[Senate Hearing 117-340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                     S. Hrg. 117-340


          NOMINATIONS OF SARAH BLOOM RASKIN, LISA DENELL COOK, 
                       AND PHILIP NATHAN JEFFERSON

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   ON

                            NOMINATIONS OF:

 SARAH BLOOM RASKIN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE VICE CHAIRMAN FOR SUPERVISION 
  AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

                               __________

LISA DENELL COOK, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 
                     OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

                               __________

PHILIP NATHAN JEFFERSON, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD 
               OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 3, 2022

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs
                                
                                
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                


                Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-311                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

            COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

                     SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chairman

JACK REED, Rhode Island              PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                                     STEVE DAINES, Montana

                     Laura Swanson, Staff Director

                 Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director

                       Elisha Tuku, Chief Counsel

                 Dan Sullivan, Republican Chief Counsel

                      Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk

                      Shelvin Simmons, IT Director

                        Pat Lally, Hearing Clerk

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022

                                                                   Page
                                                                   
Opening statement of Chairman Brown..............................     1
        Prepared statement.......................................    47

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
    Senator Toomey...............................................     5
        Prepared statement.......................................    49

                                NOMINEES

Sarah Bloom Raskin, of Maryland, to be Vice Chairman for 
  Supervision and a Member of the Board of Governors of the 
  Federal Reserve System.........................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Biographical sketch of nominee...............................    52
    Responses to written questions...............................   127
Lisa DeNell Cook, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of 
  Governors of the Federal Reserve System........................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    83
    Biographical sketch of nominee...............................    84
    Responses to written questions...............................   189
Philip Nathan Jefferson, of North Carolina, to be a Member of the 
  Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System...............    11
    Prepared statement...........................................   112
    Biographical sketch of nominee...............................   113
    Responses to written questions...............................   230

              Additional Material Supplied for the Record

Letters submitted in support of nominees.........................   261
Letters submitted in opposition to nominees......................   344

                                 (iii)

 
            NOMINATIONS OF SARAH BLOOM RASKIN, LISA DENELL COOK, 
                        AND PHILIP NATHAN JEFFERSON

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
          Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met at 8:45 a.m., via Webex and in room 106, 
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Chairman of 
the Committee, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN

    Chairman Brown. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs will come to order. Welcome to our three 
nominees and their family members and guests. The nominees will 
have an opportunity to introduce anyone they would like to.
    Today's hearing is in the hybrid format. Witnesses are in 
person. Members have, of course, the option to appear either in 
person or virtually.
    The Committee is meeting to consider the nominations of 
three very, very qualified nominees. In fact, these nominees 
have the support of people who have contacted this Committee, 
1,000 individuals and organizations have weighed in support. I 
have never seen a number like that. Not so long ago we had 100 
people weigh in and we thought that was pretty overwhelming. 
This is 10 times 100, if my math is correct.
    The Honorable Sarah Bloom Raskin is nominated by the 
President of the United States to be Vice Chair of Supervision, 
a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System. Dr. Lisa Cook has been nominated by the President to be 
a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Dr. 
Philip Jefferson also to be a member, nominated by the 
President of the United States, to the Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve.
    In the first year of the Biden-Harris administration we 
have seen tremendous economic progress: record job growth, 
rising wages, the fastest economic growth in 40 years. Last 
year--and think about this--last year, for the first time in 
two decades, our economy grew faster than China's. That is 
worth saying again, considering what this body did, in 
listening to corporate interests outsource jobs to China for a 
generation, especially since 1999 to 2000, that our economy 
during the first year of the Biden administration grew faster 
than China's economy.
    Because of the action we took with the American Rescue plan 
and because of this President's commitment to American 
workers--he puts workers at the center of our economy and our 
economic policy--we are making historic economic progress, 
exceeding expectations of anybody, even the most partisan.
    We are at a pivotal moment in our recovery. The Omicron 
variant has caused COVID cases to increase in the last 8 weeks, 
further straining our supply chains. These pandemic-related 
problems are causing higher prices that eat away at Americans' 
paychecks. Your job, as three future members of the Fed--and I 
do think you will be confirmed--your jobs as three future 
members of the Fed is to deal with that inflation.
    The Black unemployment rate is more than twice that of 
White workers. Women are slowly reentering the paid labor 
force, after too many were forced to leave at the height of the 
pandemic.
    As Fed Chair Powell said, ``Getting past the pandemic is 
the single most important thing we can do.'' Chair Powell is 
right.
    The actions we take over the next several months will 
determine whether we have a truly robust recovery, with lower 
prices, higher wages and plentiful job opportunities 
distributed so everyone has opportunities, whether we have that 
kind of truly robust recovery, or whether our economy falters, 
and Americans are denied the opportunity to emerge from this 
pandemic stronger than before.
    That is the fork in the road, and that brings us to today.
    We must have a fully functioning Federal Reserve Board--all 
seven members--ready to meet these challenges, ready to ensure 
our economy continues to prosper.
    It has been almost a decade since the Federal Reserve 
Board, the seven members, that we have had seven Board members. 
That is what makes this hearing urgent. That is what makes the 
importance of a vote on February 15th so important.
    Governor Bloom Raskin, Dr. Cook, and Dr. Jefferson are the 
proven leaders we need at this critical moment. These three 
experienced public servants understand the importance of 
empowering workers through full employment and the need to 
combat inflation so paychecks go farther.
    They are dedicated to Fed independence. I know that. They 
will uphold the Fed's dual mandate--I know that--a mandate to 
ensure that all Americans have job opportunities at good wages, 
and to ensure that wage gains are not eroded away by exorbitant 
prices. They know that when we keep our financial system safe, 
and when we support working families and Main Street businesses 
by putting workers at the center of economy, then our entire 
economy grows. When we all do better, we all do better.
    Sarah Bloom Raskin is the President's nominee to serve as 
the Federal Reserve's Vice Chair for Supervision. I have not 
seen a nominee for a job like this close to being as qualified 
as Dr. Raskin. She was the Maryland State Bank Commissioner, 
she was a Federal Reserve Governor, and she was Deputy Treasury 
Secretary, the number two position at perhaps the most 
important agency in the Federal Government.
    No one is better equipped than Ms. Raskin to protect 
Americans from risks that could bring down financial markets 
and institutions and wreck people's savings, from cybersecurity 
threats to climate financial risk.
    Throughout her distinguished career, Ms. Raskin has worked 
with the smallest community banks and the largest multinational 
financial institutions. She has worked with consumers, 
community groups, and businesses small and large to keep our 
financial system safe.
    Unfortunately, regrettably, we have seen a coordinated 
effort by some to paint her as some sort of radical. That 
characterization requires a suspension of common sense. For her 
past confirmations she has had the support of every Republican 
on this Committee, every Republican on the Finance Committee. 
In fact, the entire Senate twice confirmed her--twice 
unanimously.
    Think about that. Sarah Bloom Raskin has been nominated to 
key economic posts twice before. Both times, every single 
Senator, Republican and Democrat, supported her nomination. Now 
they are accusing her of some radical kinds of thoughts that do 
not have weight.
    As Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Ms. Bloom Raskin led the 
Obama administration's effort on cybersecurity resilience for 
the financial sector, a critical issue that requires vigilance 
to protect our economy and national security.
    She understands that we need to think about all the 
financial risks our economy faces, including the possible 
economic impact of severe weather and climate change. As we 
heard from Chair Powell about the issues of climate, this is a 
priority for him and for the Fed.
    Looking at all the risks posed to our financial system is 
not a partisan issue; just ask Chair Powell. It is not some 
radical idea; just ask Citi and Morgan Stanley.
    We saw in 2008 what happens to people's job opportunities 
and to their livelihoods, their home, their retirement 
accounts, their college saving, when we ignore big risks, and 
we know that people that pay the highest price for that risk 
are people of color and women. Sarah Bloom Raskin will work to 
make sure our country does not repeat that same mistake.
    Dr. Lisa Cook and Dr. Philip Jefferson are the President's 
nominees to serve as Governors. They are highly respected and 
they are experienced economists with sterling credentials. They 
understand how monetary policy can contribute to our economic 
growth and strengthen our economy for everyone.
    Dr. Cook currently serves as Professor of Economics and 
International Relations at Michigan State University. She 
brings a wealth of research and international experience on 
monetary policy, banking, and financial crises. That includes 
serving on the Council of Economic Advisers during the Eurozone 
crisis and past work with several Federal Reserve banks.
    She has done groundbreaking research on how disparities in 
our economy inhibit technological innovation and limit our 
overall economic growth. She knows the important role that 
workers and local communities play in our overall economic 
growth, from the rural South, where she was raised, to the 
industrial Midwest, where she now works. She has led the 
American Economic Association Summer Training Program, which 
builds the pipeline for diverse young economists to ascend to 
institutions like the Fed.
    A graduate of Spelman, a school in Oxford, and Berkeley 
Ph.D., she is very qualified for this job.
    To give you a sense of her impact, a mayor from my home 
State, Mayor Babcock of Oak Harbor, in northern Ohio, wrote to 
me about her. He got to know Dr. Cook at one of those training 
programs, and he wrote, ``I know her to be kind, qualified, and 
to understand the struggles and opportunities faced by Midwest 
communities like mine, where we are burying the term `Rust 
Belt' in pursuit of a bright future.''
    Burying the term ``Rust Belt.''
    We need a whole lot more people in institutions like the 
Fed who understand how ignorant that term is, and misleading, 
and who understand that economic growth only matters if it 
reaches people like in Oak Harbor, Ohio. Dr. Lisa Cook will be 
that public servant.
    Dr. Jefferson is the Vice President for Academic Affairs, 
Dean of Faculty, and Paul B. Freeland Professor of Economics at 
Davidson College. He began his career as a Fed economist. He 
grew up in the shadow, as he told me on the phone, of RFK 
Stadium in Washington. He served as chair of the Economics 
Department at Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania.
    Dr. Jefferson literally wrote the book on poverty and 
economics. His research on poverty will bring a perspective to 
the Fed that we need as we emerge from the coronavirus crisis.
    Will you look at the diversity, not just who is sitting at 
this table, and we have never had a table of people sitting at 
the Fed like you. But think of the difference in perspective 
and attitude and upbringing and beliefs and emphasis and how 
that is going to serve all of us in this country.
    Listen to what the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote. 
Sometimes the board leans conservative. Think privatization of 
Medicare--the Washington Post thought that was a great idea--
the Iraq War--the Washington Post really thought that was a 
great idea--trade deals that outsource jobs--the Washington 
Post always thought that was a good idea. So sometimes the 
Washington Post board leans conservative, and sometimes they 
lean more progressive. But we all agree it is hardly a bastion 
of radical left-wing thought.
    Listen to what they wrote about these nominees: President 
Biden's latest nominees to the Federal Reserve, quote, ``are 
ready to help lead the Fed and bolster its credibility. The 
Senate should move quickly to put them in place.'' And early in 
my remarks I mentioned the 1,000 individuals and organizations 
that support the three of you for the Fed.
    For the first time in almost a decade we will have a full 
Board of Governors at the Fed, one that reflects the country. 
We will have public servants who will not only steer us back on 
to the road to normalcy, but who will reach for a stronger 
economy than before.
    The American people deserve a Fed that works for them. Our 
country codified the Fed's dual mandate of price stability and 
full employment with the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced 
Growth Act--we know it as the Humphrey Hawkins bill--and borne 
out of the Civil Rights Movement. For a decade, civil rights 
advocates worked for something like Humphrey Hawkins. The law 
makes it clear that, quote, ``Increasing job opportunities and 
full employment would greatly contribute to the elimination of 
discrimination based upon sex, age, race, color, religion, 
national origin, handicap, or other improper factors.''
    This is part of the Fed's job.
    President Biden's Fed nominees will ensure all workers that 
their families reap the benefits of the economic growth they 
create. These nominees will fight for the communities that have 
been left on their own far too often in this country, women and 
Black and Brown workers, to rural towns, to all the places 
derisively called the ``Rust Belt.''
    I look forward to supporting these three nominees, and I 
and encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.
    Ranking Member Toomey.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY

    Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Raskin, 
Professor Cook, and Professor Jefferson, welcome and thank you 
for your willingness to serve.
    We are here today, obviously, to consider three Fed 
nominees. But today's hearing is not just about vetting them. 
It is really a referendum on the Fed's independence and whether 
or not we are going to abandon a core part of our democracy.
    There are people on the left, including in the Biden 
administration, who are 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 certainly important issues, but 
they are wholly unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory 
mandates and expertise.
    More importantly, addressing those kinds of issues 
necessarily requires political decisions involving tradeoffs. 
In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by 
elected representatives who are accountable to the American 
people, not unelected central bankers. The question is not 
about the merits of specific policies, but rather who should 
decide if they should be put into place.
    Let us take global warming. If we further limit domestic 
oil and gas production, energy prices will rise. Americans will 
pay even more at the pump to accomplish the stated goal of 
decreasing emissions. How much more should they have to pay?
    If we move aggressively to limit energy production but 
other countries do not, global warming probably will not 
significantly slow. Should we do it anyway? How much reduction 
in global warming should we get for the pain we would put the 
American people through?
    Let me be clear. This is not about whether one believes 
that addressing global warming is important, or how you would 
answer either of those or any other questions that are related. 
The point is these are difficult choices which must be made by 
accountable representatives through a transparent and 
deliberative legislative process. That is how a democratic 
republic works.
    My concern about Fed overreach is not hypothetical. The Fed 
is already exceeding its mandates and engaging in political 
advocacy. For example, the Minneapolis Fed is actively lobbying 
to change Minnesota's constitution on the issue of K-12 
education policy. Now does anyone truly think such activity is 
within the Fed's mandate? If activism by a supposedly 
independent central bank is accepted, then potentials for 
abuse, by both parties, is limitless.
    And do not just take my word about the politicization of 
the Fed. Let us consider what Ms. Raskin has said the Fed 
should do. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully 
advocated for using financial regulation, including the Fed, to 
allocate capital and to debank energy companies. Now most other 
like-minded regulators have been careful to say their goal is 
simply to assess risk, but Ms. Raskin has said the quiet part 
out loud.
    In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. 
Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will, 
and I quote, ``allocate capital,'' end quote, away from energy 
companies. In a 2021 speech at the ``Green Swan'' conference, 
she proposed, and I quote, ``portfolio limits or concentration 
limits,'' end quote, on banks' lending to energy companies.
    And, in May 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she 
specifically called, in a New York Times op-ed that she wrote, 
for excluding a single industry, the fossil energy sector, 
which she called, and I quote, ``a dying industry,'' end quote, 
excluding them from the Fed's emergency lending facilities.
    Ms. Raskin's proposals would have devastating consequences 
not just for energy workers, of which we have millions, but 
also consumers, who would have to pay much more for energy.
    Now on what basis could she justify this idea that the Fed 
exercise should these extraordinary powers? Well, I think Ms. 
Raskin sees two categories of climate-related financial risks. 
The first is physical and the second is transition.
    Now the actual data is very clear. It shows that ``physical 
risks,'' that is, the result of severe weather events, do not 
threaten financial stability. Economic damage from weather-
related events in America, as a percentage of GDP, has actually 
trended down over the last 30 years--that is just a fact--and 
we still have not found a single bank failure caused by any 
weather event. So it is pretty clear that banks are perfectly 
capable of managing the physical risk.
    But we are also told that banks need regulation that 
quantifies the ``transition risk'' from changing consumer 
preferences. Well, let me tell you, bankers know how to manage 
changing consumer preferences better than regulators do. Let us 
be honest. The real risk here is political, as Fed Chair Powell 
acknowledged last month. The real risk is unelected officials 
like Ms. Raskin who want to misuse banking regulatory powers to 
impose environmental policies that Congress has refused to 
enact. Ms. Raskin has repeatedly and specifically advocated 
that the Fed allocate capital away from the fossil fuel 
industry as a way to combat climate change. She says the quiet 
part out loud.
    Now turning to Professor Cook, the Administration cites her 
role as a director of the Chicago Fed as a main qualification. 
That is a position she has held for 2 weeks prior to being 
nominated. She has a Ph.D., but no academic work in monetary 
economics. And the few times that she has said anything about 
monetary policy, it has been a cause for concern.
    Despite unemployment below 4 percent and inflation above 7 
percent and real wages for workers declining, in my 
conversation on Tuesday with Professor Cook she refused to 
endorse the path that the Fed has decided to take finally to 
pull back somewhat on its easy money policy. The fact is, 
keeping monetary policy loose is going to continue to 
accelerate inflation that is rising faster than wages already. 
High inflation is a tax that makes everyone poorer, but 
especially low-income workers.
    I think it is also important to note Professor Cook's 
extreme left-wing political advocacy. She has publicly 
supported race-based reparations, promoted conspiracies about 
Georgia voter laws, and sought to cancel those who disagree 
with her views, including publicly calling for the firing of an 
economist who dared to tweet that he opposed defunding the 
Chicago police.
    And after we highlighted these tweets for the public's 
attention, yesterday Professor Cook blocked the Banking 
Committee Republican Twitter account. Apparently Professor Cook 
realizes how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been.
    See, the Fed is already suffering from a credibility 
problem because of its involvement in politics and its 
departure from its statutorily limited and proscribed role. I 
am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an 
institution that has to remain apolitical.
    Finally, Professor Jefferson, thank you for coming to my 
office and for the conversation that we had on Tuesday. I 
enjoyed and appreciated our discussion, and I admire your 
decades of work on macroeconomic issues, very much including 
monetary policies and issues that are central to the Fed's 
important work. Based on Professor Jefferson's academic 
credentials, his written work, and my meeting with him, I think 
Professor Jefferson is well-suited to the position for which he 
has been nominated.
    Let me conclude by addressing my Democratic colleagues. You 
folks have spent the last several months talking about how 
passionately dedicated you are to democratic principles and 
values, and I do not doubt that you have been sincere about 
that. But certainly one of those principles is that the 
unelected Governors of America's central bank should not be 
responsible for dealing with difficult issues like global 
warming, social justice, and education policy.
    This is not about the importance of those issues. It is 
about keeping the Fed apolitical and independent and ensuring 
that elected, accountable representatives make difficult the 
decisions. If that does not convince you, I would urge you to 
remember that one day the shoe will be on the other foot. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Toomey.
    Would the three witnesses rise, please, and raise your 
right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Ms. Raskin. I do.
    Ms. Cook. I do.
    Mr. Jefferson. I do.
    Chairman Brown. Do you agree to appear and testify in front 
of any duly constituted committee of the Senate?
    Ms. Raskin. I do.
    Ms. Cook. I do.
    Mr. Jefferson. I do.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you. Please be seated.
    Again, we welcome the three of you to the Committee. If you 
would like to introduce family members or friends with you 
today I invite you to do that at the beginning or during your 
testimony.
    Ms. Bloom Raskin, please begin your testimony. Thank you 
for joining us.

