[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 1, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2538-S2540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Stephen Moore
Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President.
I think it is fair to say that most Americans didn't wake up this
morning thinking about the role the Federal Reserve plays in their
lives. The people we represent are focused on putting in an honest
day's work, taking care of their families, and gradually climbing the
economic ladder. The Fed is focused on making sure our economy is
giving them every opportunity to do just that--or at least it is
supposed to be.
The Fed's mission is to keep employment high, prices stable, and our
financial system in good working order. When it succeeds, we see the
full potential of the American economy, the greatest force for
prosperity the world has ever known. When it fails, ordinary people can
wind up losing their jobs, their homes, and their savings.
Even though most Americans don't know their names or think about
their work, the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors, nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress, have
an important job to do.
The Fed is not supposed to be a place for politics. It is not a job
for politicians. It is a job for the most accomplished and thoughtful
economists and financial experts we have--men and women who truly
understand not just what makes an economy work on paper, but what makes
our economy truly work for working Americans.
Through his choice of nominees for this position, a President
demonstrates whether he understands the importance of a functioning
financial system and respects the American people, who rely on the Fed
to keep our economy on solid footing. Through our consideration of
those nominees, we here in the Senate do the same--which brings me to
the President's latest choice for this position: Stephen Moore.
Let's be clear about who Mr. Moore is. He is not a professor of
economics at a prestigious university. He has won no prizes for his
intellectual scholarship. In fact, he has never authored or coauthored
a single peer-reviewed article or journal ever.
While some have suggested it might not be a bad thing to have a range
of experience on the Federal Reserve Board, it is unclear what
experience Mr. Moore has that would contribute a useful perspective. He
has never run a bank or a business of any size. In fact, he has barely
any experience in the private sector at all. No, Stephen Moore is a
political operative and a pundit. There is nothing wrong with that, per
se, but the fact is that President Trump picked him not because of
anything he has accomplished in business or in the study of economics
but rather because of what Mr. Moore believes--or at least what he goes
on TV and says he believes.
As we try to decide who Mr. Moore is and whether he is, in fact,
suitable for a job that has never before been held by someone with his
total lack of qualifications, we might start by taking a look at the
opinions he has shared over the decades he spent doing little else but
sharing his opinions. For example, nearly all economists agree that
empowering women to participate fully and equally in the workforce
would result in huge gains for our economy. In fact, earlier this
decade, a McKinsey analysis found that the increased number of women
entering the workforce between 1970 and 2011 accounted for roughly a
quarter of the gains in GDP achieved over that time period.
This McKinsey study noted:
Still, the full potential of women in the workforce has yet
to be tapped. As the U.S. struggles to sustain historic GDP
growth rates, it is critically important to bring more women
into the workforce and fully deploy high-skill women to drive
productivity improvement.
That is why so many of us in Washington are focused on empowering
women to find jobs and build careers, to balance the responsibilities
of work and family, and to participate in the economy on equal footing
with men.
Mr. Moore apparently disagrees. He believes and has written that
``the male needs to be breadwinner of the family.'' When it comes to
pay discrimination, Mr. Moore was unconcerned with the fact that, on
average, women were earning 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. In
fact, just 5 years ago, he warned that raising women's pay ``could be
disruptive to family stability.''
Perhaps Mr. Moore should read the McKinsey study. After all, it was
produced for the Wall Street Journal, where he is a frequent
commentator and used to serve on the editorial board, so I am sure he
could get a copy of it. But the more Mr. Moore's public statements are
examined, the more it becomes clear that his views on women and the
economy might have less to do with the economy and more to do with
women.
Here is just one example. Mr. Moore apparently believes that efforts
to address sexual harassment and assault on college campuses are quote
``draining all the fun out of college life.''
He goes on to elaborate:
Colleges are places for rabble-rousing. For men to lose
their boyhood innocence. To do stupid things. To stay out way
too late drinking. To chase skirts. (At the University of
Illinois we used to say that the best thing about Sunday
nights was sleeping alone.) It's all a time-tested rite of
passage into adulthood. And the women seemed to survive just
fine. If they were so oppressed and offended by drunken,
lustful frat boys, why is it that on Friday nights they
showed up in droves in tight skirts to the keg parties?
