Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is a moral responsibility for a great nation to help provide for its citizens when they are in dire economic circumstances. There are more than 30,000 workers in West Virginia who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits, and thousands of them have already received their final payment of emergency unemployment benefits. These workers and their families are relying on this unemployment extension bill to survive. Later this year, many more unemployed workers will be counting on the Congress to take action to extend provisions contained in the stimulus bill, in order to be able to purchase health insurance. Congress must not fail them.

I am very pleased that the Senate has passed this unemployment extension measure, which provides a lifeline for families who are barely hanging on.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate will vote today to confirm West Virginia Circuit Court Judge Irene C. Berger for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions for moving the nomination forward. Along with my colleague, Senator Jay Rockefeller, I was proud to recommend Judge Berger, for she is not only an outstanding jurist, she is also an exemplary person. A native of Berwind, in McDowell County, WV, Judge Berger has devoted her legal career to public service in West Virginia.

As a young attorney, she provided legal services to those who were most needy. As a prosecutor, Judge Berger obtained many high-profile felony convictions. Judge Berger has served as a circuit judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of West Virginia for 15 years--1\1/2\ decades--and she has devoted countless hours of service to her community.

Through her drive and determination, Judge Berger broke barrier after barrier. She was the first in her family to attend college. She was the first African-American woman to serve as a circuit judge in West Virginia. Embodying true mountaineer spirit and pride, Judge Berger's contributions to legal service and to education have been substantial. Sitting on the bench, she will continue her fine service to her community and to the great State of West Virginia.

I want to be the first to congratulate Judge Berger, and I thank my colleagues for their support of this very fine lady.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am a student of history and a firm believer in applying the lessons of history to present planning and to future planning. There is no profit--none--in making the same mistakes over and over. There is no future--none--in building on a foundation of shifting sand. Our military planners and our Afghanistan policy analysts, as well as Members of this Senate, would do well to spend some time considering the history, the geography, and the cultures of Afghanistan.

Throughout the long centuries, Afghanistan's geopolitical value has been its location along the great Silk Road that carried both trade goods and armies between Europe and Asia through the forbidding Hindu Kush mountains. Afghanistan has limited natural resources. Afghanistan has a climate and a geography that produces very little for export. So the fiercely--and I say fiercely--independent tribes that populate this harsh and barren land have long earned a living instead from the goods and the armies that travel across it.

Tribesmen have used the dry rocky plains and the steep, bare, cavern- riddled mountains to great advantage--to extort both armies and traders for security and shelter or as a base from which to raid.

In weary succession, rulers and nations have witnessed their dreams of conquest and their dreams of empire in Afghanistan dashed. From Alexander the Great in 326 BC, to Genghis Kahn in the 13th century, to the British in the 19th century, to the Russians in the 20th century, no invading army has ever conquered Afghanistan, earning it the sobriquet ``Graveyard of Empires,'' the graveyard of empires or, to say it another way, graveyard of foreigners.

In one horrific example, in 1842, the British lost more than 16,000 troops and civilians in a single 110-mile retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad. History tells us--and we had better listen to history--that Afghanistan does not take kindly to foreign intervention. Yet--now, get this--here we are discussing a proposed counterinsurgency strategy that would vastly increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan in the vain hope of spawning the establishment of a Western-style, modern democracy and economy in a land that in many areas and in many ways is still frozen in the time of Alexander the Great.

As a junior United States Senator I traveled to Afghanistan in the 1960s--way back there in the 1960s. Yes, I went to Afghanistan in the 1960s and, let me say to you, it was an eye-opening experience. Men, human beings, were treated like beasts of burden, actually pulling carts like oxen. Yes, I saw it. Living conditions were primitive. Corruption was widespread. While life in Afghanistan's cities has changed somewhat in the intervening decades, many

of the scenes that I see in the news still look very familiar to me. The fundamental changes that are wished for by some NATO and U.S. planners, particularly in the least developed rural areas where the tribal theocratic Taliban rule is most entrenched, would certainly be a long shot--and I mean that, a long shot--and likely will be a long shot and quite unwelcome.