   STATEMENT OF SARAH BLOOM RASKIN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE VICE 
CHAIRMAN FOR SUPERVISION AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 
                 OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

    Ms. Raskin. Well thank you, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member 
Toomey, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to 
appear before you today. Thank you also to your exemplary 
staff, who provide essential support, something I know from 
serving this Committee as Banking Counsel.
    With me today is our daughter, Hannah Grace Raskin. There 
she is. Hannah is a real live banker, and we have animated 
conversations about banker-like topics such as what goes into 
the numerator for the Allowances for Loan Loss Reserves and 
what gets subtracted out of Net Interest Margins. Our other 
daughter, Tabitha, teaches middle school algebra. She would 
have been here but for the fact that today is the review day 
before the exam for slope and intercept equations.
    Our son Tommy, who we lost in 2020, is with me always. He 
came into the world when I worked for this Committee. I 
remember where I was standing, actually, in these very offices 
in 1995, when he started kicking as I went into labor, and I 
remember returning to these halls to show my friends here my 
sparkling little boy. Boundless gratitude too to my beloved 
husband, Jamie, who provides bedrock strength and love to our 
family.
    As a child growing up in Illinois, my family made a weekly 
Saturday morning pilgrimage to the Bank of Homewood, where my 
mother would withdraw money for the week. From this experience, 
the importance of banks to the economic well-being of a 
community was never lost on me. As my brother and I eyed donuts 
in the lobby, my mom would direct us to get in line for the 
right bank teller: ``This line,'' she would say, ``We want 
Shirley.'' We would get weekly updates on Shirley's children, 
their Little League games, bowling scores, and family camping 
trips.
    In 2007, I was honored to become Maryland's State banking 
commissioner, which enabled me to demonstrate my lifelong 
appreciation for community banking. Later, I was confirmed by 
the Senate to be a Governor on the Federal Reserve Board from 
2010 to 2014, and Deputy Treasury Secretary from 2014 to 2017. 
I also worked in the private sector as a banking lawyer and 
general counsel.
    I am proud of my work at the Federal and State levels to 
champion the interests of consumers and community banks, while 
ensuring the resilience of our financial system, particularly 
in the areas of cybersecurity and appropriately tailored rules. 
These experiences helped me understand the importance of bank 
supervision to the ability of our financial system to work for 
all Americans.
    I also learned from the subprime mortgage crisis, which 
cost us tens of millions of jobs and homes, and trillions of 
dollars lost to our families, businesses, and communities in 
equity and savings. Like the crises before it, the subprime 
mortgage crisis showed how weak regulatory oversight and 
unattended problems can reverberate, rattle, and ravage our 
entire economy.
    I learned that to be effective for all Americans bank 
supervisors must make sure that the safety of banks and the 
resilience of our financial system are never compromised in 
favor of short-term political agendas or special interest 
groups. They must stay attentive to risks no matter where they 
come from: inside or outside the financial sector, well-
identified asset bubbles or speculation, a set of threat actors 
that launch cyberattacks, or from nature and cataclysmic 
weather-related events.
    As created by Congress, the role of Vice Chair of 
Supervision requires consultation with other Governors of the 
Federal Reserve, the Fed's expert staff, the banks themselves, 
and other experts about the extent to which financial 
institutions are identifying, analyzing, and managing their 
risks. The role does not involve directing banks to make loans 
only to specific sectors, or to avoid making loans to 
particular sectors. And the role exists within the laws passed 
by Congress that govern the Federal Reserve and its 
responsibilities.
    I understand that anyone confirmed to this position must 
act not only with as much knowledge as possible but also with 
humility. Knowledge, especially about the future, can be 
imperfect.
    Finally, I also want to recognize the toll inflation exacts 
on working people who are concerned about how far their 
paychecks will go for essentials like food, housing, and 
transportation. It is an important task of the Federal Reserve 
to reduce inflation and one that must be a top priority while 
we continue to sustain our economic growth.
    If confirmed, I commit to pursue this work with the highest 
ethical standards. I look forward to meeting the considerable 
challenges and opportunities before us: the indispensable work 
of defending and safeguarding the financial sector, the Federal 
Reserve's dual mandate, and the economic future of all 
Americans.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Ms. Raskin.
    Dr. Cook, you are recognized to begin your testimony. Thank 
you.

 STATEMENT OF LISA DENELL COOK, OF MICHIGAN, TO BE A MEMBER OF 
      THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

    Ms. Cook. Senator Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and other 
Members of the Committee, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to appear before you today. I am humbled and 
honored to have been nominated by President Biden to be a 
member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
    I earned my Ph.D. at Berkeley, served on the President's 
Council of Economic Advisers, and have spent decades teaching, 
studying, and researching economic growth and monetary 
policies. The depth and breadth of my experience in both the 
public and private sectors qualify me to serve as a Federal 
Reserve Governor, and should I be confirmed I would be honored 
to work with my colleagues to help navigate this critical 
moment for our nation's economy and the global economy.
    In terms of priorities, I agree with Chair Powell that our 
most important task is tackling inflation. High inflation is a 
grave threat to a long, sustained expansion, which we know 
raises the standard of living for all Americans and leads to 
broad-based, shared prosperity. That is why I am committed to 
keeping inflation expectations well anchored.
    My approach to complex problems is to be guided by facts, 
data, and analysis and to work collaboratively. I have served 
in the Administrations of Presidents from both parties, and 
when I make decisions, I do so based on the facts and not 
politics. In this respect, I will follow the example of Paul 
Volcker, whom I greatly admire for his unwavering dedication to 
a nonpolitical and independent Federal Reserve.
    My convictions are shaped by my upbringing in 
Milledgeville, Georgia. It was the desegregating South, and 
both sides of my family were promoting nonviolent change 
alongside our family friend, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. While my sisters, Pamela and Melanie, and I were 
integrating our schools and pools, my parents were integrating 
their places of work. My mother, Professor Mary Murray Cook, 
and my aunt, Professor Loretta Murray Braxton, integrated their 
universities and STEM departments by gender and by race, 
preparing students for a desegregating South that promised 
greater opportunity for all.
    My cousin Floyd McKissick, Sr., spoke at the March on 
Washington and integrated the University of North Carolina law 
school. My uncle, Dr. Samuel DuBois Cook, studied with Dr. King 
at Morehouse College, was the first African-American tenured 
professor at a southern university, and later was president of 
Dillard University. I want to thank Senators Warren, Kennedy, 
and Tillis, as well as the many other Senators who honored my 
uncle in a Senate resolution upon his death in 2017.
    The sense of discipline, hope, and mission instilled in me 
by my family has taken me from Spelman College to Oxford 
University, the Hoover Institution, and Harvard, but I have 
never forgotten where I came from and the dedicated teachers 
who supported me. I chose to seek my current tenured position 
as a macroeconomist in the industrial Midwest in this same 
spirit of being close to how our economic decisions affect 
working families. Living in a manufacturing hub during the 
financial crisis has underscored the effect that deep 
recessions have on everyday lives, and that is one reason I 
have dedicated much of my career to preventing the next 
financial crisis. A strong and resilient financial system 
supports American families, businesses, and our economy.
    My research on economic growth has been informed by my 
interactions with families, businesses, policymakers, and 
financial institutions. I have extensive experience working for 
many types of banks, including serving on the board of a CDFI 
in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I am particularly proud that 
community banks were among those who elected me to serve on the 
board of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis. I have 
also worked closely with the Federal Reserve over the course of 
my career, conducting research at Reserve Banks before and 
after receiving my doctorate, attending policy conferences, and 
serving on advisory panels and as a director of the Federal 
Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    There is still much to learn to make sure the Fed does its 
job even better. Our economy is constantly evolving. Learning 
to do better will require humility, perseverance, and diverse 
perspectives.
    Again, it is an honor to be considered for this position, 
and I look forward to working with Members of this Committee. 
If confirmed, I will faithfully support the congressionally 
mandated goals of stable prices and maximum employment, which 
Congress has entrusted to the Federal Reserve.
    Thank you. And I would like to thank my aunt, Wivona Ward 
from Virginia Beach, Virginia, and my sisters, Pamela Cook and 
Melanie Cook McCant, for escorting me here today.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Dr. Cook.
    Dr. Jefferson, you are now recognized to begin your 
testimony.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP NATHAN JEFFERSON, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE 
   A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE 
                             SYSTEM