This is the sort of thing a college freshman writes on his Facebook
page that comes back to haunt him in his first round of job interviews.
Mr. Moore chose to put those words in a newspaper column, underneath
his name, at the age of 40.
Then again, anyone familiar with his record wouldn't be surprised to
learn that Mr. Moore doesn't take sexual assault seriously. CNN
recently unearthed that years earlier he had mocked the Violence
Against Women Act as ``objectionable pork'' and referred to a program
designed to promote gender quality in education as ``vile.''
So in addition to ``chasing skirts'' on college campuses, Mr. Moore
seems to believe that women's equality is ruining another favorite
pastime--sports. He wrote that ``co-ed sports is doing irreparable harm
to the psyche of America's little boys,'' and he mused about urging his
young son to assault a kindergartner named Kate Lynn just because she
was a better soccer player.
In another bit of sports commentary, Mr. Moore wrote:
Here's the rule change I propose: No more women refs, no
more women announcers, no women beer vendors, no women
anything. There is, of course, an exception to this rule.
Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look
like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing
about basketball is entirely irrelevant.
At the time Mr. Moore wrote this, Bonnie Bernstein was a prominent
journalist and ESPN analyst, and he was a 42-year-old married man. But
that didn't stop him from further underscoring his creepy affections
for Ms. Bernstein, adding that she should be required to wear a halter
top on the air. ``If Bonnie were President of the United States,''
wrote this adult male in a national publication about a complete
stranger, ``she'd be a Babe-raham Lincoln.'' Perhaps that is why Mr.
Moore has also said that powerful men should never meet alone with
women, because they might wind up being accused of sexual harassment.
Maybe it is a rule he should follow. Frankly, if I
[[Page S2539]]
were Bonnie Bernstein or any woman who read that column, I wouldn't
want to be alone in a room with him.
Mr. Moore has tried to explain away some of these misogynistic
comments as jokes, so maybe he just has a profoundly unfunny sense of
humor. But he didn't sound like he was joking when he called for the
elimination of child labor laws, adding, ``I want people starting to
work at 11, 12.''
He didn't sound like he was joking when he went on CNN 2 years ago
and claimed falsely that the Civil War was not fought over slavery or
when he claimed bizarrely that liberals were to blame for the rise of
White supremacist violence that resulted in the death of a young woman
in Charlottesville. He didn't sound like he was joking when he attacked
equal rights for LGBTQ Americans, arguing that rulings in favor of
marriage equality were ``overturning the will of the people.''
He didn't sound like he was joking when he referred to the
unemployment insurance that millions of Americans rely on to make ends
meet during hard times as ``paid vacation'' or when he warned that
guaranteeing paid sick leave for workers was ``very dangerous.''
And if he was joking when he referred to most of the Midwest,
including great cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland, as ``armpits of
America,'' well, I know my friend Senator Brown didn't think that was
funny and neither did I.
Still, Mr. Moore tried to change the subject from his long history of
offensive remarks, and he went on FOX News last week and said: ``I'm no
angel.'' No kidding.
Indeed, the best possible argument in Mr. Moore's favor is that it is
possible to be a jerk about women, LGBTQ Americans, low-income workers,
and anyone who has ever lived anyplace other than New York or Chicago
or Georgetown and that you could still be that person and be a good
economist, except, of course, that Mr. Moore isn't even a good
economist.
For example, he opposed the farm bill that provides the lifeblood to
rural communities that I represent in Minnesota, and he believes we
should get rid of safety net programs that help those rural
communities. Well, I think most people living in rural America would
rather withstand Mr. Moore's insults than suffer the consequences of
his agenda. The truth is, we need policymakers who are committed to
creating more economic opportunities in rural communities by expanding
access to credit, investing in education and infrastructure, and
protecting the agricultural safety net. I guess Mr. Moore doesn't care
what goes on in those parts of the country that he calls the armpits of
America.
