Toomey on Senate Floor: Lisa Cook Will Further Politicize the Fed
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) today urged his colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge Professor Lisa Cook, President Biden’s nominee for Federal Reserve Governor, from the Committee.
Senator
Toomey expressed concern that Professor Cook will further politicize the Fed at
a critical time, when inflation is at a 40-year high and the Fed is already
suffering from a credibility problem because of its involvement in politics.
Ranking
Member Toomey’s remarks, as prepared for delivery.
I
rise today to speak on the nomination of Professor Lisa Cook to serve as a
governor on the Federal Reserve Board.
At
stake with Professor Cook’s nomination is how the Federal Reserve will respond
to one of the most pressing issues facing Pennsylvania and the nation.
Earlier
this month, we learned that inflation hit a four-decade high of almost 8
percent. Prices are skyrocketing for gasoline, food, and rent. The amount
Americans are paying for basic goods and services is going up faster than
wages.
Under
the guise of fighting this inflation, my colleagues across the aisle on the
Senate Banking Committee have urged the swift confirmation of President Biden’s
slate of nominees to the Federal Reserve board.
Chairman
Brown has said that Biden’s nominees are “ready to get to work fighting
inflation.” And yet, we still haven’t voted on the two nominees with unanimous
Republican support and near-unanimous Democrat support.
Democrats
know that even without confirming any of these nominees, the Fed has 8 out of
12 votes, which is more than enough to raise rates. And in fact, the Fed did so
at its last meeting just two weeks ago.
So
it is worth asking ourselves if these nominees are truly the “inflation
fighters” that the White House claims they are. In my view, one nominee in
particular—Professor Lisa Cook—dramatically fails this test.
First,
Professor Cook has nearly zero experience in monetary policy. She does have a
PhD in economics. However, not a single one of her publications concerns
monetary economics.
The
White House cites as her main qualification on U.S. monetary policy her
appointment as a Chicago Fed director. But that appointment was made in January
of this year—just two weeks before President Biden announced her nomination to
be a Fed governor.
And
Professor Cook made crystal clear in her conversation with me that she had not
participated in any policy or decision-making so far in her term on the Chicago
Fed. In fact, she described her role as limited to “filling out paperwork” for
her new position. So, this appointment can hardly count as a qualification to
serve as a Fed governor.
Professor
Cook herself has acknowledged that her academic work on monetary issues is
sparse. When asked to list her top few works on monetary policy for the
Committee, she provided only one. It was a book chapter about Nigerian bank
reforms in 2005.
What’s
even more troubling is that, in addition to having no monetary policy
experience, Professor Cook also appears to have no opinion at all on how the
Fed should address inflation. Professor Cook repeatedly refused to endorse the
Fed’s decision to pull back its ultra-easy money policy, and only did
begrudgingly say that she agreed with the “Fed's path right now as we're
speaking” at her nomination hearing in February.
Professor
Cook’s answers to basic questions about what the Fed should do to tame
inflation amount to nothing more than word salad. Professor Cook has continued
to insist that she would need to be confirmed to the Fed before she can have a
view on inflation because, in her own words, “we don’t have access to all the
data that the Fed has” and “we don’t have access to […] the deliberations at
the time they’re being made.”
These
statements are bewildering for someone who has been nominated to address the
most pressing inflationary threat in nearly two generations. To be clear: The
Fed has no “secret” data, as Professor Cook alleges. In fact, monetary
policy—including the recent 41 percent increase in the money supply—is very
transparent.
And
if Professor Cook is counting on Fed economists to help her make a prediction
about inflation, then—first of all, they’ve been wrong about inflation for at
least two years, and second, then what is she on the Fed for in the first
place?
Every
economist in the country right now has an opinion about inflation. Every other
nominee to the Federal Reserve has an opinion about inflation. And certainly
every Pennsylvanian has an opinion about inflation.
Professor
Cook’s claim—made at her nomination hearing just last month—that “we have to be
patient with the data” on rising consumer prices shows that she will continue
to be tolerant of letting inflation ravage American consumers.
This
brings me to my second point. Professor Cook’s history of extreme left-wing
political advocacy and hostility to opposing viewpoints also makes her unfit to
serve on the Fed.
As
I’ve said numerous times, it is exceptionally important to keep politics out of
the money supply. But unfortunately, we’ve seen the encroachment of politics at
the historically independent Federal Reserve.
There
are people on the left, including in the Biden administration, advocating that
the Fed use its supervisory powers to resolve complex political issues, like
what to do about global warming, social justice, and even education policy.
These are important issues. But they’re wholly unrelated to the Fed’s limited
statutory mandates and expertise.
Professor
Cook’s record indicates that she is likely to inject further political bias
into the Fed’s work—at a time when hyper-focus on inflation and adherence to
the Fed’s dual mandate is at its most critical.
In
over 30,000 public tweets and retweets, Professor Cook has supported race-based
reparations, promoted conspiracies about Georgia voter laws, and sought to
cancel those who disagree with her views, such as publicly calling for the
firing of an economist who dared to tweet that he opposed defunding the Chicago
police.
After
Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted these tweets for the public’s
attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter
account—one day before her nomination hearing. Apparently Prof. Cook not only
realizes how inflammatory her own tweets are, but also has no regard for the
Senate’s constitutional responsibility to vet her public statements.
The
Fed is already suffering from a credibility problem because of its involvement
in politics and departure from its statutorily proscribed role. I’m concerned
that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that must remain
apolitical. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge
Professor Cook.
###
Next Article Previous Article