September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6025 

Tomorrow marks the 11th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The date is a reminder that 

through over a decade of war, the bravery and dedication of America’s Armed 

Forces has never wavered. It is a reminder that our commitment to those 

fine young and women should never 

waver, either. 

f 

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. 

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quorum call be rescinded.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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6026 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

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 

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 halfcentury as publisher of the Marietta Daily 

Journal. During those decades he oversaw 

the transformation of the MDJ from a smallcity 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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6027 

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 

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 (RGa.) ‘‘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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6028 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

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 twoparty system was in the best interest of the 

state,’’ said Isakson, who first ran for office 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6029 

and assistant publisher for the paper. 

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 

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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6030 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

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 socalled 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 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6031 

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, middleclass 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 $41⁄2

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 $41⁄2

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 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6032 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

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 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6033 

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. 

f 

EXECUTIVE SESSION 

NOMINATION OF STEPHANIE 

MARIE ROSE TO BE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

IOWA 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider 

the following nomination, which the 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read the nomination of Stephanie Marie Rose, of 

Iowa, to be United States District 

Judge for the Southern District of 

Iowa. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, there will be 30 

minutes of debate, equally divided in 

the usual form. 

The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are 

beginning about 3 minutes late. I ask 

unanimous consent that the time be divided in such a way that the vote still 

starts at 5:30. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. LEAHY. When the Senate recessed more than a month ago, 22 judicial nominees to fill vacancies in 

courtrooms around the country were 

left pending, awaiting a Senate vote. 

Today, Senate Republicans have agreed 

to vote on just one of those nominees. 

I want to commend Senator HARKIN for 

working with Senator GRASSLEY and 

the Majority Leader to get this vote on 

the nomination of Stephanie Rose of 

Iowa. I urge votes on the other nominees, as well, without further delay. 

There are currently 78 Federal judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies during the last few years have been at historically high levels and have remained 

near or above 80 for nearly the entire 

first term of the President. Nearly one 

out of every 11 Federal judgeships is 

currently vacant. Vacancies on the 

Federal courts are more than two and 

one half times as many as they were on 

this date during the first term of President Bush. One key reason for these 

numerous vacancies and for the extensive backlog of nominees is that Senate 

Republicans allowed votes on just one 

district court nominee per week for the 

last seven weeks before the August recess. This unnecessarily slow pace of 

consideration of judicial nominees has 

disserved the American people and 

should not continue. 

The across-the-board obstruction and 

foot dragging from Senate Republicans 

since day one of President Obama’s 

tenure means that we are likely to 

complete his first term with more judicial vacancies than when he took office. The partisan obstruction from 

Senate Republicans has been particularly damaging with respect to Federal 

trial courts. In a sharp departure from 

the past, Senate Republicans have 

stalled Senate approval of district 

court nominees, including those Republican home state Senators support. 

Before the American people elected 

Barack Obama as our President, district court nominees were generally 

confirmed within a couple of weeks of 

being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those nominated by Republican Presidents and 

Democratic Presidents. Deference was 

traditionally afforded to home State 

Senators and district court nominees 

supported by home State Senators 

were almost always confirmed unanimously. During the 18 months that I 

was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002, we confirmed 83 

of President Bush’s district court 

nominees, and only one of them received any votes in opposition. Even 

though some Senate Democrats opposed the nominee, we nevertheless 

scheduled a vote for him just 11 days 

after he was reported by the Judiciary 

Committee. 

Indeed, only five district court nominees received any votes in opposition 

in all 8 years of the previous Republican presidency, and none was a partyline vote. Among those nominees was 

one so extreme that he had announced 

that ‘‘concern for rape victims is a red 

herring because conceptions from rape 

occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.’’ That observation was much like the outrageous recent comments about rape 

by a Republican House member and 

Senate candidate. 

In all, the Senate confirmed 264 of 

President Bush’s district court nominees, and only five of them received 

any votes in opposition. Senate Democrats were willing to work with a very 

conservative Republican President to 

fill vacancies on our Federal trial 

courts. We recognized that filling vacancies on district courts is essential 

to ensuring that the American people 

have functioning courts to serve them 

and provide access to justice. We know 

that it is unacceptable for hardworking 

Americans who turn to their courts for 

justice to suffer unnecessary delays. 

When an injured plaintiff sues to help 

cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have 

to wait 3 years before a judge hears the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE