Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Stimulus Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes: What Happened?'' The Subcommittee hearing will focus on the findings of the forthcoming Government Accountability Office Report entitled Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes to examine how contractors with tax delinquencies received payments under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. The hearing will also examine solutions to the problem, including denying Federal contract dollars to subcontractors with serious tax delinquencies. Witnesses for the hearing will include Mr. Gregory D. Kutz, Director of Forensic Audits and Investigative Services of the Government Accountability Office and The Honorable Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget.

The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the subsidies to oil and gas companies in the form of tax breaks cost the Federal Government in the neighborhood of $4 billion a year. What most Democrats, including this Democrat, propose to do is to end those subsidies and to use the money to reduce our Federal budget deficit. This is not a particularly complicated issue.

If oil and gas companies were struggling, if a large number of jobs were at risk, if ending these subsidies threatened to increase the price families have to pay for gasoline or fuel oil or if ending them would create a drag on our fragile economic recovery--if any of those things were true, this might be a closer call. But they are not true. We are subsidizing massively profitable oil companies. Nearly every independent analyst--and even some from the oil industry itself--tells us this proposal will not alter the economic fundamentals that determine gasoline prices. Oil production, and therefore the jobs it creates, will not decline if we pass this bill. Struggling families and small businesses will not pay more because we end these subsidies. And by ending them, we can help close a budget deficit we all agree is a significant problem.

The arguments against this measure are misguided. Republicans have claimed it would increase gas prices. Independent economists disagree. For instance, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last week that:

Prices are well in excess of costs and a small increase in

taxes would therefore be less likely to reduce oil output and

hence increase petroleum product gasoline prices.

Even the chief tax expert of the American Petroleum Institute said last week that the proposal:

. . . would not affect the global economics underpinning

oil supply and demand, which explain today's gasoline prices.

That is an important point to keep in mind. The price of oil depends on a number of factors, one of which is supply and demand for this internationally traded commodity. Another factor, one which I and several other Senators believe bears further examination, is the role of speculation in that market. But the money we are talking about saving is relatively small in the context of a massive global marketplace for oil.

It is also small relative to the profits oil companies have reaped. The five companies that would be affected by the proposal we support made a combined $76 billion in profit in 2010. That is not revenue; that is not sales; that is profit--$76 billion. From 2001 to 2010, their combined profit approached $1 trillion. With the price of oil in the neighborhood of $100 a barrel, these record profits are likely to continue. These companies do not need taxpayer assistance.

At the same time, the money we spend helping them is increasing the budget deficit--a deficit our Republican friends say justifies making dramatic reductions in health care for our seniors, support for our college students, Head Start for our youngest students, and other Draconian cuts. Yet tax breaks for companies making billions of dollars a year in profits is something they say we can afford. I don't buy it.

More importantly, the American people don't buy it. The American people know these tax breaks we can't afford for companies that can more than afford to lose them are wrong. They know if we are going to get serious about our debt problem, we need to eliminate tax expenditures that contribute to our deficit. They know if we can't tackle such an obvious example of wasteful spending as this, further reform is unlikely. The American people recognize the fundamental unfairness of tax breaks for oil companies making billions in profits at the same time working families are told they will have to do with less.

Last week, with the CEOs of major oil companies testifying before the Finance Committee, they said they want to be treated like everybody else. I say, fine, let's do that. Let's tell the massively profitable oil companies not to expect tax subsidies from Uncle Sam. Let's expect those companies to give a little bit as we address the budget deficit, just as middle-class American

families are going to have to give a little bit as we cut back on important programs for them.

Our Republican colleagues say our deficits are unsustainable, and I agree. They say the deficit problem is urgent, and I agree. They say we must act, and I agree. And we can act. We can end these oil company subsidies. Now is the time for all of us to act to end billions of dollars in handouts to massively profitable oil companies and use that money to help put our fiscal house in order.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are today introducing, by request, the Obama administration's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. As is the case with any bill that is introduced by request, we introduce this bill for the purpose of placing the Administration's proposals before Congress and the public without expressing our own views on the substance of these proposals. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, we look forward to giving the Administration's requested legislation our most careful review and thoughtful consideration.

