[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13505-13514]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 
3457.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 3457, a bill to 
     require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a 
     veterans jobs corps, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 5 p.m. today the Senate will proceed to 
executive session to consider the nomination of Stephanie Marie Rose to 
be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, with 30 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled. At 5:30 p.m. there 
will be a rollcall vote on the Rose nomination.


                           Moment of Silence

  I ask unanimous consent to have a moment of silence at 4:55 p.m. 
today for the 40th anniversary of the Munich Olympics massacre.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 13506]]




                       Reservation of Leader time

  Mr. REID. Would the Chair announce the business of the day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.


                            Morning Business

  Under the previous order, Senators are permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each.
  Mr. REID. I note 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. KYL. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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.


                          Convention Response

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to speak about two claims that 
were made at the recent Democratic Convention that I believe require a 
response. Obviously, the Republican Convention went first and they did 
not have an opportunity to respond to everything that was said, but I 
think there are two things, as I said, that were claimed that just are 
not true. The first is that Republican policies caused the economic 
recession, so that in the Democrats' view electing Governor Romney 
would simply return us to those same, allegedly, failed policies. 
Second, it was said by several spokesmen on the Democratic side that 
there were no new or big ideas coming out of the Republican Convention, 
so you might as well give President Obama another 4 years in office. I 
would like to respond to both of those claims.
  First, President Obama and his supporters would like Americans to 
believe that the so-called Bush tax cuts, deficits, and deregulation 
caused the great recession. Those are the Republican policies that got 
us into the mess, they say. The facts show this is not true. As James 
Pethakoukis of the American Enterprise Institute asks, if the 2001 and 
2003 tax cuts caused the great recession, then why does President Obama 
want to keep most of them? And why did he sign a 2-year extension of 
those tax cuts a year and a half ago? That is a good question.
  Obama supporters also claim that huge deficits resulting from these 
2001 and 2003 bills caused the recession. But here are the facts. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office--nonpartisan--the 2001 and 
2003 tax relief has only been responsible for 16 percent of the swing 
from surplus to deficit that they had estimated. If you look at the 
upper income tax relief only, that relief makes up just 4 percent of 
the swing. So it is impossible to say the tax cuts on the rich caused 
the recession. The maximum that the Congressional Budget Office can 
identify is potentially 4 percent. It is also important to note that 
since the CBO does not take into account the progrowth effects of 
marginal tax rate reductions--which all economists agree with--these 
numbers are even likely smaller than 4 percent.
  Over that same period of time, new spending--this is the real 
problem--and interest on that spending were 12 times as responsible as 
the upper income tax reductions. So the real culprit here is not 
reducing the tax rate on Americans and especially those who are in the 
wealthier brackets but, rather, the new spending in which the Federal 
Government engaged. That is the cause of the deficits, and that did 
have an impact eventually on our ability to recover from the great 
recession.
  One other note on this. The rich people, even though their tax rates 
were cut, ended up paying a far bigger percentage of taxes after the 
Bush tax cuts. The upper bracket earners paid--according to CBO again, 
in 2008 and 2009, the years for which they have figures, the top 20 
percent of taxpayers paid 90 percent of income taxes--94 percent of 
income taxes. Before the Bush tax cuts, before 2001, that same top 20 
percent paid only 81 percent. So the tax cuts in the upper income tax 
brackets resulted in an increase in the total dollar amount of taxes 
paid by the upper income people from 81 percent to 94 percent. So you 
cannot even make the argument that it was less fair. If anything, the 
upper income folks obviously paid a lot more--94 percent of all the 
income taxes paid.
  Now, if deficits are the problem the Democrats are talking about, 
then President Obama would clearly make the problem worse. Pethakoukis 
notes:

       The most recent Obama budget, according to CBO, would add 
     $6.4 trillion more to the federal budget deficit over the 
     next decade, leaving debt as a share of the economy stuck at 
     around 76 percent of GDP versus 37 percent pre-recession.

  Think about it. The Obama budget leaves us with 76 percent debt as a 
share of GDP as opposed to 37 percent before the recession. So if debt 
and deficits are a problem, it is far worse under President Obama's 
budget than before. But, again, it turns out that is not really what 
caused the great recession, nor was it the third item that has been 
pointed to; that is, deregulation.
  Deregulation under President Bush did not cause the problem. 
Pethakoukis writes:

       Glass-Steagall ended during the Clinton administration, and 
     studies have found no evidence that any rule changes by the 
     Bush SEC contributed to the financial crisis.

  Glass-Steagall is the law that used to regulate how banks made 
investments. That law was eventually repealed during the Clinton 
administration. The Bush SEC--that stands for Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and there are rules changes in every administration for the 
SEC--he is making the point that there is no evidence that any 
particular rule change in the SEC had anything to do with the financial 
crisis.
  So it was not the tax cuts, it was not the deficit, and it was not 
deregulation. What did cause the recession? AEI's Peter Wallison has 
put it simply this way:

       The financial crisis was a result of government housing 
     policy. . . . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the 
     implementers of a substantial portion of the government 
     housing policy.

  Now, I would note that Republicans in Congress tried to reform Fannie 
and Freddie, but we were opposed by Democratic Members both in the 
House and in the Senate, including then-Senator Barack Obama.
  Most experts, I believe, will agree that the biggest reason for the 
collapse that occurred after 2006 was the housing market--the sale of 
all of these mortgages that were not worth the paper on which they were 
written. When that paper was all added together, bundled together and 
sold in big chunks to investors, and they found out their investment 
was not worth what they had paid for it, you had a crash and you had 
several people on Wall Street who went bankrupt as a result of that 
crash. That is the reality.
  The bottom line is that there is no Republican policy that caused the 
recession, so it is bogus for the President to keep saying Governor 
Romney would just return us to the ``same failed policies.''
  The second claim is that there were no new big Republican ideas to 
come out of the GOP convention. I submit that claim reveals just how 
radical the Obama team's economic policies are. It is true that 
Governor Romney's ideas for economic recovery are not new. But they are 
big. In fact, his faith in the American people and the free enterprise 
system is a very big idea--not new but tried and tested as the basis 
for creating the wealthiest Nation ever on Earth.
  Capitalism and free markets have lifted the standard of living for 
more people around the world than any government program or any other 
system. Planned economies compare very poorly to the free enterprise 
system of America. Margaret Thatcher once famously observed:

       The problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out 
     of other people's money.

  Yes, a key theme of the Republican Convention was freedom, 
opportunity, and earned success. Americans did build our own success. 
To the extent that government provided any infrastructure along the 
way, it was paid for by taxes that Americans paid on what they earned 
because of their success. And, yes, this is in contrast to the theme of 
the Democratic Convention

[[Page 13507]]

that our success comes from the collective, embodied mostly in 
government, so the bigger the government the better.
  The bottom line is this: Returning to free market principles and 
progrowth policies will move us forward. Continued reliance on more 
spending, higher taxes, and bigger government will not solve our 
problems.
  Mr. President, 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. HARKIN. 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.


