U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–828 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–9 

NOMINATIONS OF: KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM, 

CARL SHAPIRO, AND PETER A. DIAMOND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE NOMINATIONS OF: 

KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM, OF IOWA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS 

CARL SHAPIRO, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL 

OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS 

PETER A. DIAMOND, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

MARCH 8, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DWIGHT FETTIG, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN FILIPOWICH, Legislative Assistant 

LISA FRUMIN, Legislative Assistant 

ANDREW J. OLMEM, JR., Republican Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL PIWOWAR, Republican Chief Economist 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

LEVON BAGRAMIAN, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011 

Page 

Opening statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................. 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Shelby .................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 5 

NOMINEES 

Katharine G. Abraham, of Iowa, to be a Member of the Council of Economic 

Advisers ................................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Biographical sketch of nominee ....................................................................... 21 

Responses to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 72 

Carl Shapiro, of California, to be a Member of the Council of Economic 

Advisers ................................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Biographical sketch of nominee ....................................................................... 34 

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Johnson .................................................................................... 72 

Senator Shelby ........................................................................................... 73 

Peter A. Diamond, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System ......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Biographical sketch of nominee ....................................................................... 50 

Responses to written questions of: 

Chairman Johnson .................................................................................... 77 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 79 

(III)

(1) 

THE NOMINATIONS OF: 

KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM, OF IOWA, 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC 

ADVISERS; 

CARL SHAPIRO, OF CALIFORNIA, 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC 

ADVISERS; 

PETER A. DIAMOND, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. I call this meeting to order. 

Today, we consider three nominations. Dr. Peter Diamond has 

been nominated to become a member of the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, and Drs. Katharine Abraham and 

Carl Shapiro have been nominated to be members of the Council 

of Economic Advisers. 

At present, our economy is recovering from one of the worst 

downturns in history. We have seen some signs of progress, but for 

more than 13 million Americans who are out of jobs and looking 

for a job, the recovery cannot come to soon. Unemployment remains 

at about 9 percent, and even with hundreds of thousands of new 

jobs added every month, it will take years to get back to precrisis 

levels. 

At the same time, we face daunting long-term budgetary imbalances, strong foreign competition, rising oil prices, and the ever 

present need to maintain low inflation. It is for these reasons that 

we need all hands on deck for our Nation’s economy policymaking. 

I am glad that the President has sent us three extremely qualified 

individuals to fill current vacancies in posts important to our Nation’s economic recovery. 
2 

Dr. Peter Diamond is a distinguished economist who has worked 

on unemployment, economic growth, and the economics of Social 

Security and pensions. He has served as President of the American 

Economic Association and President of the Econometric Society. 

Since his original nomination in 2010, he was awarded, along with 

two other economists, the Nobel Prize in Economics. The models for 

which Dr. Diamond won the Nobel Prize helped us understand the 

ways in which unemployment, job vacancies, and wages are impacted by regulation and economic policy. His search theory has 

also been used to study questions related to monetary theory, public economics, financial economics, regional economics, and family 

economics. 

Sir James Mirrlees, a 1996 Nobel Prize winner in economics, said 

of Dr. Diamond, ‘‘No economist is smarter. His reasoning is amazingly accurate. The theories and models he uses are defined with 

the greatest precision. More than most economic theorists, he has 

always chosen his research topics and questions for their real importance.’’ 

Dr. Diamond was reported favorably with bipartisan support by 

this Committee twice in the last session of Congress by votes of sixteen to seven. 

Dr. Katharine Abraham is a professor in the Joint Program in 

Survey Methodology and Faculty Associate in the Population Research Center at the University of Maryland. Dr. Abraham served 

as a Commissioner for the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. 

Department of Labor from 1993 to 2001. She joined the University 

of Maryland in 1987, where she served as a Professor of Economics 

and she also taught at MIT’s Sloan School of Management from 

1980 to 1985. Dr. Abraham received her Ph.D. in economics from 

Harvard in 1982 and her B.A. in economics from Iowa State University in 1976. 

Dr. Carl Shapiro is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for 

Economics at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he supervises more than 50 Ph.D. economists in the 

Antitrust Division’s Economic Analysis Group. Dr. Shapiro is on 

leave from the University of California at Berkeley, where he is the 

Transamerica Professor of Business Strategy at the Haas School of 

Business and a Professor of Economics. He earned his Ph.D. in economics from MIT in 1981. 

I thank all of the nominees for your willingness to serve at the 

Federal level, especially at a time when our country is trying to 

overcome significant economic challenges. 

Senator Shelby, would you like to give a statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY 

Senator SHELBY. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

these hearings. They are very important. 

Today, we are considering the nominations of three economists, 

two to be members of the Council of Economic Advisers and one to 

be a member of the Board of Governors. 

Dr. Katharine Abraham and Dr. Carl Shapiro have been nominated to be members of the Council of Economic Advisers, CEA. 

The CEA is an agency within the Executive Office of the President 

that is charged with providing the President economic advice. Al-
3 

though I do not share many of the policy preferences of these nominees, I am inclined to give greater deference to the President in his 

choice for his own personal economic advisers. 

I do not believe, however, that the same deference should be 

given to nominations for our financial regulators. In light of the inexcusable failures leading up to the recent crisis, I believe that the 

Senate needs to take a much more active role in ensuring that our 

financial regulators have the proper leadership. The poor job our 

regulators did in supervising our financial institutions was a key 

contributor to the recent financial crisis. If we learned anything, it 

is that it matters who serves in these very important positions. 

That is especially true at the Federal Reserve. The Fed’s collective authorities make it one of the most powerful organizations in 

the world. It supervises our largest financial institutions and has 

extensive regulatory authority over our entire financial system. 

The Federal Reserve’s inherent independence and the 14-year 

terms of Governors make it the least accountable agency in our 

Government. As a result, Fed Governors exercise immense power 

with very little oversight. 

It is proper, therefore, that the Senate should take its constitutional advice and consent duties for Fed nominees very, very seriously. In my opinion, the nomination of a Fed Governor is the economic equivalent of a Supreme Court nomination and should be 

treated accordingly. 

Applying this standard to the nomination of Dr. Peter Diamond 

to the Board of Governors, I believe that Dr. Diamond should not 

be confirmed. Dr. Diamond is, of course, a very accomplished academic and economist. Nevertheless, a reasonable comparison of the 

qualities a Fed Governor should possess and Dr. Diamond’s background clearly demonstrates that he is not the right person, I believe, for this particular job. 

The Fed’s responsibilities cut across three broad areas: Conducting monetary policy, supervising our financial system, and responding to financial crises. Any qualified nominee should have, at 

a minimum, some level of experience in at least one of these areas. 

Let us examine Dr. Diamond’s experience in each of these areas. 

Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in conducting monetary 

policy? The answer is no. In the written testimony that Dr. Diamond provided for his nomination hearing last July, he listed several areas of focus in his teaching and research. Monetary economics is not on the list. Instead, his academic work has been one on 

pensions and labor market theory. 

Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in bank management or 

supervision? Of course, the answer is no. None of his professional 

positions or activities involves working as a bank regulator or even 

working in a bank. 

Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in crisis management? 

The answer is no. While his re ́sume ́ contains an extensive list of 

academic and policy activities, none of them suggest that he has 

any experience in effectively managing a crisis, let alone a worldwide financial crisis. 

In addition to a nominee’s expertise and experience, their policy 

preferences also matter. A Fed Governor’s economic philosophy impacts not only how the Fed exercises its vast regulatory authority, 
4 

but also the tenor of its policy debates, because Fed Governors 

have a very powerful bully pulpit. 

What are Dr. Diamond’s policy preferences? Let me continue. He 

supports QE2. He supported President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package and has argued for additional fiscal stimulus. He 

wrote a paper with President Obama’s former Budget Director, 

Peter Orszag, arguing for higher taxes to fund Social Security. He 

supported bailing out big banks during the financial crisis. He supports the use of behavioral economics to help bureaucrats more effectively control the choices that Americans make. He has even advocated the creation of a GSE modeled after Fannie and Freddie 

to subsidize health care. 

In short, Dr. Diamond is an old fashioned, big Government 

Keynesian. Many of us believe that this is not the economic philosophy the Fed should be embracing at this point in our economic 

history. Our economy is already suffering from excessive Government debt and misguided regulation. Our financial regulators 

should be trying to take steps to strengthen our markets rather 

than replace them with new layers of Government. 

For those who say that policy preference should not be considered, I would only point out that the renomination of Dr. Randy 

Kroszner to the Fed was blocked by the majority of the Democratic 

Party because he was viewed as being too free market. Unlike Dr. 

Diamond, Dr. Kroszner is an expert in monetary policy and banking regulation. Yet, the majority party never even gave him a hearing. Why? Because they agreed that the policy preference of Fed 

nominees do matter. 

Although Dr. Diamond is a skilled and accomplished theoretical 

economist, it is clear to many of us that he does not possess the 

appropriate background, experience, or policy preferences to serve 

on the Board of Governors. 

Dr. Diamond may be a talented economic theorist and he may be 

very well suited for a number of positions in the Administration, 

but I do not believe he is the best person for this position at this 

time at the Federal Reserve. 

Therefore, before I conclude, let me address the issue of Dr. Diamond’s Nobel Prize. Unquestionably, the Nobel is a major honor. 

Yet being a Nobel recipient does not mean one is qualified for every 

conceivable position. Any private sector human resource manager 

would likely say that Dr. Diamond would not be a good selection 

for a CEO of a large bank. The skills needed to win the Nobel Prize 

are simply not the same as those required to manage a large financial institution. The same is true here. The skills needed to win the 

Nobel are not necessarily the same as those needed to be a good 

Fed Governor. I seriously doubt that many of Dr. Diamond’s supporters would have favored the appointment of Milton Friedman or 

Myron Scholes to the Fed simply because they won the Nobel Prize. 

Finally, I am compelled to again point out that Dr. Diamond is 

legally not eligible to serve. According to Section 10 of the Federal 

Reserve Act, no two members of the Board of Governors can come 

from the same Fed district. Once again, Dr. Diamond’s nomination 

papers indicate he is, quote, ‘‘of Massachusetts.’’ Current Board 

member Daniel Tarullo’s nomination papers also indicated he was, 

quote, ‘‘of Massachusetts.’’ Dr. Diamond and Dr. Tarullo cannot 
5 

serve at the same time and comply with Section 10 of the Federal 

Reserve Act. We can debate the wisdom and historical application 

of this requirement at a later date, but for now, it is the law, even 

if prior Congresses have chosen to look the other way. 