Mr. President, each year we commemorate Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day. April 24 came during our recess this year and marked the 96th anniversary of the date in 1915 when Turkish Ottoman authorities ordered the rounding up and detention of hundreds of Armenian intellectual leaders, civic leaders, writers, priests, teachers, and doctors. Many of these leaders would eventually be executed. What followed between 1915 and 1923 was an organized campaign of deportation, expropriation, conscription, starvation, and other atrocities that resulted in the deaths of over 1.5 million Armenians. Large numbers of Armenians fled their homeland to seek safety elsewhere, including in Michigan and other communities in the United States. We remember the tragic events of this period to honor those who died and to show our respect and solace for those who survived the suffering inflicted on the Armenian people.

We also remember the Armenian Genocide to remind ourselves of the evil which mankind is capable of and to reaffirm our collective commitment to a future in which such mass atrocities will not be repeated. While the horrific abuses suffered by the Armenians have been described as the first genocide of the 20th century, they were soon followed by other genocides and mass atrocities, including the Holocaust, which Hitler said could be pursued because ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' As the tragedies in Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur and elsewhere show, when mankind turns a blind eye to an unfolding massacre, those who would use wholesale violence against others are emboldened to believe they can act with impunity.

More recently, the international community has come together to prevent a massacre of civilians from occurring in Libya. The memory of the tragic consequences of mankind's collective failure to act in the past has helped to motivate world leaders to commit at the United Nations to the protection of the Libyan people against the murderous threats of the Qadhafi regime.

It is also important to remember the events of 1915-1923 with honesty and integrity for reconciliation and healing to occur. Some have sought to deny that these events constituted genocide. But the devastating effects of the Ottoman Turkish regime's systematic engagement in the killing and deportation of the Armenian community cannot be denied. The consequences of these acts are with us today among the Armenian diaspora living and thriving throughout the world and in the tensions within the Caucasus region. The costs of these violent acts to the victims and the survivors must not be discounted through denial.

These acts were not committed by the present day Republic of Turkey. Over the last few years, Armenia and Turkey have engaged in an important dialogue on normalizing relations. This process has unfortunately stalled, and should be reinvigorated to remove barriers and promote reconciliation between the two countries. In addition, Turkey, as a NATO ally, has played an important role in the enforcement of the U.N. resolutions regarding Libya and the protection of the Libyan people from brutal attacks by the Qadhafi regime.

So in honor of the 97th anniversary of Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, let us rededicate ourselves to the prevention of mass atrocities and the principles of justice and understanding, which are essential for the promotion of human dignity.

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

Mr. President, at 10 o'clock Sunday night, I was at the terminal at the Detroit airport, and there I had gone through the usual airport security drill--shoes off, liquids in plastic bags, and all the other inconveniences designed to keep us safe. It was at that same airport on Christmas of 2009 that a would-be terrorist sought to bomb an airliner. So I was surrounded by reminders, large and small, of how the threat of terrorism has affected our lives when Defense Secretary Gates called me with the momentous news that our forces had succeeded in raiding a compound in Pakistan and killing Osama bin Laden.

A few hours later, my wife Barbara and I joined a different scene-- thousands of cheering young people waving American flags and singing patriotic songs in the early morning darkness outside the White House-- part of an outpouring of relief and emotion across the Nation. What had happened is Osama bin Laden could not avoid the long memory and the long arm of justice, and he could not hope to triumph against the indomitable spirit of the American people.

The news President Obama delivered to the Nation on Sunday evening gives us many reasons to reflect. We should first turn to those who still carry the grief and loss of that September morning about 10 years ago--to those who had lost loved ones in the fight against terror and the years since and to those who carry wounds of body, mind or spirit from that war. The death of Osama bin Laden cannot bring back the lives lost through his monstrous acts, but it can, I hope, bring some measure of relief from those lost.

