[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 194 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8055-S8056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF SAULE OMAROVA

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking 
about the President's nominee to be Comptroller of the Currency and her 
recent comments on those of us who were asking questions about her 
background, because they are pretty outrageous, and I think it is time. 
In some ways, we need to put an end to this notion that you can't 
criticize someone for their ideas without being charged with things 
like, maybe, racism, which kind of gets me a little bit riled up, since 
I think I was one of the targets of her remarks.
  I have been down on the floor talking about some of the nominees that 
this administration has put forward. Some are so radical, far left.
  The ATF nominee was actually against the Second Amendment. He got 
withdrawn.
  The BLM Director was an ecoterrorist. She got voted in. Now she is in 
charge of 60 percent of my State--remarkable. I think a lot of Senators 
are going to regret that vote.
  And now we have a nominee to be the Comptroller of the Currency: 
Saule Omarova. She is charged with chartering, regulating, and 
supervising all national banks--a really important position, for a 
capitalist economy, in particular.
  There is a problem, though, Mr. President. It doesn't seem like she 
much likes banks or, for that matter, the free market or, for that 
matter, capitalism or the financial system in America. So Senators have 
been coming down to the floor and in committee, asking questions, doing 
our due diligence on this nominee. I want to commend Senator Toomey, in 
particular, who has been doing that, and I have been joining him.
  So I am going to talk a little bit more about her background and her 
ideas, which, by the way, have nothing to do with her race or her sex--
nothing. I just want to know what her ideas are. So I am going to talk 
a little bit about that.
  A 1989 graduate of Moscow State University, where she received the 
Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship--that is the Vladimir Lenin 
Personal Academic Scholarship. And from what we know about her 
writings, yes, she was raised in a communist country. That is nothing 
against her. But sometimes you get notions of capitalism, socialism, 
communism, Marxism. And her writings are something that are of interest 
to the committee--certainly to me, certainly to Senator Toomey--about 
what she believes in terms of the financial system, socialism, 
communism.
  Here is what she tweeted in 2019, just 2 years ago: Until I came to 
the U.S., I couldn't imagine things like the gender pay gap still 
existed in today's world. Say what you want about the old USSR, but 
there was no pay gap there. Markets don't always work best.
  That is a tweet 2 years ago. Say what you want about the old USSR, 
about Stalin and Lenin and the roughly 100 million people killed during 
their reign. Say what you want about the old USSR, the famine, the 
human degradation, the ill-fated, violent attempts to snuff out freedom 
and liberty, there and all across the world.
  She clarified: I never claimed men and women were treated absolutely 
equal in every facet of the old Soviet Union. But people's salaries 
were set by the state in a gender-blind manner. Those things are still 
a pipe dream in American society.
  I mean, listen to her. This is just 2 years ago, still talking about 
the golden days of the USSR.
  There was gender equity, all right. Both sexes starved equally, and 
if you complained, you were sent to Siberia, regardless of if you were 
a man or a woman.
  But her nostalgia for socialist, communist policies doesn't end with 
pay disparities. She has advocated for expanding the Federal Reserve's 
mandate to include the Federal Reserve people's ledger she has written 
about--a people's ledger.
  By separating the lending function from the monetary function, the 
proposed reform that she has talked about will effectively ``end 
banking as we know it.'' This was written in 2014, as a professor. 
These are radical, radical ideas. These are ideas, and this person is 
supposed to be charged with being in charge of the financial system of 
America--capitalism.
  Some of us still believe in capitalism here. Some don't.
  But it is OK to question these ideas. She has put them out there.
  The ranking member of the banking committee has asked for a copy of 
her thesis. Now, every member going through confirmation in the Senate 
is supposed to give up any writings that she had. This used to be on 
her CV until a couple of years ago. Then she deleted it. It is called 
``Karl Marx's Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in The 
Capital.''
  So Senator Toomey has asked for that. She is required to give it. 
And, as of now--this is a letter I would like to have printed in the 
Record. This is October 5. Senator Toomey asked for this. She still 
hasn't responded and provided it. She is required to.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S8056]]


         U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
           Affairs,
                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 2021.
     Ms. Saule Omarova,
     Professor, Cornell Law School,
     Ithica, NY.
       Dear Ms. Omarova: For the Senate Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs to fully assess the fitness of 
     individuals to serve in Senate-confirmed executive and 
     independent agency positions, the Committee requires nominees 
     to submit all ``books, articles, reports, and other published 
     materials [one has] written.''
       Therefore, I write today seeking a copy of your thesis, 
     ``Karl Marx's Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution 
     in The Capital,'' which you wrote as a student at Moscow 
     State University on the V.I. Lenin Personal Academic 
     Scholarship. While it appears that you have deleted any 
     reference to your thesis in the version of your curriculum 
     vitae (CV) that is currently available on the Cornell Law 
     School website, the paper appeared on your CV as recently as 
     April 2017.
       Given that your thesis was written while you were a student 
     at Moscow State University in the late 1980s, I assume that 
     it was written in Russian and will require translation. To 
     ensure there is adequate time for translation and review by 
     lawmakers, my Committee staff reached out to both you and 
     staff at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) 
     requesting a copy last month. Unfortunately, we have not 
     received any assurances that the Committee would receive a 
     copy of the paper in a timely fashion.