There are plenty of good nominees that could be selected from 

historically overlooked districts, like the Cleveland and Minneapolis Districts. In fact, there has not been a Fed Governor from 

the Cleveland District in 65 years. I would think that some of my 

friends from Ohio might find that a bit concerning. 

Mr. Chairman, I encouraged the President to withdraw this nomination and look beyond the Boston-to-DC corridor for a new nominee. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Reed. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED 

Senator REED. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We 

have three extremely qualified nominees that are before us today. 

I think both Dr. Abraham and Dr. Shapiro have demonstrated a remarkable record, and we can get into some of the details of the 

issues and policies. 

Dr. Diamond, I think, is also superbly qualified, and I think that 

despite the Ranking Member’s comments, I think there is, I would 

say, a misperception of the role of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve. No one Governor is a supervisor, as, for example, 

the OCC Director or the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Commission, with the exception of perhaps Chairman 

Bernanke. 

But what the Federal Reserve can do collectively is to engage in 

vigorous debate, and that debate, I think, is enhanced by having 

individuals of Dr. Peter Diamond’s ability and perspective. One of 

the critiques, I think, looking back over the last several years, is 

a certain group-think at the Federal Reserve about many different 

policies. I think Dr. Diamond’s nomination, and I hope confirmation, to the Federal Reserve will provide an interesting perspective 

from a very gifted individual that might challenge some of the 

orthodoxies within the Fed, that might force the individual members of the Fed from different sort of economic perspectives to ask 

fundamental questions and re-ask the questions, and in that sense, 

I think he will be a very, very valuable contributor to the Federal 

Reserve Board. 

The issue of the legal status is something that I think we can 

address and will address. I am hopeful that that is an issue that 

has already been successfully decided by the Administration. 

But I find it just interesting to note that if there is a general criticism of the role of the Federal Reserve and then the suggestion is, 

find people just like the people we have had on the Federal Reserve 

for the last 10 years, it seems to me to be inconsistent and I would 

hope that we would support and confirm Dr. Diamond. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Toomey. 

Senator TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could pass for 

now, I would like to follow up in a few minutes. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have 

three excellent and very well qualified individuals before us today 
6 

and I am certainly looking forward to the questions and their testimony. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Before we begin opening statements, I ask 

all nominees to stand and raise your right hand for the swearing 

in. 

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to 

give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I do. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I do. 

Mr. DIAMOND. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you agree to appear and testify before 

any duly constituted Committee of the Senate? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I do. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I do. 

Mr. DIAMOND. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be assured that your written statement will be part of the record, so if you could confine your remarks to 5- to 8-minutes, that would be greatly appreciated. Please 

note, also, that Members of the Committee may submit written 

questions to you for the record and you need to respond to these 

questions promptly in order that the Committee may proceed with 

your nomination. 

I invite all witnesses to introduce their family and friends in attendance before beginning your statement. Ms. Abraham. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Thank you. I do have some people I would like to 

introduce. I will start with my wonderful husband of 25 years, 

Graham Horkley. My mother, Roberta Abraham, who has been 

throughout my life a source of encouragement and support. My 

brother, David, his wife, Carol, and their two children, William and 

Allison. My sister, Sarah. My childhood friends from Iowa, Patricia 

Behneke [phonetic] and Ann Peterson [phonetic], and Patty’s 

daughter, Laura. 

I, believe it or not, have more relatives who would have liked to 

be here today and could not. My father, William Abraham, could 

not travel to be here. My brother, John, my sister, Molly, and my 

two college-age sons, who I hope are hard at work on their classwork. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Abraham. 

Mr. Shapiro. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Thank you. I am really pleased that my parents 

are here, Sherman and Ellen Shapiro, sitting in the front row. And 

behind them, my children, my daughter, Eva, and my son, Benjamin, were able to come, as well, from California. My partner and 

best friend, Marti Hearst, is sitting next to Eva here, as well. And 

I have support from my recent colleagues at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, who is the Assistant Attorney General for 

Antitrust, Gene Kimmelman, Sharis Pozen, Janet Fikow [phonetic], 

and Joe Matelis are all from the Antitrust Division. I really appreciate it. And some older friends, Steve Salat [phonetic], Joe Farrow 

[phonetic], and Dewey Graham [phonetic] are here, as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Ms. Abraham and Mr. Shapiro, would you 

be seated. And last, but not least, Dr. Diamond. 
7 

Mr. DIAMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am traveling very 

light, compared to the others. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. After two tries. 

Mr. DIAMOND. My wife, Kate, is here. My son, Matt, and my 

cousin, Burcu Duygan-Bump. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Abraham, proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM, OF IOWA, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC 

ADVISERS 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Shelby, distinguished Members of the Committee. I am pleased and 

honored to appear before you today as a nominee to be a member 

of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. 

Mr. Johnson has already given some of my background. I am currently a professor at the University of Maryland. From 1993 to 

2001, I served as Commissioner of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor, where I was responsible for many of the key economic indicators produced by the Federal Government. Prior to 

that, I held faculty positions at the University of Maryland in the 

Department of Economics and the Sloan School of Management at 

MIT. 

I fell in love with economics as a freshman in college and I have 

not stopped being in love with economics. What drew me to economics is the power that I believe economic analysis has to inform 

the policy process and contribute to better outcomes for society. 

Something I have also come to appreciate is that economic analysis can only be as good as the data on which it rests. That is 

something that I came particularly to appreciate during my 8 years 

as Commissioner of Labor Statistics, and I have maintained a continuing interest in the quality of our economic data and the ways 

in which they might be improved. 

My research and writing have examined a variety of labor market policy issues and relevant economic data on employment, unemployment, inflation, wages, and national output. It is my hope 

that, if confirmed, my expertise can be useful for interpreting the 

new data about our economy that will become available over the 

coming months and years and for assessing their implications for 

important policy decisions. 

As has already been alluded to, these continue to be extraordinary times for our economy. Following the worst macroeconomic 

shock experienced in a generation, the economy is beginning to recover, but for too many Americans, things are still far from being 

back to normal. Looking to the future, we know, I think, that investments in physical, human, and knowledge capital will be essential to ensuring our Nation’s long-term prosperity. 

Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with other 

members of the Administration and with this Committee to provide 

economic insights and analysis that will help with the formulation 

of policies conducive to broadly shared growth. 
8 

Thank you very much. I will, of course, be happy to answer any 

questions that you or Members of the Committee might wish to 

pose. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Ms. Abraham. 

Mr. Shapiro. 

STATEMENT OF CARL SHAPIRO, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINATED 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Shelby, and other Members of the Committee. I am pleased and 

honored to appear before you today as a nominee to serve as a 

member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. 

I already introduced you to my family, but I would like to pause 

for a moment to especially note my father, Sherman, sitting right 

here behind me. He grew up terribly poor in the Great Depression. 

Through hard work and tremendous dedication to improving himself, he was able to earn a Ph.D. in economics at the University of 

Chicago. He had tremendous influence on me, always has. He 

taught me the virtues of giving all Americans the opportunity to 

make the most of themselves while always, always, stressing the 

importance of personal responsibility. 

I was born in Austin, Texas, grew up in South Bend, Indiana, 

and Wilmette, Illinois, and went to school at MIT, and you have 

described some of my other schooling and qualifications. I was a 

professor at Princeton for 10 years during the 1980s. I have been 

a professor at Berkeley for about 20 years. 

But during the mid-1990s, I came to Washington to serve as the 

Chief Economist in the Antitrust Division. My interests have always gone toward public policy and applying the economics for public policy. And then I returned 2 years ago, again as Chief Economist in the Antitrust Division, working with Christine Varney, who 

is here, as well, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. In 

that role, my job has been to supervise the economists and give the 

very best economic analysis and advice to the Assistant Attorney 

General in support of antitrust enforcement. 

My research, consulting, and public service have consistently emphasized the importance of promoting competition and innovation 

as drivers of economic growth. I have a special interest and expertise in the economics of high-tech industries, intellectual property, 

some of the other drivers of innovation. My book with Hal Varian, 

‘‘Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy’’, 

which applies economic principles to the information economy, has 

been widely read by managers and adopted for classroom use. So 

I have a business side, if you will, consulting and teaching MBAs, 

as reflected in that book, as well as my public policy side of my 

background. 

If I am confirmed as a member of the CEA, I hope to contribute 

my expertise to the development of policies that promote economic 

growth by creating a business environment that encourages private 

sector innovation and investment. 

The CEA has a great tradition, going back 65 years, of providing 

high-quality, unbiased economic policy advice to the President 

based on the best thinking and scientific evidence the economics 
9 

profession has to offer. If I am confirmed, I look forward to continuing that tradition. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you have 

for me. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro. 

Mr. Peter Diamond. 

STATEMENT OF PETER A. DIAMOND, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Mr. DIAMOND. Chairman Johnson, Senator Shelby, distinguished 

Members of the Committee, I am honored to have been nominated 

by President Obama to be a member of the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System and grateful to this Committee for 

having me here today. 

If confirmed, I will work to the best of my abilities to fulfill the 

responsibilities of this office. Those responsibilities have always 

been significant. The experience of the recent financial crisis and 

the ensuing financial reform legislation have underlined the multiple responsibilities of the Fed in working to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Fed has much work ahead in 

order to implement and fulfill the tasks laid out by the financial 

reform legislation. I would be honored and pleased to be part of the 

process of responding to this challenge. 

I studied both mathematics and economics as an undergraduate 

at Yale University. I received my Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in June 1963. Since then, I have 

been a faculty member, first at the University of California at 

Berkeley, and since 1966 at MIT. 

Throughout this period, I have taught and done research in economics. My primary focus in both graduate teaching and research 

has been economic theory, particularly macroeconomics, search theory, and public finance. Within public finance, my primary focus 

has been on taxes, pensions, and social insurance, particularly Social Security. I have done both theoretical analyses and policy analyses. At the undergraduate level, I have taught microeconomics, 

macroeconomics, public finance, money and banking, and law and 

economics. Being a member of two economics departments with 

great collegial interactions, I have gained wide knowledge in a variety of economics topics, as well as detailed knowledge in my areas 

of expertise. 

A central theme in my research career has been how the economy deals with risks, both risks at the individual level and risks 

that affect the entire economy. I have thought extensively and written about the risks in the economy and how markets and Government can combine to make the economy function better. 