Here is another example. Mr. Moore has repeatedly called for a return
to the gold standard, a position described by a Washington Post
reporter as ``a lot like playing Russian roulette with the economy.''
Now, an economist who believes in a return to the gold standard is like
a zoologist who believes in the existence of unicorns. It is a plainly
ludicrous opinion for a serious expert to hold, which is probably why
Mr. Moore has tried to deny that he has ever said this, claiming that
he has ``never actually been a gold standard guy.'' But he has--
consistently and forcefully.
In 2009, he told a Washington Policy Center reception: ``We need to
go back to the gold standard.'' In 2010, he told an audience at the
Fort Henry Club in West Virginia: ``We have to reestablish some kind of
gold standard.'' In 2011, he went on the FOX Business channel and said:
``I do think we have to peg the dollar to gold.'' In 2012, he was asked
on CNBC whether he wanted to go back to the gold standard, and he
answered: ``Yes, I do.''
In 2015, he told a tea party crowd: ``We have got to get rid of the
Federal Reserve and move towards a gold standard in this country.'' In
2016, he told a group of young conservatives: ``We should go back to
some sort of gold standard.''
Mr. Moore apparently doesn't understand that things have changed a
lot since the 1950s, not just when it comes to the role of women but
when it comes to the ubiquity of video cameras. He is on tape again and
again giving voice to this crazy idea that he claims he has never
supported. Indeed, his position on the gold standard isn't just an
example of being badly out of step.
Mr. Moore is out of step with mainstream economics, and it is a
pretty good illustration of his difficult relationship with the facts.
A few years ago, he was banned from the opinion pages of the Kansas
City Star after he wrote a column claiming that low-tax States were
performing better than high-tax States. He wrote:
No-income-tax Texas gained 1 million jobs over the last
five years; California, with its 13 percent tax rate, managed
to lose jobs. Oops. Florida gained hundreds of thousands of
jobs while New York lost jobs. Oops.
It turns out that Mr. Moore got his facts wrong--never a good thing
when you are in the economics business. Instead of adding a million
jobs, Texas had actually added less than half that number. Florida
hadn't gained hundreds of thousands of jobs; it had lost nearly half a
million jobs. New York hadn't lost jobs; it had gained 57,000 jobs.
``Oops'' is right.
The truth is Mr. Moore is wrong a lot. He predicted that the
Affordable Care Act would kill jobs. It didn't. He claimed that
President Trump's tax giveaway to corporations would pay for itself. It
didn't. He argued that the Fed should return to a rule tying monetary
policy to commodity prices. No such rule ever existed. I could go on
and on, and it would take me hours to even get to the kind of scandals
that have disqualified previous nominees, like the $75,000 in unpaid
taxes it was discovered he owed after filing what the IRS called a
``fraudulent'' tax return, or the time his political committee agreed
to pay $350,000 in fines for campaign finance violations, or the time
he was held in contempt of court for failing to pay $300,000 in alimony
and child support after his divorce, or even the time he bought his
mistress a T-shirt with the words ``Doing It,'' which is pretty amazing
coming from a guy who, again, thinks paying women a fair wage is, in
his words, ``disruptive to family stability.''
We would be making a mistake if we made this story entirely about Mr.
Moore. It is certainly troubling that President Trump was able to look
past so many red flags in selecting this man for this important
position, but it is even more troubling to consider why he wanted to
pick someone like Mr. Moore for this role. It is not hard to figure
out. This President wants an Attorney General who will act as his
personal lawyer. He wants an Environmental Protection Agency staffed
with scientists who will push the phony science of his energy industry
donors. He wants a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where his Wall
Street friends get a free pass to rip consumers off. Now President
Trump wants a Federal Reserve that, instead of acting in the economic
interest of the American people, will act in the political interest of
the President. That is the only explanation for Mr. Moore's nomination.
