Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 - Motion to Proceed - Continued

Floor Speech

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - July 30, 2008)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding until 12:30 the Democrats control the time; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no agreement in order.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes and Senator Stabenow be recognized for 20 minutes following me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ENERGY

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this vote that was cast is something America should not miss. This was about an energy program for America, and it was defeated. It was defeated because only four Republicans--maybe five--managed to cross the aisle and help us. This is 2 days running that the Republicans--who have given us speech after speech about why we need an energy policy--have voted no. That is all they do: vote no.

What did this proposal include? It included energy tax credits desperately needed by America. This morning, Senator Stabenow gathered together Governors, leaders in business and leaders in labor and they all told us the same thing: Pass the energy tax credits, and pass it now. Jobs are at stake across America.

I had a major company in Chicago that came in--the CEO came in to see Senator Reid and myself last week--facing bankruptcy because we cannot pass this bill. Why? Because the Tax Code was written year to year, creating incentives for investment in wind power. That is the power that does not pollute but creates electricity. Wind turbines all over my State and all over the country are doing the right thing for our future. They will not continue without these tax credits, and the Republicans consistently vote no. And then--hang on--after lunch they will be on the floor saying we desperately need an energy policy.

Where were they when we needed them? That was not the only thing in this bill. This bill also put $8 billion in the highway trust fund that has gone broke. Across America, we are losing jobs, at a time when we need good-paying jobs right here at home, because Republicans refuse to do this. They will not vote for it.

There was another provision or two in there equally important, but I wish to focus on those two. Let me explain to you why they would not vote for it. They would not vote for it because on the Democratic side we insisted that if you are going to have tax credits given, we pay for them so that, ultimately, it does not add to our national deficit.

This President inherited a surplus from President Clinton and has now taken the gold, the silver, and the bronze medals for the biggest deficits--top three deficits--in the history of the United States in his 8 years. We are saying this has to end. We cannot broker America's future for our children. So we want to pay for these tax credits. We do it in a way that even the business community says: That is reasonable. We can live with it. But not the Republicans. Only four or five will cross the aisle to help us.

A minute ago, I met in my office with the CEO of American Airlines, Gerard Arpey. This poor man is struggling to keep one of the major airlines in America out of bankruptcy. He is cutting back on schedule, reducing the number of employees because, unfortunately, when oil is $125, $135 a barrel, the cost of jet fuel is bankrupting his airline. He is begging me--begging me--the United States and the Congress to show some leadership.

Now, what can we do? First, we can get some Republicans to join us for this energy policy. If they want to produce more energy in America, have them vote for it, not give more speeches with their ``produce more, use less'' slogans on the floor. Produce some votes for us. A few less speeches and a few more votes and we would have an energy policy. That is the reality.

There is something that can be done immediately, though, and it is something this President can do and does not need to wait on Congress, and he ought to do it today. President Bush should announce he is going to start selling off oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring the price of a barrel of oil down to $100 a barrel. That is our target price for America. That will turn this economy on. That will give the airlines a chance. That will put the truckers back to work. That will give the farmers a break.

The President can do it without any congressional approval. His father did it. It is not a radical idea. Seven hundred million barrels of oil--if the President released and sold 10 percent of that, saying: My goal is to get to $100 a barrel, that oil on the market would start the price coming down.

All this discussion on the Republican side and from the President about drilling--if we decided today to start drilling certain acreage, you would not see the first drop of oil for 8 to 14 years. You would have to wait 8 to 14 hours for the President's announcement about releasing oil from SPR to see an impact on the market.

It is time for Presidential leadership. The fact that the President comes out of the oil industry and the Vice President does as well, they understand it. And the oil industry has never done better.

Now it is time for the President to show leadership. He can do it. We should call on him in Congress, on a bipartisan basis: Release this oil from the SPR, bring down the price of a barrel of oil, give American families a fighting chance when they go to the gas station, and give these companies a chance to create more good-paying jobs in America. That is what is at stake.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a couple questions?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. First of all, Mr. President, I have known my friend from Illinois, the senior Senator from Illinois, for many years. We served in the House together. He is one of the most collegial Members of the Senate. I say to the Senator, I do not think I have ever seen you quite as upset and angry as you are.