    Mr. Jefferson. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today. I am honored to have been nominated by 
President Biden to serve as a member of the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System. If confirmed, I would draw upon 
my background and skill set to contribute positively to the 
well-being of the American people by helping the Federal 
Reserve to adhere to the dual mandate set for it by Congress--
promotion of maximum employment and stable prices.
    As some of you may know, I was born and raised here in
    Washington, DC, in the Northeast section, just blocks away 
from Robert F. Kennedy stadium. The neighborhood is called 
Kingman Park, and in my youth it was a place where the line 
between a future of success and struggle was thin. The Capitol 
is a mere 25 blocks from the row house where I grew up.
    My first job after graduating from college was here in
    Washington, DC, as a research assistant for the Board of 
Governors. Since that time, I have been fortunate to pursue a 
career that spanned a valuable combination of experiences both 
within and outside academia. I have served as a professor of 
economics, department chair, college dean, college vice 
president, president and director of various professional 
organizations focused on economics, a college trustee, a 
borough council member, and have held additional professional 
roles within the Federal Reserve System.
    In the leadership positions I have held, the essential 
qualities for success have included a spirit of collaboration, 
the capacity to compromise, and the ability to achieve 
consensus. Further, I am a Ph.D. economist with an unusual 
combination of specializations: macroeconomics and monetary 
economics, poverty and economic inequality, and applied 
econometrics. If confirmed, these specializations would enable 
me to analyze from multiple perspectives the complex issues 
that come before the Board.
    Today, the economy is facing two major challenges: the 
COVID-19 pandemic and inflation. The pandemic has disrupted the 
supply side of the economy and changed the composition of 
aggregate demand. The spike in inflation we are seeing today 
threatens heightened expectations of future inflation. The 
Federal Reserve must remain attentive to this risk and ensure 
that inflation declines to levels consistent with its goals.
    The mandates set by Congress for the Federal Reserve have 
served the American people well. As we know from experience, 
the pursuit of maximum employment and stable prices fosters an 
economic environment characterized by a dynamic labor market, 
entrepreneurship, private saving and investment, and 
sustainable growth in consumption and production over the 
longer run.
    Importantly, the dual mandate provides a critical 
foundation for monetary policy amid our current challenges and 
those that lie ahead. The tools of monetary policy can be 
deployed with clear goals in mind. Adherence to these goals 
will ground inflation expectations appropriately so that policy 
itself does not encumber private economic decision making. 
Further, long-run inclusive prosperity requires that the 
Federal Reserve pay careful attention to the safety and 
soundness of banks and the stability of the financial system.
    Before closing, I wish to acknowledge the love and support 
of friends and family, especially my sons, Nathan, who is 
watching remotely, and Miles, who happens to be right here with 
me. Also, I wish to mention my late parents, Wade Jefferson, 
and Joan and Walter Coates, who worked so hard and gave so 
much, so that this improbable day might even be possible. 
Regardless of the outcome, they would have been so very proud 
of these proceedings.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 
It is a real honor. I look forward to and welcome your 
questions.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Dr. Jefferson.
    Governor Raskin, I will start with you. Many of us are 
familiar with your work at Treasury on cybersecurity, applauded 
by the financial industry to keep the Government agencies and 
industry connected with up-to-date information on cyberthreats 
to the financial sector. You know first-hand how important it 
is to protect working Americans from risks in our financial 
sector, financial system, and that is the job of the Vice Chair 
for Supervision.
    If confirmed, how would you approach evaluating all the 
risks to our financial system?
    Ms. Raskin. Well, Chairman Brown, thank you for that 
question. Banking regulators are centrally concerned with the 
management of risk in the banking system, which we know, over 
the course of American history, has been subject to numerous 
shocks and crises. So whatever the risk, whether we are talking 
about the risks of cyberattacks, whether we are talking about 
the risks that come from climate-related extreme weather 
events, the job of the banking regulators is to make sure that 
the banking system has appropriately accounted for these risks 
and is prepared to mitigate them.
    Now, the watch word here is resiliency, resiliency in the 
face of potential risk. So I know there has been a lot of 
speculation about this. I want everyone to understand three 
basic principles that define my approach to the Federal 
Reserve's regulatory and supervision of risk.
    OK. So first, it is inappropriate for the Fed to make 
credit decisions and allocations. Banks choose their borrowers, 
not the Fed. It is inappropriate for the Fed to choose winners 
and losers. Doing so is not the proper institutional role of 
the Fed. That is a cardinal principle of Fed supervision.
    Second, regulation is best achieved when it is 
collaborative. My practice is to bring all interested parties 
and experts to the table and to listen carefully before making 
consequential regulatory decisions. This approach has been my 
hallmark since my time as the Maryland Commissioner of 
Financial Regulation and it has been the crux of my 
effectiveness as a regulator.
    Third, supervisory and regulatory actions must always stay 
within the bounds of the law. They must stay within the bounds 
of the Fed's authority as Congress has set forth. All actions 
have to stay within the Fed's statutory mandates. I understand 
Congress' strictures and authorities and have always acted 
within them.
    So in my 4 years as a Fed Governor, as my years as a 
Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation, as my years as 
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, I have never deviated from 
these three principles guiding our regulatory and supervisory 
processes, and I cannot think, really, of a single moment when 
anyone would accuse me of having deviated from them. Again, I 
know them. I understand them. I understand the role. I 
understand the law.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Governor.
    Dr. Cook, you grew up in a small town in Georgia, not far 
from where my mom grew up. You teach in the industrial Midwest, 
not far from really where I live. You have served as an 
economist in administrations, Democrat and Republican alike. 
How has that shaped your view of monetary policy, and as you 
answer that, tell us how the Fed can create conditions for 
investment in good local jobs?
    Ms. Cook. Thank you for that question, Senator. Growing up 
in rural Georgia and being an economist in the industrial 
Midwest have both shaped the way I think about the dual 
mandate, maximum employment and stable prices. One of the most 
shocking events of my career has been to teach macro in fall 
2008, and sit in my office and look outside and see a long 
line. Where is that long line from? I had no idea.
    I asked a colleague, and the colleague told me that there 
was a food pantry, and this long line that looked like it was 
straight out of the Great Depression, straight out of the 
Dorothea Lange portfolio, was our students. Their parents had 
lost their jobs. They had lost their jobs. They should be 
studying.
    At that time I decided that all of the skills that I have, 
the ones that I have acquired, the ones that I have acquired 
through experience, through research, would be devoted to 
addressing eliminating risk associated with financial and 
economic crises.
    So that is what shapes my view with respect to monetary 
policy. Where does that experience come from? That experience 
comes from sitting on the board of a CDFI. It comes from 
sitting on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank 
of Chicago. It comes from interacting with firms and businesses 
and everyday people throughout the Midwest.
    So I am keenly aware of the challenges that everyday 
Americans face, and I am keenly aware of the types of capital, 
for example, that do not flow to those places easily. So my 
work on the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, has been 
really important in trying to get capital to capital-scarce 
places and to capital-scarce sectors. So that is what shapes my 
views on monetary policy.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Cook.
    Dr. Jefferson, we all know the pandemic's devastating 
impact on our country, especially on low-income workers and 
families who are already struggling. As a former Fed economist 
who has written extensively on the economics of poverty and 
inequality, discuss how the Fed can minimize the pandemic's 
lasting impact on low-wage workers.
    Mr. Jefferson. Thank you. Thank you for that question, 
Senator. The way in which the Fed, within its authorities, can 
best improve the recovery from the pandemic for low-wage 
workers is to stick to its dual mandate, which is to keep a 
focus on maximum employment and stable prices.
    Because, Senator, what we learned from the long expansion 
that we were enjoying before the pandemic is that over the long 
run noninflationary growth is itself very inclusive. It allows 
people from all parts of the wage distribution to participate 
in our economy. So what the Fed can do is create the 
macroeconomic conditions for long-run noninflationary growth.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you.
    Senator Toomey, you are recognized.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with 
Professor Jefferson. Thanks for coming by my office and for our 
discussion recently. During the course of our conversation you 
said to me, I think this is pretty close to a verbatim quote, 
that ``the Fed Board has no role in the allocation of 
capital,'' period, end quote.
    So just for the record here this morning, is that a fair 
characterization of your view?
    Mr. Jefferson. I stand by that quote, Senator.
    Senator Toomey. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Raskin, I have heard what you have said this morning. I 
saw your testimony. But from your repeated speeches, op-eds, 
podcasts, all kinds of sources, right up to very recent times, 
it seems very clear to me that you believe that climate change 
is a very, very dire, imminent threat, that it will be 
catastrophic, I think you have used the word ``existential,'' 
and that for those reasons it is necessary and appropriate for 
financial regulators, including the Fed, to allocate capital 
away from those companies that are contributing the most to the 
carbon in the atmosphere. Isn't that true?
    Ms. Raskin. Thank you, Senator Toomey. It is inappropriate 
for the Fed to make credit decisions and allocations based on 
choosing winners and losers. Banks choose their borrowers. The 
Fed does not. It is inappropriate for the Fed to choose winners 
and losers, and to do so is not the proper institutional role 
of the Fed. That is, as I said, a cardinal principle of Fed 
supervision.
    Senator Toomey. OK. I hear you say this, but the problem is 
the huge, documented weight where you have said something very, 
very different. In the Financial Times, in January of 2021, you 
wrote an op-ed. In that you said, and I quote, ``Next, the 
financial supervisors will need to know how to act on this 
information. Supervisory adjustments will have to take climate 
disclosures into account, and the Fed will need to use climate 
risk data to make decisions on asset purchases,'' end quote.
    At UC Berkeley, at a forum speech that you gave in April of 
2021, you said, and I quote, ``I have come to a singular 
recognition and it is this: In order to maximize the speed and 
safety of a move into a sustainable, durable, net-zero economy 
and away from climate change disaster, we need to use the 
financial regulatory apparatus to engage financial markets and 
financial institution in effecting both direction and pace,'' 
end quote.
    In June of 2020, the Ceres report came out, and you wrote, 
and I quote, ``At the very least we must rebuild with an 
economy where the values of sustainability are explicitly 
embedded in market valuation. This transformation will come, in 
part, from urging the leaders of our financial regulatory 
bodies to do all they can, which turns out to be a lot, to 
bring about the adoption of practices and policies that will 
allocate capital and align portfolios toward sustainable 
investments that do not depend on carbon and fossil fuels,'' 
end quote.
    How is that not advocating that regulators pressure the 
financial institutions to allocate capital the way the 
regulators want?
    Ms. Raskin. Well, it is, of course, not the role of the Fed 
to be directing credit allocation. They do not choose winners 
and losers. The way supervision works is by looking at risk, 
and by looking at risk wherever it may arise. You look at that 
risk, and you have to do it in a very honest way, and ask 
yourself whether there is any correlation between that risk and 
the ability to hurt a financial institution.
    Senator Toomey. Are you saying you no longer hold these 
views that you stated about allocating capital as a result of 
your perception of this risk?
    Ms. Raskin. My views have been consistent, Senator. The Fed 
should not pick winners and losers. They should not be exposing 
taxpayers to undue risk.
    Senator Toomey. Well, OK--I am sorry. There is no 
reasonable reading of these articles and speeches that can come 
to a conclusion other than that you want to be allocating 
capital away from those industries that are generating large 
amounts of CO2. I am sorry. I know you are saying something 
different here this morning, but that is not what you have been 
saying in writing for several years now.
    Let me move over to Professor Cook. I have heard you talk 
about the importance of getting inflation under control, but we 
had a phone conversation a couple of days ago. In that 
conversation I specifically asked you whether you agreed with 
and supported the Fed's recent decision to gradually begin the 
process of removing the ultra-easy money policy or whether you 
thought they were acting prematurely. And what you said was, 
well, somewhere in between.
    So I am wondering if you can clarify that. Well, let me ask 
a simple question. Do you now support the Fed's current path of 
accelerating the tapering and moving on to a series of interest 
rate increases over the course of this year?
    Ms. Cook. Senator, thank you for that question. I am 
certainly. When I think about these issues, I would like to 
look at the data and evidence that would be at one's disposal, 
if confirmed, to be able to make a decision about this. So I 
did say it was somewhere in between before, and I agree with 
the Fed's path right now, as we are speaking. But when we get 
to a decision point I would look to the data, the evidence that 
would be made available at that time.
    Senator Toomey. OK. Well, there is a tremendous amount of 
data that is out there. I mean, there are no secrets or mystery 
about what the Fed's monetary policy is at any point in time. 
There is no secret or mystery about economic data generally. 
There are thousands of people across the country that are 
constantly analyzing it.
    It seems you have shifted from the in-between answer to now 
saying you support what the Fed is doing. It is confusing to 
me, and so could you give us some sense of how you view the 
policies that are available to the Fed, how you think about 
what we should be doing at this moment, have your thoughts on 
the Phillips Curve changed given the developments in recent 
years? Are you concerned about the change in what is happening 
with the shape of the yield curve? Do you think exchange rates 
are an important mechanism? How do we get inflation under 
control?
    Ms. Cook. Thank you for that question, Senator. I 
understand that everyday Americans are suffering from high 
inflation. This is something that I learned a lesson about more 
recently, probably than most people--I have lived in countries 
and advised countries--in a situation of hyperinflation. So I 
am motivated by seeing the suffering of workers, of businesses 
in just trying to plan their everyday lives and facing an 
inflationary environment.
    The way I would think about it would be, along with, if 
confirmed, along with the deliberations. So you are right. 
There are a lot of data available, a lot of data available. We 
do not have access to all the data the Federal Reserve has but 
we have a lot. And what we do not have access to is the 
deliberations at the time that they are being made. And I work 
collaboratively. I like to hear arguments as they are being 
made.
    And with respect to the shape of the Phillips Curve, what 
we know in economics is that this is an open research question. 
We know that there is a tradeoff between unemployment and 
inflation, but we do not necessarily know what that 
relationship is. And in times of uncertainty--and this is sort 
of my specialty--and places of uncertainty in emerging markets 
and developing countries, what we know is that we have to be 
patient with the data. We have to ask about the data, whether 
the data have changed, if they are reliable, still reliable, 
and still valid.
    So I would make sure that I pose questions of the data we 
were receiving and engage with the deliberations with my 
colleagues with an open mind, if confirmed.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Toomey.
    Senator Reed, from Rhode Island, is recognized.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Ms. Raskin, in your 
opinion is the banking community more and more aware of the 
impacts economically on climate change and taking steps to 
alter their behavior?
    Ms. Raskin. Well thank you, Senator Reed, for that 
question. In conversations with bankers, you know, over the 
course of my years, I open conversations with discussions of 
risk. What are they seeing as emerging risks? What are they 
concerned about?
    I would say the number one issue that they talk to me about 
has been in the realm of cybersecurity. When I ask bankers, you 
know, what keeps you up at night it is usually the sense of 
being under constant threat of cyberattacks. Why is it the 
financial sector that seems to have a target on its back when 
it comes to cyberattacks. That is where the money is, right?
    So you would be really amazed to learn how much money banks 
have spent actually trying to defend themselves against these 
cyberattacks. They have set up war rooms where they are 
constantly trying to fend off the constant threat of a 
cyberattack. And why does it matter? It matters because it can 
actually destabilize a financial institution.
    In the early days of cyberattacks, you saw banks shut down 
in very brief moments. As the cyberattacks have become more 
voluminous and more varied in their methods and in their 
vectors, you start to see now a pattern by which the 
cyberintrusion has moved into the deep recesses of the bank's 
plumbing, and this actually has presented great risk.
    So cybersecurity. And this, by the way, has been one of the 
hallmarks of the work I did at Treasury, where we attempted to 
put together sort of a five-pronged approach to work with the 
financial sector, help the financial sector defend itself 
against cyberattacks. And we did this through various 
approaches having to do with enhancing baseline protection, 
information sharing, response and recovery, deterrence, 
figuring out how to prioritize and coordinate. This was work 
that also brought into play law enforcement and the national 
security apparatus.
    So to do cybersecurity, to deal with this risk effectively 
I think requires a multisector approach. And we also know we 
have in our American system a somewhat fragmented set of 
regulators, and one thing that was important from the financial 
sector's perspective is to have one voice here. So one critical 
piece of work in the area of cybersecurity was to make sure 
that the regulators were speaking consistently so that the 
financial sector was not getting confused here regarding who is 
saying what.
    After we were able to bring together the work of the 
different agencies within the U.S. Federal Government, you 
know, it occurred to us that, hey, cyberthreats really do not 
have borders here. So we needed to move this work 
internationally, and there was quite a bit of work amongst the 
G7 countries to build defensiveness in their own financial 
sectors. And this resulted in a very strong document called 
``Fundamental Elements of Cybersecurity for the Financial 
Sectors of the G7.'' So this was a prominent piece of 
cybersecurity risk management that was adopted.
    So cybersecurity, in short, that is the number one risk 
that I hear about. I hear about other risks too, and I 
certainly am hearing quite a bit of focus on the effects of 
climate. Climate also is something that banks have been 
raising, certainly in my conversations. But thank you for your 
question.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much. My time is about to 
expire so Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson, I was very impressed in 
our meetings. I look forward to supporting you, and I will have 
some questions for the record which I will forward to you.
    Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Senator Scott, from South Carolina, is 
recognized.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
associate myself with Senator Toomey's comments about the 
harmful views of Ms. Raskin. I think Senator Toomey asked a 
very honest, simple question. Do you mean what you say today or 
did you mean what you have been saying for years, is really the 
basic question he is asking. Because it is indeed dangerous to 
use one's power as a regulator to pick winners and losers, and 
you have advocated for that.
    And to discriminate against industries that you find 
distasteful would be a harmful precedent for the Fed. Ms. 
Raskin's public comments of politicizing the Fed and using this 
extraordinary power in ways that would harm millions of 
Americans is more than just a little concerning.
    A worker's hard-earned dollars does not go as far in 
today's economy as it used to. This inflation-fueled economy is 
eroding the spending power of everyday Americans working 
paycheck to paycheck. The Democrats' tax-and-spend approach to 
fiscal policy has driven up prices to a 40-year high since 
taking office just a little over a year ago.
    Folks at home in South Carolina keep telling me that they 
have too much month left at the end of the money. Why is that? 
Well, gas is almost 50 percent higher. Utilities nearly 25 
percent higher. Used cars nearly 40 percent higher. Food, 
clothes, and shoes, higher, higher, higher.
    Now I am concerned that this Administration and their 
chosen regulatory nominees want to make life even more 
difficult for those hard-working Americans working paycheck to 
paycheck to bridge these inflation-driven income shortfalls. In 
2020, the Federal Reserve Board published a study on the cost 
of making a small-dollar loan. Ms. Bloom Raskin, are you 
familiar with that economic research from the Fed?
    Ms. Raskin. No, I am not but I would like to learn more.
    Senator Scott. Yes, ma'am. Well, one of the findings of 
that research was--and I found it to be particularly alarming--
was that the report found that APR rate caps, even at 36 
percent, would effectively eliminate lenders' ability to extend 
consumer loans under $3,000. I am not sure if you realize the 
powerful impact on eliminating loans at $3,000, because that 
means that those Americans living in marginalized communities 
like the one I grew up in would have to turn to pawn shops or 
to a market that does not exist, a market that is not 
regulated, that is not safe, and certainly a market that would 
not be reliable.
    That same year, you broadly characterized a spectrum of 
existing small-dollar consumer credit options as a serious 
threat to low-income communities before endorsing legislation 
to establish a 36 percent interest rate cap on all consumer 
loans. You further justified your support of a Federal cap by 
stating opposition to such a cap is based either on a 
misunderstanding of the needs of low-income communities or an 
out-and-out support of predatory lending.
    Ms. Raskin, I am opposed to a national APR rate cap, even 
at 36 percent, because it simply eliminates an entire market of 
small-dollar loans for people who need access, and according to 
the Fed's report--I hope you have an opportunity to study that 
report--it suggests that if you cap it at 36 percent you fully 
eliminate a market for people like the one I was, and my mother 
working as a single parent 16 hours a day, looking for access 
to loans, eliminating that market simply means that you lose 
the opportunity to fix your tire if it blows, or you lose the 
opportunity to deal with the transmission, as we had to back in 
those days.
    And so what I am talking about is a real concern, not a 
philosophical one, about what we do for Americans who lose 
access to the market because we decide for them what the market 
should look like. And I think that is a dangerous place to be. 
But your characterization that either you are someone who does 
not understand low-income Americans or you are someone who 
supports the predatory industry. And as that kid, I have got to 
say, I am not sure which one you would call me. Am I the person 
who simply does not understand the needs and challenges of low-
income Americans, or do you put me in the category of someone 
who is just a cheerleader for predatory lenders?
    Ms. Raskin. Thank you for that question, and you are, you 
know, exactly right. Small-dollar loans, I think, are a very 
important source of credit, really to all Americans but 
particularly those that need access to credit in a timely way.
    The report that you are talking about, I look forward to 
looking at it and understanding its methodology and how it came 
to the conclusions that it did. But you are exactly right and 
put your finger on an important challenge, which, of course, is 
the availability of safe credit for people when they need it.
    I think that there is more that can be done in terms of 
providing access to safe, affordable, small-dollar loans. I am 
aware that there is work underway to be looking at this, and I 
think from that perspective it is an important issue that you 
have put your finger on.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, ma'am. I am out of time. Let me 
just simply say this, sir. Thank you for your response, and I 
will say that we led the efforts to have an interagency 
framework developed around small-dollar lending, and the Fed 
participated in that process. And I do look forward to your 
response after seeing the report. Thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you.
    Senator Menendez, of New Jersey, is recognized.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow 
up on this conversation, you know, I have made it my mission to 
try to not figure out how high interest payments low-income 
borrowers should be able to pay but actually how do we end the 
payday lender, the check-cashing place, the pawn brokers, the 
portal of entry for this universe of Americans into our 
financial system. Because while we want them to get access to 
the ability to have such a loan, I do not know why 
specifically, because of the nature of the status of what their 
income is, they have to be, you know, committed to such high 
interest rates. It seems to me that we should be putting our 
collective will and effort together to creating portals of 
entry for them.
    Having said that, let me congratulate all the nominations. 
I am glad to see the Biden administration is finally taking 
steps to bring greater diversity to the leadership of the Fed, 
but there is a lot more work to be done. Latinos are this 
country's largest minority. They make up nearly 20 percent of 
the United States population and yet they have no--underline 
no--representation in Fed leadership.
    So my question to all of you, if you are confirmed will you 
commit to working with my office to increase the Latino 
representation at all levels of the Federal Reserve? A simply 
yes or no would work.
    Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
    Ms. Cook. Yes.
    Ms. Raskin. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. If confirmed, you will have an important 
role to play in the selection process for presidents and 
members of the board of directors at the 12 Federal Reserve 
banks. Would you commit to working to ensure that diverse 
candidates are considered for these positions? Ms. Raskin.
    Ms. Raskin. Yes I will, Senator.
    Senator Menendez. OK.
    Ms. Cook. Yes.
    Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you. So Ms. Raskin, one of the 
lessons of the 2007 global financial crisis was that excessive 
incentive-based compensation plans encouraged Wall Street 
executives to take ever greater risks that ultimately pushed 
our economy into a devastating recessing. When we passed Dodd-
