[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 176 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6930-S6931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Saule Omarova

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the recent announcement 
from President Biden that he intends to nominate Saule Omarova to be 
Comptroller of the Currency.
  Now, Ms. Omarova, if she were, in fact, confirmed to be Comptroller 
of the Currency, she would head up the Agency that is responsible for 
chartering and regulating national financial institutions. So that is 
to say she would be the head of, the primary regulator for, America's 
national banks, of which there are very many.
  I just want to provide this morning a brief introduction, a glimpse, 
into the mindset of this nominee. I will take more time on future 
occasions to delve more deeply into some of the things that she has 
advocated for and written about and that I find extraordinarily 
disturbing. I think many of my colleagues will as well. But let me 
start with just a few observations.
  First, there is little doubt Ms. Omarova has been celebrated on the 
far left for promoting ideas that she herself has described as 
``radical.'' That is a point we can agree on. These are very, very 
radical ideas. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a more radical 
choice for any regulatory spot in our Federal Government. I know that 
is a very sweeping statement to make. I think I can stand by it.
  There is a lot that is extraordinary and radical here, but maybe the 
heart of it is Ms. Omarova doesn't just want to tighten regulation of 
banks. That is not what she is advocating for. What she wants to do--
these are her words--``effectively `end banking' as we know it.'' Those 
are words she wrote just last year. This is not ancient history. These 
are the views she has articulated in writing within a year.
  She clearly has an aversion to anything like free market capitalism, 
and that is in her writing. In an October 2020 paper called ``The 
People's Ledger,'' she outlined a plan for ``radically reshaping the 
basic architecture and dynamics of modern finance.''
  And what this was all about, what she was arguing for in this paper 
from just last year, was really promoting the nationalization of an 
entire industry--retail banking; basically bringing to an end the 
ability of banks to compete for customers' services and instead 
nationalize that; a clear socialist idea that we shouldn't have a free 
enterprise system competing for people's business but rather have the 
government own it and provide that.
  Specifically, she wants the Federal Reserve to allocate credit and 
capital. And as part of this regime, she advocates that the government, 
acting through the Fed, would actually cut off credit to those deemed 
``socially sub-optimal.''
  Can you imagine? Is there something more chilling than the idea that 
we would abolish retail banking, make it the responsibility of the Fed, 
and then actively require that the Fed decides who is socially optimal 
and who is not, and then allocate credit accordingly?
  This is unbelievable.
  In a 2012 paper, she suggested a mandate that financial products 
could only be sold if they are approved in advance by the Federal 
Government.
  There is no freedom to innovate there. There is no responding to 
customers' wants and needs. There is no competition for providing--none 
of that. The government will decide what can and cannot be offered.
  Even she admitted that this is ``paternalistic and has command-and-
control elements.'' At least she acknowledges that is what this is.
  But it doesn't end there. Ms. Omarova doesn't just want to 
nationalize banking. She wants to do that, but that is not all. She 
also wants the banking regulators to run the whole economy.
  Under her plan, which she, again, laid this out in writing in--this 
is in a 2016 paper, the Federal Reserve would set prices in large 
sectors of the U.S. economy, those that she deems to be ``systemically 
important prices,'' that would include--she helpfully tells us what 
would be considered systemically important prices--`` . . . widely used 
fuels, foodstuffs, and some other raw materials'' and ``wages or salary 
indices,'' among others.
  So she is openly advocating that the Federal Government sets wages 
and prices throughout the economy.
  Does this sound anything like a free enterprise economy?
  It is unbelievable.
  In addition to that, citing a desire to ``sidestep debilitating 
political battles over the Federal budget''--now, just think about that 
term. Let's unpack that just a bit. ``Debilitating political battles 
over the Federal budget.'' That sounds to me like Congress arguing over 
spending--arguably, the most fundamental responsibility of Congress.
  But in order to sidestep that--that fundamentally democratic process 
that follows our Constitution--in a 2020 white paper, Omarova proposed 
creating a National Investment Authority to channel both public and 
private capital to further policies that would be set by an unelected, 
unaccountable board.
  So the American people don't get to decide how their tax dollars get 
allocated by holding Members of Congress accountable through elections. 
Instead, there would be some board that would make all these decisions 
for us.
  And that is not the only unaccountable body she has proposed to exert 
control over the private sector.
  In a 2012 paper, Ms. Omarova also proposed creating a Public Interest 
Council--a Public Interest Council. And their purpose would be to use 
pressure and propaganda tactics to manipulate public opinion against 
banks and regulators, and to ``generate mass political support for the 
actions it considers necessary,'' and ``build its independent power 
base.''
  I am almost speechless. It is absolutely--so you could ask yourself: 
Where would a person even come up with these ideas? How does it even 
happen that it occurs to someone to think up these things?
  Well, maybe a contributing factor could be if a person grew up in the 
former Soviet Union and went to Moscow State University and attended 
there on a Vladimir Lenin Academic Scholarship.
  Now, let me by very, very clear about something. There are lots of 
wonderful American citizens who were born and raised behind the Iron 
Curtain--I totally get that--including in the former Soviet Union, who 
have come to this country, and they love America as much as anyone I 
have ever met. I know some of them personally. So I am not suggesting 
in any way that growing up behind the Iron Curtain and attending 
university in Moscow is in any way disqualifying. But the attitude a 
person has about the Soviet regime, now, that is another matter.
  So in the case of Ms. Omarova, in 2019, she tweeted: ``Say what you 
will about the old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market 
doesn't always `know best.' ''

  Say what you will about the old USSR. Really? There is a lot to say. 
I will have a lot to say on another occasion about the old USSR.

[[Page S6931]]

  She followed up with a tweet. She decided to clarify that, and here 
is the tweet she issued afterward. She said: ``I never claimed women 
and men were treated absolutely equally in every facet of Soviet life. 
But people's salaries were set (by the state) in a gender-blind manner. 
And all women got very generous maternity benefits. Both things are 
still a pipe dream in our society!''
  Can you imagine?
  Ms. Omarova clearly knows her views are far outside of the 
mainstream. How do we know? Well, why else would her most recent resume 
have been scrubbed of one particular item that was on her resume as 
recently as 2017?
  And that item is the thesis that she wrote when she was a student in 
Moscow on her Vladimir Lenin personal academic scholarship. The title 
we know. The title of the thesis was ``Karl Marx's Economic Analysis 
and the Theory of Revolution in The Capital.''
  Unfortunately, that is all I know about this thesis.
  Now, this morning, I released a letter that I sent to Ms. Omarova 
requesting that she provide a copy of this paper in the original 
Russian to the committee in time for us to translate it so that we can 
fully consider her nomination.
  Like most committees, the Banking Committee requires nominees provide 
copies of any articles or papers they have written, and that is a very 
important tool that we use to evaluate a person's thoughts and fitness 
and temperament, and judge and where they are coming from.
  I am looking forward to receiving that paper from her.
  I will conclude with this: You know, in a country as big as ours, 
where we have 330-some million people, I have no doubt that there are 
some individuals that we can find here and there who would think of the 
Soviet Union--that brutal, oppressive, totalitarian, freedom-
suppressing, soul-sucking, murderous regime that was the Soviet Union--
there must be some people somewhere in America who somehow would 
compare it favorably to the United States, as shocking as that is.
  What has never occurred to me is that a person who thinks that way 
could possibly be considered to an important, powerful, and prominent 
position in the Federal Government.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________