I wish to ask my friend--because he touched on this--as to the real impact on America's families that he started to discuss. As chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I know, as he does, we have to fund our highway program. I know my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Minnesota both are going to talk about the need for safe and sound infrastructure and the fact that with it comes good jobs.

But here is where we are at this point. Because of the no, no, no votes by that side--what they said no to today was making sure we can pay for the highway projects we have already authorized, we have already told the States to go ahead and start constructing.

I say to the Senator, $8 billion was in this bill that they just said no to, again--$8 billion to replenish the highway trust fund. That translates to--and hold on to your hats, folks--400,000 good-paying jobs that will be lost if we do not replenish this fund, not to mention the jobs that are already being lost because they refuse to renew these tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal.

Mrs. BOXER. In my State, we have a horrible housing crisis. It is terrible. Construction is down. What has been keeping us afloat, I say to my colleagues, is the renewable energy industry. Four hundred solar companies have moved in. They are taking these workers. So how could we have--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have 1 more minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. BOXER. So I say to my friend, this Republican Party here, they are the recession party. They stand for recession and moving into depression with their votes, does my friend not agree, with their votes today?

Mr. DURBIN. This is the second time in 24 hours we have given the Republicans a chance to show whether they are for an energy policy which will produce more clean energy and more jobs for America, and four of them came forward to support us--only four. There are 49 of those Senators, and 4 voted with us.

Mrs. BOXER. And the trust fund.

Mr. DURBIN. And the trust fund, of course--a critical point--which can create 400,000 jobs across America.

Middle-income families are struggling to survive. We need more good-paying jobs right here in this country. How can they come down here and consistently vote no and say they want an energy policy?

The President should release oil from SPR this week. Our goal should be $100-a-barrel oil. The President doesn't need Congress. Let him show some leadership in this energy crisis.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REID. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. I wish to address a question to the majority leader through the Chair. I ask the Senator whether yesterday we brought to the floor an opportunity for the Republicans to join us in a bipartisan way to come up with a clear package of incentives for renewable energy, energy that we need now and for future generations, and yesterday when that measure came to the floor as it originally passed the House of Representatives, I ask the majority leader what the support level was on the Democratic side and whether there were more than four Republican Senators who joined us in that effort.

Mr. REID. All Democrats supported it, a handful of Republicans, mostly those who are in very difficult Senate races, I might add, for reelection.

Mr. DURBIN. That is one of the reoccurring themes. When four or five Republicans join us, it is because many of them are facing a tough reelection.

I ask the Senator from Nevada, today when we brought this measure before the Senate again, incentives for renewable energy, we included in it $8 billion for the highway trust fund, which can be attributed to 400,000 good-paying American jobs. We also included the mental health parity bill, which has been a bipartisan bill that has been sought by this Senate for maybe a decade. It has certainly been a long time. We included as well an extension of the exemption for the alternative minimum tax so middle-income families would not face higher taxes.

I ask the Senator from Nevada what kind of support we had from the Republican side of the aisle. If I am not mistaken, only five Republicans, four of whom are up for reelection in November, joined us in that vote.

Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right, absolutely right. I can't express how the Republican Party, as I have always known it--when I went into politics, I had the idea that the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. That has long since gone. We are going to have a deficit this year of about a half trillion dollars, and that isn't a fair view of it because they are using the Social Security trust fund to offset and make the deficit look even smaller.

But I also will say this: Big oil during the Bush years has made a $609 billion profit--$609 billion. The Republicans side with big oil every step of the way. They have done it in all this energy legislation. They are beholden to big oil. Everyone knows that. I think it is time we start talking about something that will help; that is, we need to move to have energy created by the Sun, wind, geothermal, and we need to do it as quickly as possible.