                            Rose Nomination

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I am a 
strong and enthusiastic advocate of Stephanie Rose to serve as a 
district court judge in Iowa's southern judicial district. I was 
honored to recommend to the President that he nominate this outstanding 
attorney. I encourage my colleagues to vote for her confirmation when 
the vote occurs later this afternoon.
  Let me begin by first thanking Senator Leahy and his staff for their 
hard work in advancing Ms. Rose's nomination. I also want to thank my 
senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his invaluable 
support and assistance. For all the years we have served together here 
in the Senate, which now goes on, I think, 27 years, Senator Grassley 
and I have cooperated in a spirit of good will on judicial nominations 
in our State.
  I am proud we are continuing Iowa's tradition regarding judicial 
selections. I can honestly say that Senator Grassley has never opposed 
one of my selectees, I have never opposed one of his, even when there 
has been a different President in the White House, depending upon the 
party that is in control of the Congress. I think we have both been 
very judicious, if I might use that word, in our selection of people 
for the bench. I say that both on behalf of Senator Grassley and 
myself. So therefore we have worked together in this very close spirit 
of cooperation.
  I also want to thank Senator Grassley's staff, in particular Jeremy 
Paris, Ted Lehman, and Senator Grassley's Chief of Staff, David Young, 
for their support and their help in advancing the nomination. On my 
staff, I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Brian Ahlberg, Dan Goldberg, 
Derek Miller, and Pam Smith, all of whom have worked very hard to make 
sure we had a thorough interview process, a thorough vetting of the 
candidates, and to make sure that we got to the point where her vote 
will be coming up later this afternoon.
  Stephanie Rose possesses in abundance the personal and professional 
qualities we expect from those we consider to take on the profound 
responsibilities of a Federal judge. She is a superb attorney. Among 
jurists, prosecutors, and the defense bar, she has a reputation as 
someone who is unfailingly fair and ethical and who possesses 
exceptional legal ability, intellect, integrity, and judgment.
  As Charles Larson, the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District 
of Iowa under President George W. Bush, wrote to the Judiciary 
Committee, Ms. Rose ``has all the requisite abilities and traits to 
serve all litigants of the Southern District of Iowa in the manner 
expected of a federal judge. Ms. Rose would be a distinguished member 
of the judiciary.''
  Ms. Rose was born in Topeka, KS, and moved to Mason City, IA, when 
she was 4. Both of her parents were public schoolteachers. She and her 
husband Rob have two children, Kyl and Missy. Ms. Rose has two sisters, 
one of whom was adopted after coming to the family as a foster child, 
one of five foster children her parents welcomed into their home.
  After graduating from Mason City High School, Ms. Rose earned her 
bachelor's degree with honors from the University of Iowa in just 3 
years. Then she earned her doctorate of jurisprudence from the 
University of Iowa College of Law in just 2 years, graduating in the 
top 5 percent of her class.
  She could easily have commanded a big salary from a top law firm. 
Instead she opted for public service and long hours as a Federal 
prosecutor, working to uphold the rule of law, making our neighborhoods 
safer, and advancing the cause of justice.
  I might add that she served as a Federal prosecutor under district 
attorneys appointed both by Democratic Presidents and Republican 
Presidents. In 2009, the Senate unanimously confirmed Ms. Rose to 
become U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Iowa, having 
previously served 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney.
  Even before becoming U.S. attorney, she was lead counsel in 260 
felony cases and made 34 oral arguments before the eighth circuit. She 
received a national award from the Department of Justice for her work 
in prosecuting the largest unlawful Internet pharmacy case in the 
United States.
  As U.S. attorney, Ms. Rose has helped make Iowa and our Nation safer, 
reduced violent crime and gang violence, and promoted civil rights. In 
addition, she has the distinction of serving on the Attorney General's 
Advisory Committee. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association 
gave Ms. Rose a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating, the highest rating 
by the American Bar Association.
  Finally, I wanted to comment on the historic nature of her 
confirmation. Ms. Rose was the first woman to be confirmed as U.S. 
attorney in Iowa's Northern District, and when confirmed later today, 
she will be the first woman confirmed as a U.S. district court judge in 
Iowa's Southern District.
  Ms. Rose is a person of truly outstanding intellect, integrity, and 
character. She is exceptionally well qualified to serve as a United 
States district judge for the Southern District of Iowa. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support her nomination.
  I yield the floor and 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Honoring Otis a. Brumby, Jr.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record an 8-page eulogy that appeared in the Marietta Daily 
Journal on Sunday of this week.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Mariettta Daily Journal, Sept. 8, 2012]

        Journal Publisher Dies After Two-Year Battle With Cancer

                             (By Joe Kirby)

       Otis A. Brumby Jr. served nearly a half-century as 
     publisher of the Marietta Daily Journal. During those decades 
     he oversaw the transformation of the MDJ from a small-city 
     newspaper into the award-winning flagship of a metro-wide 
     chain of suburban papers; used those publications as ``bully 
     pulpits'' for lower taxes and against political corruption; 
     crusaded successfully for stronger ``Sunshine Laws''; fought 
     passionately for education reform; and was a widely respected 
     kingmaker in state and local politics. Brumby, who was 
     diagnosed with Stage 4 prostate cancer nearly two years ago 
     and had waged a strenuous fight against it since then, passed 
     away peacefully at his home on Saturday at age 72, surrounded 
     by family and friends.
       Said former Gov. Roy Barnes of Marietta, ``I can think of 
     no single person who's had bigger impact on Cobb County and 
     this state than Otis. He excelled as a community leader and 
     in education reform. And I think that a giant oak has fallen 
     that will be very difficult to replace.''
       Otis A. Brumby Jr. was born April 9, 1940 in Atlanta, son 
     of the late Otis A. Brumby Sr. and Elisabeth Dobbs Brumby of 
     Marietta. His family had a long history and deep roots in 
     county history. One member (Col. Anoldus V. Brumby) had 
     served as commandant of the Georgia Military Institute on 
     Powder Springs Road in Marietta (now site of the Marietta 
     Hilton and Conference Center). Otis

[[Page 13508]]

