Floor Statements

Madam President, there are many of us who will come to the floor this afternoon to pay tribute to one of the great Presidents in American history. Many of us will recollect times and experiences and contacts we had with President Reagan and the way he inspired us personally as well as a nation.

When I was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, the Vietnamese went to great lengths to restrict the news from home to the statements and activities of prominent opponents of the war in Vietnam. They wanted us to believe America had forgotten us. They never mentioned Ronald Reagan to us or played his speeches over the camp loud speakers. No matter. We knew about him. New additions to our ranks told us how the Governor and Mrs. Reagan were committed to our liberation and our cause.

When we came home, all of us were eager to meet the Reagans, to thank them for their concern. But more than gratitude drew us to them. We were drawn to them because they were among the few prominent Americans who did not subscribe to the then-fashionable notion that America had entered her inevitable decline.

We prisoners of war came home to a country that had lost a war and the best sense of itself, a country beset by social and economic problems. Assassinations, riots, scandals, contempt for political, religious, and educational institutions gave the appearance that we had become a dysfunctional society. Patriotism was sneered at, the military scorned. The world anticipated the collapse of our global influence. The great, robust, confident Republic that had given its name to the last century seemed exhausted.

Ronald Reagan believed differently. He possessed an unshakable faith in America's greatness, past and future, that proved more durable than the prevailing political sentiments of the time. His confidence was a tonic to men who had come home eager to put the war behind us and for the country to do likewise.

Our country has a long and honorable history. A lost war or any other calamity should not destroy our confidence or weaken our purpose. We were a good nation before Vietnam, and we are a good nation after Vietnam. In all of history, you cannot find a better one. Of that, Ronald Reagan was supremely confident, and he became President to prove it.

His was a faith that shouted at tyrants to ``tear down this wall.'' Such faith, such patriotism requires a great deal of love to profess, and I will always revere him for it. When walls were all I had for a world, I learned about a man whose love of freedom gave me hope in a desolate place. His faith honored us, as it honored all Americans, as it honored all freedom-loving people.

Let us honor his memory especially today by holding his faith as our own, and let us too tear down walls to freedom. That is what Americans do when they believe in themselves.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kerry, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, myself, and others, we will send this resolution to the desk. I will send it after I finish my remarks. We will not be seeking a vote at this time because we are hotlining the resolution.

This is a seminal moment in the history of the Middle East and the world. We are seeing an uprising and a movement that spread across the entire Middle East. Egypt is the heart and soul of the Arab world. What we have been watching unfold in the last week has grieved and concerned all of us. There is every possibility that this crisis lurches into a genuine massacre. We cannot afford that. We must do everything in our power to see that it stops. Our resolution urges the Egyptian military to demonstrate maximum professionalism and restraint and emphasizes the importance of working to peacefully restore common order, while allowing for free and nonviolent freedom of expression. We do not want the Egyptian military to encourage thugs. We do not want the Egyptian military to be a party to increased violence.

We are concerned about an interim government. That interim government must be representative of all democratic forces within Egypt. In the resolution, we call on President Mubarak to immediately begin an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratic political system, including the transfer of power to an inclusive interim caretaker government in coordination with leaders from Egypt's opposition, civil society, and the military.

Again, I emphasize, I know my colleagues know, the Egyptian military is the most respected institution in Egypt. They risk turning the people of Egypt against them unless they act as a genuine peacemaker in Egypt.

I have been involved in Middle Eastern affairs for many years. I have traveled many times to the region. What is happening is a seminal event. How it turns out will affect the future of the 21st century. If Egypt turns to radical Islamic extremism and other countries as well, it poses not only a threat to America's national security but to the well-being of tens or hundreds of millions of people who have the God- given right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we guarantee to all people.

I thank Senator Kerry again. We are sending a message from the Senate that I am sure the overwhelming majority of my colleagues will agree with: Stop the bloodletting. Let's start a peaceful transition to a free and open society and a government that can regain and hold the trust of the people of Egypt. This is a seminal moment and one that I believe the future of peace in the world will be relied upon.

I thank my colleagues. We look forward to further discussion. We wanted to bring this up now. It is very important, since tomorrow could be a very critical day in the history of the Egyptian people's struggle for independence and freedom.

Will the Senator yield?

Isn't it time to urge democracy and freedom and not the time to threaten? There is plenty of time to threaten the Government and people of Egypt with reprisal. The time now is to urge democracy and freedom.

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

How much longer will he be?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso.

Mr. President, obviously we rise in support of the amendment put forward by the Republican leader for repeal of the health care bill. As we know, the House of Representatives has already acted in an overwhelming fashion. Neither the Senator from Wyoming nor I intend to go through all of the arguments we went through for nearly a year here on the floor of the Senate. In the years I have been here, I have never spent more time on any single issue, by far, than on the health care issue on the floor of the Senate.

One of the most important parts of this debate has been the overall cost--either savings or loss--if this legislation is repealed. Of course, the highly regarded Congressional Budget Office has determined that there would be an overall increase in the cost of health care in America if the bill were repealed. I think it is very important for us to recognize the valuable work the Congressional Budget Office does. They are really one of the most important parts of the decisions we make on legislation. But I think it is also very important to point out that the Congressional Budget Office makes decisions directly related to the input and the parameters and the details of legislation they are sent. The Congressional Budget Office, most appropriately, does not decide on policy; they are simply there as a budget office. So what I am saying is, garbage in, garbage out. If you are given a certain database on which to make judgments of costs, then of course you are going to come out with basically predetermined results and analysis.