Frank, one of the provisions I was able to include, that 
Congress ultimately passed, instructed the financial 
regulators, including the Fed, to jointly issue rules to rein 
in these practices.
    But in the nearly 12 years since Dodd-Frank was enacted we 
have seen the CEO-to-typical-pay ratio balloon to over 351-to-
1, as well as a number of scandals, including the London Whale, 
Wells Fargo fake account scandal, Archegos, and all of which 
seem to be tied to executive pay incentives.
    What we have not seen, however, is a strong incentive-based 
compensation rule finalized by our regulators. So if confirmed, 
will you commit to working with the other financial regulators 
to develop a strong, incentive-based compensation rule?
    Ms. Raskin. Thank you, Senator, for that question, and that 
was--you are correct--a requirement in the Dodd-Frank Act. It 
was a requirement with a deadline, and as far as I know that 
deadline has happened and still there is no rule. There is 
guidance but there is no rule, and yes, the answer, in short, 
is yes, I would work to implement the law.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you. That is a correct observation. 
It is well past the time that Congress intended.
    Also finally in that regard, would you make it a priority 
to finalize the rule by the end of this year, if you were 
confirmed?
    Ms. Raskin. Well, if confirmed and I were there I would 
certainly look into the issue as to the reason for the delay. I 
believe there are a number of agencies involved in this, so I 
would certainly commit to look at this issue.
    Senator Menendez. There are, but we need leadership to move 
the process forward, so I look forward to you having that 
leadership.
    Dr. Jefferson, if confirmed, you will have some difficult 
decisions to make in the coming months and years with regard to 
monetary policy. Inflation is running above desired levels, but 
if we do not critically examine why that is the case, the Fed's 
response could be counterproductive. Maybe it could even harm 
the recovery.
    Do you agree that the inflation levels we are currently 
seeing are mainly being driven by supply chain bottlenecks?
    Mr. Jefferson. Thank you for that question, Senator. I 
believe that the inflation we are experiencing now has multiple 
components to it. Certainly the pandemic is a very important 
impact with regards to the supply side. We know that the supply 
chain effects caused bottlenecks, and for the given level of 
demand, supply is not able to meet it, and that puts upward 
pressure on prices.
    Senator Menendez. And finally, how does the supply side 
nature of the current inflation inform the Fed's response?
    Mr. Jefferson. Well, Senator, the tools of monetary policy 
really cannot address these developments that occur on the 
supply side in terms of resolving them. But the mandate given 
to the Fed by the Congress is very clear, that the Fed has to 
be mindful of maximum employment, and equally it has to be 
aware of price stability and undertaking policy to preserve 
price stability.
    So in this moment, Senator, the inflation rate is high 
relative to the Fed's target, and so the directive is clear. 
The Fed must take steps to bring inflation back in line with 
its targets.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some 
other questions for the record. I have not had a chance to meet 
these nominees but I look forward to your responses.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
    Senator Kennedy, from Louisiana, is recognized.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Jefferson and 
Dr. Cook, I may not get to ask you many questions today because 
I want to concentrate on Ms. Raskin's proposal to change the 
mission of the Federal Reserve. But I have read about both of 
you. It is clear to me we disagree on some things in terms of 
our politics, but in America you can believe what you want. 
That is why it is such a great country.
    Dr. Jefferson, I believe you are at Davidson. You are a 
professor there?
    Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. There is no better place in America to get 
a liberal arts education.
    Dr. Cook, you are a Truman scholar?
    Ms. Cook. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. And you are a Marshall scholar. You were 
at St. Hilda's?
    Ms. Cook. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. OK. Have you ever met a Marshall scholar 
that was a dummy?
    Ms. Cook. No, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Me neither. The only advice, for what it 
is worth, that I have for each of you is, number one, please do 
not change the mission of the Federal Reserve. Please do not 
let it be politicized. And number two, do not get caught up in 
the group think over there. Only dead fish go with the flow. Do 
not get caught up in the group think.
    Now, Ms. Raskin, in May of 2020, the world economy is 
melting down because the Government shut it down. We are trying 
to hold it together with baling wire, duct tape, spit, and 
happy thoughts. And you say that is great, but we ought to let 
oil and gas companies go broke. Did you really mean that?
    Ms. Raskin. Well, thank you, Senator Kennedy----
    Senator Kennedy. You are welcome.
    Ms. Raskin. ----for that question. And the Federal Reserve 
has particular mandates----
    Senator Kennedy. I know about all that, but did you--I 
mean, did you mean it? You said it. Here it is, big as Davos. I 
read the op-ed. You said save everybody but the oil and gas 
industry and let them go broke. Did you really mean that?
    Ms. Raskin. So I have been clear on my views. The whole 
point of the op-ed was that the Fed should not pick winners and 
losers.
    Senator Kennedy. Except for oil and gas. You said they 
ought to be allowed to go broke.
    Ms. Raskin. The Fed should not pick or favor any sector at 
all.
    Senator Kennedy. Then why did you say it?
    Ms. Raskin. The Fed is not in the business of choosing 
winners and losers.
    Senator Kennedy. Then why did you recommend to them that 
they let oil and gas go broke?
    Ms. Raskin. I did not recommend----
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. I read the op-ed. There it is. 
I am not going to quote it to you, but Senator Toomey pointed 
it out. Did you mean it?
    Ms. Raskin. Senator Kennedy, I want you to understand the 
proper role of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve should 
not be choosing winners and losers.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. So you disagree with the 
editorial?
    Ms. Raskin. The editorial was one that I wrote, and I wrote 
it in the context of the Federal Reserve's emergency lending 
facilities. This was a special program set up by the CARES Act, 
by the Congress, that appropriated taxpayer money. This was an 
issue quite unlike the issue of supervision and----
    Senator Kennedy. And you said do not give the money to oil 
and gas. Let them go broke, because in my opinion they are bad 
for the environment, didn't you?
    Ms. Raskin. I want you to understand the context for that 
article. That article did not have to do with supervision and 
regulation.
    Senator Kennedy. Dr. Raskin, you said it. You ought to own 
it, OK? You ought to own it.
    Ms. Raskin. I am sorry?
    Senator Kennedy. You said it. You ought to own what you 
said. I would respect you more if you did.
    Let me move on to this business of allocating capital, and 
look, this is America. You can believe what you want, and I 
mean that. But I do not agree with your mission to politicize 
the Federal Reserve.
    Ms. Raskin. I do not think the Federal Reserve should be 
politicized either.
    Senator Kennedy. Well then why did you say it? Why did you 
say, in this June 2020, piece, quote, ``Federal regulatory 
bodies should allocate capital''?
    Ms. Raskin. It is not the role of the Federal Reserve in 
supervisory or regulatory matters in its functioning as----
    Senator Kennedy. Then why did you write it?
    Ms. Raskin. It was written in a context, Senator, that had 
to do with emergency lending. It did not have to do with the 
context of supervision and regulation.
    Senator Kennedy. I feel strongly about charter schools, OK, 
if some President or some Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, 
``Let's all get together and allocate capital away, and lean in 
on all the banks so they do not fund charter schools.'' Do you 
support that? I mean, you support driving oil and gas industry 
into bankruptcy. Do you think that would be a proper role for 
the Federal Reserve?
    Ms. Raskin. No. Obviously not. The Federal Reserve is not 
to get involved in allocating credit to any particular sector.
    Senator Kennedy. So you changed your mind.
    Ms. Raskin. I have made myself completely clear. The whole 
point of the op-ed was that the Fed should not pick winners and 
losers or expose taxpayers to undue risk.
    Chairman Brown. Senator Kennedy, your time has expired.
    Senator Kennedy. Well, now you went 3 minutes over, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. I did, and so did Senator Toomey, but we 
need this hearing done by 11.
    Senator Kennedy. Well, can I ask one more?
    Chairman Brown. No. You have already gone 2 minutes over.
    Senator Warner, you are recognized, from Virginia.
    Senator Warner. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say 
to my friend from Louisiana I think your appropriate admonition 
about only dead fish go with the flow, maybe that could be 
applied to both sides on our partisan basis too.
    Senator Kennedy. Well, I agree with that. I do not even 
know what parties they are in.
    Senator Warner. I understand. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Raskin, it is good to see you. I do want to note, we 
all know you have got progressive views but I have been 
actually very surprised and pleasantly surprised by the number 
of Virginia bankers who have had experience with you and 
believe very much that you are a fair and balanced regulator. 
And I hope that is reflected in the record as well. Former 
heads of the Independent Community Bankers and others have come 
forward on supporting you, and again, I think that bodes well 
for you.
    I am also a little surprised. My understanding of the Fed's 
role and responsibility is also to look at systemic risk. And I 
tell you, in my State, when we call, it, you know, Hampton 
Roads, our tidal regions, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and others, 
they have huge, huge risks to those economies because of sea 
level rise.
    Now they do not call it climate change because that may not 
be the politically appropriate terminology, but I sure as heck 
know that the banks, financial institutions, political 
leadership, Democrat and Republican, on both sides in Hampton 
Roads view sea level rise as an incredibly, incredibly 
significant systemic risk, and I believe that risk is amplified 
around. I think my friend, the colleague from Louisiana, they 
have that same challenge around New Orleans and elsewhere.
    So I do think, as we think about both questions of full 
employment, systemic risk, these issues are extraordinarily 
relevant.
    I also have to tell you that one of the things I was hoping 
to raise with you, Senator Reed raised and you kind of took the 
answer and ran with it, and that was cyber, because I find when 
I talk to bankers, when I sit in my role as Intelligence 
Committee Chair, cyber is an omnipresent risk, and we should 
all be alert now. God willing we are not going to see military 
action coming out of Russia with Ukraine, but should there be, 
a component part of that will be cyber. And as we saw from the 
Russian attack against Ukraine in NotPetya, you cannot limit a 
cyberattack to a geographic area. There were literally tens of 
billions of dollars of losses in America due to the NotPetya 
attack in 2015.
    So my hope would be that cyber will continue to be a focus, 
and you have addressed it pretty well. But I want to know if 
there was anything else. You have had experience in cyber. Was 
there anything else? You had a pretty comprehensive answer. And 
I do want to get one other question in for you and Ms. Cook, if 
possible, but I want to give you another chance.
    Ms. Raskin. Yes. I appreciate your underscoring what 
certainly has been my experience in talking to the financial 
sector regarding cybersecurity. The threats are actually 
evolving at a very quick pace. This is a type of warfare, you 
know, as you might imagine, and the defensiveness of the 
financial sector I think is really at stake here. Obviously, 
you know, it is not the role of the Fed, certainly, to stop 
cyberattacks, but I do think it is important from a supervisory 
and risk perspective to make sure that the financial sector 
feels that it has the defensiveness.
    Senator Warner. Would not a massive cyberattack that could 
potentially bring down part of our financial system, while 
there are reporting requirements in the financial system there 
is not for the balance of the economy. We have got a bipartisan 
bill that was going to get into the defense authorization that 
would at least require some level of mandatory reporting. But a 
catastrophic cyberattack against our financial sector, would 
that not be a systemic risk?
    Ms. Raskin. Yes, I think it could.
    Senator Warner. I agree with you.
    Let me move quickly, because again, I want to honor the 
Chairman's request to get all the questions in, and I would 
like you to address, and I know Dr. Jefferson and I talked a 
little bit about this. But I would like to get at least you and 
Dr. Cook on this, and I will come back to Dr. Jefferson in 
subsequent questions.
    CDFIs, MDIs, critically important role. I think you both 
have experience with them. How do we make sure that the Fed can 
do more to shore up that critical component of our financial 
sector, because clearly lending to low- and moderate-income 
individuals has got to be a role if we are going to have 
financial stability, economic stability, and close to full 
employment.
    Either one of you, please. Dr. Cook, do you want to take 
that?
    Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question, Senator. I sit on the 
board of a CDFI and I have learned a lot about it, and I think 
the Federal Reserve is beginning to engage in discussions about 
CRA reform. And I think part of that is shoring up the funding 
for CDFIs. They are critical in terms of getting funding to 
where capital does not go, whether we are talking about urban 
areas or rural areas. But certainly this is important for 
entrepreneurship, for the dual mandate, the carrying out of the 
dual mandate, especially maximum employment. So thank you for 
your support of CDFIs, Senator.
    Senator Warner. And I think huge opportunities with CRA 
reform. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thanks, Senator Warner.
    Senator Hagerty, of Tennessee, is recognized.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would 
like to direct my first questions to each of the nominees, and 
congratulations to you on your nomination. First I would like 
to ask each of you, have you currently or have you ever 
embellished any part of your resume, your background, or your 
publications.
    I will start with you, Dr. Jefferson.
    Mr. Jefferson. No, Senator.
    Senator Hagerty. Ms. Bloom Raskin.
    Ms. Raskin. No, sir.
    Senator Hagerty. Dr. Cook.
    Ms. Cook. No, sir.
    Senator Hagerty. Dr. Cook, whether intentional or 
unintentional, it appears that you made a number of omissions 
in the paperwork that you submitted to this Committee, and you 
have made several mischaracterizations of your background. But 
even more concerning to me, with respect to your nomination, is 
that your background, although very impressive--that you 
covered with Senator Kennedy--does not seem related to the 
mission of the Federal Reserve. As I look at your list of 
publications and your speeches, it seems more like social 
science than it does economics and monetary policy.
    Can you describe for me in more detail what your economic 
specialty is?
    Ms. Cook. Senator, thank you so much for that question. I 
certainly am proud of my academic background. I know that I 
have been the target of anonymous and untrue attacks on my 
academic record.
    But I would like to tell you about my academic record, and 
that is relevant. I have a Ph.D. in economics from the 
University of California at Berkeley. I specialized in 
macroeconomics and international economics.
    Senator Hagerty. I am aware of that. I would like to get to 
that in the questions for the record. There are a number of 
issues about claiming that articles were peer reviewed when 
they were not, the characterization of your academic 
affiliations, but we will get to that in the questions for the 
record.
    My question for you now is if you would underscore what 
your academic specialty is and how it is related to monetary 
policy.
    Ms. Cook. Sure. I would answer that in several ways. First, 
I specialize in managing financial crises, and I have done that 
in several instances. At the Treasury Department I was at the 
financial crisis think tank and worked closely with John 
Taylor, with Secretary Summers, and others in managing 
financial crises. At CEA I was the person who was in charge of 
managing the eurozone crisis at CEA, and I worked 
collaboratively with NSC to do that.
    So I have publications that are related to banking reform 
and recognizing systemic risk. So I take the research that I do 
and I turn it into something in the field, and that is what I 
do at a land grant institution.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. Well, monetary policy is a very 
blunt and a very potent tool, and I would have expected someone 
with deeper experience in the monetary policy realm. But I 
appreciate you being here and thank you for your answer.
    Ms. Raskin, I would like to turn to you. I want to talk to 
you about the actions last December that took place at the 
FDIC. There, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and Interim Director 
Martin Gruenberg took actions to basically eviscerate the 
Chairman's role there at the FDIC before her term expired, and 
it was deeply troubling to me and a number of Members of this 
Committee. It broke historical precedent, it was a remarkable 
undermining of the independence and the integrity of our 
financial regulators, and I want to ensure that a situation 
like this does not happen at the Fed.
    In her nomination hearing in front of this Committee, 
Governor Brainard committing, committed to deferring to the Fed 
Chairman to set the agenda at the Federal Reserve Board. So Ms. 
Raskin, if you are confirmed, do you commit to doing the same?
    Ms. Raskin. Yes I do, Senator.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. The last thing I want to see is 
another coup d'etat like we saw at the FDIC, and this Committee 
is here to backstop and ensure that that does not happen.
    Ms. Raskin, another questions for you. Are higher gas 
prices good or bad for America?
    Ms. Raskin. Thank you, Senator. I have to say, higher gas 
prices really do hit. In my neighborhood they are up to $3.33 a 
gallon. You know, you go into a gas station now to fill your 
tank and you say, you know, should I actually really fill it? I 
mean, maybe you----
    Senator Hagerty. We are running tight on time. Is that good 
or is it bad for America?
    Ms. Raskin. Well it certainly hurts your pocketbook.
    Senator Hagerty. It absolutely does that. And I am very 
concerned, given the level of inflation that we are 
experiencing right now and the Fed's role with respect to 
inflation, the policies that you have supported, as my 
colleague, Senator Kennedy, discussed with you, I am very 
concerned about weaponizing the Fed and using it to attack 
industries like the oil and gas industry, particularly right 
now when we see energy prices through the roof. This sort of 
move would not only make inflation worse in America when it is 
already running rampant, but it would also make us more 
dependent on others, for them to supply oil and gas to us 
because you want to choke off oil and gas here in America and 
make us less secure as a Nation.
    So it is very concerning to me, and again, I realize we are 
out of time but I would like to underscore the fact that I 
think it is highly inappropriate to begin to weaponize the 
regulatory construct of the Federal Reserve in any manner that 
might be pursuing issues outside the mandate of price stability 
and full employment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you. Senator Cortez Masto, from 
Nevada, is recognized.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Let me ask, right off the 
bat, thank you, first of all, all three of you for the 
opportunity to meet with you and have a conversation with you. 
But let me ask you this. The board that you are looking to be 
nominated to, there are seven members. Can any single one 
member weaponize the mission of the board? Yes or no.
    I will start with Ms. Raskin.
    Ms. Raskin. No.
    Ms. Cook. No.
    Mr. Jefferson. No.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. That makes me feel much 
better.
    Dr. Cook, you have held many high-profile leadership posts. 
Let me ask you about your previous leadership positions with 
other regional Federal Reserve banks. I know you serve on the 
Advisory Council for the Opportunity and Inclusive Growth 
Institute, led by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and 
you also are a board member for the Federal Home Loan Bank of 
Indianapolis.
    How have these positions prepared you to serve on the 
Federal Reserve Bank?
    Ms. Cook. Thank you for that question, Senator. I have come 
to know the needs and opportunities associated with rural 
communities through my service through the Federal Home Loan 
Bank of Indianapolis. Certainly community banks are struggling. 
There has been a secular decline in them over the last 30 
years. But they provide absolutely critical capital to small 
communities and places where capital does not show up.
    My membership on the board of directors of CDFI, same 
thing. CDFIs provide capital. They are pillars of their 
communities, where capital does not typically flow. And what we 
know about the United States is that entrepreneurship is a 
tried-and-true path to the middle class, and both those 
institutions, whether through affordable housing through the 
Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis or through supporting 
entrepreneurs would help to support this American dream of 
entrepreneurship.
    So I have been grateful for those opportunities and they 
would inform, if confirmed, my deliberations on the Federal 
Reserve.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that. I also 
really appreciate the opportunity that I see before me. I think 
that diversity is important for this particular board because 
it is important that the members really mirror, represent the 
rest of the country. How are we going to understand the needs 
of so many individuals across the country if we do not have 
that representation at all levels? So I appreciate all of you 
appearing before me today.
    Let me ask you, Ms. Raskin, we worked so hard during this 
last pandemic to appropriate the CARES bill, the American 
Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and 
they provided important relief to families while also looking 
to do long-term investments in health and housing and 
infrastructure.
    I also know, coming from Nevada, that the last financial 
crisis, it took us 7 years to come out of that financial 
crisis. So my question for you is, what were the lessons that 
we learned from that last financial crisis and how did they 
help us as we look to this financial crisis to avoid that 
extensive economic pain for Americans during this pandemic? If 
you would reflect on that.
    Ms. Raskin. Yes. Thank you for that really interesting 
question, Senator. And, you know, I think the lessons are still 
to be learned, because we have not completely emerged, 
certainly, from the effects of the pandemic. But I think you 
are right to point to differences in approaches both from the 
perspective of monetary policy and fiscal policy that were 
taken and the extent to which, different mix of policies had an 
effect.
    I mean, in one dimension I think what we saw was that the 
financial sector seems to have done quite fine during what was 
a massive blow that came from the pandemic. That was good to 
see and suggests certainly something about the resilience that 
the financial sector had going in and the mix of policies that 
were available to respond.
    So I think this is an evolving question, but it is one we 
should always, as policymakers, and if I were confirmed I would 
urge us to always be trying to think back. I mean, it is pretty 
amazing that for many of us now there have been two crises in 
our lifetimes. So there are things to learn, and I think that 
trying to understand those learnings will certainly help as we 
continue to build economic resiliency going forward.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I know I have gone over my 
time. Dr. Jefferson, thank you again for meeting with me. I 
will submit the remainder of my questions for the record. 
Congratulations to all three of you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you. Senator Lummis, of Wyoming, is 
recognized.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 
nominees. My questions are for Ms. Raskin. I would like to ask 
you about Federal Reserve master account access. This is an 
issue of great interest to Wyoming and my constituents. I asked 
Chairman Powell about it. I asked Governor Brainard about it at 
their nomination hearings. I have been stonewalled at the Fed. 
And so I wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
    Master accounts are the way banks access the payment 
system. Many nonbanks, including trust companies have applied 
and failed to receive a Fed master account. To my knowledge, 
there is one, and only one State-charted trust company that has 
a Fed master account. It is a startup based in Colorado, formed 
in 2016, called Reserve Trust.
    Reserve Trust has repeatedly touted the value of the 
company's Fed master account. Their homepage says, in 2021, one 
of the company's investors underscored that Reserve Trust is 
armed with a master account at the Federal Reserve and direct 
access to the payment rails, the only company in the country 
that has that, the only fintech company.
    Now a Fed master account gives Reserve Trust an enormous 
advantage over everybody else, since it appears they are the 
only one who has it. And you are very familiar with Reserve 
Trust because you joined their board in May 2017, just 4 months 
after leaving Treasury. Right?
    Ms. Raskin. Well, thank you for your question. I joined the 
board of Reserve Trust in 2017----
    Senator Cortez Masto. And your Treasury came after 4 years 
as a Federal Reserve Governor. Right?
    Ms. Raskin. Four years? Well, after I left as a Federal 
Reserve Governor I went to Treasury as Deputy Secretary of 
Treasury.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Right. You went from the Federal 
Reserve Governor to Treasury, and then to Reserve Trust's 
board, and then Reserve Trust had its master account 
application denied in June 2017. But 1 year later, the Fed 
granted it a master account, in 2018.
    It is a mystery to me how dozens of fintech companies have 
tried unsuccessfully, and how Wyoming's SPDI charter has been 
under review for well over a year, two-and-a-half years at the 
Fed, consulting with them about how to make this qualify.
    How did Reserve Trust get there so quickly? After Reserve 
Trust had their application denied, did you communicate with 
the Federal Reserve about Reserve Trust's application?
    Ms. Raskin. So, Senator, I was on the board of Reserve 
Trust, on the board of directors, from 2017 until 2019.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And they got their master account in 
2018. So did you call or communicate with the Federal Reserve 
about Reserve Trust's application?
    Ms. Raskin. Well, certainly if you are suggesting anything 
improper I want to make very clear that I have, first of all, 
had the honor to serve in various public capacities, and each 
time I left I have been very mindful of the rules regarding 
departure.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Well, it is my understanding you did 
call the Kansas City Fed in August of 2017 regarding Reserve 
Trust's master account application. So I have significant 
questions about your involvement in Reserve Trust efforts to 
obtain a master account.
    So Reserve Trust is denied. You go on their board. Then 
they get a master account. Did you communicate with the Board 
of Governors about Reserve Trust's application?
    Ms. Raskin. So I can assure you that I have been very 
focused----
    Senator Cortez Masto. Well, who did you communicate with?
    Ms. Raskin. First of all, I want to be very clear here. The 
Federal Reserve has approved plenty of master accounts----
    Senator Cortez Masto. But not in fintech. You resigned from 
Reserve Trust in August of 2019. Correct?
    Ms. Raskin. August 2019 I left the board of Reserve Trust.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Correct. Now do you know Amias 
Gerety?
    Ms. Raskin. Yes, I do know Amias Gerety.
    Senator Cortez Masto. OK. So while you were number two at 
Treasury, Mr. Gerety was the Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Financial Institutions, and he reported to you. Right?
    Ms. Raskin. He did not report directly to me but yes, he 