In particular, the research that led to my being a corecipient of 

the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences has addressed how the costs 

and delays in learning about market opportunities affect the workings of the economy. As noted by the Prize Committee, the basic 

research on this topic has been used as a starting place for applied 

research in a wide variety of areas, not only the housing and labor 

markets, where sizable delays are clearly visible, but also in monetary theory and finance economics. Indeed, the varying speeds with 
10 

which surprises occur to financial firms and their abilities to respond is a central element in the development of financial crises, 

making search theory an important part of understanding how to 

avoid and limit future shocks to the financial system. 

In sum, I believe my background would prove very helpful at the 

Federal Reserve, particularly as a part of the process of addressing 

our heightened awareness of the dangers of systemic risks. 

If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to help address 

the important issues that have been raised by the financial crisis 

as well as the longstanding issues and concerns in monetary policy 

and bank regulation that the Federal Reserve faces. 

Thank you again for holding today’s hearings. I would be pleased 

to answer your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Diamond. 

Would the Clerk put on the clock 5 minutes. 

Mr. Diamond, an article in the Boston Globe stated that colleagues have said that your work changed the way economists 

think about national debt, taxes, risk, unemployment, and Social 

Security. What insight on these issues, particularly unemployment, 

can you bring to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as it sets 

its economic and regulatory policy? 

Mr. DIAMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. The 

way we teach about markets at the start of economics is demand 

and supply and a price clears the market. But if you look at the 

labor market, at any point in time, there are unemployed workers 

and there are vacancies. So that picture of the stocks of unemployment and vacancies is an inadequate basis for thinking about the 

dynamic process of how the economy goes into a recession and how 

it comes out and the role of policy, both unemployment insurance 

to help the workers affected and macro policy generally. 

The picture that comes when you look at the flows shows over 

the last 20 years, in an average month, six million workers gain 

employment and a slightly smaller number lose employment. The 

impact on unemployment is the difference between two large numbers. So focusing on the flows, focusing on the way that firms find 

it profitable to seek and hire new workers and to decide which 

workers they want to hire and focusing on how workers decide 

where to look for jobs, what kinds of jobs to look at, these are the 

central elements in thinking about the dynamic process. 

The monetary policy followed by the Fed influences this process, 

and conversely, studying this process is essential for understanding 

the state of the economy, the risks of inflation, and how to impact 

the unemployment that is going on. This attention to the risks of 

the economy as a whole, is very important for going ahead from 

this terrible crisis we have had and are still definitely not out of. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Abraham, a question 

for you both. I believe key investments in innovation, education, 

and infrastructure will strengthen our competitiveness globally. 

While Congress debates budget and prioritizes spending, how important is it that we use a scalpel to make targeted budget cuts to 

ensure that we protect those needed investments? Ms. Abraham? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think that it is very important. I think that we 

can all agree that we need to be looking hard at spending. We need 

to be looking at ways to bring down the deficit. But at the same 
11 

time, we would be harming our future if we were not making—continuing to make needed investments in the areas that you have 

identified. Education, innovation, and infrastructure are critical to 

our future. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Shapiro, do you have any thoughts? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes, along similar lines. I think particularly investments in basic research and promoting basic research is something 

we cannot really count on the private sector to do, and so there is 

an important role for the Government there, after which we then 

turn it over to the private sector to commercialize and build the 

jobs based on that innovation. We have decades of successful experience in that, and so that is an example of an area where a meat 

axe would be unwise. A scalpel is the way to go. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Diamond, since the downturn in the 

economy, the Fed has managed to keep inflation in check, but too 

many Americans remain out of work. Can more be done to create 

jobs? What is your view of the Federal Reserve’s actions so far in 

promoting the recovery? 

Mr. DIAMOND. The traditional tool used by the Federal Reserve 

is the short-term interest rate. By lowering short-term interest 

rates, they encourage consumers to spend, particularly on consumer durables. Second, that encourages businesses to invest because it will be cheaper to do it. And third, there is the general 

sense of the economy moving forward because critical to business 

is the projection of the ability to sell things out in the future. 

Currently, and for an extended period, we have had a short-term 

interest rate that cannot be lowered any more. So the Fed has had 

to address how to lower long-term interest rates that matter for 

these same phenomena and how to do that in a way that will encourage both consumption and investment. The action that the Fed 

has taken in the asset markets, purchasing assets to help bring 

down interest rates to encourage more consumption and more investment, seems to me to have been an appropriate way to go, although obviously not being part of the FOMC, I was not part of the 

explicit discussions and the working out of details. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Abraham, the headline number from last week’s jobs report 

was that total unemployment for February was 8.9 percent. An alternative measure of unemployment contained in the report, which 

includes people who have stopped looking for work or who cannot 

find full-time jobs, stood at 15.9 percent. Dr. Abraham, as the 

former Commissioner of Labor Statistics in the Department of 

Labor, what do you think is the best indicator of labor under-utilization? In other words, is the unemployment rate closer to 9 percent or is it closer to 16 percent? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Hmm. I appreciate your interest, Mr. Shelby, in 

these economic data. That is a hard question to answer. They—— 

Senator SHELBY. But we need to try to put our hands around it, 

do we not? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think—I guess that what I—— 

Senator SHELBY. Because we are looking for the truth, are we 

not? 
12 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Oh, absolutely. I guess that what I would say is 

that from my perspective, the most important use of these data is 

to tell us about how we are doing today compared to how we were 

doing in the past, to look at whether things are getting better or 

things are getting worse. And a comment about those numbers is 

that they do tend to go up and down together. Whether you look 

at the narrower unemployment rate or the broader unemployment 

rate, they both are telling us that things are not good now. 

Senator SHELBY. You do not dispute those numbers—— 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Oh, no. No, no, no, no—— 

Senator SHELBY. Either the 8.9 or the 15.9? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. No. 

Senator SHELBY. OK. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. They are measuring different things and—— 

Senator SHELBY. They are metrics that you are familiar with. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. And the conclusion, the main conclusion I take 

from them is that we are not in a good place right now. 

Senator SHELBY. And what does that mean—— 

Ms. ABRAHAM. That—— 

Senator SHELBY. ——to us up here and to the American people? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think it means that we need to be thinking hard 

about how to create more jobs. 

Senator SHELBY. To build support for the Obama administration’s stimulus bill, the CEA—you were not there, I understand 

that—created an estimate of the number of, quote, ‘‘jobs saved’’ by 

the bill—jobs saved. A number of well-respected economists have 

criticized the so-called ‘‘jobs saved’’ estimate as being nonmeasurable. For example, Dr. Allan Meltzer said, and I will quote, ‘‘The 

Council of Economic Advisers shamefully invented a number called 

jobs saved that has never been seen before, has no agreed meaning, 

and no academic standing.’’ What is your professional opinion 

about the accuracy and validity of the CEA’s ‘‘jobs saved’’ estimate? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Well, I think that the estimate was an attempt to 

answer a really important question, which is how much difference 

did the Recovery Act make to the employment that we saw compared to what we would have had without it. Answering that kind 

of question is hard and there are a lot of uncertainties around the 

number, so I would not want to pin my hat on a specific number. 

But I do think that the estimate is pretty comparable to what other 

analysts, private sector analysts looking at the effects of the stimulus have come up with, and I am convinced that the Recovery Act 

had a significant and positive effect on employment, though I agree 

it is hard to quantify. 

Senator SHELBY. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the 

Council of Economic Advisers to create highly speculative statistics 

that perhaps are designed solely to support an Administration’s political agenda, be it this one or a Republican, whatever? In other 

words, is that not—— 

Ms. ABRAHAM. You are asking an important question about the 

role of the CEA—— 

Senator SHELBY. Sure. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. ——and I think that the, from my perspective, the 

role of the CEA is to provide the best information possible to inform policy formation and the evaluation of policy. With something 
13 

like this, it is very hard to come up with a precise number, but I 

think it is quite appropriate to try to produce the best number possible as an input into discussion of the policies that were adopted. 

Senator SHELBY. Would you agree, though, that basic economic 

policy should not be based on speculation, should be based on hard 

numbers? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. The economic policy should be based on the best 

numbers possible. 

Senator SHELBY. That is right, harder numbers. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. And in some cases, coming up with something 

that is a precise estimate is going to be impossible, and in that 

case, I think you do the best job you can. 

Senator SHELBY. Dr. Shapiro, I have a question for you, if I 

could. In your role as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, you 

recently submitted a Department of Justice letter on a proposed 

CFTC rule regarding ownership limitations and governance requirements for swap clearinghouses. Your letter has received harsh 

criticism from academic economists and market participants. For 

example, one economist said that the Department of Justice letter 

treats safety and soundness concerns, quote, ‘‘dismissively, cavalierly, and superficially.’’ Those are harsh words. 

Explain how your proposed ownership limitations and governance requirements will affect the incentive of owners to run wellmanaged and well-capitalized clearinghouses. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I would be happy to. The Antitrust Division takes 

a competition perspective and we were here attempting to explain, 

to give advice to the CFTC and the SEC regarding how some of the 

provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act could, indeed, promote competition in some of these areas, particularly for the exchanges. 

Senator SHELBY. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. So in terms of the question about the difference between—about safety and soundness, we were much more cautious 

about clearinghouses versus exchanges in terms of the natural monopoly elements, and I think that is reflected in the statute. There 

were certainly some criticisms of what we put in, but there were 

also quite a lot of support. It is quite a controversial area. 

Senator SHELBY. Do you disagree that what one economist said, 

it treats safety and soundness concerns, again, dismissively, cavalierly, and superficially? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I strongly disagree with that, and I guess that was 

what I was attempting to convey in my previous answer, which is 

the safety and soundness concerns, I think, are critical in the setting up of a centralized clearinghouse, which was something that 

was a problem that was missing in these derivatives areas that 

contributed to the financial crisis. And the Treasury and the CFTC 

and the SEC are all working together following the Dodd-Frank to 

improve safety and soundness by having the clearinghouses set up 

and have a lot of the trading go through the clearinghouses. 

We were, therefore, though, saying much more—took a lighter 

hand in terms of promoting competition in clearinghouses because 

the safety and soundness issues are very important. They are less 

of an—— 

Senator SHELBY. Very, very, important. 
14 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Extremely important, and the risks are not as 

great for the exchanges as they are for the clearinghouse itself. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Diamond, you have done over the course of your career research in a number of different very critical areas—taxation, public 

debt, Social Security, market dynamics, et cetera. And again, I 

think, personally, that this will be a tremendous asset on the 

Board of Governors because of the various perspectives you can 

bring. 