One of the numerous aspects or parts of the legislation that was not taken into consideration by the CBO because of the way the legislation was written is the so-called doc fix. The doc fix, as we all know, is in compliance with a reduction in Medicare payments to doctors that was mandated several years ago. Then we found out that doctors would stop treating Medicare patients if they were deprived of the Medicare payments they needed in order to make up for the costs of the treatment they provided to Medicare enrollees. We know that every single year we have had to do the doc fix, which has not allowed the previously legislated reductions in Medicare payments to physicians. So that is an additional $208 billion over 10 years--that alone is $208 billion. Nowhere is that put into the equation.

Then we have, of course, the so-called CLASS Act, which is a poorly designed Federal long-term care program. It was inserted at a point in the debate that was never in the original bill passed through the HELP Committee.

I ask my colleague, it is a program for long-term care where people pay into the system in order to be eligible for long-term care benefits, but over time that money comes back out--not in the timeframe that was given to the CBO. There are a number of other provisions.

I ask my colleague from Wyoming what his assessment of the costs were taking into consideration the doc fix, the CLASS Act, the envisioned Medicare cuts by $500 billion, and others, which are simply not going to happen. I would be interested in the Senator's total of the costs that actually would be saved by repeal of this legislation.

Nowhere during the debate, I ask my friend, did I understand that there would be a very large use of ``waivers'' for different companies, including unions, businesses, et cetera, and already we have had well over 700 waivers granted to unions and others who have sought relief from this legislation.

I am told that only entails about 1 percent of America's economy, but isn't that quite a remarkable repudiation of this legislation? I would have liked to have heard during the debate: By the way, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is going to have to give well over 700 waivers for people so they won't have to comply with this law. And the only reason you give a waiver, obviously, is because the implementation of the law would be harmful to them. I am very interested in hearing my colleague's comments about this so-called waiver business.

Along with that, the Governor of my State has written to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give the State of Arizona a waiver. I hope that, since the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in that business, she will grant that to my home State.

I thank my colleague for his enormous contribution to this debate and his knowledge and background in the medical profession.

There is one other issue I want to mention. Of course, I was pleased to hear the President, in the State of the Union Message, say that we ought to look at the issue of medical malpractice reform. I can't tell the number of times we have tried on this floor to have at least the beginning of some kind of meaningful medical malpractice reform. I said to the Secretary of Health and Human Services at a hearing the other day that I hoped she would be making some proposals to us, to the Congress, so that we could obtain some kind of medical malpractice reform.

As we all know, sometimes as much as 20 to 30 percent of the cost of health care is accrued because of the physician's prescription for unneeded and unwanted and unnecessary tests for fear of the physician finding himself or herself in court trying to defend the treatment of a patient. That, of course, is a huge portion of the additional costs in health care in America today.

I was pleased to hear the President of the United States say he wanted to examine and visit the issue of medical malpractice reform. I know my colleague stands ready to work with him on that issue.

I thank my colleague. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her patience.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined my colleagues in introducing legislation that would delist the gray wolf from endangered species status thereby returning wolf population management to the respective State wildlife agencies. As my colleagues know, Federal efforts to recover the gray wolf and related subspecies are controversial throughout the West and Midwest including my home State of Arizona.

Officially listed in 1974, the gray wolf was among the first animals protected under the Endangered Species Act. At that time, gray wolves were undoubtedly a broken species, hunted to near extinction by western pioneers. But in the 1990s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched an ambitious wolf repopulation effort in several States where wolves had been eradicated. Federal biologists released dozens of wolf breeding pairs into parts of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho as well as Arizona and New Mexico in the hopes that these so-called experimental populations would reestablish their historic ranges.

In the northern Rocky Mountains, these efforts largely paid off in 2002 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it achieved its population goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. In fact, the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program was so successful at breeding pups that by 2005 they reached 49 breeding pairs and 663 total wolves. Today those numbers stand at over 71 breeding pairs and about 1,700 total wolves, far surpassing the stated goals of the Federal Government's wolf recovery plan. Despite this remarkable comeback, several environmentalist groups have used the judicial process to keep gray wolf populations under various forms of Federal protection, even to the detriment of native deer and elk populations which are dropping dramatically because of so many predator wolves. By keeping wolves locked into federally protected status, State wildlife authorities are legally prevented from rightfully controlling their exploding wolf population. At the same time the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is forced to overextend its resources, reach and welcome on a program that achieved its goals almost a decade ago. This simply cannot continue.

With respect to Arizona, my support for delisting the gray wolf is not a mandate for wolf hunts but rather to establish a path forward for saving the Mexican gray wolf from a failed Federal recovery program and to provide essential protections for livestock growers. If you compare the success of the northern Rockies against the dismal returns of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program in Arizona and New Mexico, you see how Federal mismanagement and judicial activism have combined to hurt both ranchers and wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service introduced 13 wolves in 1998 and estimated that the Southwest should have 100 wolves by now but in fact we have barely topped 42 wolves over the past 12 years. Pup survival in Arizona and New Mexico remains bleak with 31 observed in 2009 but only 7 surviving the winter. Livestock depredations remain a constant concern even though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently rescinded rules that allow rancher's to protect their cattle for depredation. To date, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program has cost taxpayers roughly $20 million or roughly $500,000 per wolf with no end in sight. By removing Federal protections for the Mexican gray wolf, management and recovery responsibilities would be transferred from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the State's wildlife authority, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, which recently voted to support this proposal.