     Jr. was the great-grandson of Thomas Micajah Brumby, who with 
     his brother James had co-founded the Brumby Chair Company 
     here just after the Civil War (a company that Otis Jr. would 
     successfully resurrect in the mid-1990s). Both Thomas and his 
     son, Thomas Jr., served as mayors of Marietta, the latter 
     dying in office.
       Thomas Jr.'s son Otis Sr. had founded the weekly Cobb 
     County Times in 1916 and acquired the MDJ in 1951.
       The publisher and his young family, which also included 
     daughter Bebe in addition to Otis, lived on then-rural 
     Terrell Mill Road just south of Marietta.
       Despite growing up around the newspaper, Otis Jr. had 
     planned on a legal career. After graduating from the 
     University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., with a major in 
     political science and a minor in economics, he earned a law 
     degree from The University of Georgia in Athens (where his 
     roommates included future famed criminal defense lawyer Ed 
     Garland, banking tycoon James Blanchard of Synovus and 
     prominent attorney Wyck Knox of Augusta).
       But shortly after he returned to Marietta in 1965 as 
     assistant to the publisher (a training period that also 
     included a lengthy stint as a ``cub'' reporter) and two years 
     later was named publisher.
       He wasted little time making his mark. In 1969 he launched 
     the Neighbor Newspaper group, which ultimately grew into a 
     chain of 27 free suburban weeklies circling metro Atlanta, 
     with satellite offices in each county feeding copy back to 
     Marietta.
       ``Otis Jr. was still in his 20s when he made the visionary 
     decision to start the Neighbor newspapers,'' retired Kennesaw 
     State University history professor Tom Scott, Ph.D., told the 
     MDJ. ``In the competitive world of modern reporting, with so 
     many alternatives to print journalism, it's hard to see how 
     the MDJ could have been so profitable without the mass 
     circulation of those suburban newspapers.''
       Meanwhile, with delivery issues in mind and with an eye on 
     the need for better access to then-new Interstate 75, Brumby 
     moved the newspaper's offices from their traditional Marietta 
     Square location to a new plant on Fairground Street just 
     downhill from Lockheed.
       Brumby's newspaper, with its emphasis on short stories and 
     readability, became a model for the industry. When Gannett 
     began laying plans for what would become USA Today, it sent a 
     team of editors to spend a week in the MDJ newsroom studying 
     the Marietta newspaper model.
       The MDJ's meat-and-potatoes was and is coverage of 
     community events that are too routine for bigger media to pay 
     much attention to: the rezonings, the road widenings, the 
     church news, the school news, the new business openings. But 
     unlike many community-oriented newspapers, and unlike many 
     bigger ones as well, the MDJ under Brumby's leadership also 
     kept its editorial eye riveted on the doings of its local 
     governments. The MDJ hammered home through the years the need 
     for leaner government and lower taxes.
       ``He was always a populist in his views and opposed what he 
     deemed to be wasteful spending on any level of government,'' 
     recalled state Senator and former Cobb school board Chairman 
     Lindsey Tippins.
       Added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ``Otis was 
     consistently one of the strongest voices for more efficient 
     government, for smaller government and for creating new jobs. 
     He was a passionate advocate for the development of northside 
     Atlanta. Just look at the amount of what in his youth was 
     farmland that now is full of homes and factories and schools. 
     He was integral to the growth of Cobb.''
       Said legendary retired Georgia journalist and syndicated 
     columnist Bill Shipp of Kennesaw, ``Of all the publishers and 
     editors I met and worked for, he was far and above the best 
     one. He had a model daily newspaper. He not only reported the 
     news, his newspaper was an active, dynamic watchdog in this 
     county.
       ``He ran a newspaper that appealed to local newspaper 
     readers and was a cause for community good. And the MDJ is 
     without equal in the entire state in that regard.''
       Added Barnes, ``We have not had any major government 
     corruption scandals in Cobb, and the reason is that Otis was 
     a vigilant watchdog making sure the public knew what was 
     going on. We've escaped embarrassment, corruption and scandal 
     because of his efforts.''
       Like most editors and publishers, Brumby felt strongly 
     about First Amendment issues. But unlike the perfunctory 
     support sometimes heard from such quarters, Brumby's front-
     and-center push for government transparency was unwavering.
       ``His legacy in journalism was his consistent, unrelenting 
     effort to ensure government transparency and open meetings 
     and records,'' said U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) 
     ``There's not a journalist or publisher or editorial writer 
     in this state that did more than Otis to ensure the public's 
     business was done in the open. There wouldn't be an Open 
     Meetings and Open Records Act without Otis.''
       Continued Isakson, ``When the publisher of your hometown 
     paper and your personal friend has a passion for open 
     government and you're an elected official, if you don't 
     embrace that concept too, you won't last very long.''
       Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens of east Cobb described 
     Brumby as ``a great teacher and mentor. His love of the First 
     Amendment and his desire for elected officials to be held 
     accountable are much appreciated.''
       Retired ambulance company owner Bo Pounds was part of a 
     group that successfully brought suit against Cobb EMC 
     regarding misuse of corporate assets, an effort that was 
     fueled by the MDJ's close coverage.
       ``Otis is the best I've ever seen at letting the public 
     know what in the hell the government is doing,'' he told the 
     MDJ. ``Otis is as responsible for openness in Georgia law as 
     anyone.''
       The newspaper went on to win the prestigious annual Freedom 
     of Information Award numerous times from the Georgia 
     Associated Press and the Georgia Press Association.
       As Brumby saw it, the Sunshine laws were tools for use by 
     the public and media to help hold elected officials 
     accountable.
       Shipp, the retired columnist, said that public officials 
     ``were and are absolutely terrified of the MDJ, and that's a 
     good thing. We don't have much of that kind of journalism 
     anymore. It's the kind of journalism that keeps people in the 
     middle of the road.''
       Said Marietta Mayor Steve Tumlin, ``I had one rule with 
     Otis as a politician: Tell the truth early on and hide 
     nothing, as he knew it or was going to know it anyway.''
       It's notable that the three Georgia elected officials who 
     arguably worked the hardest and most successfully to 
     strengthen the sunshine laws Barnes, Olens and Isakson--had 
     something in common.
       ``They were all under tutelage of Otis Brumby,'' Barnes 
     said. ``He impressed upon us and all who would listen the 
     importance of making sure that government is open and 
     conducted in the sunshine. He always argued that was the best 
     way to keep government from becoming too bureaucratic and to 
     try to prevent corruption. I could have had no better ally on 
     that than Otis Brumby. It was not just lip service, but 
     something he was passionate about.''
       Former state Sen. Chuck Clay (R-Marietta) recalls Brumby as 
     ``an absolutely uncompromising warrior on behalf of open 
     government and open records. The people of Georgia have been 
     well served by his efforts. I just hope they know what a 
     legal quorum is in heaven or there is going to be trouble, 
     and I bet on Otis.''
       Brumby also was passionate about education reform and 
     strong public schools. The result was, first, his appointment 
     to the Marietta School Board by then-Mayor Joe Mack Wilson 
     and the City Council in 1993; and later, his appointment as 
     chairman of the State School Board by Barnes in 1999.
       ``I went to his house and said, I want you to be 
     chairman,''' Barnes recalled. ``That's a tough job, but he 
     thought about it and said, That's not the job I want, but 
     it's a job I can't say no' to. Education is too important.' 
     He was always willing to serve, and he always gave 100 
     percent.''
       But perhaps Brumby's biggest contribution to public schools 
     was the ``vote of confidence'' in them by virtue of the 
     decision he and wife Martha Lee made to send all five of 
     their children to the Marietta School System, rather than to 
     private schools as many Mariettans were doing.
       ``He chose to send them to public school when he could have 
     afforded to send them to any private school in the country,'' 
     observed former U.S. Rep. Buddy Darden (D-Marietta).
       Brumby was fond of quoting former Mayor Joe Mack Wilson's 
     observation that the city school system ``is the glue that 
     holds Marietta together.''
       Brumby was fascinated by politics, an interest honed when 
     he served in the 1950s as congressional page for his cousin, 
     U.S. Sen. Richard B. Russell in Washington, D.C. (Brumby went 
     on to graduate from The Capitol Page School in Washington.)
       ``Other than his family, which he was more proud of than 
     anything, I think he was most proud of his days as a page for 
     Richard Russell,'' recalled syndicated columnist Matt Towery 
     of Vinings. ``He didn't have as many pages as the other 
     senators, and not many could say they paged for him. And that 
     relationship helped form many of his views on politics and 
     life.''
       Russell was one of the most powerful senators and was the 
     intellectual force behind the Southern bloc that then 
     controlled the seniority-driven body. Russell also was a 
     confidante of both then--President Dwight Eisenhower and 
     then-Senate Majority Leader (and future President) Lyndon B. 
     Johnson. The young Brumby would recall in later years that he 
     was routinely designated by Johnson to answer his personal 
     phone on the floor of the Senate.
       Cobb and Georgia politics in that era were overwhelmingly 
     Democratic. But Brumby took the reins of the MDJ just as 
     Cobb's previously next-to-nonexistent Republican Party was 
     first beginning to stir. Fueled by an influx of residents 
     from other parts of the country into east Cobb, the county 
     GOP would be a force to be reckoned with by the early 1980s.
       ``Otis always thought that a strong two-party system was in 
     the best interest of the state,'' said Isakson, who first ran 
     for office