Can you give just a brief response to the two areas which I think 

are of increasing importance. One is how do we increase employment opportunities, and second, how do we anticipate concentration of risk, you know, the bubble phenomenon that we saw manifested over the last several years? 

Mr. DIAMOND. OK. Thank you, Senator. On creating more jobs, 

I think we have the familiar money and fiscal policy elements. We 

got a stimulus package on the tax cut and spending side passed by 

the Congress in December, and I think that is a package that will 

help with this process. Beyond that, trying to lower the longer-term 

interest rates to encourage both consumption and investment is the 

way to go. The recovery has been slow. The unemployment rate has 

come down very slowly and I think it is quite important to go forward as quickly as we can. 

We know that part of the slow-down process is happening 

through the credit markets, that there are a number of small 

banks that are not in very strong shape, and as such, are somewhat limited in their abilities to lend. The role of small banks is 

very important, particularly for small business. So as those banks 

get stronger, as the supervision encourages them to do sound lending, that should be a help. And we also know that with small businesses, often, startup capital, new businesses, comes by drawing on 

home equity wealth, both individual and friends and family who 

are pitching in to help. So I think as the housing market gets sorted out, I think that should help, as well. 

I think there is no single tool, no magic bullet. I think we have 

to work on all of these pieces. 

I am sorry, the second question? 

Senator REED. The second question is that one of the expectations now is that the Federal Reserve will be much more sensitive 

to growing accumulations of risk, bubbles, areas of economic activity that could present another rapid sort of breakdown as we witnessed. 

Mr. DIAMOND. I think it is useful here to separate out two pieces. 

One is the issue of bubbles, which you have mentioned. And then 

the second is the way the creation of a bubble itself will often lead 

to misallocation of capital. But it is the bursting of the bubble that 

will often ripple through the financial system and cause great 

harm, as happened this time. 

So these are two separate issues. I think the attention to bubbles 

is inherently difficult. Nobody flies a flag and says, ‘‘hey, we have 

got a bubble.’’ There are people who think we have got a bubble 

and people who think fundamentals have changed. I think it is al-
15 

ways probabilistic. One forms in a judgment of how likely something is a bubble or not. I think monetary policy is a very blunt 

tool that affects a lot of the economy, so I think we need to focus 

in terms of bubbles on the kinds of tools that will address them directly, particularly in terms of what the Fed does, making sure the 

lenders are applying good standards to the loans to make it less 

likely that the loans are only being taken out because there is a 

hope of making money out of a bubble. 

In terms of what happens afterwards, I think that is where the 

issue of how the economy generally responds to risks, shares risks, 

spreads risks, when derivatives help in sharing risks and spreading 

them more widely and more efficiently, and when, as we have seen 

some examples of, derivatives add to risks. And I think we need 

to be alert to both the extent to which different financial institutions are holding very similar portfolios, and so subject to much 

more widespread systemic impact from a bubble bursting, and the 

connections across financial institutions, the functioning of capital 

markets and finance markets. 

So I think it is getting a better understanding of the risk spreading, the successful part, and the risk concentration, the unsuccessful part, which is very important going forward on dealing with 

these risks. We know there is a long history of centuries of bubbles. 

Everyone learned a lot from this one. That does not mean we will 

never see one again. 

Senator REED. Thank you. My time has expired, but I will try to 

get back, Mr. Chairman, because I have to go to Armed Services, 

but I just want to commend Dr. Abraham on her work on work 

share, which is an important program, and I would like to follow 

up, if I could, in questions, either written or oral. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Toomey. 

Senator TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Some questions for Dr. Diamond. I will start by suggesting that 

I sometimes wonder how much we learned from the recent bubbles, 

and given the current policy, I worry about whether we are not in 

the process of creating new ones. 

My first question is, is it your view that QE2 constitutes monetizing a portion of our budget deficit? 

Mr. DIAMOND. No, it does not, because the holding of these assets 

is viewed as a temporary phenomenon by the Fed. The announcement by the FOMC viewed this as a temporary stimulus, just as 

doing things at the short end is addressing stimulus or the need 

to pull back on stimulus, if we were worried about inflation. And 

the portfolio goes up and down, and I think it should be thought 

of in that context, that this is not monetizing the debt. This is a 

temporary position that will get unwound when the circumstances 

are appropriate. 

Senator TOOMEY. Yes, we hope that that is going to happen and 

it is going to happen well, but I am not so convinced, and I think 

when the Fed, indirectly through bank intermediaries, nevertheless 

directly is effectively purchasing the debt that we are issuing on a 

massive scale, something on the order of two-thirds of the deficit 

that we are running this year, it certainly looks a lot like monetizing it to me. 
16 

The other thing that concerns me is the range of sort of conventional measures and approaches to monetary policy that suggest 

that what we have now is a very unusually accommodative, and I 

would fear maybe dangerous accommodative, policy. The Taylor 

Rule would call for a Fed funds rate of about 1 percent right now. 

We have commodity prices that are almost uniformly at very high 

levels. I mean, really, precious metals, other metals, agricultural 

commodities, across the board, commodities are all at very high 

levels, many at record high levels. We have money supply by some 

measures as growing very rapidly. We have negative real interest 

rates. 

You know, you look at all of these indices and they suggest generally that our policy is too accommodative, but yet we are pursuing this huge infusion of cash. Do you not worry that maybe 

some—that maybe we are going down the wrong path here, that 

with all of these indications that we could very well have problems 

in the future, maybe not so distant future, that this is a dangerous 

policy to pursue? 

Mr. DIAMOND. First of all, the issue you raised is critically important. You asked, do I worry, and the answer is yes. I think it is 

terribly important for these policies to be reviewed and reviewed 

repeatedly, and I have thought of them as an outsider and I am 

sure the FOMC is weighing up these issues as well. 

The critical question to my mind is, where are we now relative 

to unemployment and inflation? Inflation is exceedingly low, below 

the normal 2 percent that people talk about, and—— 

Senator TOOMEY. But—— 

Mr. DIAMOND. ——unemployment is very high, and the issue is, 

are there signs that inflation might be picking up quickly. I view 

the rise in commodity prices as driven by microfactors, not general 

stimulation of the economy. We obviously have oil disruptions in 

the Middle East—— 

Senator TOOMEY. But before the oil—well, we have not actually 

had supply disruptions. We have had major political turmoil that 

gives rise to worries about potential supply disruption—— 

Mr. DIAMOND. Right. 

Senator TOOMEY. ——but we have not had supply disruptions. It 

seems unlikely to me that micro incidents would occur across the 

entire range of commodities, everything from corn and wheat and 

cotton to gold and silver and aluminum. You know, this strikes me 

as something broader than specific narrow micro effects. 

Mr. DIAMOND. Well, let me continue with my list of the things 

that have happened that really matter for some of these prices. We 

have had some serious droughts that are affecting a range of agricultural products. 

We have a number of large economies, of which China is the obvious leader, that are growing very rapidly and boosting demand 

across the board for all the inputs into the production and construction that they do. So that China is growing rapidly is something that will affect prices around the world. It is not part of a 

large stimulus, and at some point, the Chinese have to address the 

risk of their economy overheating, but I do not know that that will 

trigger our economy overheating. I do not see that kind of connection. 
17 

Senator TOOMEY. Do I have time for one more quick question, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman JOHNSON. One quick question. 

Senator TOOMEY. Thank you very much, and the question is 

about the exit strategy. One of the things that concerns me is that 

the strategy itself is designed, in part, to raise inflation expectations. About that, I am afraid it will be very successful. 

If it is successful in that respect, the obvious response from the 

market to rising inflation expectation is higher interest rates, higher bond yields. In the face, therefore, of higher bond yields, I fear 

that the Fed could find itself in the situation where it also has to 

exit by selling bonds, and I worry that the process of exit could lead 

to much higher interest rates from the combination of these phenomena. Is that something that you are concerned about, how they 

can exit? 

Mr. DIAMOND. The exit strategy is obviously terribly important, 

and I think it is important to keep in mind that the Fed has multiple tools. The interest paid on excess reserves can play a critical 

role in adjusting the way the exit strategy is executed so that we 

do not get a rapid burst of lending and inflation. I think the combination of tools available will permit a smooth exit. But the great 

recession we have had is a new experience and I think we are looking at trying to respond to a very major problem and trying to respond to a very high unemployment rate, which is very harmful, 

and trying to deal with it in a way that does not lay down problems 

for the future. And I think it is necessarily something that takes 

close monitoring and following while laying out a plan and monitoring it and changing it, as needed. 

Senator TOOMEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your 

indulgence on the time, and thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Abraham, we have been talking about unemployment numbers and I wanted to raise a particularly concerning labor market 

issue that I have been watching closely, and that is the unemployment numbers for our returning veterans in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

They are unacceptably high. Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the February unemployment numbers that showed 

unemployment for these returning service members to be about 

12.5 percent, and that is almost 4 percentage points higher than 

the national average. 

I am always looking for additional ways to help our returning 

soldiers, and my question is, do you have any insights on why this 

number might be so high versus the rest of the employment figures? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Thank you for that question. I also have been 

looking at these numbers. It has not been very long that we have 

actually had regular unemployment figures for veterans and so it 

is welcome that we have them now. I have—I cannot really say 

why they are so much higher than for the population as a whole. 

The veterans have demographic characteristics that are associated 

with somewhat higher unemployment. They are young men. Young 

men tend to have higher unemployment rates. But it is more than 

that and I think this bears looking into. 
18 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. I look forward to working with you 

on that issue. And how long have we been keeping numbers on returning veterans? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. It has been a few years now. 

Senator HAGAN. OK. Dr. Shapiro, America’s small businesses are 

an essential component of economic growth and these businesses 

create a disproportionate share of the net new jobs, the small businesses. In North Carolina, these small businesses account for nearly 50 percent of our private sector jobs. But right now, these companies are having a very difficult time accessing credit and the capital markets. I hear this everywhere I go throughout my State. And 

the economic report of the President showed that small businesses 

receive 90 percent of their financing from banks, community banks, 

in particular, and the report cites information asymmetries and 

other market frictions as an impediment to small business financing. 

Last year, we passed the Small Business Jobs Act that would 

help accelerate a return to lending to small businesses, but as I 

hear over and over again, that small companies are really having 

a hard time accessing these funds. What steps do you suggest that 

Congress takes or the Administration takes to restore the flow of 

credit to small business? What can we do on a proactive basis? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think your State is not alone in the small 

business having a difficult time, both with credit, and the report 

concerns about poor sales is the fundamental issue, that the demand is not there and that, of course, it makes it harder to get a 

loan. And we have small business association programs that help 

in this regard and the Administration, with Congress, has pushed 

those forward. 

