Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Congressman French Hill, chairman of the House Financial Committee on
Speaker 2: Financial Services, joined us now for more. Congressman Hill, welcome
Speaker 2: to the program. So we've got a lot to get through,
Speaker 2: and I just wanted to start with the independence of
Speaker 2: the Federal serve and the role that your committee's got
Speaker 2: to play is this spat continues to build down in Washington.
Speaker 1: Bligan Morthon, Jonathan, great to be with you. As you know,
Speaker 1: I've spoken out many times about the importance of the
Speaker 1: independence of the FED, and so has my colleague across
Speaker 1: the capital, Tim Scott, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Speaker 1: But because we fully support FED independence doesn't mean the
Speaker 1: Fed's immune from criticism. And every president in my adult
Speaker 1: life has been very vocal about criticizing the FED at
Speaker 1: one time for another. So I don't think FED independence
Speaker 1: is in question.
Speaker 3: When it comes to what could actually happen in terms
Speaker 3: of financial stability. We have FED Governor Lisa Cook's lawyer
Speaker 3: saying that the President was unlawful and removing Governor Cook
Speaker 3: and said it's vague allegations would endanger the stability of
Speaker 3: our financial system and undermine the rule of law. Do
Speaker 3: you agree with that assessment?
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's some hyperbole in there. Lisa Cook
Speaker 1: has been accused of effectively mortgage fraud. Those are significant
Speaker 1: allocations for someone, allegations, for someone who is a financial regulator,
Speaker 1: But I think they need to be adjudicated. I mean,
Speaker 1: she needs her due process, her day in court to
Speaker 1: prove that in fact that's not the case, and I
Speaker 1: think that's underway right now. And that's again something I've
Speaker 1: said in recent days.
Speaker 3: Do you think the President should have waited for the
Speaker 3: courts to play out in terms of this investigation, for
Speaker 3: these allegations to actually become charges and a conviction, to
Speaker 3: then take up this idea to fire her for cause.
Speaker 1: Look, the president's entitled to his own opinion. He has
Speaker 1: access to the facts that probably I don't, so he's
Speaker 1: made his decision about it. But by judgment is that's
Speaker 1: a serious allegation, and if true, it is certainly potentially
Speaker 1: a disqualifying allegation and charge for someone who's involved, very
Speaker 1: much intimately involved in the federal regulatory process.
Speaker 3: Taking a step back, though, do you agree with the
Speaker 3: Treasury Secretary on resetting the Fed's mission.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I believe that for a long time.
Speaker 1: I believe the FED should have a single mandate, which
Speaker 1: is price stability. The biggest, most punishing tax on the
Speaker 1: American people, our citizens, is inflation, and inflation's caused by
Speaker 1: too much money chasing too few goods. And we've had
Speaker 1: a dramatic example of that FED policy during the pandemic
Speaker 1: and the Biden administration's fiscal policy in combination very punishing
Speaker 1: forty year highs in inflation. So I believe we need
Speaker 1: fewer mandates, and I think we need that monetary policy
Speaker 1: focused on price stability. And again that's why set up
Speaker 1: a task force in this Congress to review the Fed's
Speaker 1: monetary policy since two thousand and eight, review the Fed's
Speaker 1: role and of financial regulation and supervision, and to make
Speaker 1: sure that we're also taking steps to make sure our
Speaker 1: treasury security market is resilient. All this work is led
Speaker 1: by Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, and we're deep in that process.
Speaker 1: So I think taking a strong look at the Fed's
Speaker 1: monetary policy and their government it's an important factor. And
Speaker 1: I agree with the Treasury Secretary on that.
Speaker 4: Well, inflation has not been below two percent for more
Speaker 4: than four years at this point, and we're still talking
Speaker 4: about fifty basis point rate cuts, maybe seventy five basis
Speaker 4: points of rate cuts this year. Do you think that
Speaker 4: that's premature, if this should be a single mandate federal
Speaker 4: reserve that looks solely on inflation.
Speaker 1: Well, I think this is the tough decision they have
Speaker 1: coming up. And we've seen a softness in the economy
Speaker 1: during the whole year in terms of consumer's ability to
Speaker 1: purchase the jobs reports that we've gotten. This is why
Speaker 1: the FED Chairman, I think consistently has said, let's look
Speaker 1: at the data, look at our data assessment and the
Speaker 1: forecast associated with it, and also make our own judgment
Speaker 1: about whether we're at the neutral rate for pricing, because
Speaker 1: we don't want to see the economy stall out and
Speaker 1: then go into stagflation, particularly when you're right about inflation
Speaker 1: getting close to two but not below two and not
Speaker 1: right at two. But when you look at inflation expectations,
Speaker 1: they seem to be more closely anchored it to and
Speaker 1: that should give the Fed some confidence as they entertain
Speaker 1: their decision in the next few days.
Speaker 3: Cheer Hill. I know you and your colleagues almost just
Speaker 3: recently got back from summer recess. But October first is
Speaker 3: fast approaching, and the Trump administration is weighing and pushing
Speaker 3: for this idea for a stopgap funding measure to keep
Speaker 3: the government open through January thirty first. Would you be
Speaker 3: on board with that?
Speaker 1: But we're talking about it among ourselves and obviously with
Speaker 1: our friends in the Senate. We've each passed three appropriations
Speaker 1: bills in the Senate. In the House, I think it
Speaker 1: would be great to go to conference on those bills
Speaker 1: and then pursue get those enacted into law, and then
Speaker 1: pursue a CR that's a shorter term. CR would be
Speaker 1: my advice for consideration so that we can get this
Speaker 1: work done. We're very close. Both the House and Senate
Speaker 1: are processing these bills. We have the Republicans in charge
Speaker 1: of the House and the Senate in the White House.
Speaker 1: So we ought to get together, find our top line number,
Speaker 1: and get our work done this year.
Speaker 2: Congressman, before you got the important stuff, Arkansas football Razorbacks
Speaker 2: got to get done this year.
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed watching the quarterback come and have his
Speaker 1: great game against Arkansas State. This was the first time
Speaker 1: in Arkansas history that Arkansas State played the University of
Speaker 1: Arkansas in Little Rock at the famous nineteen forty nine
Speaker 1: War Memorial Stadium. It was a fantastic day. He looks
Speaker 1: pretty good. We play Ole Miss this weekend, so that'll
Speaker 1: be the first SEC game and that's where the rubber hits.
Speaker 2: The road Saturday seventh. Looking forward to it, sir, Thanks
Speaker 2: for being here, Congressman, friendship.
Speaker 1: You still need to come to Razorbacks.
Speaker 2: I've got to make it happen. I know this year
Speaker 2: it's got to happen. Thank you, sir. SEC football all
Speaker 2: the best. Thank you appreciate it.