[[Page 13509]]

     in the early 1970s. ``And being part of the minority party 
     early in my career, he gave us the chance to make our case. 
     He didn't prop us up, but he made sure the access was there. 
     We had a chance, and in a lot of communities, you never 
     did.''
       Added Gingrich, who in those days represented a district on 
     the southside of Atlanta, ``Otis was a warrior for 
     conservatism who by the creation of the Neighbor Newspapers 
     on top of the MDJ dramatically offset the impact of the 
     Atlanta newspapers. You can't understand Georgia politics 
     over the last 30 years without understanding how important a 
     figure he was.
       ``It's hard for folks now to remember how dominant the 
     liberal voice of the Atlanta newspaper was back in the 1970s, 
     and how exciting it was to have Otis and his newspaper as a 
     conservative voice. And it was great for our morale, too. 
     Later, when I was Speaker, I always felt like he had my 
     back.''
       But Brumby's personal politics remained somewhat amorphous. 
     He endorsed and gave financial contributions to candidates of 
     both parties. Although personalities sometimes figured into 
     the equation, for him the bottom line usually was not party 
     label but whether the candidate was suitably conservative, 
     especially on fiscal matters.
       A similar rule of thumb determined whether to editorially 
     support various proposals floated by local officials. The 
     main criterion was whether the project or referendum made 
     financial sense for taxpayers.
       ``As a politician, I'll miss the question that I've heard 
     over and over, both in Cobb and in the state Capitol: ``What 
     does Otis think about this?''' Tumlin said.
       It's hard to be a crusading journalist without making one's 
     share of enemies, and Brumby made his share--and then some. 
     But he not only possessed bulldog tenacity when it came to 
     following a story, but also with the rare gift of retaining 
     the friendship and respect of those who were momentarily 
     feeling the heat.
       ``He doesn't have a single friend who didn't have a 
     disagreement with him, but we all learned to put those behind 
     us,'' Darden said. ``And he had the ability to move forward. 
     We didn't always agree, but it didn't come in the way of what 
     I consider one of my closest friendships in my entire adult 
     life.''
       Said Isakson, ``I'll be the first to say we didn't agree on 
     everything, but I learned that it was best to focus on what 
     we agreed about and move on.''
       Numerous others told the MDJ the same thing, including 
     Barnes.
       ``Johnny and I are two of his close friends and he'd hammer 
     both of us from time to time, but we understood what he was 
     doing,'' he said. ``As I used to kid him, I never forget that 
     you're first and foremost a newspaper man. The ink flowed 
     through his bones and blood. But we remained friends. That is 
     a unique ability, to continue to have a close relationship. I 
     knew his secrets and he knew mine. He never betrayed a 
     confidence of mine or vice-versa. But at same time I 
     understood he had a job to do.
       ``In my world, loyalty is the coin of the realm, and Otis 
     was loyal to me and I was loyal to him. That does not mean 
     there would not be criticism. But in the end, we remained 
     friends. He told me once that Johnny and I were the only ones 
     that understood completely what the press needs to do and has 
     to do.''
       Smyrna Mayor Max Bacon said he understood the awkward 
     position Brumby would sometimes be in.
       ``Being an editor and living here locally has got to be a 
     tough job.''
       There were two sides to Otis Brumby--the one as the 
     publisher that the public saw, and the private one as a man 
     utterly devoted to his community, to his church, to various 
     other charities and, above all, to his family.
       He is survived by his wife Martha Lee, daughters Spain 
     Gregory, Lee Garrett, Betsy Tarbutton, Anna Brumby and son 
     Otis Brumby III; 10 grandchildren; and his sister, Bebe 
     Brumby Leonard.
       The late Mr. Brumby was a trustee of the University of 
     Georgia Foundation, the Arch Foundation of UGA and the 
     Kennesaw College Foundation. He represented the Seventh 
     Congressional District on the state Board of Transportation 
     from 1985-90. He endowed a professorship of First Amendment 
     Law for journalism and law students at UGA in 2004. He was 
     for decades an avid member of the Marietta Kiwanis Club, 
     serving as its president; and past president of numerous 
     professional organizations.
       He remained an avid UGA football fan, and often remarked 
     that there was nothing like enjoying a game at Sanford 
     Stadium ``with 100,000 of your closest friends.''
       He was a lifetime member of First United Methodist Church 
     of Marietta.
       ``Otis was a faithful and generous churchman and he served 
     where he was needed, whether helping plan the church's future 
     or ushering and greeting newcomers on Sunday morning,'' said 
     the Rev. Sam Matthews, pastor. ``I witnessed profound 
     gestures of kindness and consideration from him, gestures 
     that most of us would be challenged to match.
       Former Congressman Darden, a fellow member, noted Brumby's 
     steady giving to the church, and quoting the Book of Matthew, 
     said, ``For where your treasure is, there your heart will be 
     also.''
       Former Georgia Supreme Court Justice Conley Ingram sat in 
     the pew just ahead of the Brumbys for years.
       ``He did the smallest job to the greatest job at our 
     church,'' he said. ``He was a greeter at the door, or took up 
     collection, but you could always count on him to be there.
       ``His life was one of love and dedication to his family and 
     his church and to the First Amendment and to UGA. He was a 
     great friend, and he never tried to take credit for the many 
     things he did for our community. He was a great family man 
     and a great church man and above all, a loyal friend. It's 
     not going to be the same without him.''
       Many of those who shared their reminiscences for this story 
     remarked on the contrast between Brumby's towering 
     journalistic presence and his personal preference for staying 
     out of the spotlight.
       ``For all his greatness, the greatest thing about him was 
     that he was so humble,'' Towery said. ``He could be tough in 
     the business place, but when he got out in public, he was 
     shy. You couldn't get him to talk about himself in front of 
     other people.''
       Remembered Barnes, ``To have held the position of influence 
     he did in this community, he was one of the most humble guys 
     I've ever been around. He never overstated his influence or 
     importance.''
       Brumby also was recalled by Barnes and others as a terrific 
     storyteller.
       ``He had a lot of fun in him,'' he said. ``A lot of those 
     who didn't know him didn't realize what a great sense of 
     humor he had.''
       Brumby's middle name, ``Anoldus,'' had been passed down 
     through the generations, and he joked to an editor this 
     summer in mock surprise that, ``I offered it to all my 
     children to use as a name for their children, and none of 
     them wanted it!''
       And Brumby, whose hairstyle and sartorial choices were 
     nowhere close to ``cutting edge,'' could be self-deprecating, 
     too.
       ``He used to jokingly call himself the Marietta Square,''' 
     Towery said. ``But he wasn't just the Marietta Square.' He 
     was Cobb County. And life without Otis Brumby is not going to 
     be as much fun.''
       Added Isakson, ``I'm going to miss my friend Otis.''
       A memorial service will be held Wednesday at 11 a.m. at the 
     First United Methodist Church of Marietta.
       In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to First 
     United Methodist Church 56 Whitlock Avenue Marietta, GA 30064 
     or the Georgia Press Educational Foundation 3066 Mercer 
     university drive Atlanta, GA 30341. Mayes Ward-Dobbins 
     Funeral Home in Marietta is in charge of arrangements.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this is a poignant eulogy of many of the 
accomplishments of one of my best and personal friends, Otis Brumby, 
Jr. I could read all of his accomplishments if I wanted to. There are 
times we are called on to offer eulogies on the floor of the Senate 
because we have to or because it is appropriate. There are times we 
give eulogies for great past leaders of our State, but on rare 
occasions, such as the one I have today, we do it for someone for whom 
we have tremendous respect, love, and compassion.
  To Otis Brumby, Jr.'s wife Martha Lee, his daughters Anna, Betsy, 
Lee, Spain, his son-in-law Heath, and his son Otis Brumby III, my love 
and compassion goes out to each of them during their tragedy.
  Wednesday morning I will return to Marietta, GA, to be part of the 
memorial service to honor Otis Brumby. I thought it would be better to 
talk about the Otis Brumby I knew rather than the one the papers are 
writing about. To me he was the epitome of a journalist, a father, a 
friend, and a husband. Otis Brumby, Jr. got his start in some ways on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate because in the late 1950s his father 
arranged for him to page for Richard B. Russell, who, as all of us 
know, was really the master of the Senate before Lyndon Johnson when he 
was leader, later Vice President, and finally President.
  Otis Brumby learned a lot in this Chamber and on this floor. He has 
told me what it was like before the cameras were here back in the good 
old days when there was camaraderie and friendship in the Senate. He 
also told me about the difficult days of the civil rights era, and 
particularly as a son of the South and what that meant to him.
  He came back to Georgia. After graduating from high school, he went 
to the University of the South in Sewanee, and then earned a law degree 
from the University of Georgia. He then headed to his passion, the law, 
but he didn't make it. Instead he made it to the Marietta Daily Journal 
as a cub reporter for his father's newspaper. At the age of 27 he was a 
floor manager and assistant publisher for the paper.