You see, Mr. Moore isn't really an economist at all. He is a
political operative. When he is wrong--and he is wrong a lot--it isn't
because he made a mistake. Mr. Moore has made a career out of being
wrong on purpose.
Catherine Rampell wrote in the Washington Post:
Moore has repeatedly, and falsely, claimed that the country
is experiencing ``deflation.'' That means prices are falling,
which they are not. But claiming this gives him cover to
argue that the Fed should pump more stimulus into the economy
just as Trump begins running for reelection.
Conversely, when we were in the depths of the financial crisis and
prices were falling, Moore claimed that we were on the brink of Weimar-
style hyperinflation. He therefore called on the Fed to tighten
monetary policy, which would have crippled the economy--and, just
coincidentally, maimed President Barack Obama.
If confirmed, Mr. Moore would not see his job as fulfilling
the Fed's dual mandate of stabilizing prices and raising
employment. He would not see his job as providing effective
oversight to the financial system. He would see his job as
getting President Trump reelected, no matter what it meant
for American workers, investors, and businesses. That is why
President Trump picked him.
Two years ago, President Trump allowed his advisers to talk him into
nominating Jerome Powell, an accomplished financial expert with long
experience in both public service and in the private sector, as Chair
of the Federal Reserve Board. Now, Chair Powell and I certainly don't
agree on every aspect of monetary policy, but we do agree that the Fed
should be focused on the
[[Page S2540]]
productivity of our economy and the protection of American workers, not
partisan political goals. In a recent hearing, for example, I discussed
with Chair Powell the specific challenges of the labor market in rural
areas, and he came prepared with a serious and thoughtful economic
analysis that showed his keen understanding of these issues.
Chair Powell has resisted pressure from the White House to intervene
in the economy to produce results in line with President Trump's
political agenda, and that has infuriated President Trump, who has
attacked Chair Powell on Twitter and harangued him in meetings. The
President feels he made a mistake in choosing an actual, serious,
sober-minded, thoughtful public servant, and he is set on not making
that same mistake again.
Either President Trump doesn't understand what the Fed is for or he
is hoping that we don't. And whether it is Mr. Moore or someone with
the good sense to keep his misogyny to himself, we on the Senate
Banking Committee should be prepared to give special scrutiny to any
Federal Reserve nomination that this President sends to us because,
while these issues might not be the flashiest, they are of critical
importance to the people whom we represent.
Indeed, when I joined the Senate Banking Committee earlier this year,
few Minnesotans took notice, but I see it as a chance to make an
enormous impact on people's lives by opening up new opportunities for
people to bet on themselves and to build the lives they want. Our work
can help to open up access to credit for families and small businesses
and underserved communities, especially communities of color. As a
Senator from Minnesota who is proud to represent our States' Tribal
communities, I know how badly they have been neglected by our financial
system, and I am determined to rectify that injustice. As a Senator who
is proud to represent so many rural communities, I am excited to use my
place on this committee to expand opportunities for economic
development in parts of our State that too often go overlooked.
Our work can make sure that our financial system remains on solid
footing, not just so that our economy can continue to grow but so that
more people can claim their stake in it--buying homes, starting
businesses, and building wealth they can pass down to their next
generation. Our work can help to hold Wall Street greed in check and to
make sure that people don't get ripped off when applying for student
loans and mortgages and so that we never again see a repeat of the
great recession that wiped out so many jobs and pensions. Yes, our work
can help to protect the integrity of the Federal Reserve from people
who see it as a tool for partisan politics, as a laboratory for radical
ideas, or as a playground for extremist ideologues who love to spout
off without knowing their facts--people like Stephen Moore.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination. I
also urge us all not to let the important work of the Federal Reserve
slip out of the public eye once this nominee is defeated. Instead,
let's make this a moment to highlight the important issues that the Fed
deals with every day and ensure that it is led by men and women who
understand its mission and appreciate the impact it has on the people
that we all serve.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Under the previous order, all
postcloture time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Barker
nomination?
Mr. PETERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 85 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
NAYS--47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Inhofe
Young
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________