That is where we are. I have said on a number of occasions--I said it earlier today--there was a lot of activity on the Senate floor--understand, Mr. President, where we are. Because the Republicans have blocked everything--they have blocked energy for old people, sick people, disabled people; they have blocked everything we have tried to do here--we have a decision. They can make the decision. We have been fortunate enough to finish the Higher Education Act. We have been fortunate to finish consumer product safety. Both conference reports are finished. We can do those in the next couple of days. We can move to the Defense authorization bill. It is up to the Republicans what they want to do. But if they want to be here during August, more power to them because we will be here with them. We all have things to do, longstanding obligations during August, but those can be changed. If people want to debate during August the Defense Authorization Act, that is fine. They can go out and hold their press conferences that they would rather be doing something on drilling, drilling, drilling. They can continue to do that, or we can come back in September--there is going to be a bipartisan summit on energy prices, and maybe by the August recess, maybe some of my friends will be more willing to do some actual compromise.

Legislation is the art of compromise. If the art of compromise is not present, we cannot get the business done. There simply has been no compromise from my friends. That is why we have faced almost 90 filibusters.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Utah is my friend. We disagree on so many things politically. But on a personal basis, we have a very good friendship and relationship. I am hoping the day will come when we find that issue on which he and I can march together arm in arm to achieve greatness for the country. I know that day is coming. I am an optimist.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will kindly yield, this is the issue. This is one we could both march arm in arm on. We both agree. The question is, How do you pay for it? Frankly, we are not going to go with the pay-go rule. We have to find some other way. I would like to make it permanent. I would like to get rid of the AMT that is hurting so many, 24, 25 million people. I believe my colleague wants to do these things as well. But we have to find a way of getting together and doing it. I think my good colleague knows where I stand on these issues.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Utah.

Madam President, we have a deficit. It is terrible. It is a debt which is growing. It is a mortgage on America. Our children are going to be saddled with it. The mortgagor, the bank for America's debt? China, Korea, Japan, the OPEC nations; they are holding our mortgage. Many of us believe this isn't fair to our children and grandchildren to continue to pile on the debt. We came up with a very simple approach. If you want to spend money, you have to pay for it. You either have to raise taxes or cut other spending. If you want to cut taxes, you have to have some balance; in other words, cut spending or raise another tax. When it is all over, we want a zero sum so it doesn't add to the national debt.

I don't think that is unreasonable because it means we have to make choices. Here is the choice we faced in the last 2 days. We have a thriving industry in America for renewable energy. I can't believe what is going on in my State of Illinois. I go into parts of downstate Illinois and see farm after farm covered with wind turbines. Outside of Bloomington, IL, is the Twin Groves project, 240 wind turbines generating enough electricity for cities in Bloomington normal--no pollution, farmers love it because they get paid for the wind turbines on their land, and they can plant the corn and soybeans right up next to it. So it is a win-win situation, and it is there because we had a provision in the Tax Code which created an incentive to invest in wind power, solar power, geothermal, the clean energy solutions that will generate electricity without causing more global warming.

We brought it to the floor. We said to our colleagues: We need to renew this. It is about to expire. If we don't renew it, these businesses may not reinvest. But giving a tax break takes money out of the Treasury, so we want to balance the books. To balance the books, we suggested raising a business tax to offset the cut in taxes for renewable energy, balance the books. The Republican side, the party of so-called fiscal conservatism, rejected this. As my friend from Utah said, they don't believe we should have to pay for tax cuts.

Well, tax cuts, unfortunately, take money out of the Treasury and add to the deficit. We think balancing the books is the only way to get this deficit under control. So when the vote came--there are nominally 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans--there were a few absences on both sides, but we were able to attract 5 Republicans who would join us for the renewable energy tax credits.

The others said: There is no way. Forty-one of the forty-nine Republican Senators have signed a letter which I call ``death before taxes.'' It is a letter which says they will never--ever, ever, ever--vote to increase a tax, never. That kind of paints you into a corner. Because if you are not willing to increase a tax on someone to cut a tax on someone else, you are stuck with a Tax Code that never changes, or you are stuck with a deficit which continues to get worse and worse as you try to make the Tax Code a generator of economic growth.