[[Page 13510]]

He offered his expertise at a very young age.
  At the age of 29 he came up with a unique concept. He said people 
would like to see their kids' pictures in the paper. They like to have 
stories about their sports victories. They like to have lots of 
pictures and stories--but just to them--and not all the fodder that 
might go with it. He started what became known as the Marietta Daily 
Journal and the Neighbor Newspaper Group. He created 27 neighborhood 
newspapers and all 27 of them were weekly.
  They were so successful that when Gannett decided it was going to try 
to do a national paper called USA Today, they sent a team of 
investigators for 7 days to the Marietta Daily Journal to investigate 
their template, the way they published their paper, their meat and 
potatoes. Quite frankly, a lot of credit for USA Today goes to the 
newsroom at the Marietta Daily Journal and the brilliance of that young 
29-year-old reporter who later became a publisher of that newspaper.
  Otis Brumby died last week of prostate cancer and the effects of 
prostate cancer. He suffered for 2 years, and that has been a tragedy. 
But the tragedy for all of us is that he is gone; he has left a mark on 
our State, county, and community that can't be easily replaced.
  Although he had an affinity for politics, he never served. When 
called on by Governors for appointments, he took them; first as State 
board of education chairman and later as board of education chairman 
for the Marietta public school system. A very wealthy man because of 
his success and investments, Otis Brumby never sent his children to 
private schools that he could afford because he believed the public 
schools needed to be the best, and he thought he would send his 
children there as a role model. And he did. They all were superstars in 
their schools whether in academics or athletics. Their father Otis 
supported those public school systems as a leader, a mentor, and a 
board member.
  To Marietta, GA, Otis Brumby was just about everything. He was its 
conscience, benefactor, and leader, and from time to time he was its 
protagonist where he would promote discord and a lack of harmony in 
order to come up with the right decision.
  I can tell my colleagues, as a politician, when he wrote about 
someone and they heard they were in the paper, the first thing they did 
was grab the newspaper. In fact, there is a column he wrote called 
``Around Town'' that appeared every Saturday morning in the newspaper--
a pretty thin part of the paper, but it was a one-page discourse on 
what politicians in the county were up to. On Saturday morning every 
politician in Marietta, GA, and Cobb County, GA, went to their mailbox 
and got their Marietta Daily Journal. They didn't want to see what the 
football score was; they wanted to see what Otis Brumby had said about 
them during the previous week. He was the conscience of all the 
politicians in the community. He was the leader in the community, and 
he was the benefactor of the community. He made it a much better place.
  Otis was not a Republican nor was he a Democrat. He was, if anything, 
a populist, but he had a fiscally conservative bent to him. Unlike a 
lot who commentate on politics, Otis put his money where his mouth was. 
He wrote checks to local politicians and to people in the U.S. Senate. 
There wasn't a party bent to him, but there was always a fiscally 
conservative bent.
  In fact, I will tell my colleagues when I first ran for office in 
Cobb County in 1974, we didn't have any Republicans. I ran as a 
Republican because I was a fiscal conservative. Everybody told me I was 
crazy. They were right; I got beat. But Otis Brumby took an interest 
and wrote about the campaign and some of the things we talked about and 
some of the things we tried to do. He propped me up long enough to get 
a chance to stand on my own two legs. Sure, he would knock me down from 
time to time--and some of those times I deserved it--but he gave me a 
chance. He gave everybody a chance. He was one of those journalists who 
would comment on what someone did, but he gave them the strength to do 
what was right.
  Wednesday morning I am going to the funeral of my dear friend. I miss 
him already and will miss him more as the days go by. I love him and 
his family for all they have done for me, my community, and my country. 
So at one of those rare times when we come to the floor to eulogize, 
this time for me it is personal but this time for America we have lost 
a son, a journalist, a patriot, and I have lost a best friend.
  May God bless Otis Brumby and his family, his grandchildren, and our 
community.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been listening to our colleague, 
the Senator from Georgia, who is one of the real gentlemen of this 
body. I listened to his warm words about his friend who has passed. 
Sometimes what people say about others is a better reflection on them 
than on who they are describing. In many ways, I thought that about 
what Senator Isakson was just saying because what he just said about 
his friend, any one of us in the Senate could say about him because he 
is a gentleman.
  I was very much moved by the words of my friend. We thank him for all 
he does to make this a better place.


                              The Economy

  I have come to the floor on different business, which is to talk 
about the budget circumstance we are in and to try to answer the 
question we have heard asked in recent days: Are we better off now than 
we were 4 years ago? I believe the answer to that question is very 
clear.
  To answer the question we have to take ourselves back 4 years and 
remember the conditions we faced then. I will never forget as long as I 
live being called to an urgent meeting in the Capitol late one evening 
in September 2008. I was the last one to arrive. There were assembled 
the leaders of the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Secretary of the Treasury of 
the Bush administration.
  The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
quickly told us they were going to take over the giant insurer AIG the 
next morning. They weren't there to ask our approval or seek our 
support; they were there to tell us what they were doing. They told us 
if they did not do it, they believed we would have a financial collapse 
within days.
  This was September 2008. Barack Obama was not the President of the 
United States; George W. Bush was the President of the United States, 
and we were on the brink of financial collapse, according to the 
description of his own Secretary of the Treasury.
  Let's remember what the economy was doing in the fourth quarter of 
2008. The economy was shrinking at a rate of over 8 percent. In fact, 
it was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. In the first month of 
2009, the last month of the Bush administration, we lost 800,000 jobs 
in 1 month. So when people ask if we are better off today than we were 
then, just as a factual matter there can be no dispute. We are 
dramatically better off today than we were 4 years ago.
  Four years ago we were on the brink of financial collapse. Four years 
ago the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent, and we 
were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Those are facts. They cannot be 
disputed.
  Today we are growing, not as fast as we would like; jobs are being 
created, not as fast as we would like, but that is a dramatic 
improvement over 4 years ago. Let's remember the housing market was in 
crisis. Home building and sales were plummeting. There were record 
foreclosures. The financial market crisis threatened global economic 
collapse. That was 4 years ago. Anybody who wonders can go back and 
read the headlines. Those were grim days.
  I also remember as though it were yesterday being part of the group 
who was given a responsibility to negotiate the TARP--the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program. I remember being in this

[[Page 13511]]

complex late on a Saturday night, again with the Secretary of the 
Treasury of the Bush administration, and him telling us if we did not 
come up with a solution by 5 o'clock Sunday night, the Asian markets 
would open and they would collapse, and our markets would open the next 
day and they would collapse.
  So when people ask if we are better off today than we were 4 years 
ago, as a factual matter there really is no question--none. We are 
dramatically better off.
  The other thing we should keep in mind is, what happens after a 
severe financial crisis such as the one we faced 4 years ago? Dr. 
Carmen Reinhart, from the Peter Peterson Institute for International 
Economics, and her husband, Dr. Vincent Reinhart of the American 
Enterprise Institute--which, by the way, is a pretty conservative 
place--have done an analysis, and here is what they found: After a 
severe financial crisis such as the one we suffered 4 years ago, 
economic recoveries are shallower and take much longer.
  Here is the quote from their analysis:

       Real per capita GDP growth rates are significantly lower 
     during the decade following severe financial crises. In the 
     ten-year window following severe financial crises, 
     unemployment rates are significantly higher than in the 
     decade that preceded the crisis. . . .