There is a lending fund to help community banks, OK. So I think 

this is part of—because community banks are so important for 

small business and they understand the local situation better, this 

is some of these informational concerns that a bigger bank might 

not know. The support for the community banks is very important 

and there is a lending fund that has been set up for that that 

seems to be well crafted for that purpose. 

There have also been tax cuts that are helping, as well, for small 

businesses and large businesses that Congress enacted and the 

President signed last December, particularly to be able to write off 

more of their investments in 2011. 

Senator HAGAN. Well, I know the application for the small business funds that we passed last September is still open for, I think, 

until the end of March for small and independent community 

banks to file for that, so I am really looking forward to the change 

once those funds start getting out into the market, because my 

small businesses are really hurting. And I do think it is an economic driver, especially from the standpoint of employment opportunities. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think it is something we need to keep a 

close eye on and watch, and if I am confirmed, I look forward to 

doing that with this Committee. 

Senator HAGAN. OK. Thank you. 

Dr. Diamond, also, thank you for appearing today. I know you 

have been speaking to this Committee before, but it is my first 
19 

chance to have an opportunity to be here and to hear from you, so 

I have just got a couple of questions. 

There seems to be a divide among economists about whether the 

quantitative easing should continue, and some, like the President 

of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Jeffrey Lacker, argue 

that the U.S. growth outlook is tilted against further quantitative 

easing and that inflation has bottomed and will only head upward 

from this point. And then others, like Christina Romer, former 

Chair of the President’s Economic Advisers, has advocated for more 

aggressive quantitative easing, both in size and scope. 

With unemployment around 9 percent, 9.8 percent in North 

Carolina, and core inflation around 1 percent, it would seem inflation expectations are under control for now, but with commodity 

prices, as we have been discussing, climbing steadily. Do you have 

concerns that the general inflation could emerge quickly despite 

continued high unemployment, and what actions would you recommend the Fed to take should such a circumstance emerge? 

Mr. DIAMOND. Well, I think you have described the current situation correctly. The inflation rate is very low. Beyond that, the studies of inflation expectations show that inflation expectations are 

very low. And the primary pusher of inflation historically has been 

the state of aggregate demand. When the state of aggregate demand gets too big relative to what the economy can produce. Potential output and the labor market in terms of the availability of 

workers to fill jobs, that is when we get inflation that starts to 

move seriously. We are obviously in no danger of that process giving us rapid inflation. 

On the prices that have boosted, the question at hand is, is this 

part of an inflationary process or have we had a jump in some 

prices? Obviously, a drought will leave you a jump in prices, but 

it does not tell you that the prices are going to keep going up. 

The Chinese economy expanding so rapidly is going to push up 

prices of the inputs they need for their production. The question of 

how rapidly they will continue growing, and again, will their 

growth speed up? Will that give us rising inflation? I think there 

is no reason to think it will grow faster. If anything, I think they 

are beginning to worry about the possibility of overheating. 

So I do not see the link between these individual price problems 

and a rapid appearance of inflation, given the general state of the 

labor market and aggregate demand in the U.S. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Drs. Diamond, Abraham, and 

Shapiro, for your testimony and for your willingness to serve our 

Nation. 

We are going to submit questions for the record to you by 12 

noon this Friday, March 11. Please submit your answers to us as 

soon as possible so that we can move your nomination in a timely 

manner. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements, biographical sketches of nominees, and responses to written questions supplied for the record follow:] 
20 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

MARCH 8, 2011 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, I am pleased and honored to appear before you today as a nominee to 

be a Member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. 

Before I begin, I would like to introduce several people who are with me here 

today. First is Graham Horkley, my wonderful husband of more than 25 years. Second is my mother Roberta Abraham, who throughout my life has been a source of 

encouragement and support. I am also very pleased to introduce my brother, David 

Abraham, his wife, Carol Popolow Abraham, my nephew and niece, William and Allison Abraham, and my sister, Sarah Abraham. My college-age sons, Ian and Ben 

Horkley, my father, William Abraham, my brother, Jon Abraham, and my sister, 

Molly Abraham, would very much have liked to be here today, but unfortunately 

were not able to attend. 

I have been Professor of Survey Methodology and Faculty Associate of the Maryland Population Research Center at the University of Maryland since 2002. From 

1993 to 2001, I served as Commissioner of Labor Statistics in the Department of 

Labor, where I was responsible for many of the key economic indicators produced 

by the Federal Government. Prior to that, I held faculty positions in the Department 

of Economics, University of Maryland, and the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

I first became enamored of economics as an undergraduate student. What drew 

me to economics is the power that economic analysis has to inform the policy process and contribute to better outcomes for our society. Economic analysis can be only 

as good as the data on which it rests. This is something that I came particularly 

to appreciate during my 8 years as Commissioner of Labor Statistics and I have 

maintained a continuing interest in the quality of economic statistics and the ways 

in which they might be improved. 

My research and writing have examined a variety of labor market policy issues 

and relevant economic data on unemployment, employment, inflation, wages, and 

national output. It is my hope that, if confirmed, my expertise can be useful for interpreting the new data about our economy that will become available over the coming months and years and for assessing their implications for important policy decisions. 

These continue to be extraordinary times for our economy. Following the worst 

macroeconomic shock experienced in a generation, the economy is beginning to recover, but for too many Americans things are still far from being back to normal. 

Looking to the future, we know that investments in physical, human, and knowledge capital will be essential to ensuring our Nation’s long term prosperity. Should 

I be confirmed, I look forward to working with the other members of the Administration and with this Committee to provide economic insights and analysis that will 

help with the formulation of policies conducive to broadly shared growth. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the 

Committee may have. 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL SHAPIRO 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

MARCH 8, 2011 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the Committee, I 

am honored to appear before you as a nominee to serve as a Member of the Council 

of Economic Advisers. 

Before I begin, I would like to introduce you to my family. My parents, Sherman 

and Ellen Shapiro, were able to come from California to be here today. My daughter, 

Eva, and my son, Benjamin, are also present. My partner and best friend, Marti 

Hearst, is also here today. 

I am especially pleased that my father Sherman can be here today. He grew up 

terribly poor during the Great Depression. Through hard work and a tremendous 

dedication to improving himself, he was able to earn a Ph.D. in economics at the 

University of Chicago. He taught me the virtues of giving all Americans the opportunity to make the most of themselves, while always stressing the importance of 

personal responsibility. 

I was born in Austin, Texas, and grew up in South Bend, Indiana, and Wilmette, 

Illinois. I went to school at M.I.T., earning my Ph.D. in 1981. I was on the faculty 

of Princeton University during the 1980s, and have been a Professor at the Haas 

School of Business and the Department of Economics at the University of California 

at Berkeley since 1990. I was honored with an endowed chair in 1994; since then 

I have been the Transamerica Professor of Business Strategy. I served as the Director of the Institute of Business and Economic Research at U.C. Berkeley from 1998 

to 2008. During 1995–1996 and again during 2009–2011, I served as chief economist 

in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, supervising some 50 Ph.D. 

economists to provide sound economic analysis in support of antitrust enforcement. 

My research, consulting, and public service have consistently emphasized the importance of promoting competition and innovation as drivers of economic growth. I 

have special interest, and expertise, in the economics of innovation and high-tech 

industries. My book with Hal Varian, ‘‘Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the 

Network Economy’’, which applies economic principles to the information economy, 

has been widely read by managers and adopted for classroom use. If confirmed as 

a Member of the CEA, I hope to contribute my expertise to the development of policies that promote economic growth by creating a business environment that encourages private sector innovation and investment. 

The CEA has a great tradition, going back 65 years, of providing high-quality, unbiased economic policy advice to the President based on the best thinking and scientific evidence the economics profession has to offer. If confirmed, I look forward 

to continuing that tradition. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

1The full name is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred 

Nobel. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER A. DIAMOND 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

MARCH 8, 2011 

Chairman Johnson, Senator Shelby, and Members of the Committee, I am honored to have been nominated by President Obama to be a member of the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System and grateful to this Committee for having 

me here today. 

If confirmed, I will work to the best of my abilities to fulfill the responsibilities 

of this office. Those responsibilities have always been significant. The experience of 

the recent financial crisis and the ensuing financial reform legislation have underlined the multiple responsibilities of the Fed in working to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Fed has much work ahead in order to implement and 

fulfill the tasks laid out by the financial reform legislation. I would be honored and 

pleased to be part of the process of responding to this challenge. 

I studied both mathematics and economics as an undergraduate at Yale University. I received my Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in June 1963. Since then I have been a faculty member, first at the 

University of California at Berkeley, and, since 1966, at MIT. Throughout this period I have taught and done research in economics. My primary focus in both graduate teaching and research has been economic theory, particularly macroeconomics, 

search theory, and public finance. Within public finance, my primary focus has been 

on taxes, pensions, and social insurance, particularly Social Security. I have done 

both theoretical analyses and policy analyses. At the undergraduate level I have 

taught microeconomics, macroeconomics, public finance, money and banking, and 

law and economics. Being a member of two economics departments with great collegial interactions, I have gained wide knowledge in a variety of economics topics, as 

well as detailed knowledge in my areas of expertise. 

A central theme in my research career has been how the economy deals with 

risks, both risks at the individual level and risks that affect the entire economy. I 

have thought extensively and written about the risks in the economy, and how markets and Government can combine to make the economy function better. In particular, the research that led to my being a corecipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 1 has addressed how the costs and delays in learning about market 

opportunities affect the workings of the economy. As noted by the prize committee, 

the basic research on this topic has been used as a starting place for applied research in a wide variety of areas—not only the housing and labor markets where 

sizable delays are clearly visible, but also in monetary theory and analysis of the 

capital market. Indeed, the varying speeds between the occurrence of surprises to 

financial firms and their abilities to respond is a central element in the development 

of financial crises, making search theory an important part of understanding how 

to avoid and limit future shocks to the financial system. 

In sum, I believe my background would prove very helpful at the Federal Reserve, 

particularly as a part of the process of addressing our heightened awareness of the 

dangers of systemic risks. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to help address the important issues that have been raised by the financial crisis, as well as 

the longstanding issues and concerns in monetary policy and bank regulation that 

the Federal Reserve faces. 