The facts on the ground paint a clear picture that it is time to return management and recovery of these wolf populations to the States. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam President, this resolution states that we honor the victims and heroes of the shooting on January 8, 2011, in Tucson, AZ. As we all know, and the Nation and the world knows, on January 8, a gunman opened fire at a ``Congress on Your Corner'' event hosted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, AZ, killing 6 and wounding 13 others.

Among those who lost their lives were 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, Judge John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard, and Gabriel Matthew Zimmerman.

Christina-Taylor Green was the 9-year-old daughter of John and Roxanna Green. She was born on September 11, 2001. She was a third grader, with an avid interest in government, who was recently elected to the student council at Mesa Verde Elementary School.

Dorothy Morris was 76 years old. She attended the January 8 event with George, her husband of over 50 years, with whom she had two daughters and who was also critically injured as he tried to shield her from the shooting.

John Roll, whom I will talk about later on, is a Pennsylvania native who was 63 years old. He began his professional career as a bailiff in 1972. He was appointed to the Federal bench in 1991 and became a chief judge for the District of Arizona in 2006. He was a devoted husband to his wife Maureen, father to his three sons, and grandfather to five grandchildren. He heroically attempted to shield Ron Barber from additional gunfire.

Phyllis Schneck, the proud mother of three and grandmother of seven and great-grandmother, from New Jersey and spending the winter in Arizona, was a 79-year-old church volunteer and New York Giants fan.

Dorwan Stoddard, a 76-year-old retired construction worker and volunteer at the Mountain Avenue Church of Christ, is credited with shielding his wife Mavy, a long-time friend whom he married while they were in their sixties and who was also injured in the shooting.

Gabriel Matthew Zimmerman was 30 years old, engaged to be married, and served as director of community outreach to Representative Gabrielle Giffords and was a social worker before serving with Representative Giffords.

We all know Gabrielle Giffords was the target of the attack and was critically injured. Overnight, we received extremely good news in that her condition has been upgraded from critical to good. That is incredible news and is heartening to all of us.

Thirteen others were also wounded in the shooting, including Ron Barber and Pamela Simon, who were both staffers to Representative Giffords, and several individuals, including Patricia Maisch, Army COL Bill Badger, retired, was also wounded in the shooting. Roger Sulzgeber, Joseph Zimudie, Daniel Hernandez, Jr., Anna Ballis and Dr. Steven Rayle helped apprehend the gunman and assist the injured, thereby risking their lives for the safety of others.

Some of the actions that took place during this tragedy have been carried extensively in the media. The reaction of the people of Tucson and in Arizona to this tragedy has been incredibly uplifting and encouraging to all of us. There are so many stories of courage and bravery associated with this action. The quick reaction of our police and other first responders was remarkable, not to mention the incredible and extremely rapid care provided by the doctors and nurses and caregivers in Tucson. So in this great tragedy that has taken place, we can be comforted with the knowledge that our citizens reacted in the way that Americans do--with heroism, with courage, and with sacrifice.

I think it is entirely appropriate that this resolution be passed as one of the first acts of the new 112th Congress of the Senate and House. I wish to thank all Americans for their concern, their prayers and the sympathy and support they have extended not only to the victims and their families but also to the people of Arizona.

There will be discussion for weeks and months ahead as to how it was possible for this event to take place. I don't pretend to know all the answers. It was clearly a deranged individual, an individual who perhaps we could argue, while I can't say for certain, his mental illness should have been brought to the attention of the proper authorities. We do have a law that provides for such an action in the State of Arizona. At the same time, the question needs to be asked: The actions that we now have become very aware of, was the possibility of those actions brought to the attention of the proper people so they could take action?

The fact is it happened. The fact is we who are elected representatives will continue to have contact with our constituents. We will do so and not be deterred by the actions of this deranged individual. We cannot allow the actions of a deranged individual to prevent us from interacting, in a fundamental way, with our constituents. They deserve it. I am confident we will be able to continue the practice of townhall meetings, ``Congress on Your Corner,'' the kinds of activities that are, in some ways, not entirely unique to the United States of America but certainly are not practiced in most parts of the world.

So we are encouraged by the news concerning Gabrielle Giffords and we will harbor the hope and pray that she will return to her duties in the Congress, representing the people of southern Arizona. We pray for the family of Judge John Roll and those others who gave their lives. Senator Kyl and I attended the various memorial services and events surrounding this tragedy in Tucson and we come away obviously with deep sorrow over the event, yet at the same time with a great deal of pride and appreciation for our fellow citizens in Arizona and in Tucson who have reacted in a heroic and giving and loving and sharing fashion.

So I guess we will be voting on this issue sometime this afternoon, and I know other colleagues will be speaking on behalf of this resolution.

(The remarks of Mr. McCain pertaining to the introduction of S. 188 are

printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time being charged to both sides.

Mr. President, I wish to introduce legislation to name the United States courthouse in Yuma, AZ, the John M. Roll United States Courthouse. Is that legislation at the desk?

Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with Senator Kyl, that would designate the soon-to-be-constructed Federal courthouse in Yuma, AZ, to be named in honor of Chief Judge John Roll, who died tragically during the senseless act of violence against Congresswoman Giffords and other Arizonans in Tucson earlier this month. I had the distinct privilege of knowing and working with Chief Judge Roll for many years. In fact, it was my honor to recommend him to President George Herbert Walker Bush for nomination to the Federal bench in 1991. He served with distinction. Most recently, Judge Roll became known by so many in the State of Arizona, the Judicial Conference, and many in Congress as a tireless advocate for the plaintiffs, defendants, and judges in Arizona by working to secure additional funding and resources to assist the court in its heavy caseload.

The morning of the shooting, Judge Roll was in line to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, who was also a friend, about his efforts to have the Ninth Circuit declared a judicial emergency in the District of Arizona. He died doing what he did each and every day: working to guarantee the Federal courts in our State were capable of handling the growing caseload, while ensuring swift justice for all.

Judge Roll exemplified the qualities all Presidents should seek in candidates for the Federal bench: intelligence, humility, integrity, and fidelity to the law. He embodied all these qualities and many more. Additionally, he was known as a kind neighbor, a dedicated father and husband, and a loyal friend. He will now be known also as a hero.

The Arizona Daily Star reported on January 20, 2011:

Surveillance footage of the January 8 shooting campaign in

Tucson showed that Judge Roll used his body as a shield to

cover the wounded Ron Barber. Roll then took a bullet to the

back and lost his life in the process.

``The judge is a hero,'' Pima County sheriff's Bureau Chief

Rick Kastigar said.

The article states that the suspected gunman:

. . . shot Barber, Giffords' district director. Almost

simultaneously, Roll moved Barber toward the ground and both

crawled beneath

a table, Kastigar said. Roll then got on top of Barber.

``Judge Roll is responsible for directing Mr. Barber out of

the line of fire and helped save his life,'' Kastigar said.

Barber told the Arizona Daily Star:

That just gives me more admiration for the judge than I

ever had. . . . John Roll was a dear, dear man.

Barber and Judge Roll had been friends for many years, dating back to their days as college students at the University of Arizona. Most recently, they worked together with the Arizona congressional delegation to secure funding for a new Federal courthouse in Yuma, AZ, to alleviate the congestion at the Tucson Federal courthouse. In fact, Judge Roll had just reviewed the architectural drawings of the new courthouse weeks before his death and told my office he was very pleased with the design.

It is the hope of myself and Senator Kyl and every Member of the Arizona delegation that the architectural designs will soon include the name of Chief Judge John Roll prominently on the building. This esteemed jurist, friend, and hero deserves this honor and much more. Our State has lost a good man, a true and able advocate for justice for all, and a great Arizonan. For this reason, I ask my fellow Senators to join me in passing this legislation to allow the new Yuma Federal courthouse to be proudly known as the John M. Roll United States Courthouse.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill that would clarify the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation over program activities associated with the C.C. Cragin Project in northern Arizona. A companion measure is being introduced today in the House by Congressman Paul Gosar from Arizona.

Pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, AWSA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Salt River Project, SRP, title of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir for the express use of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. While it is clear that Congress intended to transfer jurisdiction of the Cragin Project to the Department of the Interior, and in particular, the Bureau of Reclamation, the lands underlying the Project are technically located within the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. This has resulted in a disagreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Forest Service concerning jurisdiction over the operation and management activities of the Cragin Project.

For more than 5 years, SRP and Reclamation have attempted to reach an agreement with the Forest Service that recognizes Reclamation's paramount jurisdiction over the Cragin Project. Unfortunately, the Forest Service maintains that this technical ambiguity under the AWSA implies they have a regulatory role in approving Cragin Project operations and maintenance. This bill represents a negotiated compromise between the agencies and our offices that appropriately clarifies each agency's role with respect to the Dam and the Federal lands surrounding it. A similar bill was introduced during the 111th Congress and was reported with an amendment by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The version we are introducing today is identical to the Committee reported bill.

Speedy resolution of this jurisdictional issue is urgently needed in order to address repairs and other operational needs of the Cragin Project, including planning for the future water needs of the City of Payson and other northern Arizona communities. This clarification would simply provide Reclamation with the oversight responsibility that Congress originally intended. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I wish to introduce legislation to name the United States courthouse in Yuma, AZ, the John M. Roll United States Courthouse. Is that legislation at the desk?

Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with Senator Kyl, that would designate the soon-to-be-constructed Federal courthouse in Yuma, AZ, to be named in honor of Chief Judge John Roll, who died tragically during the senseless act of violence against Congresswoman Giffords and other Arizonans in Tucson earlier this month. I had the distinct privilege of knowing and working with Chief Judge Roll for many years. In fact, it was my honor to recommend him to President George Herbert Walker Bush for nomination to the Federal bench in 1991. He served with distinction. Most recently, Judge Roll became known by so many in the State of Arizona, the Judicial Conference, and many in Congress as a tireless advocate for the plaintiffs, defendants, and judges in Arizona by working to secure additional funding and resources to assist the court in its heavy caseload.

The morning of the shooting, Judge Roll was in line to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, who was also a friend, about his efforts to have the Ninth Circuit declared a judicial emergency in the District of Arizona. He died doing what he did each and every day: working to guarantee the Federal courts in our State were capable of handling the growing caseload, while ensuring swift justice for all.

Judge Roll exemplified the qualities all Presidents should seek in candidates for the Federal bench: intelligence, humility, integrity, and fidelity to the law. He embodied all these qualities and many more. Additionally, he was known as a kind neighbor, a dedicated father and husband, and a loyal friend. He will now be known also as a hero.