What is really at stake for the United States in Afghanistan? We all know that Afghanistan is not a threat to us militarily. The Taliban is not a threat to us militarily. Al-Qaida, however, is a demonstrated threat to us, with ambitions and a philosophy that must--must--keep us vigilant. But the link between al-Qaida and Afghanistan is a tenuous link, one based only on the temporary expediency of location, an expediency that has already been replaced as the al-Qaida leadership has moved and may move again. Building a western style Democratic state in an Afghanistan that is equipped with a large military and police force and a functioning economy based on something other than opium poppies may or may not deny al-Qaida a safe haven there again. It will, however, guarantee that the United States--that is us--must invest large numbers--not just a few, large numbers--of troops and many billions of dollars in Afghanistan for many--not just a few, many-- years to come, energy and funds that might otherwise go toward fueling--in other words building and strengthening--our own economic recovery, better educating our children or expanding access to health care for more of our own people, and yet there are many here in this body, many here in the Senate who believe that we should proceed with such a folly in Afghanistan.

I am not one of them. But there are many, I say, here in the Senate, who believe that we should proceed with such a folly in Afghanistan. During a time of record deficits, some actually continue to suggest that the United States should sink hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars into Afghanistan, effectively turning our backs on our own substantial domestic needs, all the while deferring the costs and deferring the problems for future generations to address. Our national security interests lie in defeating--no, I go further, in destroying al-Qaida. Until we take that and only that mission seriously, we risk adding the United States to the long, long list of nations whose best laid plans have died on the cold, barren, rocky slopes of that far off country, Afghanistan.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, while it is important that health professionals in my State of West Virginia receive the compensation they deserve, I will, however, vote against this measure. We are on the eve of one of the most historic debates surrounding health care since the inception of Medicare in 1965. To follow the many weeks of laborious debate and amendments in the Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees, with this legislation is unwise. It sends the wrong signal. The health committees have not reviewed it. It addresses only a single problem, to the benefit of one group of health care providers, completely outside the context of broader reform. I believe piecemeal action on health care reform could be its undoing.

In the coming weeks, I look forward to voting on the motion to proceed to a comprehensive health care reform bill. Reforming our health care system for the betterment of all of our citizens is necessary and vitally important. But we need to make certain there is a national consensus behind any health care bill. In order to pass a meaningful measure that will provide essential health care coverage for those in dire need, the Senate must be entirely forthright in both debate and intention. Mr. President, $247 billion is not an insignificant amount of money, and the Senate should be up front about the true costs of health care reform.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time in morning business be yielded back.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I speak today in support of the conference report providing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2010. I especially wish to thank my ranking member, Senator George Voinovich, for his cooperation in producing the agreement that is now before the Senate. It has been 8 years--8 long years--since the attacks of 9/11. There are some people in this country who have become complacent about the threat of another attack. Don't count me as one of them. I am not one of those people.

There have been numerous terrorist attacks around the globe, including the London, Madrid, and Mumbai bombings. Just last month, a Denver man was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. Where? In New York City. So we must continue to be vigilant. Nor can we be complacent about Mother Nature's power to wreak havoc with a major earthquake, flood, or hurricane, meaning that such disaster relief will require the funding provided in this bill.

This year, I have set five goals for the Homeland Security Department, five goals that I trust we all share. What are they? No. 1, to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. No. 2, to protect the American people--your people, my people, the American people--from terrorist threats. No. 3, to prepare for and respond to all disasters, both manmade and natural. No. 4, to support our State, local, tribal, and private sector partners with resources and information. No. 5, to give the Department of Homeland Security the management tools it needs to succeed.

I believe the conference report we are presenting today meets those goals.

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security totals $42.8 billion. Do you know how much money that is? That is $42.80 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money. It is an increase of $2.65 billion

over 2009. Again, I thank my friend, the very able Senator George Voinovich, the ranking member, for his notable contributions to this legislation. I thank Senator Daniel Inouye and Senator Thad Cochran, the chairman and the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I also thank our able majority and minority staff who have worked together to produce this legislation. Let me name them: Charles Kieffer, Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, Christa Thompson, Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, and Arex Avanni.