Thank you again for holding today’s hearing; I would be pleased to answer your 

questions. 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED 

FROM KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM 

Q.1. What has your research shown on whether work sharing can 

be helpful to stem layoffs and be part of a strategy to help employers and employees in advance of the next recession? What thoughts 

do you have on how to best encourage work sharing? 

A.1. My research has examined how employers adjust hours and 

employment in response to cyclical changes in demand. In other 

countries, more of the adjustment to changes in demand commonly 

takes the form of reductions in hours (work sharing) rather than 

reductions in employment (layoffs) than is the case in the United 

States. Work sharing as opposed to layoffs can have significant 

benefits for employers and workers. Companies can avoid the loss 

of valued employees who are laid off during a temporary downturn 

and the burden of the economic downturn is spread more equitably. 

One factor that has contributed to the greater use of work sharing in these other countries is that workers whose hours have been 

reduced are eligible for prorated unemployment insurance benefits, 

referred to as short-time compensation. Similar prorated benefits 

are already available in 17 U.S. States. Changes to the U.S. unemployment insurance system to encourage work sharing, thereby reducing the need for layoffs, would be a step in the right direction 

in terms of mitigating job loss in future recessions. 

Q.2. Can you provide your view of how the Recovery Act contributed to economic and employment growth and/or mitigated the effects of the economic downturn? 

A.2. In my view, the Recovery Act contributed significantly to mitigating the effects of the economic downturn that began at the end 

of 2007 and worsened during 2008. It is of course inherently difficult to know exactly what would have happened had the Recovery 

Act not been passed. One way to estimate the effects of the Recovery Act is to predict the path that employment would have followed 

absent passage and then to compare what actually happened to 

that prediction. Another approach is to apply fiscal employment 

multipliers reported in the economics literature to the different 

types of spending under the Recovery Act to estimate the total employment effect. Previous CEA analyses using these two very different approaches yield estimates that are broadly consistent, 

showing employment as of the end of 2010 to have been roughly 

3 million jobs higher than would have been the case without the 

Recovery Act. While it is important to recognize the uncertainty inherent in any such exercise, this seems to me to be a reasonable 

estimate of the Recovery Act’s effects. Private analysts and the 

nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office have reached similar conclusions about the positive effects of the Recovery Act. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

FROM CARL SHAPIRO 

Q.1. Given your academic and professional background, where do 

we find potential changes to current business regulation in order 

to spur economic growth? What opportunities are there to help bolster small businesses? 
73 

A.1. Regulations should be carefully tailored to impose the least 

burden on society consistent with achieving their stated goals, such 

as safety, health, or environmental protection. As an economist 

who has studied Government regulation of business for 30 years, 

I am a proponent of using economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior. If confirmed as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, I look forward to pursuing these goals as articulated in the Executive Order issued by President Obama on January 18, 2011, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.’’ 

Small businesses will benefit from the recently released Presidential Memorandum supporting the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

which requires Federal agencies to consider regulatory flexibility to 

reduce the burden on small business. Small business also will be 

bolstered by the Administration’s proposal to make permanent the 

100 percent tax exemption on capital gains on qualified small business investments, and by the Administration’s proposal to provide 

$2 billion of capital to small businesses. 

Q.2. President Obama referenced the need for innovation along 

with education and investment as important factors to improve the 

economy. How could we incentivize innovation to achieve this? 

A.2. Innovation—broadly defined as the process by which individuals and organizations generate new ideas and put them into practice—is absolutely critical to our economic growth and international 

competitiveness. One way to incentivize private-sector innovation is 

to improve the operation of our patent system. Administrative and 

legislative reforms for the Patent and Trademark Office can reduce 

the time it takes for an inventor to receive a patent and improve 

the quality of issued patents. A second way to incentivize innovation is to invest in basic research while facilitating the transfer of 

research findings from our universities and research labs into the 

private sector. A third way to incentivize innovation is to provide 

tax incentives for private firms that engage in research and development. Expanding and making permanent the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit would serve this goal. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY 

FROM CARL SHAPIRO 

Q.1. In your role as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice (DOJ), you recently submitted a letter (DOJ 

letter) on a proposed Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(CFTC) rule regarding ownership limitations and governance requirements for designated clearing organizations (DCOs), designated contract markets (DCMs) and swap execution facilities 

(SEFs). 

Explain the nature of your personal involvement with the analyses and recommendations contained in the letter. 

A.1. As Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics in the 

Antitrust Division, I was involved in preparing these comments. I 

supervised the staff economists who worked with staff attorneys to 

draft these comments. I gave input to the staff during the process, 

reviewed drafts, and recommended to Assistant Attorney General 

Christine Varney that these comments be filed at the CFTC. 
74 

Q.2. To the best of your knowledge, were there any relevant communications, written or oral, between the CFTC and DOJ’s Antitrust Division prior to submission of the DOJ letter? If so, please 

explain. 

A.2. To the best of my knowledge, DOJ staff met with CFTC staff 

to discuss the CFTC’s proposed rules. 

Q.3. Do you believe that impartial access is necessary to protect 

consumers and to promote competition? 

A.3. Section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act seeks to provide market 

participants with impartial access to SEFs. I believe impartial access to an SEF promotes competition among market participants on 

that SEF, which in turn helps protect consumers. 

Q.4. If you do, explain why laws and/or regulations that require 

impartial access are not a sufficient solution. Explain why the DOJ 

letter advocates a solution that is inconsistent with American Airlines/British Airways alliance analogy referenced in your letter. 

A.4. In my experience, it is desirable wherever possible to rely on 

market competition rather than Government regulations to protect 

consumers. Rules mandating access to a dominant platform can be 

difficult or costly to enforce, in part due to disputes regarding what 

constitutes ‘‘impartial access.’’ Here, competition among SEFs may 

well provide additional protections to market participants, above 

and beyond those resulting from access regulations imposed on a 

dominant SEF. 

In my opinion, the DOJ letter to the CFTC and the DOJ comments to the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding the 

Star Alliance are consistent. The DOJ letter to the CFTC favors 

certain restrictions on the ownership and governance of SEFs. The 

DOJ letter argues that those restrictions will promote competition 

among SEFs without undermining the ability of SEFs to operate efficiently. The DOJ comments to DOT favor ‘‘carve-outs’’ on certain 

nonstop routes. The DOJ comments argue that these carve-outs 

will preserve competition on those routes without undermining the 

ability of the alliance to operate efficiently on other routes. In both 

cases, DOJ seeks to promote competition without undermining the 

efficiencies that can be achieved through a joint venture among rivals. 

Q.5. If you do not, explain why your personal belief differs from the 

beliefs expressed in the DOJ Letter that you signed. 

A.5. Not applicable. 

Q.6. The DOJ letter states ‘‘[t]he Department believes that allowing three to five large participants in the derivatives sector to control a trading a platform would greatly increase the risk that those 

entities will use their control to block or limit rival dealers’ or buyside firms access to the platform.’’ Do you agree with the belief that 

voting and ownership limitations are necessary? 

A.6. I support efforts by the CFTC to put in place rules to mitigate 

potential conflicts of interest in the operation of trading platforms. 

In my opinion, voting and ownership limitations are important for 

this purpose. 
75 

Q.7. If you do: How do you reconcile this statement with Core Principle 2 in Section 733 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which states that a 

swap execution facility shall establish, among other things, ‘‘participation rules that will deter abuses . . . to provide market participants with impartial access to the market’’? Explain why this 

explicit language does not directly address your concern that dealers would ‘‘block or limit rival dealers’ or buy-side firms access to 

the platform.’’ 

A.7. Structural solutions that rely on market competition are often 

more effective and less onerous than ongoing oversight and regulation. In the current context, disputes may well arise regarding 

whether a given SEF provides ‘‘impartial access’’ to market participants who are actual or potential competitors to the entities controlling the SEF. The DOJ comment seeks to promote competition 

among SEFs. Effective competition among SEFs will tend to reduce 

the frequency and magnitude of disputes over ‘‘impartial access,’’ 

since a market participant whose access to one SEF has been limited can trade on another SEF. 

Q.8. How do you reconcile this statement with Dodd-Frank antitrust core principles for derivatives clearing organizations, swap 

execution facilities, and designated contract markets, which states 

that each entity ‘‘shall not adopt any rule or take any action that 

results in any unreasonable restraint of trade or impose any material anticompetitive burden on trading’’? Explain why this explicit 

language does not directly address your concern that dealers would 

‘‘block or limit rival dealers’ or buy-side firms access to the platform’’. 

A.8. Structural solutions that rely on market competition are often 

more effective and less onerous than ongoing oversight and regulation. In the current context, disputes may well arise regarding 

whether a given SEF has adopted any rule or taken any action 

‘‘that results in any unreasonable restraint of trade’’ or imposes 

‘‘any material anticompetitive burden on trading.’’ The DOJ comment seeks to promote competition among SEFs. Effective competition among SEFs will tend to reduce the frequency and magnitude 

of these disputes, since any given SEF will have less market power 

that could be abused. 

Q.9. Did you sign the letter supporting voting and ownership limitations because you believe that the CFTC will be unable to enforce 

this language? 

A.9. I believe that structural solutions designed to mitigate potential conflicts of interest and to promote competition among SEFs 

will reduce the frequency and magnitude of disputes over compliance with the cited language, thereby reducing the cost and increasing the effectiveness of CFTC enforcement of this language. 

Q.10. If you do not, explain why your personal belief differs from 

the beliefs expressed in the DOJ Letter that you signed. 

A.10. Not applicable. 

Q.11. Provide a real-world case that the DOJ has successfully argued where an exchange blocked market participants from trading 

on its execution platform. 
76 

A.11. I am not aware of any such example. Access to execution 

platforms is normally addressed by regulators rather than through 

enforcement of the Sherman Act. 

Q.12. It is my understanding that it has been a long-standing DOJ 

Antitrust Division’s policy to rely on ‘‘conduct remedies,’’ that are 

conceptually analogous to Core Principle 2 in Section 733 of DoddFrank, as the preferred approach to deter anticompetitive conduct. 

‘‘Structural remedies,’’ including divestitures and ownership restrictions, are to be pursued only where conduct remedies have proven 

to be inadequate. Do you have any empirical evidence that conduct 

remedies are not adequate for DCMs, SEFs, and/or DCOs? 

If you do, provide that evidence. 

If you do not, explain how you reconcile the structural remedies 

approach taken in the DOJ letter with the DOJ’s long-standing policy of relying on conduct remedies. 