  That is what we had in 2008. Again, Barack Obama was not the 
President of the United States; George W. Bush was President of the 
United States, and we had a severe financial crisis. We were on the 
brink of financial collapse. It takes a long time to dig out from a 
disaster of that magnitude.
  Two of the most distinguished economists in the country--one of whom, 
by the way, advised John McCain in his most recent Presidential race, 
and the other who is Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve--did an 
analysis of what would have happened without the Federal response, what 
would have happened in terms of jobs. Here is what they found: With a 
Federal response we got 8 million jobs we would not have had otherwise. 
In other words, if there had been no Federal response, the red line is 
what would have happened to jobs. The green line is what happened as a 
result of Federal action: 8 million fewer jobs lost than if there had 
been no Federal response.
  Again, this is work that was done by Alan Blinder, former Vice 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark Zandi, who was one of the 
economic advisers to John McCain in the last Presidential race.
  So when we go back to this question, are we better off now than we 
were 4 years ago, I think the answer is unequivocally, yes. We are 
dramatically better off than we were 4 years ago.
  Now, those people who are still unemployed don't feel better off. I 
understand that. That is dreadful, that is painful, and it is painful 
in every way. Not only does it hurt in the pocketbook, but much more 
than that: It hurts the way people feel about themselves. It hurts the 
way people feel about their role in their families. So we have lots of 
work to do, but if we are going to be honest with people about 
comparing where we are today and where we were 4 years ago, there 
really can be no serious question about the answer to that question.
  This chart shows the economy in the fourth quarter of 2008--that is 
the last quarter of the Bush administration--was shrinking at a rate of 
almost 9 percent. Now the economy is growing at a rate of 1.7 percent, 
for the most recent quarter. Is that good? No. Would we like it to be 
stronger? Absolutely. But is this better than almost any other 
developed country in the world? Yes. The Eurozone is in recession. 
Their economies are shrinking. Japan is not doing as well as we are 
doing.
  So when we look around the world and compare ourselves, the answer by 
comparison is we are doing remarkably well given the depth of the 
financial crisis we experienced.
  Not only is it true in economic growth, it is true in terms of 
private sector jobs. Again, in the last month of the Bush 
administration, this economy lost over 800,000 jobs--in 1 month. In the 
most recent month in the United States, we gained 103,000 private 
sector jobs. That is a turnaround of over 900,000 jobs in a month. That 
is a dramatic improvement.
  And if we look at the stock market, we can answer that question as 
well. Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago? Well, this chart 
shows the stock market. In March of 2009, it hit its low of 6547--the 
low during this period. Look where it is today. More than double what 
it was 4 years ago.
  So, again, if we are seriously asking the question, Are we better off 
than we were 4 years ago? In terms of economic growth? Yes. In terms of 
job creation? Yes. In terms of the stock market? Yes. In terms of 
economic performance? Yes.
  I have also heard my colleagues on the other side say at the 
convention just concluded that there has been no budget here for 3 
years. Well, there has been no budget resolution. But there is a budget 
law that was passed called the Budget Control Act. And a law is much 
stronger than any resolution. A resolution is purely a congressional 
document. It never goes to the President for his signature. A law, 
obviously, has to go to the President for his signature.
  So when they say there has been no budget passed, there has been no 
budget resolution passed, but, instead, Congress passed the Budget 
Control Act. Look what it said in the Budget Control Act:

       . . . the allocations, aggregates, and [spending] levels 
     set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the 
     same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2012. . . .

  That same language is repeated in the next paragraph:

       . . . the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in 
     subsection (b)(2) shall apply in the Senate in the same 
     manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2013. . . .

  I say to you, a budget is a limitation on spending. The Budget 
Control Act contained very clear limitations on spending for 2012 and 
2013. So when our friends say there has been no budget passed by this 
body, oh, yes, there has. There has been a budget passed for 2012, and 
one for 2013. Instead of a resolution, it was done in a law.
  What we do not have is a long-term plan, a 10-year plan. That is what 
we need. But it is pretty clear both sides are not ready yet, and 
perhaps will not be until we have had this election, to sit down and 
agree to the kind of 10-year plan we so desperately need.
  The Budget Control Act represented the largest deficit reduction 
package in the history of the United States. How can that be? Well, 
because it contained $900 billion in discretionary savings over 10 
years, and it included the so-called sequester that we hear so much 
about that added another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts over the next 
10 years, for a total of $2.1 trillion in spending cuts. That is the 
largest deficit reduction package we have ever passed.
  So, again, when people say there is no budget, there has been no 
action taken, it is not accurate. The Budget Control Act operates in 
the same way as a budget resolution, and it is a law, not a resolution 
that is purely a congressional document that never goes to the 
President. The Budget Control Act passed both Houses of Congress, went 
to the President for his signature, and cut $2.1 trillion in spending.
  People may not like it. There are a lot of things I do not like about 
it--certainly the sequester. I think we ought to find alternative 
savings for it. But the fact is, this is now law, and it cut $2.1 
trillion. That still leaves us with the problem that we are borrowing 
40 cents of every $1 we spend, and that cannot be permitted to 
continue.
  So we have to add a package on top of the Budget Control Act. We have 
to do more. I would prefer, strongly, to do another at least $3 
trillion. I tried to convince the Bowles-Simpson Commission to do a 
package of $5 trillion of deficit reduction. Actually, I tried to 
persuade them to do a package of $5.6 trillion of deficit reduction 
because we can balance the budget if we would do a package that large. 
The people who were on that commission will tell you I tried repeatedly 
to convince my colleagues to go big, let's do a package that really 
balanced the budget.
  And we could do it. It is not that hard. I think people sometimes get 
it

[[Page 13512]]