The Republicans, for the last several weeks, have been on the floor talking about America's energy picture. They should. We have talked about it a lot on our side of the aisle. Their solution is a solution which is old-time religion: Drill, drill offshore, drill onshore, drill everywhere. If we drill and find more oil, we will be fine.

They ignore the reality. The reality is, if you look at the entire potential supply of oil in the world, the United States has access and control of 3 percent of the world's oil. Each year our economy consumes 25 percent. So let's do the math. If you drilled all the oil available in the U.S. offshore/onshore, how long could we sustain our economy just by drilling? The answer is, we couldn't. It can't be done.

What is the alternative? You can import oil, which we are doing now, 70 to 80 percent of the oil we use is brought in from overseas, from other countries, or you can find another approach--responsible exploration and production in America that doesn't violate basic environmental regulations, doesn't run the risk of contaminating or polluting offshore, and then a forward-looking approach to energy, an approach which looks for renewable, sustainable sources of energy for the future, that deals with the possibility that we will replace current electric power generation with pollution-free generation from wind turbines and solar power, moving toward a new generation of cars and trucks.

A few years ago, about 4 or 5 years now, I offered an amendment on the floor to improve CAFE standards. We had not increased fuel efficiency in cars for over 20 years. We were stuck with an old number. We were falling backward. People bought heavier trucks and SUVs, and they were not as fuel efficient. So I said: Let's have a new goal, moving toward more fuel-efficient cars. Let's have a challenge to our industry and to our science to find these new cars for the future, safe cars, cars that use less fuel and meet our needs. I got beaten badly on the floor when I offered that, but gasoline wasn't $4.50 a gallon then. I lost that attempt twice in a row. The votes weren't that good. I am not sure I even had 30 votes out of 100 for the idea of fuel efficiency. But someone once said: There is nothing more pregnant than an idea whose time has come, and with gasoline at $4 a gallon, the idea's time has come. We passed a law to require more fuel efficiency in years to come.

So we are moving in the right direction there. That is the future for us. The future for us is to find ways to conserve, find ways to be more fuel efficient, find ways to generate more renewable energy that doesn't pollute the environment.

Today's vote was a disappointing vote. We tried to create incentives for renewable energy, and only 5 Republicans out of 49 would come and vote with us. Four of the five are up for reelection, some of them facing tough contests in November. They know it is hard to explain voting against this bill. They voted against our bill, which would have created incentives for biomass and hydropower, incentives for solar energy and microturbines, biodiesel production, renewable projects, coal electricity, advanced coal electricity demonstration projects, plug-in electric cars, new batteries that we will need for plug-in hybrids, ways to reduce pollution from trucks with idling reduction units, installing more E-85 fuel pumps around America so consumers have a choice to use a cheaper and more environmentally friendly fuel, home credits, building credits. All of these were incentives to move America in the right direction, not the wrong direction, and only 5 of the 49 Republicans would vote for that.

Their goal is more drilling. Their agenda is written by the oil companies. The oil companies have consistently asked for more and more and more that they can put in their portfolio of possible areas to drill. However, currently there are 68 million acres of federally owned land under lease to the oil companies that they are not using, they are not exploring. They are not bringing oil and gas out. They have ample opportunity in that area and others to meet the needs of future exploration. They are not doing it. Yet from the Republican side of the aisle, we hear they need more.

This sign shows that the Republicans have engaged in 91 filibusters in this session. For most people who are following this debate that number may not mean much. In the history of the Senate, the largest number of filibusters in any 2-year period of time was 57 before this session. What is a filibuster? It is an attempt to slow down or stop the Senate from acting. Ninety-one times the Republicans have tried to slow down or stop the Senate from acting. Today they did it again. They stopped us when we tried to pass this energy policy for America that creates incentives for renewable energy.

That isn't all that was in this bill. It wasn't just about energy alone. In this bill was protection for working families from the alternative minimum tax, creating more tax liability for them in next year's return. That is a good bill as far as I am concerned. We should be protecting working families who are struggling to get by.

In this bill as well was $8 million for the highway trust fund. We are afraid this highway trust fund will run out of money before the end of the year and 400,000 good-paid workers would lose their jobs in America. I don't want to see that happen in my State; I don't think any Senator does. We tried to protect our economy from that happening in this bill.

There was a provision, totally unrelated--and critics of Congress say: Why do you do things like this? Why would you put that provision in a bill about energy and jobs? But I will tell you, I would put that provision I am about to describe in any bill. It is called mental health parity. This bill would require private insurance companies to provide opportunities for people to buy health insurance to cover mental illness. We have been fighting for this for as long as I have been in the Senate. The fight was started by Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. What a great man he was. We lost him when he died in a plane crash 6 years ago, and we have tried to pass this bill ever since. I think we should put that amendment on every bill. There are so many American families who are affected by mental illness. We put that before the Senate today and only five Republicans would vote for that. I don't understand their thinking. Many have said they really believe in it, but they wouldn't vote for it. That is where we are.

So their filibuster ended up stopping a bill from moving forward, as it did earlier this week. Earlier this week, another Republican filibuster stopped a bill which had 34 or 35 provisions in it to deal with a number of different issues. Some of them were health related: a registry for those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease so we can do better research in finding a cure; efforts for additional research in rehabilitation activities at the National Institutes of Health for those suffering from paralysis; a stroke treatment bill, a bipartisan bill--all of these bills, incidentally, have passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly. The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act--one I am familiar with--dealing with postpartum depression to try to make sure new mothers who are suffering from that depression get the treatment they need. Vision care for kids so that we help the States pay for more visual screening so kids don't fall behind in the classroom simply because they need eyeglasses.

Then we had a number of bills out of our Senate Judiciary Committee: a bill to reauthorize a program to find runaway and homeless kids. The Emmitt Till unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, Senator Dodd and I and others have cosponsored this one. Those responsible for killing civil rights workers, no matter how long ago, should be held accountable, and this bill would have moved us in that direction--a bill to deal with mental illness and crime, unfortunately, closely linked, and we should be doing something about it; bills dealing with reducing Internet child pornography.

All of the things I have just mentioned--health care and crime related--were in a package of bills which the Republicans refused to support. I don't get it. I don't understand it. I don't know how you could go home and explain to the people you represent that you voted against these bills. Obviously, they think it is easy to do, and maybe it is for them. It wouldn't be for me. In the State of Illinois, there are too many people affected by these bills.

The Republicans consistently--with their filibusters and holding back their votes--have stopped us from doing the people's work. I understand when people think of Congress across America, it is not in positive terms. They want us to do more. They want us to respond to the issues of the day, the things that make a difference. Whether we are dealing with medical issues, of research; whether we are dealing with law enforcement; whether we are dealing with the energy picture--these are things on which we should be voting to move forward. However, time and time and time again, the Republicans, through their filibusters, have stopped us in the Senate. That is what happens in a 51-to-49 Senate where it takes 60 votes to do anything significant. They have control of the agenda--at least control enough to say no--and they have said no repeatedly on 91 different occasions with their filibusters, breaking all the records in the Senate.

I wish to get back to this energy policy. I don't want us to go home without addressing it, but I am afraid the Republicans have closed the door not just yesterday but again today. Earlier, the leader on the Democratic side, Senator HARRY REID, read from this morning's New York Times, July 30, an article by Tom Friedman entitled ``Drilling in Afghanistan.'' What Tom Friedman said about the Republican strategy on energy, I think, really hits the nail on the head. I quote from this article:

Republicans become so obsessed with the notion that we can drill our way out of the current energy crisis that reopening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become their answer for every energy question. Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the world and the rising demand for natural resources, plus the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to fossil fuel, can see that clean, renewable energy--wind, solar, nuclear, and stuff we haven't yet invented--is going to be the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going to grow in a stable way--

Thomas Friedman writes.

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power industry is going to most own the next great technology breakthrough: The ET revolution--the energy technology revolution--and create millions of jobs and thousands of new businesses just like the IT revolution did. Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th century fuel, remind me of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric typewriters and forget about those things called the PC and the Internet. It is a strategy for making America a second great power and economy.