The Arizona Daily Star reported on January 20, 2011:

Surveillance footage of the January 8 shooting campaign in

Tucson showed that Judge Roll used his body as a shield to

cover the wounded Ron Barber. Roll then took a bullet to the

back and lost his life in the process.

``The judge is a hero,'' Pima County sheriff's Bureau Chief

Rick Kastigar said.

The article states that the suspected gunman:

. . . shot Barber, Giffords' district director. Almost

simultaneously, Roll moved Barber toward the ground and both

crawled beneath

a table, Kastigar said. Roll then got on top of Barber.

``Judge Roll is responsible for directing Mr. Barber out of

the line of fire and helped save his life,'' Kastigar said.

Barber told the Arizona Daily Star:

That just gives me more admiration for the judge than I

ever had. . . . John Roll was a dear, dear man.

Barber and Judge Roll had been friends for many years, dating back to their days as college students at the University of Arizona. Most recently, they worked together with the Arizona congressional delegation to secure funding for a new Federal courthouse in Yuma, AZ, to alleviate the congestion at the Tucson Federal courthouse. In fact, Judge Roll had just reviewed the architectural drawings of the new courthouse weeks before his death and told my office he was very pleased with the design.

It is the hope of myself and Senator Kyl and every Member of the Arizona delegation that the architectural designs will soon include the name of Chief Judge John Roll prominently on the building. This esteemed jurist, friend, and hero deserves this honor and much more. Our State has lost a good man, a true and able advocate for justice for all, and a great Arizonan. For this reason, I ask my fellow Senators to join me in passing this legislation to allow the new Yuma Federal courthouse to be proudly known as the John M. Roll United States Courthouse.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill that would clarify the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation over program activities associated with the C.C. Cragin Project in northern Arizona. A companion measure is being introduced today in the House by Congressman Paul Gosar from Arizona.

Pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, AWSA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the Salt River Project, SRP, title of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir for the express use of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. While it is clear that Congress intended to transfer jurisdiction of the Cragin Project to the Department of the Interior, and in particular, the Bureau of Reclamation, the lands underlying the Project are technically located within the Coconino National Forest and the Tonto National Forest. This has resulted in a disagreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Forest Service concerning jurisdiction over the operation and management activities of the Cragin Project.

For more than 5 years, SRP and Reclamation have attempted to reach an agreement with the Forest Service that recognizes Reclamation's paramount jurisdiction over the Cragin Project. Unfortunately, the Forest Service maintains that this technical ambiguity under the AWSA implies they have a regulatory role in approving Cragin Project operations and maintenance. This bill represents a negotiated compromise between the agencies and our offices that appropriately clarifies each agency's role with respect to the Dam and the Federal lands surrounding it. A similar bill was introduced during the 111th Congress and was reported with an amendment by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The version we are introducing today is identical to the Committee reported bill.

Speedy resolution of this jurisdictional issue is urgently needed in order to address repairs and other operational needs of the Cragin Project, including planning for the future water needs of the City of Payson and other northern Arizona communities. This clarification would simply provide Reclamation with the oversight responsibility that Congress originally intended. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, a lot of people may not understand that unanimous consent request that was just made by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Am I correct, I ask my friend from Michigan, that this is in order to pass the National Defense Authorization Act? We have gone, I believe, 48 years and passed one, and there are vital programs, policies, and pay raises for the men and women in the military and other policy matters that are vital to successfully carrying out the two wars we are in and providing the men and women who are serving with the best possible equipment and capabilities to win those conflicts. Am I correct in assuming that is what this agreement is about?

I will not object.

Finally, I thank the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I assure my colleagues that the controversial aspects of this legislation have been removed, and only the essential parts remain. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I hope we will move forward and get this done today so that we can again provide our men and women who are serving with the best capability to defend this Nation.

I thank the Senator from Georgia and appreciate his desire to clarify this provision.

I agree, as the title of the provision in the fiscal year 2008 NDAA makes clear, that the intent of the change to the law was to expand eligibility for earlier retired pay to members of the Ready Reserve who deploy on active duty in support of contingency operations for significant periods. It is unfortunate that some reservists who perform 90 days of deployed, consecutive duty or more that has spanned two fiscal years have not received credit under this provision. The sense of the Congress in section 635 of the fiscal year 2011 NDAA seeks to clarify this, and I agree with the Senator from Georgia that the duty needs to be ``for significant periods''--it should not simply be the accumulation of 90 days of duty over the course of a reservists' career.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Lieberman, and Senator Corker, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

First of all, it is probably not too relevant, but I would like to say that this should have been the Lieberman-Corker- McCain or Corker-Lieberman-McCain amendment because of the distribution of effort that has been made on this amendment. Be that as it may, I think this amendment makes some improvement that will be very helpful.

It has two parts. The first requires the President to certify that we do not recognize Russia's argument that the treaty can only be effective and viable only in conditions where the United States is not building up its missile defenses. The statement would also be transmitted to the Russians when the instruments of ratification are exchanged. Second, the amendment would include in the instrument an understanding that the preamble is not legally binding.

I think this is a helpful amendment, and I appreciate that it could be included by the Senator from Massachusetts, but ultimately it does not address my concerns that the Russians believe the treaty could be used to limit our missile defense. We should have removed this clause from the preamble.