Madam President, I thank all Senators, and I urge support for the conference report.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. President, the junior Senator from South Carolina earlier raised concerns about dropping his amendment concerning the fence on the southwest border. He asserted that the decision to drop the language was

made behind closed doors. To be clear, the conference met in public session on October 7 during the full light of day.

As to the DeMint amendment, I fully support the goal of the amendment that was offered by the Senator from South Carolina. I am one of the strongest proponents in the Senate of securing our southwest border. That is why I supported legislation in 2006 to build the fence. I have led the effort to increase border security and immigration enforcement efforts.

However, the amendment that was offered by the able Senator from South Carolina is too prescriptive and too costly. Instead, in conference I worked to provide real resources to secure our borders. The conference agreement before the Senate today sustains the bipartisan congressional effort begun by the Byrd amendment to the fiscal year 2005 supplemental and continued in the fiscal year 2006- 2009 appropriations acts to provide substantial increases in border security and immigration enforcement.

The number of Border Patrol agents has increased from 11,264 to a level of 20,019 agents, by the end of this year. Under this agreement, the conferees added over $21 million above the request to hire an additional 144 agents. There will be 20,163 agents onboard at the end of fiscal year 2010.

Similarly, the number of detention beds has increased in the same time period from 18,500 beds to 33,400 beds. The agreement fully funds 33,400 detention beds and includes statutory language to maintain that level of bed space throughout the fiscal year.

The agreement also adds $25 million to the President's request of $112 million to expand the capacity of the E-Verify Program and increases its compliance rate.

The miles of fencing that have been constructed have increased from 119 miles in 2006 to more than 629 miles. The number of miles of the southwest border that are under ``effective control,'' as determined by the Border Patrol, has grown from 241 miles to almost 700 miles this year. That is an increase of almost 80 miles since the end of the last fiscal year.

More than 655 miles of border fence will be complete in early 2010. The agreement provides $800 million or $25 million above 2009 for the deployment of additional sensors, cameras, and other technology on the southwest border. Since beginning major border fence and security construction along the southwest border in fiscal year 2007, when combined with the $800 million in this bill and the $100 million provided in the Recovery Act, nearly $4.1 billion--spelled with a ``b''--nearly $4.1 billion has been appropriated for this purpose. That $4.1 billion is a lot of money, a lot of money. That is $4.10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born the way I figure it.

However, it is estimated it could cost $8.5 billion to construct the additional fencing required by the Senator's amendment. That is money we do not have. The conference report strongly supports all aspects, all aspects of border security and immigration enforcement, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we complete the debate today on the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I again thank the very able Senator from Ohio, George Voinovich, the ranking member, for his many contributions to this bipartisan legislation.

I thank all Senators. This conference report provides the Department of Homeland Security with the resources it needs to succeed in its critical missions. I urge support for the conference report.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the Nation's Housing Market.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S. 1631, the Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2009.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reform Done Right: Sensible Health Care Solutions for America's Small Businesses.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Medical Debt: Can Bankruptcy Reform Facilitate a Fresh Start?'' The witness list is attached.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Arex Avanni, a detailee to the Committee on Appropriations, be given full privileges during debate on H.R. 2892 today.

Mr. President, few subjects weigh more heavily upon a President of the United States than the decision to send America's sons and daughters into war. Such a commitment demands the clearest of clear thinking, including a thoroughly dispassionate assessment of goals-- objectives, in other words--risks and strategies. This is difficult, very difficult terrain for any American President, especially when faced with conflicting views from advisers, from Congress, and from the American public.

I have become deeply concerned that in the 8 years since the September 11 attacks, the reason for the military mission of the United States in Afghanistan has become lost, consumed in some broader scheme of nation building, which has clouded our purpose and obscured our reasoning.

General McChrystal, our current military commander in Afghanistan, has requested 30,000 to 40,000 additional American troops to bolster the more than 65,000 American troops already there. I am not clear as to his reasons and I have many questions.

What does General McChrystal actually aim to achieve? So I am compelled to ask: Does it take 100,000 U.S. troops to find Osama bin Laden? If al-Qaida has moved to Pakistan, what will these troops in Afghanistan add to the effort to defeat al-Qaida? What is meant by the term ``defeat'' in the parlance of conventional military aims when facing a shadowy, global terrorist network? And what of this number 100,000? Does the number 100,000 troops include support personnel? Does it include government civilians? Does it include defense and security contractors? How many contractors are already there in Afghanistan? How much more will this cost? How much in terms of dollars? How much in terms of American blood? Will the international community step up to the plate and bear a greater share of the burden?