was at Treasury when I was there.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And he is also a partner at QED 
Investor, which is now the controlling owner of Reserve Trust. 
So in 2020, QED Investor purchased the 195,000 Reserve Trust 
shares you received when you joined the board in 2017, and they 
purchased your shares for almost $1.5 million. Even in this 
town that is a lot of money for being on a company's board of 
directors for 2 years.
    So let me recap. You leave Treasury, you serve on the board 
of Reserve Trust for 2 years, their first application for a 
master account is denied, but after the denial you call the 
Federal Reserve, and Reserve Trust receives a Fed master 
account, the only State-charted trust company in the country to 
get one, and you walk away with $1.5 million.
    Something does not smell right with the way this played 
out. My State's companies, my constituents have been 
stonewalled, have been slow-walked, and have not been able to 
get approval, even though they have been working with the Fed 
for 2.5 years on our very specific guidelines for getting 
master accounts.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the details here, because 
the Fed has not provided us with any documents we have asked 
about Reserve Trust's master accounts. But I think this 
requires additional scrutiny by the Committee, and I look 
forward to receiving it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Brown. Senator Warnock, from Georgia, is 
recognized.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so much, Chairman Brown, and 
congratulations to Ms. Raskin, Dr. Cook, and Dr. Jefferson, for 
your nominations to leadership at the Federal Reserve Board. 
Congratulations to all of you.
    But I would like to take a moment to especially 
congratulate Georgia's own Dr. Cook. As a child, Dr. Cook was 
one of the first Black children to integrate her public school, 
and has since spent a lifetime breaking racial and gender 
barriers. Since graduating from Spelman College, in HBCU I know 
a little bit about, across the street from my Morehouse 
College, located in the heart of Atlanta, Dr. Lisa Cook, you 
have committed decades of your life to pushing the field of 
economics forward and sharing your knowledge with the world.
    And based on your clear qualifications and readily apparent 
expertise, it is clear--it is clear--that your nomination to 
the Federal Reserve Board will continue our important work to 
have an economy that works for all Americans.
    And we cannot ignore that your historic nomination to the 
Federal Reserve Board will serve as an inspiration for 
generations of young Black women, who would like to study 
economics and dedicate themselves to work in the highest levels 
of public service. If we are to have an economy that works for 
all Americans, the Federal Reserve Board needs to look more 
like all Americans.
    And so I am proud of your nomination, and Georgia is proud 
of your nomination, and I look forward to voting for you both 
in this Committee and on the Senate floor for your 
confirmation.
    Georgians are feeling the rise and the crunch of rising 
costs on their everyday lives, and as Chairman Powell said 
before this Committee during his own nomination hearing a few 
weeks ago, some companies may be raising prices simply because 
they can.
    We are seeing this in corporate earnings. Follow the money. 
The evidence is there. These costs are being borne most acutely 
by everyday Georgians and small businesses, having an adverse 
impact on our economy. For example, the average price for a 
gallon of gas in Georgia has gone up by 4 percent in just the 
past month. In Brunswick, that increase is almost 6 percent, 
down in old Brunswick, Georgia, all while profits among the 
largest oil and gas companies soar. So they are doing more than 
passing on the costs.
    Dr. Jefferson, when considering systemic risks to our 
economy such as inflation and increasing costs, what 
considerations do you give to corporations and wealthy 
executives choosing profits over the stability of our economy?
    Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, Senator, very much for your 
question. And the concern that American families have with 
inflation is real because they feel it in their pocketbooks, 
impacts what they are able to do from a week-to-week basis. It 
impacts their outlook for the future.
    And so what the Fed can do is think about the full menu of 
prices that American families have to contend with and conduct 
monetary policy in such a way that, on average, those prices 
are consistent with its target.
    With respect to the issues of concentration that you are 
indicating, there are other regulatory bodies that are more 
geared and prepared and skilled at looking at the concentration 
of industry. What the Congress has mandated that the Fed do is 
think about inflation overall, and if I were confirmed, I would 
keep the Fed's focus on that and trust that other agencies of 
the regulatory structure would look closely at issues of 
concentration.
    Senator Warnock. So what kinds of tools might you use to 
address this issue?
    Mr. Jefferson. Well, Senator, the tools that are the Fed's 
would not be able to meet the issues of industry concentration. 
On that side of the economy, that is not something that Federal 
Reserve instruments--I am thinking about concentration outside 
of the financial sector--that is not something that Fed policy 
can address directly.
    Senator Warnock. Well, it is something I am concerned about 
and it is why I asked the White House Supply Chain Disruptions 
Task Force to investigate these practices by international 
cargo carriers, for example, out in the port in Savannah where 
we were dealing with this issue and we were able to loosen $8 
million to help with the congestion there. But we are seeing 
these rising prices.
    Dr. Cook, how would you respond to these issues?
    Ms. Cook. Thank you for that question because I have seen 
those gas prices going up as I was vacationing in Georgia with 
my family over the holidays. I think that this issue, as Dr. 
Jefferson was saying, is largely outside the purview of the 
Federal Reserve. However, I think that it deserves more study, 
and we have, especially if there is any threat to financial 
stability, for example, or relates to the Fed's supervisory 
role, that would deserve more study.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so much. Dr. Raskin.
    Chairman Brown. Senator Warnock, you----
    Senator Warnock. I am out of time.
    Chairman Brown. ----your time has expired. If you would, 
because Members want to go to the 11 briefing.
    Senator Warnock. Absolutely.
    Chairman Brown. Senator Cramer, from North Dakota, is 
remote from North Dakota, I believe. Senator Cramer.
    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
accommodating this format. And thanks to all of our witnesses 
and congratulations to all of you on being nominated.
    I have been watching intently and taking some notes, and I 
want to explore a little deep, Ms. Bloom Raskin, on the 
context, your exchange with Senator Kennedy, where you were 
trying to explain the context of your editorial, your op-ed 
relating to risk and the oil and gas industry in particular, 
the fossil fuel industry, in particular.
    I went back and read that same piece after that exchange, 
to familiarize myself both with the content and the context. 
And you are right in that you were writing in response to the 
expansion of the Main Street Lending Program that we worked 
hard to get, because oil and gas industry, huge jobs industry 
and huge national security industry in our country, was being 
sort of set aside, ignored if you will, by the Main Street 
Lending Program. And yet we were building bridges for all kinds 
of other industries, not more important certainly than the oil 
and gas industry.
    So you are right that that was the context which you wrote 
in your piece, but as I read the piece you did not confine your 
advice or your opinions to simply the Main Street Lending 
Program. There was no strategic ambiguity whatsoever in your 
statements. And I am very concerned going forward, not just 
because there is a single nominee that shares these views that 
you share so vehemently and so rigorously, but rather that 
there have been lots of them in lots of areas, lots of 
agencies, and more than one or two with the Federal Reserve, 
various positions in the Federal Reserve.
    I am very concerned about that. I have appreciated your 
reiterating the script that the Fed's job is not to pick 
winners and losers, but once you are in a regulatory role it is 
not just the regulations that matter but it is, as much as 
anything, the regulators themselves. So I have great concerns 
about your position and the increased power that you want to 
give to the Federal Reserve as it relates to allocating capital 
away from legal commerce.
    You used an interesting word in describing the parameters 
as you see them. You used the word ``resiliency.'' That is an 
important word. It means something very important. But it also 
reads a lot into our economy as it relates to energy. And so I 
wanted to sort of flip the script a little bit on you and ask 
if you think that it is a risk that banks ought to consider if 
the market that they support has a less than reliable or 
resilient supply of energy.
    You know, if you are a Texas or other parts of the South or 
the Southwest, Midwest, that has failed resiliency tests in 
recent times, or the Northeast, or California, where they have 
gone away from baseload electricity, for example, and replaced 
it with more intermittent forms of electricity, that people 
actually die when that electricity does not work during certain 
times, or that manufacturing has to be curtailed during certain 
times because they are very energy dependent, is that a risk 
that you think that banks ought to consider and that the Fed 
ought to keep an eye on?
    Ms. Raskin. So thank you, and thank you for attempting here 
to understand context. And I do want to underscore that the 
Federal Reserve, as far as I know, is not looking to expand its 
powers. The Federal Reserve has mandates, very clear mandates, 
that Congress has provided, and the Federal Reserve, I hope, 
and certainly if I were confirmed, needs to always act within 
those parameters. It is absolutely critical to independence. It 
is critical because it is the law. And it is necessary to not 
get into positions of regulatory overreach or regulatory 
matters that are way beyond the purview.
    And what is way beyond the purview? Well, one thing that is 
way beyond the purview is that it is banks, bankers, who are 
making the decision about who to lend to. That is not a Fed 
decision, and it never should be. I do not have any evidence to 
suggest that it is or that it would be, but it is not a 
regulator and supervisory function for a regulator to take over 
the basic business decision that the bank is making.
    And why is that? Because banks exist--first of all, they 
are private entities, right, and they are in the best position 
to know what kind of loans should be made. They are in the best 
position to know what kinds of terms need to be structured 
around any kind of credit extension. That is their expertise, 
and that is an expertise that I would argue needs to be 
maintained.
    So I certainly appreciate the cardinal principle that the 
Federal Reserve does not exist to be favoring any particular 
sectors, and the regulatory approach should not be in any way 
choosing certain sectors over others.
    Senator Cramer. I know I am well over, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you for indulging me. I will provide some more comments on the 
record.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
    Senator Tester, of Montana, is recognized.
    Senator Tester. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member Toomey. I appreciate it. And Governor Bloom Raskin and 
Drs. Cook and Jefferson, thank you for being here.
    Look, I think it is critically important that the Fed gets 
all the information that they can when they are dealing with 
risk to our financial system, and I think that it is rather 
obvious that climate change has to be part of the information 
that you gather. And why I say that is because I have been 44 
years plus on our farm. It has been in the family for over 110 
years, and things have changed. And the proof of that is that, 
I believe it was in 2020, 40 percent of the farmers' income 
came from the Federal Government, because of consolidation in 
the industry and climate change. Last year we spent $140 
billion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on climate change 
issues.
    Banks are important. As somebody involved in agriculture, 
we need to have access to dollars. That is where it is at, is 
in the banks. We do not want these banks to go under, and I 
know that there are many on this Committee that say, ``Give me 
one example.'' I can tell you one of the reasons they have not 
gone under is because we have put out $140 billion last year 
and we have got crop insurance. Without those, those banks 
would be in serious trouble.
    But the truth is this. There has been a lot of discussion 
around what the Fed should be doing or should not be doing. 
This is question for you, Governor Raskin. In your role as the 
Federal Reserve or any other Federal or financial regulator, in 
your opinion do you believe that we should be discouraging 
banks, or you should be discouraging banks in the Federal 
Reserve or any other Federal regulator from lending to carbon-
based fuels like coal, oil, or gas?
    Ms. Raskin. No, I do not.
    Senator Tester. Drs. Cook and Jefferson, do you agree with 
that opinion?
    Ms. Cook. I agree.
    Mr. Jefferson. I agree.
    Senator Tester. OK. When Chairman Powell and Governor 
Brainard were before this Committee I asked them about the 
Fed's independence, as I did each one of you when we met on 
Zoom a few days ago. I think it is absolutely--absolutely--
critically important that the Fed remains independent. I saw 
former President Trump try to influence the Fed and take 
actions for his own political gain, not for the well-being of 
this economy, and I am grateful that Chairman Powell--and that 
is one of the reasons I supported him in the position as 
Chair--and the Board's commitment to maintain that Fed 
independence under intense pressure. And I might add, political 
pressure from the right or the left is inappropriate on the 
Fed.
    So I want to know, because you guys answered this question 
correct and I thank you--you believe the Fed should be 
independent--could you tell me why it would be a mistake to 
allow politics to influence our Nation's monetary policy? And 
be as brief as you can. I will start with you, Governor Raskin.
    Ms. Raskin. Well thank you, Senator Tester. The Fed's 
independence is absolutely sacrosanct. You are exactly right 
that it cannot be compromised in any way from political forces 
on any side. The supervision and regulation of the Fed, as well 
as the conduct of monetary policy has to be beyond reproach, 
and that is critical to our functioning as an economy and as a 
society. So I cannot state more emphatically the importance of 
independence.
    Senator Tester. Dr. Cook.
    Ms. Cook. Senator, I have advised in a number of emerging 
markets and developing countries where the central bank was not 
independent, and everyday citizens of those countries suffered 
tremendously as a result, typically with respect to 
hyperinflation or at least high inflation environments. And I 
would say that I would be committed to Federal Reserve 
independence, and I would make sure that everyday Americans did 
not suffer what I saw abroad.
    Senator Tester. Dr. Jefferson.
    Mr. Jefferson. Senator, one of the assets on the Fed's 
balance sheet is the trust of the American people, and that has 
built up over time because of the Fed's adherence to the 
mandates given to it by the Congress. So that cornerstone of 
independence underlies all that the Fed could hope to achieve 
for the well-being of the American people.
    Senator Tester. Thank you all for your testimony. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Tester.
    Senator Moran, of Kansas, is recognized.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you to 
our nominees for being with us today. I congratulate you on the 
position you are in today.
    I have been very interested in the responses I have head 
both on television and in the Committee room, to Senator Tester 
and Senator Cramer in particular. I come here troubled. You 
seem to all say, particularly you, Ms. Raskin, the thing I want 
to hear: I want a Federal Reserve that is not going to pick 
winners and losers. You commit to that. You indicated in 
response to the question that you should not be regulating in a 
way that discourages banks from making independent decisions 
about whether or not they should loan to energy and oil and gas 
companies. That is the right answer from my perspective.
    What troubles me is that we all, in our politics, in our 
views, we want a result, and we seem less interested in the 
process by which we get that result. The Federal Reserve is not 
the entity to make the decision about whether this country 
moves forward or in a different direction with oil and gas, 
with energy production.
    It is certainly the free-market system but it is perhaps 
Congress, Congress or the President. It is not an Executive 
order. It is not a decision by the Federal Reserve. The 
decisions we make here, in too many instances, Republicans will 
set aside the process to get the result, the Democrats set 
aside the process to get the result, and it is not always about 
the result because the process is what makes us a free Nation.
    So I need greater assurance than what you are attempting to 
give me that you will not use the Fed to diminish the role of 
the energy sector, or any other private sector. I do not look 
at this any differently than if you came here to tell me you 
were going to use the Fed to promote an industry. You are 
neutral in what is a legal business in this country, and in my 
view you have no opportunity, none, to try to discourage the 
oil and gas industry from existing or prospering, just like you 
have no authority to decide that when we want solar energy or 
wind energy and we are going to promote it by regulations of 
our financial institutions.
    I am troubled by what Chairman Powell said in response to 
the Chairman in his questioning, that the Chairman is going to 
defer to you, Ms. Raskin, on this topic. And you said, in 
response to the question of the Senator from Nevada, you 
responded that it takes all of you to make a decision. No one 
can do it.
    And so I am troubled by any of the nominees who have the 
belief that there is a path by which you can regulate a legally 
authorized, existing business. That is an issue for the 
political process. And we talk about transition. You all talk 
about transition. You know, the transition is societal shifts. 
It is gambles. It is predictions. It is not economics for the 
Fed to be engaged in trying to figure out the societal changes 
of our Nation. What am I missing?
    Ms. Raskin. Well, thank you. The record for me is the 
record that I have had as a bank commissioner in the State of 
Maryland, already as a Fed Governor, and as Deputy Secretary of 
the Treasury, and I cannot state more emphatically than I 
already have that it is not the role of the Federal Reserve to 
get engaged in favoring one sector.
    Senator Moran. So Ms. Raskin, if it is not the role----
    Ms. Raskin. Yeah.
    Senator Moran. ----then are you saying you cannot do it and 
will not do it?
    Ms. Raskin. I am saying I view it as outside the bounds of 
the law. The Federal Reserve was set up by Congress, and with 
particular mandates, and as a lawyer I live within those 
mandates.
    Senator Moran. So let me ask you, as a lawyer, is there a 
path that you see, in any fashion, in which, if it is your view 
that the oil and gas industry, fossil fuels, need to be 
diminished in the role of this Nation, in our economy, is there 
any path for you to accomplish that as a member of the Federal 
Reserve?
    Ms. Raskin. I certainly have not explored that and would 
imagine there is no such path.
    Senator Moran. I wish you could say that more firmly, that 
there is not a path and there is nothing you can pursue.
    Ms. Raskin. Do you have an idea for me? I mean, I am not 
sure I see any attempt in any supervisory context or within the 
existing mandates of the Federal Reserve that have been set up 
by Congress to do anything that would favor a specific 
industry. That is not how regulation and supervision is done.
    Senator Moran. You are telling me I have nothing to worry 
about.
    Ms. Raskin. I would be curious as to whether you are 
thinking of something in particular, but I certainly do not 
see----
    Senator Moran. No trick question. I just wanting to know if 
you have any plan, any path, any desire----
    Ms. Raskin. No. None.
    Senator Moran. And if you had the desire, you cannot 
accomplish it.
    Ms. Raskin. Correct. I have no desire, and if I had the 
desire I could not accomplish it.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Moran.
    Senator Warren, from Massachusetts, is recognized.
    Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
congratulations to all three of our nominees. It is good to see 
you here today.
    So let's jump right in on climate change, and let's focus 
on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who is supported by 
many of the Republicans who have spoken out today and who are 
so alarmed about the conversations about climate.
    I would like to read a series of statements by Fed Chair 
Powell, who has been renominated by President Biden to serve 
another term as Chair. In response to a question I asked during 
his confirmation hearing last month, Chair Powell said, and I 
quote, ``Our role''--meaning the Fed's role--``on climate 
change is a limited one but an important one, and it is to 
assure that the banking institutions that we regulate 
understand their risks and can manage them. It is also to look 
after financial stability, and with financial stability the 
issue really is can something from climate change arise to the 
level that would threaten the stability of the entire financial 
system,'' end quote.
    So I just want to go down the line here. This should be an 
easy question. Does Chair Powell's statement on the Fed's 
responsibility for ensuring that banks are managing their 
climate risks and addressing climate risk threats to the 
financial stability correctly describe your views as well?
    Professor Bloom Raskin, let's start with you.
    Ms. Raskin. Yes. That statement sounds correct to me.
    Senator Warren. Thank you. Dr. Cook.
    Ms. Cook. Yes.
    Senator Warren. Dr. Jefferson.
    Mr. Jefferson. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Warren. Thank you. So we have four people-- the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve and these three nominees--who 
are aligned on the role of the Fed in dealing with climate 
change.
    Now when my colleague, Senator Ossoff, asked Chair Powell 
last year whether climate change had implications for the Fed's 
dual mandate and its responsibility for financial stability, 
Chair Powell said, and I want to quote here, ``I think it has 
implications for all of those things,'' close quote, because, 
quote, ``We know that the transition to a lower-carbon economy 
may lead to a sudden repricing of assets or entire industries, 
and we need to think about that carefully in advance and be in 
a position to deal with all of that,'' end quote.
    Professor Bloom Raskin, starting with you, does this 
statement by Chair Powell also describe your views?
    Ms. Raskin. Yes, it does.
    Senator Warren. And Dr. Cook.
    Ms. Cook. Yes, it does, Senator.
    Senator Warren. And Dr. Jefferson.
    Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
    Senator Warren. OK. And when Chairman Brown asked Chair 
Powell about what the Fed would do to address the risks from 
climate change, Chair Powell said, and I want to quote, that 
``climate stress scenarios will be a key tool going forward.'' 
Does everyone agree? Professor Bloom Raskin.
    Ms. Raskin. Yes.
    Senator Warren. Dr. Cook.
    Ms. Cook. Yes.
    Senator Warren. Dr. Jefferson.
    Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
    Senator Warren. All right. I am going to do one more. These 
climate stress scenarios that the Fed are planning are, in 
Powell's words, quote, ``about assuring that the large 
financial institutions understand all the risks they are 
taking, including the risks that may be inherent in their 
business models regarding climate change over time.''
    Once again, going down the line, do you agree, Professor 
Bloom Raskin?
    Ms. Raskin. Yes.
    Senator Warren. Dr. Cook.
    Ms. Cook. Yes.
    Senator Warren. Dr. Jefferson.
    Mr. Jefferson. Yes.
    Senator Warren. Thank you. I will support Chair Powell's 
nomination for another term running the Fed, but even he thinks 
that it is just common sense that the Fed should work to 
mitigate the risk of significant economic loss triggered by 
climate change. Central bankers around the world agree with 
him.
    Heck, this position is so noncontroversial that the 
previous Vice Chair for Supervision, Randy Quarles, who was 
appointed by President Trump and never met a rule he did not 
want to weaken, requested the Fed's membership in the Network 
for Greening the Financial System, which is an international 
coalition of financial institutions that is working to meet the 
goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.
    So we really have to ask, what is going on here? Why are 
the Republicans so stirred up by a mainstream position? Why is 
it OK when Jerome Powell says that climate issues are part of 
the Fed's mandate but it is not OK when Professor Bloom Raskin 
and other nominees say the same thing? Why is the Chamber of 
Commerce funding a multimillion-dollar campaign to kill any 
action by policymakers to address the climate crisis, and who 
is really footing the bill here?
    Perhaps the real problem here is that Professor Bloom 
Raskin is not willing to let big oil stand in the way of the 
Fed doing its job. The fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists 
and friends in Congress may not like that. But asking the Fed 
to ignore climate risk is to ask the Fed to defy its 
congressional mandate. An institution responsible for the 
security of our financial system and the growth of our economy 
cannot blind itself to climate issues. We are in a climate 
crisis, and we need regulators with backbone.
    I just want to mention one other thing before I quit here. 
I have long advocated for rewriting our ethics rules to prevent 
conflicts of interest, to close the revolving door, and to 
restore Americans' trust in our political system. I believe 
that we must examine a nominee's total balance of 
qualifications, but I have asked nominees from both the 
Republican and Democratic administrations to abide by higher 
ethical standards. I am discussing these standards with every 
Fed nominee and I look forward to their responses, including 
from those who are not at the hearing today.
    So again, congratulations to our nominees. I look forward 
to your confirmation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Warren.
    Senator Tillis from his office is recognized, from North 
Carolina.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
congratulations to all of the nominees before us today. You 
know, if you are confirmed you are going to have to vote on how 
things are supervised and regulated. This part of your job goes 
outside of the view of the public, sometimes by necessity, but 
some of it needs to be transparent.
    In one case, the Fed has issued or used an asset cap to 
restrict growth of a bank and its ability to compete. So I want 
to ask this of each of the nominees. In the instance the asset 
cap has been used, it has been for a number of years now, since 
the financial crisis, and it was a drastic penalty that I 
believe we now need to question whether or not it should be in 
place or whether we should provide clarity or a roadmap for 
growth going forward.
    So maybe starting with Mr. Jefferson and then Ms. Cook and 
then Ms. Raskin, I have got three questions for you. Number 
one, what are the conditions that you think would be reasonable 
to lift the asset cap? Another one, when will it be used again? 
And the third one, does a bank need to be perfect to get it 
lifted?
    Mr. Jefferson. Senator, thank you very much for your 
question. It sounds like it is very specific and in an area 
where I do not have expertise. And so what I would like to say 
in response to your specific questions is that if I were 
confirmed I would look forward to learning more about this 
particular set of issues, and I would welcome the opportunity 
to invest my time to work with you and your staff to become 
better educated about it.
    Senator Tillis. OK. Just first off I should have thanked 
you for the time that we spent on the phone. I enjoyed the 
conversation. And you and I do not live too far apart, down in 
North Carolina. But we did talk about the need for a healthy 
ecosystem, and I think that these caps at the top end of the 
ecosystem, over time, might be damaging to the overall health 
and hygiene of the entire ecosystem, which includes small 
banks.
    Ms. Cook.
    Ms. Cook. Thank you for your question, Senator. The way I 
would look at it would be to assess the risk to the system and 
make sure that the financial system remains resilient. That is 