The message sent by the first part of this amendment is positive, but it is not conveyed to the Duma. When we look at the fact--I understand why the proponents of this treaty would not want to transmit this aspect of the treaty to the Duma for fear of some backlash and perhaps problems in the Russian Duma, although it is not a body that is renowned for its independence, to say the least. The fact is, it will not be transmitted to the Duma. The fact is, if the Russians and the United States agreed to a treaty and a part of that treaty was not transmitted to the Senate, I think that would be something to which most of us would take strong exception.

I thank Senator Corker. He has worked extremely hard on this issue. Joe Lieberman has worked extremely hard, trying to reach a point, obviously, that they could agree to support this treaty. Whether they eventually do or not is something that I neither know nor would predict, but I do think it shows some improvement. I still have various concerns, as I have had from the beginning, on the issue of defensive missile systems, how it would play, whether it is actually part of the treaty and, if so, how enforceable.

What complicates this more than anything else is the continued statements, public statements on American television a short time ago-- Vladimir Putin saying that if we move forward with improving our missile defenses, they would take ``appropriate actions.'' Their Foreign Minister has made repeated statements--not last year but last month--saying one thing and publicly declaring it while on the other hand we are assuming this will prevent them from doing what they say they will do. That is a contradiction.

I understand how solemn treaties are, and I understand how binding treaties are. I also understand that when the leader of a nation says on ``Larry King Live''--God bless you, Larry, for everything you did for us--that they will have to take ``appropriate actions'' if we improve quantitatively or qualitatively our strategic missile defense systems, then obviously you have to give some credence to that, when public statements are made. Obviously, in the view of Senator Kerry, who has done a masterful job in shepherding this treaty through the Senate in the last several days, that is not that meaningful. So we just have a fundamental disagreement of opinion. But I can say this: If we negotiated a treaty and made certain agreements and the President of the United States made public statements on national or international television contradicting that, then I think it would give the party we are in negotiations with significant pause.

Not one statement that I have been able to find has a Russian leader--either Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, or Prime Minister or President--saying they will adhere to the provisions that are in this amendment. That is a fundamental contradiction that I am sorry cannot be resolved.

I know what the votes are going to be on this treaty. Again, I congratulate Senator Kerry for the incredible job he has done and, frankly, his great willingness to talk with me and negotiate with me and have dialog and work toward a common goal. He has done that in good faith, and I am grateful for the opportunity he has given me to play a role, including agreeing to this amendment which I think will improve the treaty.

I wish to say that I know how difficult this has been for Senator Corker and other Members on this side.

I thank Senator Lieberman for the continued hard work he does on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is very helpful.

With that, I yield to my colleagues, cosponsors of the amendment, if that is agreeable to Senator Kerry.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I could.

I would say to the Senator from Illinois that I have an agreement with everybody on a 6-week extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Trade Preference Act, and on both sides everybody has agreed.

I know I can't do that in morning business, so I ask unanimous consent, as soon as it is written up, that I be permitted to propose that legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the littoral combat ships, LCS,

provision in the continuing resolution, CR. That provision--which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and the Congressional Research Service, CRS, could cost taxpayers as much as $2.9 billion more than the current acquisition strategy--simply does not belong in the CR. But once again we are looking at a cloture vote on a piece of ``must-pass'' legislation where the majority leader has filled the amendment tree and no amendments will be allowed.

The LCS program has a long, documented history of cost overruns and production slippages and yet we now find ourselves inserting an authorization provision at the 11th hour to yet again change the acquisition strategy of a program that has been plagued by instability since its inception.

Let's look at its track record over the past 5 years:

1st LCS funded in 2005--LCS 1 Commissioned in Nov 2008 at

cost of $637 million;

2nd LCS funded in 2006--LCS 2 Commissioned in Jan 2010 at

cost of $704 million;

3rd LCS funded in 2006--Canceled by Navy in April 2007,

because of cost, and schedule growth;

4th LCS funded in 2006--Canceled by Navy in Nov 2007,

because of cost and schedule growth;

5th LCS funded in 2007--Canceled by Navy in Mar 2007,

because of cost and schedule growth;

6th LCS funded in 2007--Canceled by Navy in Mar 2007,

because projected costs too high;

7th LCS funded in 2008--Canceled by Navy in Sep 2008,

because projected costs too high;

8th LCS funded in 2009--Christened in Dec 2010 is about 80

percent complete; ``New LCS 3'';

9th LCS funded in 2009--Under construction is about 40

percent complete; ``New LCS 4.''

When the Navy first made its proposal to Congress just over 6 weeks ago, it failed to provide Congress with basic information we need to decide whether it should approve the Navy's request--including the actual bid prices, which would tell us how realistic and sustainable they are, and specific information about how capable each of the yards are of delivering the ships as needed, on time and on budget. Why don't we have that information? Because it's sensitive to the on-going competition.

Last week, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the General Accountability Office, GAO, the Congressional Research Service, CRS, and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, raised important questions that Congress should have answers to before it considers approving the proposal.

Those questions included not only ``how much more (or less) would it cost for the Navy to buy LCS ships under its proposal'' but also ``how much would the cost be to operate and maintain two versions of LCS, under the proposal''. They also asked ``how confident can we be that the Navy will be able to stay within budgeted limits and deliver promised capability on schedule--given that all of the deficiencies affecting LCS' lead ships have not been identified and fully resolved'' and ``has the combined capability of the LCS seaframes with their mission modules been sufficiently demonstrated so that increasing the Navy's commitment to seaframes at this time would be appropriate?''

