John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. How much longer will he be?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. McCAIN. 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of the most important parts of this debate has been the overall cost--either savings or loss--if this legislation is repealed.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Office has determined that there would be an overall increase in the cost of health care in America if the bill were repealed.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.

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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.'')

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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?

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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?

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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?

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. 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.