[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 1, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2543-S2544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Stephen Moore

  Mr. President, this weekend, the President's pick for the Federal 
Reserve, Stephen Moore, said that we should focus a little less on all 
of his offensive and outlandish articles, the comments he made about 
women in print and on the air, the comments he made about places like 
Cincinnati and Cleveland, the attacks he has made on middle America, on 
working families. He said: Forget about all that. Let's talk about my 
economic record.
  Well, Mr. Moore should be careful what he wishes for. His economic 
record is dangerous. It is out of touch. It is a big part of the reason 
we have suffered so many of the economic problems we have had in the 
last decade. Even conservative economists have criticized him.
  He has claimed over and over again that the country is experiencing 
deflation. In other words, he thinks prices are falling. I don't know 
where he gets these ideas. I don't have any constituents who complain 
to me about prices falling--about deflation--but Mr. Moore seems to see 
things that aren't really there.
  Tell someone who is paying college tuition, whether it is at Sinclair 
Community College or whether it is at Ohio State or Kent State 
University, that the prices are going down. Tell it to someone with 
diabetes trying to afford insulin. Tell somebody in Columbus, OH, who 
is trying to pay the rent that prices are falling. It is absurd. He 
makes economic statements like that with so little basis in fact.
  He has been a conspiracy theorist. He thinks government statistics on 
the economy can't be trusted. Maybe that is where he got the idea that 
the cost of living is going down. He wants to return to the gold 
standard. He said on CNBC this morning that instead of talking about 
equal pay for women, the problem actually has been the steady decline 
in male earnings. I don't disagree the problem has been stagnant

[[Page S2544]]

wages for men, but I also can't believe he would say the problem is not 
women's wages when we know that--I have spent a lot of time on this 
floor talking about the dignity of work. I understand that so many 
Americans have seen corporate profits go up; we have seen executive 
compensation explode upward; we have seen workers working harder and 
being more productive; and we have seen wages remain flat. The issue is 
that wages are flat, in large part, because this body and this 
President have followed the advice of Stephen Moore and continued to 
cut taxes on rich people, underinvest in infrastructure, underinvest in 
working families, underinvest in public health, and underinvest in 
public education. So to put it on women and say that the problem has 
actually been the steady decline in male earnings--we shouldn't even be 
talking about women's wages--just makes no sense.
  He doesn't seem to understand that, fundamentally, as challenged as 
so many working families are with stagnant wages and with lack of 
opportunity, if you are a woman in this country, if you are someone of 
color, the challenges are even greater. He should know that. Every 
economic statistic shows that. Sentient human beings walking down the 
street and listening should know that. But for some reason, this man 
who wants to be a Governor on the Federal Reserve thinks otherwise.
  He wants the entire country--and this is probably even more serious. 
He wants the entire country to look like Kansas. He was the 
mastermind--or one of the masterminds--behind Governor Brownback's move 
in Kansas to basically eliminate tax liability for a whole group of 
mostly prosperous people, to cut taxes overall on the rich, and then go 
after public education and cut public education. It was so extreme that 
once it was enacted in a very Republican State by a Republican 
Governor, it was the Republicans in the legislature who unenacted it. 
They repealed most of the things he did and overrode this far-right 
Republican Governor's veto, again, based on what Mr. Moore had 
suggested. While almost all of the 50 States were gaining jobs, once-
prosperous Kansas lost jobs during this time. He wants that disastrous 
economic model to go nationwide, and we know he is not alone. It is the 
same philosophy that so many in this town say we should do--tax cuts 
for the rich and not for working families. It is this view that if you 
cut taxes on the rich, the money will trickle down and everybody will 
have a better standard of living. We tried that with President Reagan, 
and it didn't work. We tried that with President Bush, and it didn't 
work. If you remember in the 8 years of the Bush economy, a few hundred 
thousand in a country of 300-plus million, there was no net job growth 
to speak of in the Bush 8 years. Then the Trump tax bill cut taxes on 
the rich, and maybe it will trickle down, and we will have more jobs 
and more wages and all that. It just never works. It works for the 
rich. They get huge tax cuts. Bill Clinton, on the other hand--during 
his 8 years, in which they increased taxes on upper income people, we 
saw a 20 million net job increase.
  For some reason, Stephen Moore and his corporate crowd don't 
understand what happens when you cut taxes for the rich. You don't grow 
the economy by giving more money to the superwealthy, who will invest 
it in Swiss bank accounts. You focus on the middle class, and you give 
the tax breaks to the middle class like our earned-income tax credit 
bill. If you focus tax breaks on the middle class, you will grow the 
economy because you are putting money in the pocket of somebody making 
$20- or $30- or $50- or $100,000 a year. They are going to spend it. 
They are not going to put it in a Swiss bank account. When you give tax 
cuts to some of the people in the Trump Cabinet, they are going to put 
more in Swiss bank accounts. They are not going to spend it. They are 
not going to invest it. They are not going to make any difference in 
our economy.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote no on Stephen Moore not only because 
there is so much about him and what he has done and what he has 
written, but mostly for what he would advocate as a member of the 
Federal Reserve.
  If you love your country, you will fight for the people who make it 
work, and you respect and honor work. There is nothing about Mr. 
Moore's record that would suggest he would do that. We need someone on 
the Federal Reserve who actually understands that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.