Those questions, and others, that GAO, CRS and CBO raised last week, are salient and should be answered definitively before we approve of the Navy's proposal. Every one of those witnesses conceded that more time would help Congress get those answers. And, considering this provision in connection with a Continuing Resolution, brought up at the 11th hour; during a lame-duck session; outside of the congressional budget-review period; and without specific information or the opportunity for full and open debate by all interested Members, does not give us that time. Buying into this process would be an abrogation of our constitutional oversight responsibility.

From 2005 to date, we have sunk $8 billion into the LCS program. And, what do we have to show for it? Only two boats commissioned and one boat christened--none of which have been shown to be operationally effective or reliable--and a trail of blown cost-caps and schedule slips. I suggest that, having made key decisions on the program hastily and ill-informed, we in Congress are partly to blame for that record. But, with the cost of the program from 2010 to 2015 projected to be about $11 billion, we can start to fix that--by not including this ill- advised provision in the CR.

I ask unanimous consent that my December 10, 2010, letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, asking them not to include the LCS provision in any funding measure, a letter from the Project on Government Oversight to Senator Levin and me, and the exchange of letters between me and the Chief of Naval Operations, CNO, be printed in today's Record.

The only thing I would add to the comments of Senator Levin is that there are policy provisions regarding training and equipment and readiness that cannot be just done by money. These are important policy decisions, important authorizations, including a pay raise--not for us. I urge my colleagues not to object to this Defense Authorization Act. I argue it is critical to sustaining this Nation's security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 5 minutes additional time on each side, an additional 5 minutes be allowed for Senator Graham on this side.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues and the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, over the last 3 years, I have spent a lot of time traveling around the State of Arizona and meeting with my constituents. Many of these trips took me to the southern part of my State where I sat down with ranchers, farmers, small business owners, local officials, and law enforcement officers in the border region and discussed the issues that were important to them and their neighbors. Everywhere I went people told me of their fear and concern over the lack of security along Arizona's border with Mexico.

Due to the drug war in Mexico, the situation along the southern border has proven to be a very serious and real threat to the people living in the region. The violence that continues to plague our southern neighbor by well-armed, well-financed, and very determined drug cartels poses a threat to our national security. Despite the increased efforts of President Calderon to stamp out these bloodthirsty and vicious drug cartels, violence has increased dramatically, claiming over 31,000 lives in Mexico since 2006. The murderers carrying out these crimes are as violent and dangerous as any in the world.

Two weeks ago, the Mexican military arrested a 14-year-old U.S. citizen who has been working as a hit man for the Cartel of the South Pacific. This child assassin came to the attention of the public after YouTube videos surfaced of him decapitating kidnapping victims. When questioned by Mexican authorities, he is quoted as saying, ``When we don't find the rivals, we kill innocent people, maybe a construction worker or a taxi driver.'' Truly disturbing behavior.

This week there was another tragic murder on the U.S. side of the border that took the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and his fellow Border Patrol agents. Agent Terry was killed outside of Rio Rico, AZ, during a shootout with a Mexican ``rip-crew'' that was attempting to rip off a rival drug gang. These incidents are becoming all too common and are a byproduct of the lack of resources and personnel along our border.

Incidents like these are why the residents of southern Arizona tell me that they feel that they live in a lawless, forgotten region of the country where they live in constant fear in their own homes. They are begging for our help. It is time--in fact, the time is long overdue-- for the Federal Government to fulfill its responsibility to secure our international borders and ensure the safety and well-being of the families and citizens living within those borders.

All of that being said, I still believe that the overwhelming majority of men and women trying to enter our country illegally are looking for nothing more than the opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Fixing our immigration system, with reforms like the DREAM Act and the implementation of a workable and labor-market-driven guest worker program would benefit our Nation's economy and our society. Such reform would also provide immigrants desperate to come to the United States to look for work a safe alternative to illegal human smugglers or ``coyotes'' that have cost so many people their lives and dignity. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, 253 people died attempting to cross the Arizona border between September 2009 and October 2010.

With respect to the DREAM Act, I have great sympathy for the students

who would benefit from passage of this legislation. I have met personally with many of the students advocating for the bill, and many of their stories are heart-wrenching. Through no fault of their own, they are now caught in legal limbo that leaves them unable to obtain employment in the United States and unequipped to return to the country of their birth, often a place foreign and completely unknown to them. I truly sympathize with the plight of these men and women.

But I also feel for the men and women of Arizona who live along an unsecure border and have been promised for decades that the Federal Government will do its job and stop the illegal migration and drug trafficking that run through their towns, neighborhoods, and backyards.

I pity the farmers in my State who are unable to harvest their crops because they cannot navigate the burdens of the H-2A agriculture guest worker program. Most of all, however, I sympathize with the families who live in constant fear in their homes and neighborhoods, especially those who have been victimized by criminal elements crossing the border illegally. Consequently, I cannot in good faith put the priorities of these students, as tragic as their situation is, ahead of my constituents and the American people are who are demanding that the Federal Government fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our borders. Once we fulfill this commitment, we can then address the other issues surrounding and plaguing our broken immigration system.

On a practical note, I also believe that any casual, impartial observer will recognize that our inability to secure the border has made immigration reform politically unattainable as the American public insists we stop the flow of illegal entries before considering any changes to our immigration policies. In 1986, we passed what was truly an amnesty and we failed to secure our borders either before or after that bill's passage. Consequently, we now have an estimated 12 to 20 million people living in our country illegally, and the American people have said ``enough is enough.'' They are telling us to ``secure our borders first.''

