments we get back on that topic. Mr. Toomey i would urge you to consider that very seriously. Youve also done work on the payday rule. I think you were pursuing constructive changes. One im not sure youre focused on, and its a question, is the scope of the rule and specifically there are Financial Institutions that are concerned that the scope may capture products that were never intended to be captured. Including, for instance, interestonly lines of credit that are backed by securities and a brokerage account. I dont think anybody really ever thought of that as a payday loan. But it might be captured under the old definition. Or shortterm bridge loans that assist customers in is he consequential real estate actions. Again, i dont think anybody ever thought of that as a payday rule. So as you evaluate reforming the payday rule, could you address the issue of the scope and whether you intend to tighten up that scope . Ms. Kraninger thank you, senator. I am familiar with the concerns that youre raising here now. In fact, the bureau has received a petition to reconsider or address issues with the payments provisions of the 2017 rule, in addition to our consideration of the 2017 underwriting requirements. So that is something that at least is on our radar. We have a responsibility to respond to that petition within a year of it being sent to us. So it is on the plate. The priority was in fact the reconsideration of the underwriting provisions. But we have to look at and at least respond to these concerns. Mr. Toomey i think thats important to look at that as well. Very quickly, quick compliment on your fiscal management of the department. There is a cap on spending as a function of Federal Reserve revenue, which in the past seemed to be viewed also as a floor and you have clearly not taken that approach. I commend you for that. Last point, section 1031 of the doddfrank act gives the bureau really Unprecedented Authority to take enforcement action against those that deems to be engaged in, and i quote, unfair, deceptive or abusive acts. Im sure youre aware abusive is not defined in the statute, nor am i aware of any precedent in related law that defines abusive. And it strikes me as an inner herently extremely subjective term. Do you intend to take steps to provide a clear definition what have would constitute abusive . Ms. Kraninger senator, thank you. The definition in the statute is precisely something that we have talked about. We had a symposium on this topic and brought experts together to talk about whether further definition is necessary or useful to the process. The only place we have provided additional definition is in Enforcement Actions that have also been quite rare. So this is something that is a decision before me as to whether we should put more guidance out there or what next steps we should take. So there will be news on that in the not too distant future. Had been mr. Toomey thank you mr. Toomey thank you. Mr. Tester thank you. I want to thank you for being here today. Going back to the payday situation. Is there are you doing oversight of payday lenders now . Or are you waiting for the rule to be rewritten or where are you at in that process . Ms. Kraninger we absolutely continue to engage in investigations, as well as supervision of payday lenders. Test test how many actions have you brought against mr. Tester how many actions have you brought against payday lenders in the last year . Ms. Kraninger theres one but i dont remember off the top of my head. We can get it for the record. Mr. Tester do you think the agency is adequately doing its job as far as enforcement on payday lenders at this moment in time . Ms. Kraninger i can assure you that we are vigorously enforcing the law in many areas. Including this one. Mr. Tester ok. So tell me about the thought behind eliminating the office of students and young consumers. Ms. Kraninger we do continue to have a section for students and that is now has four Staff Members in it. Its about to have five. So we have a continued commitment to that. Mr. Tester so you still have that office . Ms. Kraninger it is called a section. This gets into, i think, semantics. But there is still a group of people focused [talking simultaneously] mr. Tester compare this to how many people do you have in that office . Ms. Kraninger there were five total and they were mr. Tester same number as staffing. Ms. Kraninger they were under the private Education Loan ombudsmen. We have 16 people doing this. Mr. Tester what kind of action are you seeing in that area as far as protecting students . Ms. Kraninger theres a lot of different activity. Now im getting into the organizational chart. Really the Students Office is focused on education activities. We do have examiners who are examining student lenders as well. Mr. Tester the point is here, the name of your agency is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and we have student debt coming out in unbelievable amounts. I still get credit card apps for my kids who are middleaged now all the time. Theres people preying on them. Theres no doubt about it. I just hope youre very aggressive in protecting these folks. Because once they get into debt as a young person, theyre going to be poor for the rest of their lives. Whether they have a degree or not. So hopefully youre putting a focus on that. I hope you do. I want to go back a little bit to senator menendezs