in their head this is some impossible task. I told them, let's talk 
about a 6-percent solution. If we would do 6 percent more revenue than 
current law provides and 6 percent less spending, we would save $6 
trillion over 10 years and balance the budget. I actually would argue 
for more weighting on the spending cut side of the ledger than on the 
revenue side. But I do this for illustrative purposes, to indicate we 
cannot do 6 percent? Come on. We cannot do 6 percent? Sure we can.
  The occupant of the chair, the Governor of West Virginia in his 
previous life in politics, I will tell you, he did not have any trouble 
making tough decisions, and I will bet you he reduced spending a lot 
more than 6 percent. He survived. He is here. He is respected.
  We can do this. Hey, we have done much tougher things than this in 
the past. I hope colleagues think about this carefully.
  This next chart is so important because it looks at the spending and 
the revenue lines of the Federal Government going back to 1950. This is 
60 years of our economic history on one little chart.
  The red line is the spending line. The green line is the revenue 
line. And look what it shows. We got to, in 2010, an all-time high in 
spending for the last 60 years, taking out the effect of inflation, so 
you have an even-steven comparison over that 60-year period. And we 
were at a 60-year high in spending--not surprising given the dimensions 
of the financial crisis we faced. But at the same time, we were at a 
60-year low in revenue. When you have record spending and record low 
revenue, you have record deficits and record additions to the debt. 
That is exactly what was happening to us.
  We have seen some improvement in the last few years. Spending is down 
as a share of GDP. Revenue is up a little bit. We still have a big 
chasm.
  In the midst of all this comes Representative Ryan and his plan. I 
would say to those who might be attracted to his plan: Be careful what 
you wish for--be careful what you wish for--because, first of all, the 
Ryan plan does not balance the budget, if ever, until 2040, and it only 
balances in 2040 because of certain assumptions he told the 
Congressional Budget Office to make about his plan and the revenue 
contained in it. I personally do not think it ever balances. I do not 
believe it ever balances. It is absolutely an unbalanced plan. All of 
the deficit reduction is on the spending side. He actually digs the 
revenue hole much deeper, extends all the Bush era tax cuts, and then 
adds hundreds of billions of dollars of more tax cuts, primarily to the 
most fortunate among us.
  There is $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest. He gives those 
with an income of over $1 million an average tax cut of $265,000 a 
year. Somebody is sitting out there saying: How is that possible? A 
person earning $1 million a year probably does not pay much more than 
$265,000. How can they, on average, be getting a $265,000 tax cut? 
Remember, this is the average for everybody over $1 million, so this 
includes people making $1 billion a year. And there are a fortunate few 
who make $1 billion a year. So if you take everybody over $1 million, 
and you average the tax cut they get under the Ryan plan, it is over 
$265,000 a year.
  He has $2.9 trillion in health care cuts. So first of all, he extends 
all the Bush era tax cuts. Then he adds hundreds of billions more of 
tax cuts for those who are the most fortunate. And to start to make up 
for it, he has $2.9 trillion in health care cuts--not million, not 
billion: trillion. He repeals health care reform. He shifts Medicare to 
vouchers. And he block-grants Medicaid and cuts Medicaid drastically.
  Who benefits from Medicaid? Well, low-income people, disabled people, 
but also a lot of middle-income people in this country benefit from 
Medicaid because their folks are in nursing homes and they have spent 
down their assets, and the only way they can stay in the nursing home 
is that Medicaid picks up the tab. There are hundreds of thousands of 
families in America, middle-class families, who have benefited from 
Medicaid because that is what has paid the nursing home bills for their 
relatives--their mom, their dad, their grandpa, their grandma. That is 
the truth.
  The Ryan budget also dramatically cuts the safety net for seniors, 
the children, the disabled. It increases the uninsured by more than 30 
million people. It is going to increase the number of uninsured by 30 
million. Well, if you are not uninsured, why should you care? I will 
tell you why you should care. Because if they are not paid for by 
insurance, they are going to be paid for by all the rest of us. Because 
the hard reality of how the health care system works in America is 
this: If you are in a car accident and you do not have insurance and 
you are taken to the hospital, you are treated. If you do not have 
insurance to pay for it, and you do not have resources to pay for it, 
guess who pays for it. All the rest of us pay for it.
  That is why it is absolutely in our interest to have as many people 
insured as is possible. It is not just a nice thing to do; it is a 
smart thing to do. Because one of the things we have found out is that 
about a third of the people who do not have insurance can afford it. 
They can afford it. They just choose not to have it because they know 
if something drastic happens to them, all the rest of us are going to 
pay.
  There are also large cuts in the Ryan budget for education, for 
energy, for infrastructure--building roads, bridges, highways, and the 
rest. Those things undermine the engines of economic growth. So I do 
not think that is the way to go.
  When we look at the Ryan budget plan on revenue, here is what we 
find. It provides $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. 
It gives millionaires an average tax cut of more than $265,000 a year. 
It does not contribute one dime of revenue to deficit reduction. And 
the revenues reach 18.7 percent of GDP by 2022. Now why does that 
matter? Because the last four times we have balanced, the revenue of 
the country has been 19.6 percent, 19.7 percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 
percent. So, hey, if we are going to be serious about belling this cat, 
we are going to have to cut spending, we are going to have to reform 
the entitlements, we are also going to have to raise some revenue, 
hopefully not in a way that hurts economic growth, because we think we 
have found ways of doing it.
  But the Ryan tax plan, I have to say, I do not think adds up. Why 
don't I believe it adds up? Well, let's look at what he proposes.
  First of all, he says we should reduce individual tax rates to just 
two--one at 10 percent and one at 25 percent. Right now, the top rate 
is 35 percent. If you reduce that rate to 25 percent, and you have only 
one other rate of 10 percent, that package costs $2.5 trillion over the 
next 10 years. So instead of filling in the hole, you are digging the 
hole deeper. Then he puts the top corporate rate at 25 percent. Again, 
that is a significant reduction from the top corporate rate today. That 
costs another $1 trillion. Then he repeals the alternative minimum tax. 
That costs another $670 billion. Then he repeals all the tax levies in 
the health care reform. That costs another $350 billion. Then he allows 
the stimulus provisions to expire from the Recovery Act, which raises 
$210 billion.
  Before he starts filling in the hole, he has dug the hole deeper by 
almost $4\1/2\ trillion, and he says he is going to offset all of that 
with individual base broadening and corporate base broadening. We are 
spending about $1.2 trillion a year in tax expenditures. Over 10 years 
that is about $15 trillion with inflation.
  So we could come up with this $4\1/2\ trillion, but what would we 
have to do in order to do it? Almost every objective observer has said 
we would have to raise taxes on the middle class--because he says this 
is going to be somehow, in the Romney plan, revenue neutral. I do not 
know that the Ryan plan ever claimed to be revenue neutral. But if we 
are going to pay for this, how are we going to do it, which of the 
exemptions and the exclusions? Are we going to reduce the mortgage 
interest exemption? Are we going to reduce the health care tax 
exclusion? Because those two affect middle-class people. Let's be 
honest. Let's be straight. So there is no

[[Page 13513]]