There are some in Congress who talk about limiting the number of additional troops until we surge--where have I heard that word before-- until we ``surge to train'' more Afghan defense forces. That sounds a lot like fence straddling to me. I suggest we might better refocus our efforts on al-Qaida and reduce U.S. participation in nation building in Afghanistan.

Let me say that again. I suggest we might better refocus--in other words, take another look--our efforts on al-Qaida and reduce U.S. participation in nation building in Afghanistan. Given the lack of popularity and integrity of the current Afghan Government, what guarantee is there that additional Afghan troops and equipment will not produce an even larger and better armed hostile force?

Let me ask that question again. Given the lack of popularity and integrity of the current Afghan Government, what guarantee is there that additional Afghan troops and equipment will not produce an even larger and better armed hostile force? There is no guarantee. The lengthy presence of foreign troops in a sovereign country almost always creates resentment and resistance among the native population.

I am relieved to hear President Obama acknowledge that there has been mission creep in Afghanistan, and I am pleased to hear the President express skepticism about sending more troops into Afghanistan unless needed to achieve our primary goal of disrupting al-Qaida. I remain concerned that Congress may yet succumb to military and international agendas. General Petraeus and General McChrystal both seem to have bought into the nation-building mission. By supporting a nationwide counterinsurgency and nation-building strategy, I believe they have certainly lost sight of America's primary strategic objective; namely, to disrupt and defang--in other words, pull the teeth right out of the bone. I believe they certainly have lost sight of America's primary strategic objective to disrupt and defang al-Qaida and protect the American people--protect the American people--from future attack.

President Obama and the Congress must--I do not say ``should,'' I say ``must''--reassess and refocus on our original and most important objective; namely, emasculating--I mean tearing it out by the roots-- emasculating a terrorist network that has proved its ability to inflict harm, where? On the United States.

If more troops are required to support the international mission in Afghanistan, then the international community should step up and provide the additional forces and funding. The United States is already supplying a disproportionate number of combat assets for that purpose.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, on August 25, a towering figure on our national political landscape left us. Edward Moore Kennedy succumbed to a malignant brain tumor after an 18-month battle for his life. As I look now at his desk, draped with black cloth and covered with flowers, I still have difficulty believing that he is gone. My ebullient Irish-to- the-core friend has departed this life forever. How bleakly somber. How utterly final. How totally unlike Ted Kennedy in life.

Ted Kennedy in life was a force of nature--a cheerful, inquisitive, caring man, who never accepted somberness for long or the finality of anything. His energetic adherence to perseverance, his plain dogged determination, his ability to rise from the ashes of whatever new horrific event accosted him, always with grace, and usually with a liberal dose of humor, were his trademarks. It was almost as if Ted Kennedy were at the top of his form when coping with adversity. Life itself inspired him. He believed that life was a contact sport, but that it should never be played without joy in the game itself. That is how he saw politics as well.

Ted Kennedy and I were friends and, yet, we were the oddest of odd couples. He was the scion of a wealthy and storied family. I am a coal miner's son who had no bottom rungs in my ladder. In earlier years we were rivals.

What Ted and I discovered, though, was that somehow we had many things in common--a love of history; an affection for poetry; a fondness for dogs; a commitment to the less fortunate in our society. Many will speak of Ted's stunning Senate career, his huge and lasting impact on our culture, his domination of the political scene for so many, many decades. By all means, let us never forget Ted Kennedy's extraordinary contribution to this great country. It is largely unmatched.

But I will especially cherish the personal side of this big man, with his infectious laugh, his booming voice, and his passion for the things and the people that he cared about. I will remember the dog lover who brought Sunny and Splash to my office to visit. I will recall a considerate friend who sent dozens of roses to mark my wedding anniversary or a special birthday. I will again enjoy a very special recitation of the ``Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.'' By habit, I shall immediately look for Ted Kennedy whenever I enter this Chamber. In a thousand ways large and small he will simply be deeply, deeply missed.

