[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.

                          ____________________