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)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with much dismay over the fact that we were not able to pass the energy extenders, the tax extenders, the package of important provisions for our country's economy because of this obstructionism on the other side.

Let me tell my colleagues why this was so important to me. We only got four Republican votes for this package. I think it is outrageous when you look at what we are dealing with. This week we are going to be memorializing the tragic, tragic, tragic fall of the bridge in the middle of Minnesota. I am going to speak to that tomorrow and do a fitting tribute, along with Senator Coleman, to the victims of that bridge collapse and to the first responders who saved so many lives, and to the reconstruction work that has gone on thanks to the help of this Senate. I live six blocks from that bridge, so it means a lot to me.

I said the week the bridge fell down that in America, a bridge shouldn't fall down in the middle of the Mississippi River, especially not on an eight-lane highway, especially not on one of the most heavily traveled bridges in the State, especially not at rush hour in the heart of a major metropolitan area. Unfortunately, however, it took that disaster to put the issue of infrastructure funding squarely on the national agenda, and it is long overdue. That is why I was so disappointed that in this important bill was $8 billion to replenish the highway trust fund of this country, to replenish that fund. Mr. President, 400,000 jobs in this country are at stake in that bill that was voted down by the other side.

Look what is happening in this country with our infrastructure. Let's take the issue of bridges. Nationwide, bridges are deteriorating far faster than we can repair or replace them. About 78,000 bridges across the Nation are structurally deficient. What does structurally deficient mean? When inspectors evaluate a bridge, they examine the bridge's deck, superstructure, and substructure. Each of these components is ranked on a scale of 0 to 9, with 0 being failed and 9 being excellent. If the deck, superstructure, or substructure is given a 4 or less, the bridge is classified as structurally deficient.

In June of 2006, the I-35W bridge's superstructure--meaning the physical conditions of all structural members--was rated at a 4. The bridge's deck was rated at a 5, and the substructure, comprised of the piers, the footings, and other components, was rated as a 6. A bridge is shut down if any of its parts are rated at a 2.

Then we have another 80,000 bridges across the Nation which are functionally obsolete. What does functionally obsolete mean? That means they don't meet today's design standards, they don't conform to today's safety standards, and they are handling traffic far beyond their design. Fully one-quarter of America's 600,000 bridges have aged so much that their physical condition or their ability to withstand current traffic levels is simply inadequate. These bridges require immediate attention.

I can tell you since our bridge fell on that summer day on August 1, we have had a number of bridges shut down, close down in our State, including one that handled a lot of traffic in St. Cloud, MN. There was one in Winona, MN, that was actually on the Federal stamp from our State that was temporarily closed down and is going to have to be rebuilt.

We are seeing this across the country. We are seeing a need for infrastructure funding. At a time when our economy is facing such difficult times, I see this as an investment, not only in the long-term viability for our country's transportation system but also in jobs. That is why I am so disappointed that the other side was willing to turn their backs on 400,000 existing jobs, much less add new ones, by turning down that $8 billion replenishment of the highway trust fund.

It was President Kennedy who once said that building a road or highway isn't pretty, but it is something our economy needs to have. I can tell you beyond the bridges in metropolitan areas, nowhere is that truer than in rural America. We are seeing a rejuvenation because of the energy economy right now in rural Minnesota as we are in so much of rural America. Senator Tester from Montana talked about this. We are seeing biofuels, whether it is biodiesel, ethanol, moving to cellulosic ethanol; whether it is wind or solar. We are third in the country in Minnesota with wind energy--third in the country.

I have seen jobs such as in Starbuck, MN, where a group of 10 people decided to quit their jobs and go work for a solar panel factory. They were so proud of their work they had me jump up and down on those solar panels to show that they can withstand hail damage, and they did.

I can tell you this: We are seeing these jobs and we need courage in Washington that matches the courage of these employees in Starbuck, MN, or in Pipestone--the courage of these employees who are willing to see a better energy future, while this body on the other side is willing to shoot it down by shooting down those tax extenders for energy. This is the wave of the future. This is the way we are going to be investing in homegrown energy and in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels in the Mideast.

So it is about the energy extenders for me in my State and across the country, but it is also about the transportation funding that came in replenishing that highway trust fund. When you start building this energy economy, with the wind turbines and with the biofuels in the trucks going across these roads, you are going to put more stress on the roads and the rail in rural America. If we are going to move to the next century's economic system, we can't be stuck in the last century's transportation system.

I will give some examples. The ethanol plant in Bentsen, MN, now has over 525 fully loaded semis hauling the ethanol from their plant every week.

This is a 45-million gallon facility. Their production falls about in the middle of our biodiesel facilities in Minnesota.