So when it comes to paying for what we do on the floor of the Senate, the Republicans vote no. When it comes to an American energy policy that is forward looking, sadly, the Republicans vote no. When it comes to medical research in critical areas, this week the Republicans voted no. When it comes to crime provisions to deal with runaway kids and to deal with Internet pornography and children, this week the Republicans voted no.

There comes a point where you have to stand for something. We have tried our best to bring these issues before the Senate. We will continue to.

The last point I will make is this: There is one thing--one thing--the President can do tomorrow morning that can change the debate on energy in America instantly, and that is an announcement. There is an announcement he could make that the United States--which has a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million barrels of oil that has been gathered and protected for our national security--is now going to be part of our energy solution. If President Bush announced that he would start releasing oil from that reserve, selling it on the market, with the goal of bringing the price of a barrel of oil down to $100 from its current level of about $122, it would do more to breathe life into the American economy than any other thing. It would say: The United States can stop being a victim when it comes to energy and can become a player on the global market. It would send the signal that we are not going to tolerate $145-a-barrel oil and the prices it generates at the gasoline pump and when it comes to jet fuel for our airlines. If the President showed leadership in releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--if he called in the oil companies and put them on the carpet for the outrageous profits that they continue to report--we could turn this around.

Simply suggesting that we have to drill more offshore in the hopes that 8 to 14 years from now there will be additional oil is not going to solve our energy problem. It is yesterday's answer. As Senator Dorgan from North Dakota has said so frequently: When the Republicans think of energy, it is yesterday for everything.

Let's think about tomorrow. Let's have an energy policy that looks forward.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator will yield for a question?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. I served with Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota, who passed away 6 years ago, just weeks before the election. He and his wife Sheila, his daughter, several staff members, and the pilot and copilot were lost in that plane crash. I attended that memorial service for him at the University of Minnesota.

Paul had such a passion for so many issues. But the one thing that meant more than anything to him was this mental health parity bill. I am saddened that, 6 years later, we still haven't passed it. We only had 5 Republicans join us today and vote for it. I hope the Senator from Minnesota feels as I do, that we need to pass the Wellstone mental health parity bill--make no excuses, find no alternatives, other than to make sure it is named in his memory, the man who started us down this road and whose journey needs to be finished by us today.

I am glad the Senator from Minnesota is here to participate in that. It should be the highest priority before we adjourn this year. Since I need to ask the question, I ask her if she agrees.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Senator so much for that question. I know from his family, those he left behind, who miss him so much, this is what he wanted to get done. I actually remember, I say to the Senator from Illinois, the last time I saw Paul Wellstone before he went down in that tragic plane crash. It was at an event for new citizens. Sheila, his wife, was supposed to be there, and the two of us were talking about our immigrant families, where they came from and how they pulled themselves up and funny stories about our families in Appalachia. There were about 30 new citizens there and no press, no cameras. All of a sudden, by surprise, in walked Paul. You know, it was 3 or 4 weeks before one of the biggest elections in the country, and he was in that room with the new citizens.

I knew there were two reasons: One, he loved Sheila and he wanted to surprise her. Second was he embraced this idea that no matter where you came from, no matter what you have gone through in your life, you could pull yourself up in this country. That is part of why this mental health parity bill was so important to him. He had seen in his family how his brother struggled and was able to pull himself up. There was a horrible financial situation for their family. He didn't want that to happen to someone else. He felt that if you can cover physical illnesses, you should also cover mental illnesses. This bill is what Paul wanted to get done.

I know the majority leader and others have said the other side said they would pass it when he was alive and then when he died. This is their chance.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.

DETENTION OF GAMBIAN JOURNALIST EBRIMA MANNEH

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, America has long been a champion and source of hope around the world for those suffering human rights violations--those holed up in dictators' prisons, those fighting for press and political freedoms, those bravely standing up to tyranny or injustice.

