I continue to hear concerns that the Qualified Mortgage rule discriminates against small lenders, minimizes consumer choice in lending, restricts access to credit, and makes providing credit much more costly.

This is the kind of expense that requires strong procedures and controls in order to prevent waste and abuse

But it is not assumed, as part of a prosecutorial decision?

With all the misconduct that has been alleged and all of the significant losses that our constituents have suffered as a result of the 2008 mortgage and real estate meltdown, it is true, is it not, that nobody has gone to jail since then?

Is it ever factored into the decision as to whether to prosecute that a regulator may issue or impose sanctions?

Yes. I want to get to a separate issue, Ms. Raman.

Can you, as the acting AG in charge, identify any prosecution and subsequent incarceration related directly to the mortgage foreclosure crisis? Is there one?

I hope we can all agree that small community banks did not cause the mortgage crisis of 2008.

Do you agree that those lenders did not contribute to or create the mortgage crisis of 2008? We agree on that, correct?

So my question for either Mr. Carroll or Ms. Cochran is, was there any consideration for or would you be opposed to providing exemptions for small institutions that keep these mortgages in their own portfolios?

by branding a mortgage as 'qualified,' you are essentially saying that all mortgages that don't meet that criteria are 'unqualified.'