question on the student loan on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. Secretary devos prohibited student loan servicers from sharing information from you with you, correct . Ms. Kraninger with respect to the federal student Loan Portfolio. Mr. Tester how about with respect to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program . Didnt she not say you could not get that information, she didnt want ther ises to give you that information . The servicers to give that you information . Ms. Kraninger within that portfolio, yes. There is a question there that i very much would like to settle. Because we do have a rulemaking, of course, that gives the bureau the ability to supervise larger participants in that space. Mr. Tester if you dont have the information, its really hard to do much, isnt it . Ms. Kraninger it is hard to engage in our exams which i think is really about promoting compliance. Mr. Tester so the point is, and you told senator menendez that you wanted to rather Work Together than use the carrot instead of the stick, so to speak. About if but if you dont have that information, you cant do anything, right . Ms. Kraninger there are other actions that we can take. Mr. Tester but the big one is the servicers. If you dont have that information, you can take other action but the truth is, if you really want to get to the point, you have to have that information, correct . Ms. Kraninger to engage in what are productive examinations mr. Tester right, you do. Ms. Kraninger yes. Mr. Tester so the question is, there are checks and balances in government. This is one of those checks and balances. You are a Law Enforcement agency, to enforce the law. We have a program here that by the way in Rural America is critically important, probably just as important in urban america, where we have Public Servants who spend 10 years of their life living up to this program, they make 120 ontime payments and we have a secretary who doesnt get whats going on because she has more money than everybody in this room combined. So the point is, if you dont get after it, these people sacrificed 10 years of their life and its a real people wont go into Public Service, they wont go into government service, they wont go into nonprofit service. Which plays a really important i dont need to tell you this, you know this. So why not go after it and get it . When you have a situation where 1 get qualified, something out there doesnt smell right. Ms. Kraninger one important distinction i should make is that clearly when it applies to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, the bureaus responsibility is compliance with federal Consumer Financial protection law. The department of education right mr. Tester i got it. But you have the ability through your agency to put pressure. One last thing and then ill be quiet. I think it is rich for anybody in this administration to talk about whats constitutional and whats unconstitutional. When we have a president that publicly invites other countries to influence our elections. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I also do want to thank you for keeping the Consumer Complaint daytona base public. I day at that base public database public. I am looking at your report and f you look at the consumer daytonabase, at least what you identify here, it shows that in figure one, credit or consumer reporting, Debt Collection and mortgages are the most complained about Consumer Financial products and ervices. I appreciate this because this tells us where really, for purposes of enforcement, where we need to really focus our resources and efforts. Mr. Mast i do want to talk ms. Masto i do want to talk about one in particular. Its known as Asset Recovery associates. I bring that up because i noticed you have a press release dated august 28, 2019. That the bureau settled with Asset Recovery assets. In 2012 i was the attorney general of the state of nevada. In 2012 the state of nevada borrowed this Debt Collection from operating in our state and collecting any more debts from nevada because they were so egregious and in fact in your Settlement Agreement, you heit highlight really the concerns you highlight really the oncerns we have in nevada. Since january 1, the company threatened consumers with legal action, including threats to File Lawsuits against consumers, file leans on consumers houses, garnish Consumers Bank accounts or wages and cause consumers to be arrested, all actions that responded, had no intention of taking the company also represented to consumes that are Company Employees are attorneys. When in fact they do not even employ attorneys. And the companies threatened that consumers credit reports will be negatively affected when responding or the company does not even engage in any credit reporting to any consumer reporting agencies about any consumer accounts. I mean, they are just the worst of the worst. So agriege owls. You entered in a Settlement Agreement with them. You were enforcing action against them and i appreciate that. Ut heres my question. Im concerned about the level of restitution for consumers and the oversight that needs to follow through. So i have a couple of questions with respect to that. With your indulgence here. I noticed that for purposes of restitution for consumers, the restitution amount was 36,800. And im curious how that came about. Why that amount. Ms. Kraninger