A.12. The DOJ does not have a long-standing policy of relying only 

on conduct remedies. DOJ approaches remedies on a case-by-case 

basis. In many situations, including horizontal mergers, the DOJ 

has historically preferred structural remedies to conduct remedies. 

The Antitrust Division Policy Guide to Merger Remedies, October 

2004, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/ 

205108.pdf states (p. 7): ‘‘Structural remedies are preferred to conduct remedies in merger cases because they are relatively clean 

and certain, and generally avoid costly Government entanglement 

in the market.’’ This policy guide goes on to state (p. 8): ‘‘A conduct 

remedy, on the other hand, typically is more difficult to craft, more 

cumbersome and costly to administer, and easier than a structural 

remedy to circumvent.’’ 

Q.13. Question 2 asks (emphasis added): ‘‘To the best of your 

knowledge, were there any relevant communications, written or 

oral, between the CFTC and DOJ’s Antitrust Division prior to submission of the DOJ letter? If so, please explain.’’ 

Mr. Shapiro responded in the affirmative, but he did not provide 

any explanation. At a minimum, his explanation should include: 

• A list all DOJ and CFTC individuals involved in those communications. 

• A description of the nature of those communications. 

• Answers to the following questions: 

• Who initiated those communications? 

• Did anyone from the CFTC or from the Administration request or direct anyone in the DOJ to send the letter? If so, 

please explain. 

• Did anyone from the CFTC or from the Administration review and/or edit the letter before it was submitted? If so, 

please explain. 

A.13. To the best of my knowledge, DOJ staff met with CFTC staff 

to discuss the CFTC’s proposed rules. However, I did not personally 

participate in any of these meetings, and I do not recall participating in any conference calls, e-mails, or other communications 

that may have taken place between DOJ and the CFTC. 
77 

My recollection from staff updates I reviewed at the time is that 

the initial recommendation to respond to the proposed CFTC rules 

came from career staff members in the Antitrust Division. Following that recommendation, I recall that DOJ initially contacted 

the CFTC to discuss these issues. To the best of my knowledge, 

DOJ attorneys Gene Kimmelman and Ihan Kim were involved in 

these communications. As the Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

for Economics, I was typically not involved in these sorts of communications. I do not know the names of any individual CFTC staff 

members who attended subsequent meetings with DOJ staff. While 

I am unaware of precisely which DOJ staff attended any particular 

meeting, I do know that DOJ economists Jeff Wilder, Charles 

Taragin, and Fan Zhang were studying these issues and I believe 

they each attended at least one meeting with the CFTC based upon 

the weekly reports I received from staff economists. 

To the best of my knowledge, no members of the Administration 

outside of DOJ, or anyone from the CFTC, requested or directed 

anyone in DOJ to send the letter. 

To the best of my knowledge, no members of the Administration 

outside of DOJ, or anyone from the CFTC, reviewed or edited the 

letter prior to its submission. As I noted in my prior responses to 

the Committee, I was involved in preparing these comments, and 

I supervised the DOJ staff economists who worked with DOJ staff 

attorneys to draft these comments. I gave input to the DOJ staff 

during the process, reviewed drafts, and recommended to Assistant 

Attorney General Christine Varney that these comments be filed at 

the CFTC. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

FROM PETER A. DIAMOND 

Q.1. Dr. Diamond, you have worked on unemployment and economic growth. The models for which you won the Nobel Prize help 

us understand the ways in which unemployment, job vacancies, 

and wages are affected by regulation and economic policy. 

Can you please explain how your expertise in employment and 

the job market is relevant to the mandate of the Federal Reserve 

Board of Governors? 

What expertise and knowledge can you bring to the Board of 

Governors to facilitate the crafting and implementation of job 

growth policies as required by the Federal Reserve Act? 

In addition to your knowledge of employment and the job market, what other expertise and skills can you bring to the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve to achieve its vital objectives? 

A.1. In turn, I will discuss how my extensive background as an 

economist and my expertise should be very valuable to the Fed in 

three key areas of its responsibility: monetary policy, bank supervision and regulation, and crisis prevention and amelioration. My 

background can be a helpful complement to the range of expertise 

of the current Board members. 

It is important that monetary policy decisions reflect careful 

analysis of the labor market, along with information on inflation 

and inflation expectations and other aspects of economic performance. The current crisis has resulted in considerable discussion of 
78 

1 ‘‘The Beveridge Curve’’, BPEA 1:1989, 1–76, ‘‘The Aggregate Matching Function’’, in P. Diamond (ed.) Growth, Productivity, Unemployment: Essays To Celebrate Bob Solow’s Birthday 

(Cambridge: MIT Press), 1990, ‘‘The Cyclical Behavior of the Gross Flows of U.S. Workers’’, 

BPEA 2:1990, 85–155. 2Specifically, I examined the ratios of unemployment to vacancies across industries and the 

patterns of hiring relative to vacancies across industries, across firms of different sizes, and 

across firms with different growth rates. Also relevant is the decline in quits by employed workers, which imply a decline in replacement hiring. 

the link between labor market performance—jobs lost, jobs sought, 

jobs offered—and desirable monetary policy. The crisis has caused 

unemployment to rise to a very high and painful level. With inflation very low at the same time, an accommodative monetary policy 

was implemented. After an extended period of economic decline, 

the economy began a slow recovery. For a period the unemployment rate showed little decline while the job vacancy rate grew, 

presenting a critical question for monetary policy of how best to interpret these developments. Some analysts saw them as calling 

into question the appropriateness of continuing with an accommodative monetary policy. 

The framework that has served as the ‘‘industry standard’’ for interpreting outcomes in the labor market, referred to as the DMP 

model, was the basis for the Nobel Prize that I shared with Dale 

Mortensen and Christopher Pissarides. In addition to my role in 

creating the DMP model, I wrote a series of papers together with 

Olivier Blanchard (currently IMF chief economist) analyzing the 

empirical relationship between unemployment and vacancies over 

a typical business cycle as well as setting out a theoretical framework for such analysis. 1

Relevant to the Fed mandate is my analysis of the current situation in the labor market in the Nobel Prize Lecture that I delivered 

in Stockholm on December 10, 2010, and in a much longer analysis 

that will appear in the American Economic Review in June 2011. 

This analysis went behind the aggregate numbers to examine hiring at the level of firms and industries. 2 This analysis led me to 

conclude that there was insufficient evidence that firms were experiencing increased difficulty in hiring qualified workers. Thus, I 

read the evidence as suggesting that the aggregate behavior of the 

labor market does not, in fact, signal a break in the efficiency of 

matching jobs and workers. That is, the pattern of hiring would 

likely return to normal after the economy had grown sufficiently to 

approach its potential output, apart from the lingering effects of 

long-term unemployment. As this discussion indicates, careful analysis of the labor market, an analysis in which I have considerable 

expertise and experience, is essential for setting monetary policy 

well. 

The global financial crisis has added macroprudential considerations to the list of issues that must be addressed in the course of 

conducting supervision and regulation of banks. That is, it is not 

sufficient to ask whether the current position of a bank is sound, 

but also how the bank might be affected by adverse economic developments and whether the bank is at risk of contributing to widespread financial difficulties. In part, macroprudential issues are 

being addressed through the design of financial institution stress 

tests. Stress test design is in an early stage and will no doubt 

evolve with experience with stress testing itself, and with further 
79 

3 I discussed a paper on stress testing banks at the recent Monetary Policy Forum: Comments 

on ‘‘Stressed Out: Macroprudential Principles for Stress Testing’’, by David Greenlaw, Anil K 

Kashyap, Kermit Schoenholtz, and Hyun Song Shin, U.S. Monetary Policy Forum Report No. 

5, Initiative on Global Markets, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 2011. 4 Also I can draw on my extensive experience studying and advising about social security systems in many countries. As with the financial system, social security systems must address individual risks and aggregate risks, they must function well in ordinary times and must weather 

financial crises. 

research on the nature of systemic risks, particularly risks to the 

financial sector developing through direct and indirect connections 

between financial institutions. Analysis of these connections between firms will draw on models of the capital market, a subject 

that I have researched. Moreover, much of the concern about liquidity comes from the differences in speed between actions that 

impact financial institutions, such as a reduced availability of 

short-term financing, and the abilities of the financial institutions 

to respond. Analysis of dynamics in markets with direct lender-borrower relations is naturally built on search theory. While greatly 

different in detail, there is a parallel between the need for time to 

match workers and jobs and the need for time to match lenders 

and borrowers. Indeed, in its scientific background statement for 

my prize, the Nobel Prize committee included financial economics 

among the wide range of uses that have been made of search theory. Thus my expertise in both general equilibrium and search 

theories should be of great practical use in the development of 

bank supervision and regulation. 3

The global financial crisis has greatly increased awareness of the 

importance of preserving financial stability. This has resulted in 

changes in the regulation of financial institutions world wide and 

in efforts by researchers to enhance our understanding of how crises happen, how to lower their likelihood, and how to reduce their 

negative impacts on the economy. Both regulation and research 

need to be ongoing processes. The research process and the analysis of regulatory rules take time and require feedback. Moreover, 

ongoing financial innovation means that the financial markets are 

themselves changing. It would be a mistake to limit regulatory and 

supervisory changes to the causes of the particular crisis we have 

experienced—crises can come in a variety of forms and the evolution of the economy will change the ways that crises can occur. 

My ability to understand how and when basic research is informative for policy design should be very useful at the Fed in crisis 

prevention and limitation. 4

In sum my extensive background as an economist, and high level 

of expertise, should be very valuable to the Fed in three key areas 

of its responsibility: monetary policy, bank supervision and regulation, and crisis prevention and amelioration. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR VITTER 

FROM PETER A. DIAMOND 

Q.1. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that PIMCO, the 

world’s largest bond investor, has divested all holdings in U.S. 

treasuries. Fund managers pointed to potential bond price declines 

as the U.S. Government approaches the statutory debt limit and 

the approaching end to the Federal Reserve’s second round of 
80 

quantitative easing (QE2). This was followed by the following two 

comments: 

• ‘‘U.S. Government bonds are not a safe haven,’’ Jim Rogers, the 

global investor who predicted the 2007–2009 housing-market 

crash, said in a telephone interview from Singapore. ‘‘I cannot 

conceive of lending money to the U.S. Government for 30 

years.’’ 

• ‘‘Pacific Investment Management Co. said yesterday that Bill 

Gross, who runs the $237 billion Pimco Total Return Fund, 

eliminated Government-related debt from his flagship fund last 

month as the U.S. projected record budget deficits.’’ 