My heart goes out to his steadfast wife Vickie and to his wonderful family. His spirit surely lives on in all of you.

Not long ago, I picked up a book of poetry which Ted Kennedy had given to me in July of 1996. It bore this inscription:

``To Bob, the master of our legislative poetry who has already left so many extraordinary Footprints on the Sands of Time.'' After that, Ted had written, ``See page 371.''

I close with a few stanzas from ``a Psalm of Life'' on page 371 of Ted's gift to me:

Life is real! Life is earnest!

And the grave is not its goal;

Dust thou art, to dust returnest,

Was not spoken of the soul.

. . . .

Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime,

And, departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,

Sailing o'er life's solemn main,

A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,

Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us, then, be up and doing,

With a heart for any fate;

Still achieving, still pursuing,

Learn to labor and to wait.

Mr. President, the U.S. Senate is an institution that reveres precedent, continuity, and tradition. Ours is an institution that prides itself on the great men and women who preceded us in this Chamber, and the role this institution has played in protecting our Nation, and in making our Nation a better place in which to live, work, and raise families. This is an institution that prides itself on its history.

Therefore, it is important that the Senate have an official historian, along with an Historical Office to document our history, and supervise the management of the records of the Senate as an institution, of Senate committees, and of individual Senators.

For the past 34 years, the Senate has been fortunate, perhaps I should say we have been blessed, to have Dr. Richard Baker as the Senate Historian. Unfortunately for us, he is now leaving his position as Senate Historian, so I must say farewell.

This is a most reluctant and sad farewell. While I am pleased that Dr. Baker will now have the time and opportunity to pursue other endeavors, such as spending more time with his wife and other family members, as well as

completing some manuscripts he has been working on, I must say that I am truly sorry to see him leave.

In the preface of volume two of my four-volume history of the Senate, I pointed out that, ``This work in its present form would not have been possible without the assistance of the professionals within the Senate historical office,'' which, of course, was headed by Dr. Baker. My little acknowledgment hardly begins to convey the debt of my gratitude to him for his assistance in that project.

Researching and writing that four-volume history took more than a decade, and during that 10-year period, whenever I went to him for assistance, whether for help in research or writing or just thinking about how I wanted to present a certain idea, he always went above and beyond the call of duty. He was always there, ready and eager to help. I will never forget how, time after time, he would simply say, ``Senator, I'll be delighted to help.''

He was always ready to help, although he was responsible to 99 other Senators, and had so many other responsibilities and functions. Since the office was created in 1975, following the Watergate scandal, Dr. Baker, the Senate's first and only historian, has ensured that the history of the Senate is properly collected, categorized, maintained, and preserved. In addition, he has advised Senators on how to manage their personal papers while they are here, and how to preserve them once they leave office, and has advised Senate committees on the transfer of their records to the National Archives.

Charged with maintaining an objective and thorough record of the institution, his office has collected information on important Senate events, and traced the background and the evolution of Senate rules, precedents and countless activities.

In a multitude of ways, through the publications that his office issues, in talks with Senators and our staffs, and in private consultations, Dr. Baker has provided Senators with a better understanding and appreciation of the U.S. Senate, and its importance and its role under the Constitution. His office has reminded us on a daily basis of the majesty, the uniqueness, and the greatness of our institution.

His office has undertaken its very important work objectively and without political motivation or slant. It always remained a completely nonpartisan office. As a result, Dr. Baker earned the respect as well as the gratitude of Senators on both sides of the aisle. This explains why, even with the many changes in the Senate during his tenure as Senate Historian, including changes in Senate leaders and party control, no one has even considered any change in the Senate Historical Office.

Because of his careful and methodical work in collecting the history of the Senate, I can safely predict that the work of his office will be vital to future historians. Years from now, when most of us are long gone--from the Senate, that is--historians will be using the records his office has compiled and the documents his office has produced, to write their histories of the Senate--and for that we will all be grateful.

I congratulate and I thank Dr. Baker for the marvelous work he has done. I wish him and his lovely wife Pat nothing but much happiness, great success, and the best of health as they embark on the next phase of their lives.