within the purview of the Federal Reserve's role and bank 
supervision.
    Senator Tillis. So would you--with that response I have got 
limited time. I am sorry to interrupt. I do not like doing 
that. But does that mean that we could look at rules of the 
road and get rid of this arbitrary cap, and that that is 
something that you would be open to discussing?
    Ms. Cook. It is something that, because, like Professor 
Jefferson, I am not as familiar with this particular issue, I 
would look forward to studying it with an open mind and having 
deliberations with my colleagues, if confirmed, with an open 
mind.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. Ms. Raskin.
    Ms. Raskin. So, Senator Tillis, you point to a very 
important feature of regulation which is clarity, and I think 
that if there are ways to improve a regulation, by making it 
more clear I think is a huge plus, it is a huge service, and 
yes, I would commit to look at any rule or regulation that 
requires more clarity.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. Professor Cook, you previously 
stated you agree with the statement ``the Black unemployment 
rate is a better indicator of the health of the overall economy 
than a lot more standard metrics that many people use today.'' 
Do you still stand by that statement?
    Ms. Cook. Senator, when I think about the unemployment rate 
in general it is not just one unemployment rate. There are many 
different unemployment rates. There are unemployment rates 
for----
    Senator Tillis. I am sorry. I am glad you have gone in that 
direction. I am about to run out of time, so what specific 
standard metrics do you believe should be discarded in favor of 
this or other metrics?
    Ms. Cook. Oh, I do not believe any should be discarded. I 
think we should, if confirmed, use as many different metrics as 
possible. The data are imperfect, so we should look at as many 
different indicators, from many different sources, from 
businesses, from consumers, from everyone in the economy. So I 
do not believe in primacy of one indicator over another.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. My time has expired, and we will 
submit other questions for the record.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Tillis.
    Senator Smith, from Minnesota, is recognized.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
Toomey, and welcome to our three highly qualified and 
experienced nominees, and congratulations, and thank you for 
your willingness to serve on the Fed Board, especially and 
particularly in this moment. And I look forward to supporting 
all three of your nominations.
    You know, the three nominees here today are highly 
qualified and dedicated public servants. Your experience and 
expertise and perspectives are much needed on the Federal 
Reserve, as our Nation navigates some really complicated 
economic times.
    And I want to say that I appreciated the excellent 
conversations I have had with all three of you, and have found 
you to be informed and reasonable and qualified and fully 
committed, I might say also, to following carefully the 
mandates and the authorities and the independent role of the 
Fed.
    Professor Bloom Raskin, I really appreciated our 
conversation and your commitment to the value of community 
banks and small banks. I shared the story of my grandmother, I 
think, who was the president of a small community bank, and 
your deep understanding of the value of small banks in a fair 
and resilient and stable financial system.
    And I must say you have been absolutely clear, both in 
public and in our private conversations, that you emphatically 
believe that the Fed has no role in picking winners and losers 
in our economy, including in the oil and gas sector. And maybe 
this is why, as Chair Brown noted, you have been confirmed with 
bipartisan support before.
    Dr. Cook, your experience and perspective on how all 
sectors of the U.S. economy need to work for everyone, and the 
role and the responsibilities of the Fed I think are 
authoritative, and I really appreciated the chance to speak 
with you. And Dr. Jefferson, your extensive work on poverty and 
inequality will be invaluable as the Fed pursues its dual 
mandate of maximum employment and stable prices.
    And I also just want to note, as several have, that we all 
know that the Fed has traditionally been very short of diverse 
voices, and it is important, it is vitally important, that the 
Fed include diverse perspectives so that decisions that it 
makes are going to consider not just whether Wall Street is 
thriving but whether Main Street and small businesses and 
families everywhere in our country are getting ahead. I 
appreciate that I believe you will be, all three of you, in the 
perspective, in the position to bring that perspective forward.
    I just want to home in a little bit on a few things, Dr. 
Cook and Dr. Jefferson, to understand how your research and 
experience will inform your work on the Fed, in just the little 
bit of time I have. Dr. Jefferson, much of your academic 
research has focused on the labor market, which fits so well, 
and income inequality and poverty, which all of us on this 
Committee, I believe, are concerned about. How will your 
research inform your work on the Fed, do you think?
    Mr. Jefferson. Thank you so much for that question, 
Senator. And one thing that I think is important for us to do 
is look at the history of expansions here in the United States. 
And one thing that we see when we look at our history is that 
long, noninflationary expansions are highly inclusive. That is, 
the longer the expansion, the wider they tend to be, and the 
more people are brought into employment and prosperity across 
social and economic groups.
    So if I were confirmed, I would very much want to advocate 
for policies on the part of the Fed that would lead to long 
expansions that are noninflationary.
    Senator Smith. You are observing also that fairness in our 
economy is good for our competitiveness. It is good for our 
productivity. It is good for opportunity, and it gets exactly 
to--I mean, Paul Wellstone was not, as far as I know, an 
economist, but when he said we all do better when we all do 
better I think he was hitting exactly on what you were talking 
about from an economic perspective.
    Dr. Cook, I appreciated, in your testimony, you said, ``My 
approach to complex problems is to be guided by facts and data 
and analysis and to work collaboratively.'' You say, ``I will 
do my work based on the facts and not politics,'' and you 
pointed to Paul Volcker as a person who you admired for his 
unwavering commitment to a nonpolitical and independent Fed. 
Could you just say a bit, in the 10 seconds I have left, on how 
you will bring your experience to bear on the Fed?
    Ms. Cook. I will just say, in a word, that my experiences 
abroad have really opened my eyes and informed me about the 
dual mandate of the Federal Reserve, both full employment and 
stable prices. Because not all central banks have that dual 
mandate. They typically focused on stable prices. And my 
research also has informed this view through the avenue of 
innovation, which undergirds economic growth. And what I find 
is that broadening participation, through STEM, for example, in 
the innovation economy certainly helps us all, not just those 
individuals who participate. So that is what I would bring to 
the deliberations on the Fed, if confirmed.
    Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Smith.
    Senator Van Hollen is recognized, from Maryland, for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Toomey, and welcome all of you. And Dr. Cook, Dr. Jefferson, 
Governor Bloom Raskin, congratulations on your nominations. I 
think all of you would serve the country very well, and our 
economy well, on the Federal Reserve, and I look forward to 
supporting your nominations.
    Mr. Chairman, I think you indicated I get just a little bit 
of leeway in sort of introducing again----
    Chairman Brown. You do, for sure.
    Senator Van Hollen. ----Governor Raskin as a Marylander, 
and I want to thank her for her leadership and focus for a 
moment about her leadership as Maryland's Commissioner for 
Financial Regulation during a very difficult time for our State 
and our country. That was the 2007-2010 period.
    And during that time she earned the respect of Maryland 
financial institutions, our community banks, and I have heard 
from a host of Maryland's community banks about your 
preparation for the job that you have been nominated for and 
how well they believe you will serve our country in that 
capacity.
    We also have the statement from Camden Fine, who served as 
the head of the Independent Community Bankers Association, 
ICBA, during the time that Governor Raskin was the chief bank 
regulator in the State of Maryland. And I am quoting Camden 
Fine saying, ``She is outstanding and she understands the role 
of the Fed Governors. She is a tough regulator--do not get me 
wrong--but she is very fair.''
    It seems that that is exactly the kind of person that we 
would want in this position, and that sentiment has been 
endorsed by others who have worked with Governor Raskin. The 
Conference of State Bank Supervisors noted that she understands 
first-hand how decisions made in Congress and within the 
Beltway have significant implications for the financial 
industry, local communities, and consumers.
    And 24 State and local treasurers and comptrollers said, 
``Sarah Bloom Raskin is a life-long public servant with an 
exceptional track record as a champion for consumer protection, 
prudent regulation, and financial risk mitigation.''
    And I have been listening to the testimony, Mr. Chairman, 
and I think Governor Bloom's answers reflect that she clearly 
understands that her role is to focus on risk, across the 
board. And we would be doing a great disservice to our country 
if we asked her to ignore any particular risks in the system or 
to overly focus on any particular set of risks. She wants to 
look at all the risks, which is what she did as the Maryland 
chief bank regulators.
    And Governor Raskin, if you could just take a moment to 
talk about how that experience, during that very difficult 
time--we had a meltdown in the subprime mortgage industry in 
the United States which created catastrophic economic 
consequences for American families--can you talk about how your 
experience there informs your view of your current job?
    Ms. Raskin. Certainly, and Senator Van Hollen, thank you 
for you remarks and your question, of course.
    So the role of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation in 
the State of Maryland, in the years that I served, which were 
the years of the successive waves of foreclosures, the 
weakening of some nonbank entities, and a general sense of 
hopelessness, which many of you may remember from the days of 
the financial crisis, really required an approach that was very 
collaborative. It was an approach that, for me, became, I 
think, the hallmark of how you go about regulation and 
supervision, which is to do it very collaboratively.
    Supervision and regulation cannot be done with one voice 
alone. You need the voices of many, and the many include not 
just experts who understand the theory of regulation and 
supervision, but the people who experience it, who live it day 
to day. The bankers in Maryland were my indispensable partners 
in moving through those hard months, and it was the bankers 
there that strengthened my sense, not just in the value of 
collaboration and in the value of working together to achieve 
good ends, but the importance of community banks.
    And I just want to say--and I just cannot say it enough--
community banks are one of the finest features that we have in 
our financial sector. They provide safe and sound financial 
intermediation. They understand the community, the economies 
that they lend into, in a way that keeps them very sensitive 
and very attuned to what communities need.
    So I learned a lot from those experiences as the 
commissioner during those years, and many of those approaches 
became, for me, a way of thinking about how you move forward.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Governor Raskin. I just, to 
my fellow Committee members, I can attest to Sarah Bloom 
Raskin's very good judgment, good temperament, and somebody who 
looks at all the facts before making a decision. And I really 
encourage all the Members of the Committee to support her 
nomination, and I also, as I said, support the other two 
nominees who have been presented to the Committee as well.
    Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
    I believe Senator Ossoff is remote, in his office, but I am 
not sure.
    No, he is not.
    Senator Toomey, and then I will close.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just 
briefly wrap up my thoughts on this. First of all, I think 
Professor Jefferson confirmed what I have learned thus far. I 
think he is eminently qualified, knowledgeable, has the 
temperament and the experience to be a constructive 
contributor, and I look forward to supporting his confirmation.
    With regard to Professor Cook, I am very disappointed that 
yet again today I have been unable to elicit any kind of clear 
response as to how she views the challenges that we face 
specifically with regard to the inflation that we have, what 
kind of tools she would be willing to use, her thoughts on the 
changes in our economy. There are just no clear answers, and 
that is disturbing.
    With respect to Ms. Raskin, I have to say this is one of 
the most remarkable cases of confirmation conversion I have 
ever seen, although she does not acknowledge the contradiction 
of what she has said today compared to the things that she has 
been saying and writing for years.
    Let me be very, very clear about where this is all heading. 
If Ms. Raskin is confirmed, there is going to be an effort at 
the Fed to start with a climate scenario analysis--that is what 
it is called--and you can be sure that that had better show all 
kinds of risks. And then the Fed will respond to that analysis. 
I do not know exactly how. Maybe it will be increased capital 
weightings. Maybe it will be exposure limits. But the idea will 
be to allocate capital away from the heavily carbon-emitting 
parts of our economy.
    How do I know that? Because Ms. Raskin has told us this, 
repeatedly, in writing, in videos. We just found a new campaign 
video she made, criticizing the Fed for including energy bonds 
when they were buying corporate debt. In her message it was 
clear that she would have preferred that they exclude that one 
category. That itself is another example of her advocacy for an 
allocation of credit.
    But rather than responding to that we just kept hearing 
this scripted mantra that the Fed should not pick winners and 
losers. But, of course, what she has advocated for in speech 
after speech and other venues is that the Fed should do exactly 
that.
    So, Mr. Chairman, it is hard to believe the strength of the 
conviction that the Fed should not do that which she has 
advocated the Fed to do for a very long time.
    And with that I will ask unanimous consent to enter into 
the record letters of opposition in concern to Ms. Raskin's 
nomination from more than 60 union, energy, business, 
manufacturing, taxpayer advocates, and women's organizations, 
24 State treasurers and auditors, and Senator John Barrasso. I 
also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters of 
opposition to Professor Cook's nomination from 11 taxpayer 
advocates and women's organizations.
    Chairman Brown. Without objection, so ordered.
    Thank you, Senator Toomey. That compares to my sterling 
comparison to the 1,000 letters and calls of support from such 
a wide cross-section of so many people, including, as Senator 
Van Hollen says, the Maryland community bankers.
    There has been a lot of hyperventilating about today's 
nominees that is based on hyperbole and misrepresentation 
rather than their actual records and experience. I will note a 
couple of things.
    Senator Bloom Raskin has a long and distinguished record of 
public service, making consequential decisions about our 
economy. She brings a steady hand. She brings a clear-eyed 
focus--we saw that--to serving the American taxpayer. That is 
why this body has confirmed her unanimously--unanimously--
twice, including this Committee and the Finance Committee.
    Her approach and character have not changed one iota since 
she was last time nominated to serve our country. Nowhere in 
her record can you find her making policy decisions that fit 
the character we have heard today, of someone who is extreme. 
She has served on the Fed as a Governor before, and as a 
Governor she never advocated for the Fed to allocate private 
capital. If that is not evidence and proof, what could be?
    As we heard today, in her own words, Ms. Bloom Raskin is 
not in the business of telling banks whom to lend to. She did 
not do it before, and she said that is not how she views this 
job. To pretend otherwise is nothing more than a political 
tactic.
    What said in the New York Times editorial--and I have read 
it a number of times--has nothing to do with allocation of 
private capital. The mainstream view is that regulators need to 
consider how all risks could affect banks. Senator Tester's 
discussion about $140 billion in climate costs just last year 
alone speaks to that. It is one of those risks.
    Look at President Trump's Vice Chair for Supervision, the 
only person that has actually held this job prior to, I hope, a 
month from now when Governor Raskin is confirmed. Look at 
Randal Quarles. He developed the strategy for regulators around 
the world to understand and monitor climate risk while Chair of 
the Financial Stability Board. Ms. Bloom Raskin will simply 
continue the work begun by Chair Powell.
    The attacks on Dr. Cook are abhorrent. They were ginned up 
on the far-right blogosphere to discredit a highly respected 
economist with substantial monetary policy experience. She has 
a Ph.D. in economics. Plenty of other Board Governors never had 
that, including prominent ones today.
    I am disappointed my Republican colleagues repeat these 
ugly and baseless lies and spreading fake news. A wide range of 
organizations, as I have said, have written to the Committee in 
support of her nomination.
    Instead of these attacks I hope we can bring the focus back 
to American workers, putting American workers at the center of 
our economic policy, something the Fed, frankly, has not done 
through much of its history, workers finally starting to gain 
some power and higher wages and real job options in our 
economy. They are worried these wage gains are not going to 
mean much if prices continue to go up.
    All three of you clearly--Dr. Jefferson, Dr. Cook, Governor 
Raskin--have talked about the importance of combating 
inflation, putting it at the top. These costs have been going 
up for decades, like childcare and prescription drugs and 
housing. Balancing that dual mandate is always a tough job, and 
as we emerge from the pandemic that is unprecedented in our 
lifetimes there has never been more uncertainty in the economy, 
making these jobs even tougher.
    It makes it all more important that we have seven fully 
confirmed, seated, members of the Federal Reserve, thoughtful, 
experienced nominees. You could not sit here today and not be 
impressed by the thoughtfulness and the experience and the 
gravitas and the serious-mindedness of these nominees. We need 
a full Fed Board. Hopefully my colleagues will join me in 
supporting the President's nominees.
    Thank you again to the three of you. I look forward to 
supporting all three nominations and leading this effort on the 
Senate floor.
    I would like to enter into the record letters of support 
from 1,000 organizations and individuals, without objection.
    For Senators who wish to submit questions, these questions 
are due on Saturday, February 5th, at noon. To the nominees, we 
would like to have your responses by Wednesday, February 9th, 
at noon. Those are real dates, February 5th, February 9th. We 
want to do this vote on February 15th, so we need your 
cooperation.
    The Committee is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Prepared statements, biographical sketches of nominees, 
responses to written questions, and additional material 
supplied for the record follow:]
              PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN
    In the first year of the Biden-Harris administration, we've seen 
tremendous economic progress:
    Record job creation. Rising wages. The fastest economic growth in 
almost 40 years.
    Last year, for the first time in two decades, our economy grew 
faster than China's. Think of that--our economy is growing faster than 
China's, for the first time in 20 years.
    Because of the action we took with the American Rescue plan and 
because of this President's commitment to American workers, we are 
making historic economic progress--exceeding expectations.
    We are now at a pivotal moment in our recovery.
    The Omicron variant has caused COVID cases to increase in the last 
eight weeks, further straining our supply chains. These pandemic-
related problems are causing higher prices that eat away at Americans' 
paychecks.
    The Black unemployment rate is more than twice that of White 
workers. Women are slowly reentering the paid labor force, after too 
many were forced to leave at the height of the pandemic.
    As Fed Chair Powell said, ``getting past the pandemic is the single 
most important thing we can do.''
    Chair Powell is right.
    The actions we take over the next several months will determine 
whether we have a truly robust recovery--with lower prices and higher 
wages and plentiful job opportunities, for everyone.
    Whether we have that kind of truly robust recovery, or whether our 
economy falters, and Americans are denied the opportunity to emerge 
from this pandemic stronger than before.
    And that brings us together today.
    We must have a fully functioning Federal Reserve Board--with all 
seven members--ready to meet these challenges. Ready to ensure our 
economy continues to prosper.
    It's been almost a decade since we've had all seven board members. 
That's what makes this so urgent.
    Governor Bloom Raskin, Dr. Cook, and Dr. Jefferson are the proven 
leaders we need at this critical moment.
    These three experienced public servants understand the importance 
of empowering workers through full employment, and the need to combat 
inflation so paychecks go farther.
    They are dedicated to Fed independence. They will uphold the Fed's 
dual mandate--a mandate to ensure that all Americans have plentiful job 
opportunities at good wages, and to ensure that wage gains aren't 
eroded away by exorbitant prices.
    And they know that when we keep our financial system safe, and when 
we support working families and Main Street businesses by putting 
workers at the center of economy, then our entire economy grows.
    Sarah Bloom Raskin is the President's nominee to serve as the 
Federal Reserve's Vice Chair for Supervision. She was the Maryland 
State Bank Commissioner, a Federal Reserve Governor, and Deputy 
Treasury Secretary--the number two position at Treasury.
    No one is better equipped than Ms. Raskin to protect Americans from 
risks that could bring down financial markets and institutions and 
wreck people's savings--from cybersecurity threats to climate financial 
risk.
    Throughout her distinguished career, Sarah Bloom Raskin has worked 
with the smallest community banks and the largest multinational 
financial institutions. She's worked with consumers, community groups, 
and businesses small and large to keep our financial system safe.
    Unfortunately, we've seen a coordinated effort by some to paint her 
as some sort of radical.
    That characterization requires a suspension of common sense. Look 
at her work--including on the Board of Directors at Vanguard, which 
prides itself on its low fees and making the market accessible to all 
Americans.
    And remember, she has received the support of every Republican on 
this Committee, and every Republican on the Finance Committee. In fact, 
the entire Senate twice confirmed her unanimously.
    Think about that--Sarah Bloom Raskin has been nominated to key 
economic posts twice before. And both times, every single senator--
Republicans and Democrats--supported her nomination.
    As Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Ms. Bloom Raskin led the Obama 
administration's effort on cybersecurity resilience for the financial 
sector, a critical issue that requires vigilance to protect our economy 
and national security.
    She understands that we need to think about all the financial risks 
our economy faces--including the possible economic impact of severe 
weather and climate change.
    As we heard from Chair Powell, this is a priority for the Fed.
    Looking at all the risks posed to our financial system is not a 
partisan issue--just ask Chair Powell. It's not some radical idea--just 
ask Citi and Morgan Stanley.
    We saw in 2008 what happens to people's job opportunities and to 
their lifesavings--their home, their retirement accounts, their college 
saving--when we ignore big risks. Sarah Bloom Raskin will work to make 
sure our country doesn't make the same mistake again.
    Dr. Lisa Cook and Dr. Philip Jefferson are the President's nominees 
to serve as governors of the Federal Reserve Board. They are highly 
respected and experienced economists with sterling credentials. They 
understand how monetary policy can contribute to our economic growth 
and strengthen our economy for everyone.
    Dr. Cook currently serves as professor of economics and 
international relations at Michigan State University. She brings a 
wealth of research and international experience on monetary policy, 
banking, and financial crises. That includes serving on the Council of 
Economic Advisers during the Eurozone crisis and past work with several 
Federal Reserve Banks.
    She has done groundbreaking research on how disparities in our 
economy inhibit technological innovation and limit our overall economic 
growth. She knows the important role that workers and local communities 
play in our overall economic growth--from the rural South to the 
industrial Midwest.
    Dr. Cook has also led the American Economics Association Summer 
Training Program, which builds the pipeline for diverse young 
economists to ascend to institutions like the Fed.
    To give you a sense of her impact, a mayor from my home State, 
Mayor Babcock of Oak Harbor, wrote to me about her. He got to know Dr. 
Cook at one of those training programs, and he wrote, quote, ``I know 
her to be kind, qualified, and to understand the struggles and 
opportunities faced by Midwest communities like mine, where we are 
burying the term `Rust Belt' in pursuit of a bright future.''
    ``Burying the term `Rust Belt.' ''
    We need a whole lot more people in institutions like the Fed who 
understand how ignorant that term is, and who understand that economic 
growth only matters if it reaches places like Oak Harbor, Ohio. Dr. 
Lisa Cook will be that public servant.
    Dr. Jefferson is the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of 
Faculty, and Paul B. Freeland Professor of Economics at Davidson 
College. He began his career as a Fed economist, and served as chair of 
the Economics Department at Swarthmore College.
    Dr. Jefferson literally wrote the book on poverty and economics. 
His research on poverty will bring a perspective to the Fed that we 
need as we emerge from the coronavirus crisis.
    Listen to what the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote. Sometimes 
the board leans conservative--think privatization of Medicare, the Iraq 
War, trade deals that outsource jobs--and sometimes they lean more 
progressive. But I think we all agree, hardly a bastion of radical left 
wing thought.
    Listen to what they wrote:
    President Biden's latest nominees to the Federal Reserve, quote, 
``are ready to help lead the Fed and bolster its credibility. The 
Senate should move quickly to put them in place.''
    For the first time in almost a decade, we will have a full Board of 
Governors at the Federal Reserve, and one that reflects the country. 
We'll have public servants who will not only steer us back on to the 
road to normalcy, but who reach for a stronger economy than before.
    The American people deserve a Fed that works for them.
    Our country codified the Fed's dual mandate of price stability and 
full employment with the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act--
better known as the Humphrey Hawkins Act, and borne out of the civil 
rights movement. The law makes it clear that, quote, ``Increasing job 
opportunities and full employment would greatly contribute to the 
elimination of discrimination based upon sex, age, race, color, 
religion, national origin, handicap, or other improper factors.''
    That is part of the Fed's job.
    President Biden's Fed nominees will ensure workers--all workers--
and their families reap the benefits of the economic growth they 
create. And these nominees will fight for all the communities that have 
been left on their own, from women and Black and Brown workers, to 
rural towns, to all the places too long derided as the ``Rust Belt.''
    I look forward to supporting Governor Bloom Raskin and Dr. Cook and 
Dr. Jefferson--along with Chair Powell and Governor Brainard--and 
encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.
                                 ______
                                 
            PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Raskin, Professor Cook, and Professor Jefferson, welcome.
    We're here today to consider three Fed nominees. But today's 
hearing is not just about vetting them. It's a referendum on the Fed's 
independence.
    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.
    Addressing those kind of issues requires political decisions 
involving tradeoffs. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be 
made by elected representatives, who are accountable to the American 
people, not unelected central bankers. The question is not about the 
merits of specific policies, but rather who should decide if they 
should be put into place.
    Let's take global warming. If we limit domestic oil and gas 
production, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the 
pump to accomplish the stated goal of decreasing emissions. How much 
more is appropriate?
    If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other 
countries don't, global warming won't significantly slow. Should we do 
it anyway? How much reduction in global warming should we seek?
    Let me be clear: this isn't about whether one believes addressing 
global warming is important, or any one person's answer to these 
questions. The point is these are difficult choices, which must be made 
by accountable representatives through a transparent and deliberative 
legislative process.
    My concern about Fed overreach is not hypothetical. The Fed is 
already exceeding its mandates and engaging in political advocacy. For 
example, the Minneapolis Fed is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's 
constitution--on the issue of K-12 education policy.
    Does anyone truly think such activity is within the Fed's mandate? 
If activism by a supposedly independent central bank is accepted, the 
potential for abuse--by both parties--is limitless.
    Don't accept my word about the politicization of the Fed. Ms. 
Raskin and Prof. Cook's many past statements tell us exactly what they 
think the Fed should do.
    Let's start with Ms. Raskin. She's repeatedly, publicly, and 
forcefully advocated for using financial regulation--including the 
Fed--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. While other like-
minded regulators have been careful to say their goal is simply to 
assess risk, Ms. Raskin has said the quiet part out loud.
    In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged 
financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' 
away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the ``Green Swan'' 
conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' 
on banks' lending to energy companies. And, in May 2020, at the height 
of the pandemic, she specifically called in a New York Times op-ed for 
excluding a single industry--the fossil energy sector, which she called 
a ``dying industry''--from the Fed's emergency lending facilities.
    Ms. Raskin's proposals would have devastating consequences not just 
for energy workers, but also consumers, who'd pay much more for energy. 
On what basis could she justify this idea that the Fed exercise these 
extraordinary powers? Ms. Raskin sees two categories of climate-related 
financial risks: physical and transition.
    Now the actual data shows that ``physical risks''--that is, severe 
weather events--don't threaten financial stability. Economic damage 
from weather-related events as a percentage of GDP has actually trended 
down over the past 30 years, and we still haven't found a single bank 
failure caused by any weather event, thus proving banks are perfectly 
capable of managing physical risk.
    We're also told that banks need regulation that quantifies 
``transition risk'' from changing consumer preferences. Bankers know 
how to manage changing consumer preferences better than regulators do. 
The real risk here is political, as Fed Chair Powell acknowledged last 
month.
    Unelected officials like Ms. Raskin want to misuse bank regulation 
to impose environmental policies that Congress has refused to enact. 
Ms. Raskin has repeatedly and specifically advocated that the Fed 
allocate capital away from the fossil fuel industry as a way to combat 
climate change. She says the quiet part out loud.
    Now turning to Prof. Cook. The Administration cites her role as a 
director of the Chicago Fed as a main qualification--a position she 
held for only 2 weeks before being nominated.
    She has a Ph.D., but no academic work in monetary economics. And 
the few times she's said anything about monetary policy, its cause for 
major concern.
    Despite unemployment below 4 percent and inflation above 7 percent, 
in our conversation on Tuesday Prof. Cook refused to endorse the Fed's 
pulling back its easy money policy. But, keeping monetary policy loose 
is accelerating inflation that is rising faster than wage growth. High 
inflation is a tax that makes everyone poorer--but especially low-
income workers.
    Also important is Prof. Cook's extreme left-wing political 
advocacy. She 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.
    And after we highlighted these tweets for the public's attention, 
yesterday, Prof. Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter 
account. Apparently Prof. Cook realizes how inflammatory her partisan 
tweets are.
    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 Prof. Cook will further politicize 
an institution that must remain apolitical.
    Prof. Jefferson, thank you for coming to my office on Tuesday. I 
appreciated our discussion and your decades of work on macroeconomic 
issues central to the Fed's important work. Based on Prof. Jefferson's 
academic credentials, written work, and our conversation, I believe 
Prof. Jefferson is well-suited to the position for which he has been 
nominated.
    My Democratic colleagues--you've spent the past several months 
talking about how passionately dedicated you are to democratic 
principles and values. Certainly one of those principles is that the 
unelected governors of America's central bank shouldn't be responsible 
for dealing with difficult issues like global warming, social justice, 
and education policy.
    This isn't about the importance of those issues. It's about keeping 
the Fed apolitical and independent and ensuring that elected, 
accountable representatives make difficult decisions. And if that 
doesn't convince you, remember that one day the shoe will be on the 
other foot.
                                 ______
                                 
                PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH BLOOM RASKIN
   To Be Vice Chairman for Supervision and a Member of the Board of 
                Governors of the Federal Reserve System
                            February 3, 2022
    Thank you, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and Members of 
the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. Thanks 
also to your exemplary staff, who provide essential support, something 
I know from serving this Committee as Banking Counsel.
    With me today is our daughter, Hannah Grace Raskin. Hannah is a 
real live banker, and we have animated conversations about banker-like 
topics such as what goes into the numerator for the Allowances for Loan 
Loss Reserves and what gets subtracted out of Net Interest Margins. Our 
other daughter, Tabitha, teaches middle school algebra; she would have 
been here but for the fact that today is the review day before the exam 
for slope and intercept equations. Our son Tommy, whom we lost in 2020, 
is with me always. He came into the world when I worked for this 
Committee. I remember where I was standing in these very offices in 
1995 when he started kicking as I went into labor, and I remember 
returning to these halls to show my friends here my sparkling little 
boy. Boundless gratitude too to my beloved husband, Jamie, who provides 
bedrock strength and love to our family.
    As a child growing up in Illinois, my family made a weekly Saturday 
morning pilgrimage to the Bank of Homewood, where my mother would 
withdraw money for the week. From this experience, the importance of 
banks to the economic well-being of a community was never lost on me. 
As my brother and I eyed donuts in the lobby, my mom would direct us to 
get in line for the right bank teller: ``This line,'' she would say, 
``We want Shirley.'' We would get weekly updates on Shirley's children, 
their Little League games, bowling scores, and family camping trips.
    In 2007, I was honored to become Maryland's State bank 
commissioner, which enabled me to demonstrate my lifelong appreciation 
for community banking. Later, I was confirmed by the Senate to be a 
Governor on the Federal Reserve Board from 2010 to 2014 and Deputy 
Treasury Secretary from 2014 to 2017. I also worked in the private 
sector as a banking lawyer and general counsel. I am proud of my work 
at the Federal and State levels to champion the interests of consumers 
and community banks, while ensuring the resilience of our financial 
system, particularly in the areas of cybersecurity and appropriately 
tailored rules. These experiences helped me understand the importance 
of bank supervision to the ability of our financial system to work for 
all Americans.
    I also learned from the subprime mortgage crisis, which cost us 
tens of millions of jobs and homes, and trillions of dollars lost to 
our families, businesses, and communities in equity and savings. Like 
the crises before it, the subprime mortgage crisis showed how weak 
regulatory oversight and unattended problems can reverberate, rattle, 
and ravage our entire economy. I learned that--to be effective for all 
Americans--bank supervisors must make sure that the safety of banks and 
the resilience of our financial system are never compromised in favor 
of short-term political agendas or special interest groups. They must 
stay attentive to risks no matter where they come from: inside or 
outside the financial sector; well-identified asset bubbles or 
speculation; a set of threat actors that launch cyberattacks; or from 
nature and cataclysmic weather-related events.
    As created by Congress, the role of Vice Chair of Supervision 
requires consultation with other Governors of the Federal Reserve, the 
Fed's expert staff, the banks themselves, and other experts about the 
extent to which financial institutions are identifying, analyzing and 
managing their risks. The role does not involve directing banks to make 
loans only to specific sectors, or to avoid making loans to particular 
sectors. And the role exists within the laws passed by Congress that 
govern the Federal Reserve and its responsibilities.
    I understand that anyone confirmed to this position must act not 
only with as much knowledge as possible but also with humility. 
Knowledge, especially about the future, can be imperfect.
    Finally, I also want to recognize the toll inflation exacts on 
working people who are concerned about how far their paychecks will go 
for essentials like food, housing, and transportation. It is an 
important task of the Federal Reserve to reduce inflation and one that 
must be a top priority while we continue to sustain our economic 
recovery.
    If confirmed, I look forward to meeting the considerable challenges 
and opportunities before us: the indispensable work of defending and 
safeguarding the financial sector, the Federal Reserve's dual mandate, 
and the economic future of all Americans.
    Thank you. I welcome your questions.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA DENELL COOK
 To Be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
                            February 3, 2022
    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and other Members of the 
Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you 
today.
    I am humbled and honored to have been nominated by President Biden 
to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
I earned my Ph.D. at Berkeley, served on the President's Council of 
Economic Advisers, and have spent decades teaching, studying, and 
researching economic growth and monetary policies. The depth and 
breadth of my experience in both the public and private sectors qualify 
me to serve as a Federal Reserve Governor, and, should I be confirmed, 
I would be honored to work with my colleagues to help navigate this 
critical moment for our Nation's economy and the global economy.
    In terms of priorities, I agree with Chair Powell that our most 
important task is tackling inflation. High inflation is a grave threat 
to a long, sustained expansion, which we know raises the standard of 
living for all Americans and leads to broad-based, shared prosperity. 
That is why I am committed to keeping inflation expectations well 
anchored.
    My approach to complex problems is to be guided by facts, data, and 
analysis and to work collaboratively. I have served in the 
Administrations of Presidents from both parties, and when I make 
decisions, I do so based on the facts and not politics. In this 
respect, I will follow the example of Paul Volcker, whom I greatly 
admire for his unwavering dedication to a nonpolitical and independent 
Federal Reserve.
    My convictions were shaped by my upbringing in Milledgeville, 
Georgia. It was the desegregating South, and both sides of my family 
were promoting nonviolent change alongside our family friend, the Rev. 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. While my sisters, Pamela and Melanie, and I 
were integrating our schools and pools, my parents were integrating 
their places of work. My mother, Professor Mary Murray Cook, and my 
aunt, Professor Loretta Murray Braxton, integrated their universities 
and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) 
departments by race and by gender, preparing students for a 
desegregating South that promised greater opportunity for all. My 
cousin Floyd McKissick, Sr., spoke at the March on Washington and 
integrated the University of North Carolina law school. My uncle, Dr. 
Samuel DuBois Cook, studied with Dr. King at Morehouse College, was the 
first African-American tenured professor at a southern university, and 
later was president of Dillard University. I want to thank Senators 
Warren, Kennedy, and Tillis, as well as the many other senators, who 
honored my uncle in a Senate resolution upon his death in 2017.
    The sense of discipline, hope, and mission instilled in me by my 
family has taken me from Spelman College to Oxford, the Hoover 
Institution, and Harvard, but I have never forgotten where I came from 
and the dedicated teachers who supported me. I chose to seek my current 
tenured position as a macroeconomist in the industrial Midwest in this 
same spirit of being close to how our economic decisions affect working 
families. Living in a manufacturing hub during the financial crisis has 
underscored the effect that deep recessions have on everyday lives. And 
that is one reason I have dedicated much of my career to preventing the 
next financial crisis. A strong and resilient financial system supports 
American families, businesses, and our economy.
    My research on economic growth has been informed by my interactions 
with families, businesses, policymakers, and financial institutions. I 
have extensive experience working for many types of banks, including 
serving on the board of a community development financial institution, 
or CDFI, in Grand Rapids. I am particularly proud that community banks 
were among those that elected me to serve on the board of the Federal 
Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis. I have also worked closely with the 
Federal Reserve over the course of my career, conducting research at 
Reserve Banks before and after receiving my doctorate, attending policy 
conferences, and serving on advisory panels and as a director of the 
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    There is still much to learn to make sure the Fed does its job even 
better. Our economy is constantly evolving. Learning to do better will 
require humility, perseverance, and diverse perspectives.
    Again, it is an honor to be considered for this position, and I 
look forward to working with Members of this Committee. If confirmed, I 
will faithfully support the congressionally mandated goals of stable 
prices and maximum employment, which Congress has entrusted to the 
Federal Reserve.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
             PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP NATHAN JEFFERSON
 To Be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
                            February 3, 2022
    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I 
am honored to have been nominated by President Biden to serve as a 
member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
    If confirmed, I would draw upon my background and skillset to 
contribute positively to the well-being of the American people by 
helping the Federal Reserve to adhere to the dual mandate set for it by 
Congress: promotion of maximum employment and stable prices.
    As some of you may know, I was born and raised here in Washington, 
DC, in the Northeast section, just blocks away from Robert F. Kennedy 
stadium. The neighborhood is called Kingman Park, and in my youth, it 
was a place where the line between a future of success or struggle was 
thin. The Capitol is a mere 25 blocks from the row house where I grew 
up.
    My first job after graduation from college was here in Washington 
as a research assistant for the Board of Governors. Since that time, I 
have been fortunate to pursue a career that spanned a valuable 
combination of experiences both within and outside academia. I have 
served as a professor of economics, department chair, college dean, 
college vice president, president and director of various professional 
organizations focused on economics, a college trustee, a borough 
council member, and have held additional professional roles within the 
Federal Reserve System.
    In the leadership positions I have held, the essential qualities 
for success have included a spirit of collaboration, the capacity to 
compromise, and the ability to achieve consensus. Further, I am a Ph.D. 
economist with an unusual combination of specializations: 
macroeconomics and monetary economics, poverty and economic inequality, 
and applied econometrics. If confirmed, these specializations would 
enable me to analyze from multiple perspectives the complex issues that 
come before the Board.
    Today, the economy is facing two major challenges: the COVID-19 
pandemic and inflation. The pandemic has disrupted the supply side of 
the economy and changed the composition of aggregate demand. The spike 
in inflation we are seeing today threatens to heighten expectations of 
future inflation. The Federal Reserve must remain attentive to this 
risk and ensure that inflation declines to levels consistent with its 
goals.
    The mandates set by Congress for the Federal Reserve have served 
the American people well. As we know from experience, the pursuit of 
maximum employment and stable prices fosters an economic environment 
characterized by a dynamic labor market, entrepreneurship, private 
saving and investment, and sustainable growth in consumption and 
production over the longer run. Importantly, the dual mandate provides 
a critical foundation for monetary policy amid our current challenges 
and those that lie ahead. The tools of monetary policy can be deployed 
with clear goals in mind. Adherence to these goals will ground 
inflation expectations appropriately so that policy itself does not 
encumber private economic decision making. Further, long-run inclusive 
prosperity requires that the Federal Reserve pay careful attention to 
the safety and soundness of banks and the stability of the financial 
system.
    Before closing, I wish to acknowledge the love and support of 
friends and family, especially my sons Nathan and Miles. Also, I wish 
to mention my late parents, Wade Jefferson, and Joan and Walter Coates, 
who worked so hard and gave so much, so that this improbable day could 
even be possible. Regardless of the outcome, they would have been so 
very proud of these proceedings.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is a 
real honor. I look forward to and welcome your questions.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM
                       SARAH BLOOM RASKIN
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM
                        LISA DENELL COOK
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM
                    PHILIP NATHAN JEFFERSON
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              Additional Material Supplied for the Record
                LETTERS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF NOMINEES
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              LETTERS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO NOMINEES
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            [all]