SMI Hydraulics is a company in rural southwestern Minnesota that manufactures the bases for the wind towers you see all across our country. This is a company that started as a barn. The wind towers they manufacture actually come out of the side of the barn as they are employing dozens of people right in this little town. The heavy trucks that bring the steel to the company put a heavy burden on the road as they travel and are putting durability to a test. This truck travel and the need for more rail travel is part of our transportation future, but when the other side shoots down our ability to even replenish the highway trust fund, we are not going to be moving in the right direction for our economy. We are not going to help these rural people to develop the true energy economy they need to develop.

In his 1963 ``Memoir for Change,'' President Eisenhower famously said:

More than any single action by the government since the end of the war, this one would change the face of America.

He was talking about the interstate highway system. Its impact on the American economy, the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up were beyond calculation. Well, he was right. Just as he was right back in 1963, we know he is still right in 2008. So the gall to turn down the replenishment of that highway trust fund and to stop America as we try to head to the new energy future--other countries are leapfrogging us because they have government policies in place that mandate these green jobs and move in the right direction--is plain wrong.

The one last thing I wish to say is there is one way--as we look to jump-starting the economy right now, as we look at solving our oil crisis and our dependency on foreign oil and our spending of $600,000 a minute on foreign oil--and that is the President. He doesn't need the Congress. He can complain about Congress all he wants, but the President of the United States can actually release barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He can do it right now. He could do it in the next hour. We can look at what has happened in the past: 1990 to 1991, 11 million barrels were released; 1996 to 1997, 28 million barrels were released to reduce the Federal debt. In 2005, 21 million barrels were released after Katrina. We can look at how full the petroleum reserve has been. In 1993, 79 percent full; in 2001, it was 74 percent full. Well, right now, in 2008, it is 97 percent full. So this President, on his own, could simply release the barrels of oil from that Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

We are the home of Northwest Airlines in Minnesota. The CEO there, Doug Steenland, has spoken with me many times. Tens of thousands of customers have sent e-mails saying we want to stop this speculation and we want to do something about helping Americans and helping these companies with oil prices. One way to do this immediately is to release some of the barrels of oil, 97 percent full, from that Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If you even go down to 90 percent, you could inject $6 billion into the American economy and help to bring those oil prices down. This is up to the President. He could do it with one signature on one document. He doesn't need us passing a bill to have to deal with these guys and their filibuster. He could do it himself.

So in addition to passing these tax extenders, to getting our green energy economy going and doing something about that highway trust fund so another bridge doesn't fall down in the middle of America, this President, himself, without even one vote from Congress, could release barrels of oil into the American economy and help not only customers but also help the businesses in this country who are finding it harder and harder to compete as we see the price of oil escalate.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MENTAL HEALTH PARITY

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, this afternoon I spoke about how important it was to pass that extender bill, how important it was for my State and for the rest of the country to promote green jobs, to look at this new energy future, to stop spending $600,000 a minute on foreign oil. I said this afternoon we only got four Republicans to vote with us on a bill that was paid for, a bill that was the right way to go--only four Republicans.

There was something else in that bill that is just as important to me and to my State of Minnesota and to the millions of people living in the shadow of mental illness, and that is the Paul Wellstone mental health parity bill that is included in that package. We have tried to pass this through the Senate over and over again. Senator Domenici on the other side of the aisle has been one of the biggest supporters and sponsors of this bill. Senator Kennedy has worked on it. Senator Durbin has worked on it. There are many people in the House, including PATRICK KENNEDY, and one of my favorite Republican Congressman, JIM RAMSTAD, who is retiring this year, and he doesn't want to leave the House until that bill gets done.

For me, the Paul Wellstone mental health parity bill is about Paul Wellstone. It is about everything he stood for. It is about fighting for the people who don't have a voice. It is about all the people who have come up to me in the Capitol, not the Senators but the secretaries and the tram drivers who remember Paul and remember how kind he was to them. This bill is about his brother Stephen who struggled with mental illness his whole life. Paul would always talk about how the house they grew up in was always dark because of Stephen's mental illness and how, after Stephen got better and went on to teach, what a difference it made in the family, but it was a lifelong struggle for him.

So this bill is for Paul. When Paul was alive, our friends on the other side of the aisle said they wanted to pass this bill.

And when Paul died, they said they wanted to pass this bill. This is the time, and it was a part of that package. Senator Kennedy is at home watching everything that goes on in this Chamber, and he wants to get that done. Paul's son, David, has been here, day after day, walking the halls of the Capitol, knocking on doors to get this done in his father's memory. I implore my friends on the other side to get this done.

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.

Source