the amount in that case in particular i believe represents the number of consumers who have complained and the Funds Associated with that. So thats ms. Cortes masto complained to who . Ms. Kraninger complained to the company and complained to the bureau. Ms. Cortes masto jure basing the restitution on the amount of number of people that complained to you, alok with those that may have along with those who may have complained company and youre taking the companys word for it that they complained to the company, is that right . Ms. Kraninger this is really about, again, when it comes to trying to quantify consumer harm, identifyified identify consumers ms. Cortes masto i know [talking simultaneously] ms. Cortes masto heres my concern. In this Settlement Agreement, with the company youre basically letting the company determine and tell you the data and actually identify the affected consumers and tell you who they are. Instead of mandating that the Company Actually send a letter to every consumer that they ever touched or did business with, to identify that the settlement exists and if they had a complaint to identify it. Not only that, you allowed the company itself to make be the one that is the arbiter of who decides the information that is being shared. Quite honestly, what we have norm i done is have independent normally done is have independent administrators or somebody come in so theres an independence to it. You do have an enforcement person. I understand in this complaint that youve identified somebody that is particularly responsible for this. And im trying to find the consent agreement here. Who is that person that will have that oversight . Ms. Kraninger its the director of enforcement. Im not sure at the time i believe ms. Cortes masto the enforcement director is who . Ms. Kraninger cara peterson. Ms. Cortes masto shell have the oversight and make the determination working with this company. Ms. Kraninger yes. Ms. Cortes masto so my concern is youre relying on what telling you as the data to identify affected consumers. That to me doesnt even make sense. As somebody who enforced and protected consumers. But the second thing is you have a monetary penalty of 200. As a civil penalty. Here did that come from . Ms. Kraninger when it comes to the decision whether to sue or settle, when it comes to the fact that the settlement must be negotiated, there are a lot of factors that get weighed, including the ability to pay of the entity. We could certainly have made the decision to litigate this particular case but that does not mean that the outcome would be any better for consumers or for justice if we had two or three years in litigation with three or four attorneys tied up for that time period. And then therefore we still couldnt get any money out of a company that [talking simultaneously] ms. Cortez masto typically what we do in Law Enforcement is if theres a determination of a civil penalty, its based on the number of violations that have occurred, based on the impact with the consumer. I didnt hear that from what you said. Ms. Kraninger and mitigated by what the entity can pay. Ms. Cortez masto has nothing to do with that. Clearly, this is egregious. Your role is to enforce. Its not only hold it them accountable in violation of existing laws, but at the same time to protect consumers and provide restitution. Not allowing the individual defendant to actually make a determination of the rule, who the affected people are, and continue the conduct without any further oversight or penalty. What theyve basically done and what youve given them is the ability to say, ok, im just going weigh this cost of 200,000, the cost of doing business. Because im going to make so much more and well continue down the same path. Thats my concern. I think what im hearing today is the lack of enforcement and the lack of holding their feet to the fire and holding them accountable, theyre just going to any business is going to say, this is just the cost of doing business and im going to incorporate it in that cost because im making good money. Im attack the lumps as they come ill take the lumps as they come. Thats my concern. I would love to have further discussion with your Enforcement Division and talking with your attorneys as we address this moving forward. Because it is be a issue across this country, Debt Collection, as you identify in your own public database, it is a problem for so many people across this country. So thank you. Mr. Shelby thank you. Senator cotton. Mr. Cotton thank you, for your appearance here today. I want to speak about accountability. We hear a lot about that with companies. Of course it runs both ways. Accountability of our government to our people. This following is a quote from an official in arkansas company. That has dealt with the cfpb. Consumer compliance is an ever growing process and it should be treated as such. Why does the bureau not acknowledge issues that are selfidentified and selfcorrected that fall outside of an exam period and the company be given credit for properly managing risk . Instead of being treated in their examinations as not even corrected. In fact in one instance, the company had made significant progress and the examiners were told not to put anything positive in the report by their supervisors offsite at the cfpb. I have to say, ive heard other reports about higherups at the cfpb telling rank and file examiners