Many of those who have suffered, such as Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela, or continue to suffer this fate, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, are well-known to us. Sadly, for each one of them, there are many other, lesser known heroes being detained or harassed all over the world simply for wanting basic human freedoms.

Through our annual human rights reporting at the State Department, our diplomacy, and steady public pressure on basic human rights, the U.S. has traditionally been a source of hope for those being illegally detained or persecuted.

We should never forget what this kind of attention and pressure can accomplish and what kind of strength it provides for those being detained.

Take for example, Ngawang Sangdrol, a Tibetan nun who was detained and tortured for peacefully expressing her belief in Tibetan independence. She was freed after 12 years of imprisonment following immense public pressure. After her release she said,

I have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and support ..... I am deeply touched to learn that many individuals, organizations, and governments.......have worked towards my release. It is very clear to me that I have been released and allowed to come out to the free world for medical treatment and to enjoy my freedom because of international concern.

Or Gurbandurdy Durdykuliev, a political activist from Turkmenistan who in 2004 was seized and forced into a psychiatric hospital by the country's ruling dictator. His crime--requesting permission for a peaceful political rally.

He was released a few years later, just 10 days after 54 members of Congress sent a letter to the Turkmen Government about his case.

We should listen and act upon the appeal made by Aung San Suu Kyi, who has remained under house arrest in Burma for most of the last 19 years:

Those fortunate enough to live in societies where they are entitled to full political rights can reach out to help the less fortunate in other parts of our troubled planet....... Please use your liberty to promote ours.

I realize we must also work to address our own recent shortcomings by unequivocally renouncing torture and by closing the detention facility in Guantanamo--and we will continue to work toward ending these shameful legacies.

At the same time, we must continue to speak out in support of those imprisoned for advocating basic freedoms around the world.

Many of us on both sides of the aisle have been arguing that America's strength resonates not only from its military power but from the power of its ideas and inspiration, the power of its values and hope, the power of its generosity and diplomacy--its smart power.

Sadly, I worry that a measure of this leadership, of this inspiration, and of this uniquely American hope has been lost in recent years.

Accordingly, today I want focus the Senate's attention on a tragic story from the small west African Nation of The Gambia.

Chief Ebrima Manneh was a reporter for the Gambian newspaper, the Daily Observer. He was allegedly detained in July 2006 by plainclothes police officers thought to have been from the Gambian National Intelligence Agency after he tried to republish a BBC report critical of President Yahya Jammeh.

He has been held incommunicado, without charge or trial, for two long years. Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience and has called for his immediate release.

I agree.

Recent reports suggest he is being held at the Fatoto Police Station in eastern Gambia. In July 2007, he was also reportedly escorted by the members of the Gambian Police Intervention Unit to the Royal Victoria hospital in the capital for high blood pressure treatment.

Despite repeated attempts by Manneh's father and fellow journalists, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, to seek information on Mr. Manneh, the Gambian Government continues to deny any involvement in his arrest or knowledge of his whereabouts.

My direct request to the Gambian Embassy here in Washington has also been met with shameful silence.

Last month in Nigeria, the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States declared the arrest and detention of Mr. Manneh illegal and ordered Gambian officials to release him immediately.

And yet the Gambian Government ignored this court's ruling as well--even though this court has jurisdiction for human rights cases in the Gambia.

Is the Gambian Government so afraid of one of its own reporters that it cannot even acknowledge his detention?

I say to President Jammeh: Release this reporter. Let him return to his family.

Sadly, Mr. Manneh's case is not alone in The Gambia. In December 2004, a critic of President Jammeh, and press freedom advocate, Deyda Hydara, was shot and killed. His murder has yet to be solved or investigated.

The government has also enacted laws muzzling the press and imposing mandatory prison sentences for media owners if convicted of publishing defamatory or seditious material--all part of a larger deterioration of basic freedoms in The Gambia.

Madam President, the United States needs to be a forceful advocate for these kinds of blatant human rights abuses. Doing so is not only the right thing to do, but it is the smart thing to do in terms of our engagement abroad and in demonstrating our American values.

I yield the floor.

Source