       Accordingly, I formally request that you provide a copy of 
     the original Russian-language thesis to the Committee, along 
     with an English version if one exists, no later than the 
     close of business on October 13, 2021.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Pat Toomey,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. But again, Mr. President, these are ideas. These are 
her ideas. It is very fair for U.S. Senators to ask for these things, 
to evaluate these things.
  Do we want someone who doesn't believe in the financial system and 
capitalism in charge of American banks? I don't.
  So I would like to learn more. And so we have been pressing. That is 
our job. That is our job. So she hasn't responded to Senator Toomey.
  As I mentioned, in a reference to a 2014 book entitled ``The End of 
Banking,'' she wrote: ``By separating their lending function from their 
monetary function, the proposed reform''--for the Fed--``will 
effectively `end banking' as we know it.''
  That is a really interesting, radical idea. That is 2014. These are 
her ideas. These are her ideas.
  And if there is any doubt about her continued interest in Marxist 
ideology, it was recently reported that she joined a Facebook group 
called ``Marxist Analysis and Policy,'' which, according to the group, 
``stand[s] for the self-emancipation of the working class and 
Socialism.''
  Recent--this is recent. This wasn't when she was at old Moscow State 
University--recent. She has not said that story was wrong about her 
Facebook group. So we can only assume it is true.
  Did she join that group to espouse democracy and the free market? 
Here are the group's rules: ``Support for the Tory party is not 
acceptable. A culture of diverse Marxist, Socialist and radical views 
is the framework for the group.''
  Again, these are ideas--radical ideas, socialist ideas--that are 
coming from the woman who has been nominated by the President of the 
United States to be in charge of all the banks, the Comptroller of the 
Currency, a really important job.
  So we have been asking about this. We have been asking about this. We 
want to see her writings. This is completely legitimate that the 
American people want the Senate to be doing this--advice and consent. 
What do you really think? Do you believe in capitalism? Do you believe 
in banks? You want to end banking as we know it? Well, how is that 
going to work if you are Comptroller of the Currency?
  So we are asking for these things, asking for her thesis.
  Then, Mr. President, sadly, because I think Americans are finally 
getting tired of this, she was asked about this Republican criticism. 
It is legitimate criticism. And the quote was, well, ``I am an easy 
target''--this is quoting from her now--``an immigrant, a woman, a 
minority.''
  And asked if she thought if some of the criticism of her that I am 
just describing--I am one of the critics--was criticism based on her 
critics being ``racist,'' she said, ``I think that is true.''
  So here is my point, Mr. President. I think the American people are 
getting a little tired of this. I think the American people are getting 
a little tired of this. I and other Senators have been asking very 
legitimate questions about this woman's beliefs, about what is in her 
head, about how would she be the Comptroller of the Currency.
  And the response is, from her: My critics are ``racist.''
  Let me be a little more blunt. This is patently absurd. The U.S. 
Senators are allowed to ask questions--sometimes pointed questions--of 
nominees. The Presiding Officer certainly has done that in his career, 
and I respect that.
  But every time someone asks a pointed question, if you come back and 
say, ``Well, they are doing it for these nefarious reasons, like 
racism,'' it really doesn't advance the discussion now, does it, 
especially here on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
  I really hope my colleagues here, whether you are a Democrat or 
Republican, can maybe tell the nominee: Hey, don't do that again.
  Right?
  Don't do that again.
  These Senators are asking--I think I am asking--very legitimate 
questions; like, No. 1: Do you believe in capitalism? Do you believe in 
the financial system of America? You are going to be put in charge of 
it.
  I think it is quite legit to ask her that.
  Her writing indicates she doesn't. This nominee has some very 
troubling views. We are allowed--in fact, we are required--to fully vet 
nominees. And calling Senators racist or sexist for doing so--this 
vetting--is actually a disgraceful tactic that they might have used in 
the Soviet Union, that they might have used at Moscow State University, 
in other eras, to silence voices, but it is not going to work here on 
the Senate floor.
  So the nominee needs to drop that tactic. You are not going silence 
me. You are not going to silence Senator Toomey. And I would just say 
this more generally--and we all know it, and we all feel it: 
Americans--men, women, Black, White, Brown, Native, non-Native--people 
are starting to get tired of this tactic that, when you criticize 
someone on their beliefs, they try to silence you or cancel you or end 
the discussion by bringing out ``you are the racist'' criticism. Let's 
not do that here.
  This nominee needs to come forward, needs to answer questions, needs 
to provide us with her thesis, which is about her beliefs on socialism 
and capitalism, and we are going to continue to do our business in the 
vetting.
  But I can tell you, I am one Senator who is not going to be silenced 
by a woman who is being criticized--the nominee; it doesn't matter if 
it is a woman or man--who is being criticized for very legitimate 
reasons and then turns around and tries to slander her critics. It is 
not going to work. As a matter of fact, I think it is going to make it 
much harder for this nominee to be confirmed.
  I hope my colleagues look hard at her record, and I hope those who 
are advising her tell her to tone it down. Those tactics might work in 
the Soviet Union, which she seems to have a lot of affection for still, 
but they are not going to work in the United States of America, and 
they are really not going to work in the Halls of the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________