What do these comments say to you about QE2? 

A.1. These comments seem to have been spurred mostly by three 

concerns: normal recovery from the recession, inflation risk, and 

the long-run fiscal challenge. 

At present, the interest rates on longer-term Treasury debt are 

very low, and QE2 has contributed to these low rates. Once the recovery is far along and growth has picked up interest rates will 

rise, and QE2 will be unwound. Of course, the timing and magnitude of a rise in interest rates is uncertain. To help minimize uncertainties regarding the future course of long-term interest rates, 

the Federal Reserve has indicated that the eventual unwinding of 

its asset purchases will be done gradually, and will be carefully 

communicated in advance. 

Regarding the prospects for inflation in the near and intermediate term, the Federal Reserve remains committed to its statutory objectives of maximum employment and stable prices. At 

present, underlying inflation remains low and inflation expectations have been stable. The Federal Open Market Committee 

(FOMC) has noted that it will regularly review the asset purchase 

program in light of changes in the economic outlook and that it will 

use its policy tools to support the economic recovery and help ensure that inflation, over time, remains at levels consistent with its 

mandate. 

Regarding the fiscal outlook in the United States and the potential for inflation that could impair the value of investments in longterm Treasury securities, the Congress and the Administration will 

need to make tough decisions in coming years to address the Nation’s fiscal challenges. 

Q.2. Bill Gross also wrote that, ‘‘Yields on Treasuries may be too 

low to sustain demand for U.S. Government debt as the Federal 

Reserve approaches the end of quantitative easing.’’ Do these comments give you pause about your previous support for QE2? If so, 

why? If not, why not? 

A.2. The quotation suggests a concern that the demand for Treasuries may fall sharply as the QE2 program nears an end. However, 

Federal Reserve asset purchases appear to affect interest rates primarily by reducing the total stock of long-term securities available 

to the public rather than through the anticipated flow of new purchases. Thus, the effect of the purchases should not diminish as the 

program is wound down. Experience with the conclusions of Federal Reserve asset purchase programs conducted over 2009 and 
81 

early 2010 generally supported this view; aggregate demand for securities did not fall and long-term interest rates did not increase 

sharply as those programs came to a close. Consistent with this 

historical experience, the term structure of interest rates suggests 

that most market participants do not expect a sharp increase in 

longer-term interest rates over coming months, even though investors do appear to anticipate that the asset-purchase program will 

be completed early this summer. 

Q.3. What is the dollar value of U.S. Treasuries currently held by 

the Federal Reserve? 

A.3. The Federal Reserve publishes information on its balance 

sheet weekly in the Board’s H.4.1 statistical release (http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/). As of March 9, the Federal 

Reserve’s holdings of U.S. Treasury securities stood at $1.27 trillion or about 14 percent of total marketable Treasury debt outstanding. By way of comparison, the Federal Reserve’s holdings of 

U.S. Treasury securities in June of 2007, prior to the onset of the 

crisis, stood at about $0.79 trillion or about 18 percent of total marketable Treasury debt outstanding at the time. 

Q.4. How does this compare to the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by China or Japan? 

A.4. According to the Treasury International Capital (TIC) data 

collected by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, mainland China 

and Japan held $1.16 trillion and $0.88 trillion of U.S. Treasury securities, respectively, as of December 2010. 

Q.5. Given that QE2 is not yet halfway finished, what do you think 

will happen to the demand for Treasuries over the next few 

months? 

A.5. U.S. Treasury securities are widely regarded as a safe and 

highly liquid financial instrument in global fixed income markets. 

The global demand for U.S. Treasury securities is likely to remain 

solid over coming months. 

Q.6. Are you concerned that since QE2 other central banks and 

purchasers of Treasury securities have scaled back their purchases? 

A.6. The Federal Reserve’s purchases have been largely concentrated in previously issued Treasury securities. As a result, 

global investors have continued to be the primary source of demand 

for new Treasury securities. Demand at recent U.S. Treasury auctions has been solid, and market participants generally do not appear to be anticipating any significant waning in the global demand for Treasury securities over coming months. 

Q.7. What, in your mind, are the potential long term risks with the 

QE2 strategy? 

A.7. The Federal Reserve’s asset purchase program is intended to 

put downward pressure on long-term interest rates. Lower longterm interest rates reduce the costs of borrowing for households 

and businesses and boost asset prices, thereby providing impetus 

to spending. The potential risks associated with this program are 

similar to the risks associated with monetary policy stimulus provided with conventional monetary policy tools. An accommodative 
82 

policy stance that is maintained for too long could result in excessive growth in aggregate demand that would put upward pressure 

on prices, and could, if unchecked, result in an increase in longterm inflation expectations that could prove costly to reverse. The 

Federal Reserve will need to continue to monitor economic developments very carefully and can change policy if that is warranted, 

just as it can change interest rate policy using conventional monetary policy tools. 

Q.8. How can we be confident that those who used to purchase 

Treasury securities, but have withdrawn due to the dramatic increase in Federal Reserve purchases, will return once QE2 is 

ended? 

A.8. The Federal Reserve purchased $300 billion of Treasury securities in 2009, and markets adjusted readily to the conclusion of 

that program. In addition, the Federal Reserve purchased $1.25 

trillion of agency MBS over 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, and 

markets again adjusted smoothly to the conclusion of that program. 

The level of activity in Treasury markets currently remains very 

high and the Federal Reserve’s asset purchases represent only a 

modest proportion of total trading volume in U.S. Treasury securities. I see no reason to question the view that market participants 

generally expect a smooth conclusion to the Federal Reserve’s current asset purchase program. Moreover, forward 10-year yields at 

horizons beginning beyond June do not suggest that investors see 

any special strains associated with the conclusion of the asset purchase program, and uncertainty about long-term Treasury yields 

embedded in options prices has actually moved lower over recent 

weeks. 

Q.9. What are the implications of the Federal Reserve being the 

chief purchaser of our Nation’s debt? 

A.9. Since the stated intention of the FOMC is to continue the high 

level of purchases on a temporary basis and to unwind the holdings 

after that, I see no long-run implications of this program and a 

short-run implication of helping the economic recovery. Of course, 

care must be taken to monitor the economy to make sure the policy 

remains appropriate while it is in effect. 

Q.10. In an Op-Ed entitled, ‘‘Health Care for Everyone’’, you suggested bundling families together into groups which private insurance companies would provide coverage too in the way that Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac bundle individual mortgages together. You 

have supported the bailouts of the megabanks during 2008 and the 

President’s ‘‘stimulus’’ effort. Can you cite some instances where 

you don’t believe that direct intervention of the Federal Government is the best policy answer? 

A.10. Like most American economists, I begin with the presumption that the basic system of free enterprise is the most efficient 

way to organize economic activity. One of the great strengths of the 

American economy is the widely shared understanding that markets work and work well. Absent compelling evidence of market 

failure, intervention by the Federal Government would not benefit 

our economic functioning. Indeed, our own governmental experience—and much of the academic literature published during the 
83 

past century—can be seen as working to identify and refine a list 

of conditions in which Government intervention might be capable 

of improving a purely market-based outcome. By now, the basic 

outlines of those conditions are well understood. Unless a given situation meets a well-understood test of market failure, most economists would counsel against Government intervention, and I share 

that consensus view. For example, policies of Government price 

regulation in competitive settings do not enhance market efficiency. 

Q.11. On National Public Radio last October you said that investing in public works is worth the risk of increasing the deficit. Despite the fact that we are facing our third trillion dollar deficit in 

American history and in December Moody’s warned that it may 

downgrade the U.S. credit rating do you still feel that investing in 

public works is worth the risk? 

A.11. Projections of U.S. debt show an unsustainable path, and I 

strongly favor putting in place reforms that would move the U.S. 

to a sustainable fiscal path. Investing in public works, done right, 

can be an economically smart decision because the benefits of a 

well-designed investment can far outweigh the costs, thereby contributing to long-term economic growth. In light of the fiscal pressures that the country faces, it is important that each commitment 

of taxpayer resources be undertaken with careful thought to both 

costs and benefits. Moreover, while unemployment remains very 

high, it is particularly advantageous to put in place reforms that 

address the long-term trajectory of the debt while avoiding a combination of actions that risk slowing or reversing the current economic recovery. 

Q.12. Mr. Diamond, as you may be aware, since the Federal Reserve lowered the Federal Funds rate to ‘‘0 to 1⁄4 percent’’ the 

FOMC statement has included the following statement, the Fed 

‘‘continues to anticipate economic conditions . . . are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the Federal funds rate for an extended period of time.’’ Do you support the continued inclusion of 

that sentence in future FOMC statements? 

A.12. I have not been part of the FOMC and have not received the 

detailed evaluations of the performance of the economy that members of the FOMC receive. If confirmed I will have an open mind 

to evaluate policies in light of the information and discussion that 

surrounds and occurs at FOMC meetings. While labor market conditions have improved somewhat of late, the unemployment rate 

remains very high and underlying inflation has declined over the 

last 2 years and is currently at a low level. Thus, I consider it 

worthwhile to encourage investments in both consumer durables 

and production assets. Sustaining low levels of the Federal funds 

rate for an extended period is one way to encourage such investments. As the economy recovers, the statement language will eventually need to change to be consistent with the Committee’s developing assessment of the economic outlook and the appropriate 

stance of monetary policy. 

Q.13. Would you vote against the inclusion of that sentence at the 

next meeting of the FOMC? 
84 

A.13. Without the benefit of participating in previous FOMC discussions of this issue, and without the information and discussion 

that will occur in the next FOMC meeting, I cannot say how I 

would vote if I did attend the next meeting. The evolution of the 

sentence noted, along with many other elements of the stance of 

policy, must be carefully evaluated in light of changes in the economic outlook. 

Q.14. Many economists believe that dropping the ‘‘extended period’’ 

language from the FOMC would provide a crucial signal to the 

markets that the time of excessive, cheap liquidity will be coming 

to an end soon. What would it take for you to support removing 

that sentence from the FOMC statement? 

A.14. The extended period language and other aspects of the current stance of policy reflect the current view of the FOMC on the 

needs of the economy. As such they will need to be adjusted as 

there are changes in the FOMC’s assessment of the outlook for its 

dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. Since 

the Committee, appropriately evaluates a very wide range of economic data in making its assessment, and I have not been party 

to the range of assessments considered at FOMC meetings, it is not 

possible to state precisely what changes in which variables would 

make a specific adjustment to the statement seem appropriate.