to exclude positive information or selfidentified problems and corrections. Is it the case that examiners inside the bureau are being told by supervisors at a higher level not to include positive information in their reviews and their examination reports . Ms. Kraninger i am not aware of any specific instances of that. I can tell you, it would be contrary to my direction. Weve empowered the front line examiners to conduct exams in accord with their training and that would include certainly a factual providing what have they saw and observed. Positive or negative. And that is something that i absolutely expect and if you have specifics on this and particularly a time frame, i would absolutely like to pursue it. Mr. Cotton so it is your direction that your examiners who are out on the front line should include positive information in reports as well . Ms. Kraninger it is important that they actually report on their own observations and the information that they have observed. Mr. Cotton what is the bureaus policy on nonsystemic selfidentified problems that have also been corrected through selfcorrective action . Ms. Kraninger that is something i am encouraging. Again, this is a massive ecosystem with a lot of players in it. Enforcement should be a last resort and what were trying to do is encourage legitimate Financial Services providers to comply with the law. In so doing, that means they have a compliance Management System that does selfidentify issues where they are providing their own corrective action and thats best for consumers too. Theyll get restitution much faster and we have then again a system that is operating and functioning properly. So thats something i encourage. We are looking at ways to make sure that these policies are codified and clear. I have a new head of supervision enforcement and fair lending who just started this week. He knows many of these things are things that i would like to see us pursue in the coming months. Mr. Cotton thank you. I think theres obviously a big difference between an isolated problem that an institution identifies and corrects versus systemic problems. Thats true in a private company, thats flew a Government Agency true in a Government Agency. Reminds me of a story that bob gates told about the early days of the Obama Administration, when he was something of a fish out of water, being a holdover from the bush administration. They had the usual tensions that exist between white house staff and cabinet secretaries, they had to sub in at the white house in the early days to resolve them. And bob gates, the wise man of the group, told the white house staff that they were very important, they understand the president. Someone went back to his campaign for the senate, but they couldnt implement decisions. So they needed the cabinet officials to be involved in the Decision Making process. They said he heard laughter behind him. He turned around to cabinet officials. I dont know what all of are you laughing about, because today, even though its a saturday, someone in your organization somewhere is doing something that you disapprove of, that is probably immore and may be illegal. The point being that in institutions as large as a cabinet or the cfpb, theres almost always the possibility of someone doing something wrong. As bob gates showed repeatedly in the department of defense, you want to try to stop isolated individual cases of wrongdoing and certainly have systems in place to stop systemic wrongdoing. But even more important is when you find those cases of wrongdoing, that you take corrective action immediately to stop them. We want to encourage private institutions to do that. We also want the cfpb to have an opportunity to do that for any examiners that are not doing whats consistent with your guidance as well. Appreciate your time. Mr. Shelby senator smith. Mr. Smith thank you very much, mr. Chair. Mr. Smith smith thank you very much, mr. Chair. Good morning. Id like to follow up on what i understand are some questions of some of my colleagues asked a little earlier on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. Ms. Smith something im really concerned about. Theres a minnesota story that was shes actually a plaintiff in the a. F. T. Lawsuit against the Department Around this issue. Shes a Public School teacher in brain ard and she, like so many others, were told by her services that she was on track and making qualifying payments for, even when that was not the case. And that Incorrect Information was provided to her and not addressed until years later and of course she made all sorts of life decisions based on that bad information. And so heres what i want to try tond a little bit better to understand a little bit better. The cfpb and the department of education had an information sharing agreement. Correct . Ms. Kraninger yes. On complaints in particular and that was separate one on, frankly as im sitting here now, im forgetting what second m. O. U. Anyway. Well get back to you specifically on the second m. O. U. Because it didnt get precisely to the point that i know youre asking about. But those were two in the past that are no more. Ms. Smith are you pursuing efforts to reestablish that information sharing agreement . Ms. Kraninger yes. In fact, two days ago the private Education Loan ombudsman sent a signed copy of the complaints m. O. U. That is in the doddfrank act, statutory