way Congressman Ryan's plan does all the things he claims for it 
without raising taxes on the middle class.
  When he gets to a revenue level of 18.7 percent and says that is the 
historic average, that is true. The problem with that is we have never 
balanced the budget, going back to 1969, with that amount of revenue. 
The five times we have balanced since 1969--that is 43 years ago--
revenues have been at 19.7, 19.9, 19.8, 20.6, 19.5. So just getting 
back to the historic average, I do not think it is going to be enough. 
If we are looking at what it has taken to actually balance the budget 
in our history, we can see we have to be very close to 20 percent.
  By the way, these levels of revenue were before the baby boom 
generation, and the baby boom generation, that is not a forecast. That 
is not a prediction. Those people have been born. They are alive today. 
They are going to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. If we 
are going to be honest with ourselves, honest with the American people, 
I do not think what Congressman Ryan is talking about adds up.
  If we look at his budget on health care, we see $2.9 trillion in 
health care cuts. As I indicated, he repeals health care reform. I hear 
a lot--I hear it in my State: Let's repeal health care reform. Why not? 
Because the Congressional Budget Office tells us if we repeal it we add 
over $1 trillion to the debt. We add over $1 trillion to the debt, we 
deny coverage to 30 million people who would otherwise have it.
  His plan also ends the effort to promote quality over quantity of 
care, reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole that raises costs to 
seniors by $4,200, allows insurance companies to drop coverage when we 
get sick. It ends the provision allowing young adults to stay on their 
parents' plan until the age of 26. It shifts Medicare to vouchers in 
2023 and includes, after that, an aggressive cap on payments that most 
analysts have said would dramatically increase what Medicare 
beneficiaries would have to pay for their own health care.
  Currently, Medicare pays 75 percent of the cost. The beneficiary pays 
25 percent. If the Ryan plan were adopted, the original Ryan plan--he 
has subsequently put out other plans. But his original plan would have 
stood that on its head. He would have Medicare beneficiaries paying the 
substantial majority of the cost. Instead of Medicare beneficiaries 
paying 25 percent, he would have them paying 68 percent of the cost--
Medicare beneficiaries.
  I have a brother who is gravely ill in the hospital, Medicare 
eligible. I can tell you, he is getting phenomenal care--very costly. I 
would say it would break our family. If we had to pay 68 percent of the 
cost instead of 25 percent, it would break our family. We are a middle-
class family. I am talking about the extended family.
  These things have real consequences. Anybody who thinks these are 
just political statements and they do not affect people's lives, oh, 
yes, they do. They have a profound effect on people's lives.
  The Ryan plan block grants Medicaid, shifts the cost to seniors, 
children, disabled, and States. I do not think that is the path America 
has in mind. I like Paul Ryan. I agree with him that we are on an 
unsustainable course. I was on the Bowles-Simpson Commission with him.
  But unlike him, I was one of the 11 who supported the recommendations 
of Bowles-Simpson. Of the 11 of us who did, 5 are Democrats, 5 
Republicans, and 1 Independent. That is about as bipartisan as we can 
get. There were 18 Commissioners. We had to get 14 to get the 
recommendations to a vote in the Congress. We got 11.
  That is 60 percent of the membership who voted yes; five Democrats, 
five Republicans, one Independent. Paul Ryan was part of Bowles-
Simpson. He voted no because it was not just the way he wanted it. It 
was not just the way I wanted it either. I hated things on almost every 
page of that report. But as I told my staff, the only thing worse than 
being for it would be being against it because it would have gotten us 
back on track. It would have lowered our deficit and debt by $4 
trillion and have done it with revenue and spending cuts and reform of 
entitlements, maybe not as much on any one of those areas as I would 
do, but it would have made a profound difference in the economic future 
of this country.
  Perhaps the most striking thing to me in all the speeches at the 
Republican convention was the claim by Congressman Ryan and the attack 
on President Obama for supporting $716 billion in Medicare savings. Why 
was I so taken aback by that? Because I have read Congressman Ryan's 
own budget. His budget has precisely that same level of Medicare 
savings that he now politically attacks President Barack Obama for 
supporting.
  Did you see what former President Clinton said? He said that takes 
real brass, to attack somebody for something you have done. Congressman 
Ryan, when you give a speech, make your speech before tens of millions 
of people listening and you attack the President for supporting $716 
billion in Medicare savings and you have the exact same savings in your 
budget, shame on you. Shame on you.
  The Catholic bishops reviewed the Ryan budget. Here is what they 
said. They said it fails the moral test. These are Catholic bishops in 
America. Look, they have issues with the President too. I understand 
that, but this is what they said about the Ryan budget. They said: It 
fails the moral test. The Nation's Catholic bishops reiterated their 
demand that the Federal budget protect the poor and said the GOP 
measure fails to meet these moral criteria. I think they got that 
right. Here is what a former Reagan economic adviser said about the 
Ryan budget. This is Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan administration 
economic adviser. This is what he said about the Ryan budget. Again, 
this is a former President Reagan economic adviser. Here is what he 
said about the Ryan budget:

       Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich 
     would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would 
     be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin 
     budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot 
     be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy 
     tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by 
     make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan's 
     plan isn't even an act of courage; it's just pandering to the 
     Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to 
     admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues 
     will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize 
     the debt.

  Mr. Bartlett, I do not know the man. He is telling the truth. He is 
telling the truth, as painful as it is. He is telling the truth. When 
we go to the question of are we better off than we were 4 years ago, 
let's remember where we were 4 years ago. We were on the brink of 
financial collapse.
  Republican policies led the United States to the brink of financial 
collapse. They cannot rewrite history. We know what happened. We tried 
their experiment. It did not work. Now things have improved, not as 
much as we would like, and there is much more work to be done. But I 
trust in the judgment of the American people. I do not think they have 
forgotten. I certainly have not forgotten. I will never forget where 
their policies took us in the fall of 2008. We were on the brink of 
financial collapse. Let's not repeat that failed experiment.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Moment of Silence to Observe the Fortieth Anniversary of the Munich 
                           Olympics Massacre

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now observe a moment of 
silence for the 40th anniversary of the Munich Olympics massacre.
  (Moment of silence.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I stand here today with my colleagues 
to observe 1 minute of silence on the first day of session since the 
passage of the 40th anniversary of the 1972 Munich

[[Page 13514]]

Olympic terrorist attack that killed 11 athletes and coaches from the 
Israeli Olympic team.
  Prior to the extraordinary summer games in London, where so many of 
our athletes excelled and made our country so proud, the Senate passed 
a bipartisan resolution that I authored with Senator Rubio. With this 
resolution, which was supported by more than 30 of our colleagues, the 
Senate called on the International Olympic Committee to hold a moment 
of silence in London to honor these 11 slain Israeli Olympians. It is 
regrettable they chose not to. Today, here in the Senate, we right that 
wrong. The Munich tragedy was an outrageous attack against innocent 
athletes and against the unifying spirit of the Olympics. Observing a 
moment of silence at the 2012 Olympic games' opening ceremony, when the 
world's attention was focused on this symbol of international 
cooperation and peace, would have sent such a powerful message of unity 
in our fight against terrorism.
  On September 5, 1972, a Palestinian terrorist group called Black 
September broke into the Munich Olympic Village, killed an Israeli 
athlete and coach, and took nine other athletes and coaches hostage. A 
German police officer was killed and nine hostages were murdered during 
a rescue attempt.
  In observing this minute of silence, as in our resolution, we 
commemorate the 40th anniversary of the 1972 Munich Olympic terrorist 
attack, remember those who lost their lives, and reject and repudiate 
terrorism as antithetical to the Olympic goal of peaceful competition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New York 
and my colleague, Senator Rubio of Florida, for calling this historic 
tragedy to our attention on the sad 40th anniversary of the killing of 
the Israeli participants at the Munich Olympics.
  Having just witnessed, as the Senator from New York noted, the 
spectacular Olympics that were staged in London and realizing how the 
Olympics started as a way to transcend national differences and to 
create an Olympic global spirit, what happened in Munich was especially 
heartbreaking. We followed it in those early days of television as it 
was being reported on by some of the sports announcers who were 
actually at the Olympics. It was hard to believe, as hostages were 
being taken, that they would all be killed when it was over.
  I sincerely hope we in the world will learn a lesson from this 
tragedy--a lesson that violence begets violence and we need to end this 
sort of terrorist activity and stand together in that Olympic global 
spirit.
  Again, my thanks to Senators Gillibrand and Rubio for their efforts 
to make this part of the London Olympics but also to make certain this 
day has not been forgotten here on the floor of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand for 
bringing this to the attention of the Senate and the American people 
and to thank Senators Rubio and Durbin for being here.
  It is hard to believe it has been 40 years since that tragic event in 
which terrorists had the attention of the world during the Olympics in 
Munich.
  It is hard to believe that over the last 40 years we have experienced 
so much of the violence from extremists and terrorists.
  Tomorrow we will commemorate the 11th anniversary of the attack on 
our own country. We recognize the only way we could stand up for this 
type of extremism is to never forget and to rededicate ourselves to do 
everything we can to root out extremists, to root out terrorists, and 
to never forget the consequences of their actions.
  I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand and Senator Rubio for the 
resolution we passed in this Congress to let those who were victimized 
40 years ago know we will not forget them and that we continue to 
dedicate our efforts to root out this type of hatred and this type of 
extremism to make sure the Olympic spirit--which is world competition 
to bring peace in the world--is alive and well in the Senate and the 
United States of America. We will continue to commemorate what happened 
so we don't forget and dedicate ourselves to a more peaceful world.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________