We have already made steps in the right direction. In fact, we have shown our ability to work in a bipartisan fashion to secure the border during this Congress. Most recently, in August, the Senate unanimously passed legislation to deploy $600 million in personnel and new assets to the southwest border. We must continue this important work together.

While it is true that there are more assets and resources at the border now than ever before, we need a complete and comprehensive plan that incorporates the ideas of the State and local law enforcement, elected officials, and the border Governors. In the coming months, I will begin a deliberative and comprehensive process of discovering what is truly needed to secure our borders and give the Governors of our Southern States the peace of mind and assurance they need to certify that their borders are secure.

These elected officials are on the front line and know best what assets, personnel, and technology are needed. Once the border State Governors certify their State border has been secured and the Federal Government can demonstrate such to the American people--only then should we and can we begin working on comprehensive immigration reform.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan matter to address all of these issues that are important to the American people and the people of Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Well, Mr. President, I would ask, is it true the parliamentary situation as it exists right now is that we will be voting on cloture on both what is known as don't ask, don't tell and the DREAM Act?

Meanwhile, on the Executive Calendar, we have the START treaty?

And there are no amendments that are in order on either the DREAM Act or don't ask, don't tell, no amendments are in order?

So here we are, about 6 weeks after an election that repudiated the agenda of the other side, and we are jamming, or trying to jam, major issues through the Senate of the United States because they know they cannot get it done beginning next January 5. They cannot do it next January 5. The American people have spoken, and they are acting in direct repudiation of the message of the American people. That is why they are jamming this through.

My friends, there is a lot of talk about compromise. There is a lot of talk about working together. You think what this ``bizarro'' world that the majority leader has been carrying us in, of cloture votes on this, votes on various issues that are on the political agenda of the other side--to somehow think that beginning next January 5 we will all love one another and kumbaya? I do not think so. I do not think so.

Unfortunately, the majority is using the lameduck session to push an agenda, when the fact is lameduck sessions are supposed to be to finish up the work of Congress so the new Congress can act on the issues of the day.

The American people have spoken in what the President of the United States described as a ``shellacking.'' Everything we are doing is completely ignoring that message. Maybe it will require another election.

So, for example, I filed two amendments I believe are relevant to this bill, important to this major change. Those will not be in order.

I have always and consistently stated that I would listen to and fully consider the advice of our military and our military leadership. On December 3, the Committee on Armed Services heard from the Chiefs of our four military services--the Chiefs of our four military services.

General Amos said:

Based on what I know about the very tough fight in

Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces

as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary

tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are

asking so much of at this time, and, finally, the direct

feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should

not implement repeal at this time.

Then he talks about:

Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines'

lives.

Cost marines' lives.

[M]arines came back--

After serving in combat--

and they said, ``Look, anything that's going to break or

potentially break that focus and cause any kind of

distraction may have an effect on cohesion.'' I don't want to

permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If

you go up to Bethesda . . . Marines are up there with no

legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed with no limbs.

General Casey said:

I believe that the implementation of the repeal of Don't

Ask, Don't Tell in the near term will, one, add another level

of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more

difficult in our combat arms units; and, three, be more

difficult for the Army than the report suggests.

General Schwartz basically said the same thing.

I have heard from thousands--thousands--of Active-Duty and retired military personnel. I have heard from them, and they are saying: Senator McCain, it isn't broke, and don't fix it.

So all of this talk about how it is a civil rights issue and equality, the fact is, the military has the highest recruiting and highest retention than at any other time in its history. So I understand the other side's argument as to their social, political agenda. But to somehow allege that it has harmed our military is not justified by the facts.

I hope everybody recognizes this debate is not about the broader social issues that are being discussed in our society, but what is in the best interest of our national security and our military during the time of war.

Now, I am aware this vote will probably pass today in a lameduck session, and there will be high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America. We will see the talk shows tomorrow--a bunch of people talking about how great it is. Most of them never have served in the military or maybe even not even known someone in the military.

And, you know, we will repeal it; all over America there will be gold stars put up in windows in the rural towns and communities all over America that do not partake in the elite schools that bar military recruiters from campus, that do not partake in the salons of Georgetown and the other liberal bastions around the country. But there will be additional sacrifice. I hear that from master sergeants. I hear that from junior officers. I hear that from leaders.

So I am confident that with this repeal our military--the best in the world--will salute and do the best they can to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief. That is the nature--that is the nature--of our military, and I could not be more proud of them in the performance that they have given us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that other conflicts. They will do what is asked of them.

But do not think it will not be at great cost. I will never forget being, just a few weeks ago, at Kandahar. An Army sergeant major, with five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a forward operating base, said: Senator McCain, we live together. We sleep together. We eat together. Unit cohesion is what makes us succeed.

So I hope when we pass this legislation we will understand we are doing great damage, and we could possibly and probably--as the Commandant of the Marine Corps said; and I have been told by literally thousands of members of the military--harm the battle effectiveness which is so vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Today is a very sad day. The Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps says: When your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything distracting. Mistakes and inattention and distractions cost marines' lives. I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen and I will tell you why. You go up to Bethesda Naval Hospital, marines are up there with no legs, none. We have marines in Walter Reed with no limbs.