responsibility that we have that m. O. U. Sent that over signed understand we very much hope to execute that imminently. And then we are engaged in conversations around how we can Work Together in particular to make sure that the bureau has the ability to enforce Consumer Financial Protection Laws through its larger participant rule. Ms. Smith its one thing to share information and its another thing for the bureau to use its Investigative Authority and ability to supervise and examine whats happening in order to put a stop to what we see as, by some reports, organizations, Loan Services that are denying up to 99 of applications for loan forgiveness. So tell me how you are pursuing that part of this. Not only the information haring but also the need for supervision and examination. Ms. Kraninger yes. I do believe its important. Again, the bureau issued a larger participant rule in the student Loan Servicing space. So we do have a responsibility and ability to examine both entities engaged in federal Student Loans, as well as private Student Loans. I believe whats best for consumers is for the department of education and the cfpb to come together and determine what the best way to support, you know, the functioning of their programs and their Program Management oversight and their contract management oversight responsibilities, and our ability to enforce Consumer Financial protection law. And those who things can coexist and thats the path that were none terms of our conversation. Ms. Smith really your role is to be focused on Consumer Protection. And their role i understand what youre saying. But you also have two different roles, would you agree . Ms. Kraninger yes. Smith myth smith and do you see ms. Smith and do you see that part of that role is to go in, and just like you might as a bank examiner, for example, that you go in and try to ferret out where things are not working right, rather than just waiting for to find out after the fact that something isnt working right. Ms. Kraninger absolutely, yes. When it comes to Consumer Financial protection law. Ms. Smith ok. Thank you. I have a minute more. Id look to like to follow up on a question when you were before the committee in march i asked about. I asked you about a proposal that the bureau had published in 2017 to directly obtain data from a variety of entities in the student loan industry from big banks, to the loan service providers. And this went to the o. M. B. For routine review. And at the time you said you were looking into that to try to figure out where it stands. And could you just do you have an update for me on that . Ms. Kraninger yes, i do. The conditions have really changed since, in particular because the department of education is engaged in its nextgen modernization. So as ive talked to the staff at the bureau, they assessed that the Data Collection as it was submitted to o. M. B. , it isnt really relevant today. Given those changes. And so what were looking at now is what makes sense Going Forward and were certainly going to be talking to the department of education about that. But we have left that data request at o. M. B. Just pending our discussion and decisions about whether to amend it or pull it back or what opportunities there are for Data Collection in this area. Ms. Smith when do you think youll move forward then . Ms. Kraninger i certainly hope by the time im next time back here that i can have an update for you on specifically where were going to go with this. Ms. Smith ok. I look forward to that update. I think its important. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Shelby thank you. Senator van hollen. Mr. Van drew thank you, mr. Chairman Stan Van Gundy thank you, mr. Chairman mr. Van hollen thank you, mr. Chairman. When you were here in march, we had a conversation about the Trump Administrations efforts to weaken the payday protection rules. That were put in place by the Obama Administration to protect consumers against unscrupulous practices by payday lenders. That obama rule had two components. It had the payments component, the payments provision, and the other provision on the ability to repay. That whole rule was challenged in court and the stay has been imposed by the courts. You followed this, right . Ms. Kraninger yes, sir. Mr. Van hollen as i understand the position of the bureau, you do not think theres any reason to maintain the stay on the payment provisions of the obama rule. Is that correct . Ms. Kraninger i would tell you that our filing speaks to that point. One of the claims raised by the other party is the constitution structure of the bureau. That is a significant matter that is part of i would note that the court knows that as well. So i think thats part of the basis for the continued stay. Mr. Van hollen but my understanding, i mean, ive got a document here that you sent to the committee explaining the bureaus position in this case and essentially the bureau said theres no legal basis to stay the compliance stay for the payment provisions, isnt that right . Ms. Kraninger yes, specifically on the merit. Mr. Van hollen given that thats the position youve taken in court, will you file a motion to lift the stay in order to allow this important provision to go forward . Will you do that . Ms. Kraninger im definitely looking at that and know that thats an option. I do think the constitutional structure question is a significant one and