mr. mulvaney: that's fair. mr. cordray: but it is my job to look at harm occurring in the mark place and look at ways to intervene to address certain predatory prackities of lenders. mr. mulvaney: is it fair to assume if you promulgate a rule that's more protective of down seemers than a state has made that you deem that state to not be adequately protecting consumers. to corcray: we won't seek occupy by the field in that way. what we will do, if there is a federal intervention, and this is not determined, that will coexist with state regulation and authorities. mr. mulvaney: let's be clear and honest. you do intend to preempt state law in certain areas. mr. cordray: i don't think we preempt state law. what will happen -- mr. mulvaney: in a letter of february 11, 2016, to my office. i asked about this particular issue. you said among the bureau's goals is to ensure consumers are offered certain minimal protections no matter where they are located. state laws that afford greater protection would not be preempted by

mr. mulvaney: that's fair. mr. cordray: but it is my job to look at harm is occurring in the marketplace and look at ways to intervene to address certain predatory practices of lenders. mr. mulvaney: is it fair to assume if you promulgate a rule that's more protective of down consumers than a state has made that you deem that state to not be adequately protecting consumers? mr. cordray: we won't seek to occupy by the field in that way. what we will do, if there is a federal intervention, and this is not determined, that will coexist with state regulation and authorities -- mr. mulvaney: let's be clear and honest. you do intend to preempt state law in certain areas. mr. cordray: no, i don't think we preempt state law. what will happen -- mr. mulvaney: in a letter of february 11, 2016, to my office, i asked about this particular issue. you said among the bureau's goals is to ensure consumers are offered certain minimal protections no matter where they are located. state laws that afford greater protection for consume

mr. mulvaney: that's fair. mr. cordray: but it is my job to look at harm occurring in the mark place and look at ways to intervene to address certain predatory prackities of lenders. mr. mulvaney: is it fair to

mr. mulvaney. >> secretary lew, i want to continue the conversation about the debt ceiling, not because of what to beat a dead horse but most of because i continue to be amazed in my eyes at an administration that i perceived as wanting to create the threat of a financial crisis. we've established in your previous visits here that your comments to the contrary notwithstanding that the technical ability to prioritize did exist and does exist. that issue has been put to rest. >> i testified to that effect to this committee last year. >> i'm giving you the benefit of that doubt. when we're going to agree you might as well let me give because it will not happen that often. i want to talk about something else if we could bring up the first slide. you have said on several occasions that no decision had been made to prioritize. this isn't enough september 17. we got these from intravenous at the new york fed. treasury is adamant it will make pii payments. treasury treasury continues to be adamant they will make principal and interest payments on the debt. unlike the 2000 planning around protestat

mr. mulvaney. >> secretary lew, i want to continue the conversation about the debt ceiling. not because i want to beat a dead horse, but mostly because i continue to be amazed in my eyes at an administration that i perceive as wanting to create the threat of a financial crisis. we've already established in your previous visits here, that your comments to the contrary notwithstanding that the technical ability to prioritize did exist and does exhibition kpis. that issue has been put to rest. >> testified to that effect at this committee last year. >> i'm giving you the benefit of that doubt, mr. lew. when we're going to agree, you might as well let me do it because it's not going to happen that often. i want to talk about something else today though, if we could bring up the first slide. >> you have said on several occasions that no decision has been made to prioritize. this san email september 17th. we got these from internal emails at the new york fed. the treasury is adamant they will make p and i payments. as you may have heard unlike the 2011 planning around prioritizati

mr. mulvaney. >> thank you mr. cordray, i'm over here. i want to follow up on some of the discussions that the senator from texas had about the interplay between federal regulation and state regulation. i think he was asking you specifically about some of your proposed rules on short term -- what people call payday lending and how it interacts with state action in the same field. during your questioning -- and i seriously -- despite you what may think, in this particular circumstance i'm not trying to put words in your mouth but i think -- >> i always take your comments at face value and listen closely. >> he asked you which states failed to protect consumers and i think in a back and forth you said all 37 who have failed to -- i think do something, to -- all 37 that state still allow payday lending. so i'll ask the question again. in your research adds you prepare to produce these new rules on short-term lending which states have you determine have had failed to protect their own consumers. >> maybe i wasn't clear in t trying to respond