[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6307-S6308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Randal Quarles
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination of
Randal Quarles to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors.
Since 1984, Mr. Quarles has revolved between the public and private
sectors. He was most recently the director of the Carlyle Group from
2007 to 2013, and then founded Cynosure Group, an investment management
company.
I appreciate Mr. Quarles' willingness to serve the public once again,
but I don't think he is the person we want in this important role at
the Federal Reserve.
The financial crisis devastated communities in my State and across
the country--devastated in terms of lost jobs, foreclosed homes, and
evaporated savings. We have made a lot of progress in the 7 years since
we passed Wall Street reform. The Vice Chair of Supervision at the
Federal Reserve, a position created in Dodd-Frank, is supposed to look
out for our financial system and make sure that our financial system is
sound.
Mr. Quarles served as Treasury's Under Secretary for Domestic Finance
in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. It was his job to
coordinate oversight of the financial industry. Many of his statements,
however, leading up to the crisis were far too credulous. He seemed to
believe whatever the banks were telling him. They were far too
credulous when it came to industry claims that we simply need not
worry; the economy is in good shape and we don't have to worry about a
credit bubble.
In the early 2000s, while at the Treasury Department, Mr. Quarles
espoused the following view of the role of regulators in financial
markets. It is a long quote, and I will quote him directly:
Markets are always ahead of the regulators, and frankly
that's how it should be. It's analogous to the advice that my
father
[[Page S6308]]
provided me that ``if you don't miss at least two or three
planes a year, you're spending too much time in airports.''
If the regulators aren't a little behind the market in a few
areas at any given time, they would be stifling innovation
and evolution. The regulators' task is to promote investor
protection, while ensuring that prudential and supervisory
activities do not stifle efficiency gains. For effective
regulation, the regulators must work with the markets.
I am not sure where to start on picking that apart. More importantly,
it is showing that someone who says that shouldn't be in charge of
financial regulation at the Federal Reserve.
He said at his Senate nomination hearing: ``That is probably the most
unfortunate use of language that I ever made, and I do not stand behind
that statement.'' That is what he said when presented with these words
at his confirmation hearing. He made other similarly unfortunate
statements in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
In 2006, as Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, he discussed the
prospects for an impending financial crisis. This was before things
looked really, really bad. He said:
How would our current financial system stand up to this
sort of canonical crisis? On the whole, I would say that the
U.S. economy is well positioned to weather such a
retrenchment in risk-taking.
This was about a year and a half before the economy began to implode.
He was in a high position in the Treasury Department, and he had access
to all of the information he might possibly want, and he said that the
``economy is well positioned to weather such a retrenchment.''
In the same speech, on the potential harm posed by increases in
mortgage payments for families with exotic mortgages he said:
While that is certainly a large number, it represents only
a small hit to aggregate personal income. Moreover, market
reports indicate that borrowers using such non-traditional
mortgages tend to be upper income individuals that can manage
a sizable increase in their mortgage payment.
He concluded by saying, again, in 2006:
Fundamentally, the economy is strong, the financial sector
is healthy, and our future looks bright. We will surely face
challenges in the future, but we can take comfort in the
knowledge that our economy and financial system have
proven remarkably resilient to all manner of adverse
shocks in the past.
That was a lot of comfort to the millions of Americans afflicted by
the financial crisis.
My wife and I live in Cleveland, in ZIP Code 44105. The year after
Mr. Quarles made that statement and the economy started to really tank,
my ZIP Code had more foreclosures than any other ZIP Code in the United
States. I know what that does to a neighborhood.
I am not confident Mr. Quarles took to heart the costly lessons of
the financial crisis. He seems far too ready to relax the rules for
Wall Street and those who protect consumers. He is another example that
this administration, which said it wants to drain the swamp, instead
looks like a retreat for Goldman Sachs executives. The number of people
on Wall Street who have influence on our government is just far and
away worse than we have ever seen it.
Putting Mr. Quarles--who should know better but apparently doesn't,
from his statements--at the Federal Reserve, in charge of financial
regulation, is just the wrong thing. In 2015, when asked about Dodd-
Frank, he said:
The macro issue is that the government should not be a
player in the financial sector. It should be a referee. And
the practice, and the policy, and the legislation that
resulted from the financial crisis tended to make the
government a player. They put it on the field as opposed to
simply reffing the game.
How could he think that, when he was part of the government when it
didn't do its job and didn't do the job that regulators are supposed to
do? In response to questions for the record at his nomination hearing,
he stated: ``My approach to policy making, and particularly to
regulation, has been that the discretion of policy makers, and
particularly of regulators, should be as constrained as possible.''
He is really saying: Let Wall Street do what it wants to do; let Wall
Street run the financial sector of our economy, and government
regulators should sort of step aside.
As vice chair for supervision and as a Member of the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors, Mr. Quarles will be making decisions about risk-
based capital, leverage and liquidity requirements, resolution plans,
concentration limits, risk committees, stress tests, and other
important safeguards put into place after the crisis for the Nation's
largest banks. The crisis showed we need strong financial watchdogs,
not, as he said, ``constrained'' ones. If confirmed, I am not sure who
Mr. Quarles will be working for, taxpayers and working families or Wall
Street.
Let me close by reminding my colleagues that, last Congress, the
Banking Committee refused to consider President Obama's nominees to the
Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Quarles is the first nominee President Trump
has chosen. There are currently three other vacancies. The term for
Chair of the Federal Reserve expires early next year. Because of that,
President Trump will likely fill at least five of the seven Federal
Reserve Board seats, which are 14-year terms.
Again, if the first one is someone who is so close to Wall Street,
what does that tell you about who is in the White House? What does it
tell you about the advisers in the White House? What does it tell you
about that executive retreat for Goldman Sachs I talked about in the
White House?
If all the nominees to the Federal Reserve are like Mr. Quarles,
average Americans may once again pay the price. We can't return to a
time when financial watchdogs are asleep on the job.
There seems to be a collective amnesia in this body, in the White
House, and in the Banking Committee about what people in our country
went through in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, which was, in large
part, because of the influence of Wall Street in our government. We
can't let that happen. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the
nomination of Mr. Quarles to the Federal Reserve.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.