one, again, that has been raised. It was outlined in our filing. Mr. Van hollen im just reading from what you have written, the bureau has written. Where you disagree about the need for the stay on the payments provision. So given that thats your position, why are you still looking at the option of filing a motion to lift the stay . Why dont you just file the motion . Ms. Kraninger because as i said, in that same filing that youre looking at we noted that the constitutional structure question is a significant one in the case. And thats something that the judge is weighing. Mr. Van hollen i understand hes weighing that. As i read your own motion, the bureau does not think theres any reason for delaying this provision and so im just i just dont know why wure not using your authority and prerogative to file a motion to lift the stay so we can put this provision in place. Let me ask you about the ability to repay protections. At the hearing back in march, we looked at the analysis that the bureau put forward, that sort of proclaimed that the changes would save the payday lending industry between 7. 3 billion and 7. 7 billion on an annual basis and that that was money that was now coming out of the pockets of consumers. Right . These are consumers who would have been protected by the obamaera rule, but are no longer protected. So moneys that consumers would have been would have saved because of protection from unscrupulous practices are now going to the industry. As ive looked back on how you went about the revision of the rule, i was struck by the fact that the bureau did not present any new research in defense of the change. That original rule protecting consumers had been based on Research Showing the harm and harm done to consumers. Can you tell us today what new research the bureau developed in proposing the change to the rule, a change that would cause 7. 7 billion loss to consumers . Ms. Kraninger a few things in response. One is certainly that the full record from the prior rulemaking and from our current rulemaking, the experiences of the states in terms of the laws that they have passed and the experience that theyve had, and there is some Newer Research that is available, were going to take all of that into account so this decision is before me now. I know i will certainly defend our proposal, but at the same time note that a final decision has not been made in this issue. With respect to Additional Data that we took into account in the proposal, it is fundamentally about the legal and factual basis that the first rule was based on. Legally there was we do have the discretionary ability to undertake rulemaking related to unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices. So that was the basis of that rule. It is my judgment that that is something that we should undertake very thoughtfully and judiciously because there are other affects on consumers and other affects on the markets. So the availability of credit and the question too of the 7 billion, the question for each of those consumers individually is what their next best alternative actually was. Whether that is the inability to pay a utility bill, the inability to repair a car, the next order effects that come as a result of that. Those are the things that i would posit at least as considerations when that is proposed as merely something that is a loss to consumers. The question is what else happened in their lives individually and what did the access to that and to that credit afford. I would also note this is an area of the market where there are many challenges. We have taken and continue to take Enforcement Actions against entities that are engaged in illegal activity. That will continue. And that is certainly a challenge in this space. Mr. Van hollen im listening to your answer and i would just note that i dont think you mentioned the new research that justified the change to this rule that protects consumers. So i would welcome any information you can present to this committee. Im glad youre still reviewing this. I really hope you will not take the steps that you seem to be headed to take, which in my view would significantly harm consumers, to the tune of 7. 7 billion, according to the estimate of the analysis by the bureau. So thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Shelby thank you. All right. Then that concludes the questioning for todays hearing. Again, we want to thank you, director kraninger, for coming today. I know there are a couple senators who hoped to get back but their schedules wouldnt let that happen. Youre likely to get additional questions. For senators who wish to submit questions for the record, theyre due to the committee by thursday, october 24. We ask that you respond to those questions as promptly as you can. And, again, we thank you for being here, appreciate the good work that youre doing. Ms. Kraninger thank you, senator. Mr. Shelby this hearing is adjourn the mr. Crapo this hear something adjourned. Hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] its a different experience. No one seems to do it anymore. But its a different experience. Nice to meet you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good day. And cspan will be live in dallas, texas, tonight where President Trump is holding a campaign rally. Its expected to start in about 10 minutes. Before the rally, president an p toured a factory in hour southwest of dallas