We first turn, with thanks and admiration, to the men and women of our Armed Forces and the intelligence community. For them and their families, the last decade has been one of long separations, uncertainty, and danger. Yet time and time again they have answered their Nation's call with courage, with competence, and with skill. Once again, they have earned our utmost gratitude.

We should also commend the President for his courage and for his care in ordering a military mission to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. There was no direct evidence that bin Laden was in the compound that the CIA had determined housed two al-Qaida couriers. Instead, the evidence was circumstantial, and there were differing views within the intelligence community as to the likelihood that bin Laden or perhaps some other high-value target was there. Moreover, the mission required the military helicopters to enter into Pakistani airspace, to land in Pakistan's sovereign territory, and for Navy SEALs to use lethal force on a compound in a city that was home to two Pakistani armed regiments. The President courageously rejected the alternative options of launching a bombing mission or waiting until there was more evidence of bin Laden's presence. He rejected both of those alternatives.

With his bold decision and with the heroism and skill of our military and intelligence professionals, our Nation

struck a tremendous blow not just against a single depraved individual but against the hateful ideology he espoused. Let there be no mistake, al-Qaida is weaker today. Its leader is dead and so is the myth surrounding him.

Osama bin Laden sent his followers to hide in dark, dank mountain caves and often to their own suicides, from the comfort of his million- dollar villa. His death has dealt al-Qaida a major blow. The mystique of Osama bin Laden has been punctured.

The victory over hate-inspired terrorism is not yet complete. Our successful mission against bin Laden will no doubt lead to al-Qaida's remaining leaders issuing calls for retaliation. It is critical our intelligence and military strength continue to seek out those elements and franchises of al-Qaida that remain in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, and other places, such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. The threat may be diminished, but it remains.

Further, it is critical we ensure our military and intelligence communities continue to adapt to the threat of our irregular and unconventional enemy. The interagency cooperation that helped make this mission a success is impressive, and it remains a potent weapon in our effort to weaken the al-Qaida network.

This is an effort worthy not just of this Nation but of all nations. That is why it is important that we find answers to the significant questions raised by the news from Sunday night. Thirty-five miles from the Pakistani capital and a comfortable walk from the Pakistani military's most important academy, in a town where the Pakistani military and intelligence services own a large share of the property, al-Qaida appears to have built a massive complex, ringed by walls as high as 18 feet, protected by barbed wire, as the dedicated hiding place for Osama bin Laden. It is difficult to believe all this occurred without at least arousing the suspicions of Pakistan's security forces or their local officials.

The American people, who have provided billions of dollars of aid to the Pakistani Government, deserve to know whether elements of Pakistan's military and intelligence services or local officials knew of bin Laden's location over the 5 years or so he was there and if they did not know, how that could possibly be the case. Hopefully just as important, the Pakistani people deserve these answers, for they have suffered greatly from al-Qaida's violent extremism. Assassinations, bombings, death of civilian and military personnel alike--all these losses show that al-Qaida and its hate-filled terrorism and its terrorist allies threaten Pakistan's very existence. I believe some of Pakistan's leaders know this to be true, and I was heartened by the reaction of Prime Minister Gilani to bin Laden's death. He said, ``I think it's a great victory and I congratulate the success of this operation.''

It is urgent that the Pakistani Government get answers to the questions about what its military and intelligence agencies and local officials knew and share the answers to those questions with the world and with their own people.

Pakistan can be an important ally in the fight against terror. It has as much, if not more, at stake in that fight as anybody. All the more important, then, that we openly and honestly address the questions which have been raised by the presence of terrorist No. 1, public enemy No. 1, the world's enemy No. 1--the presence of that person in Pakistan in such a central place for all these years. It is important that those questions be honestly answered so we can continue this fight together.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on the resolution that is pending be extended by 15 minutes, with the additional time being equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with all other provisions under the previous order remaining in effect.

With this agreement, the vote will now occur around 3:45 p.m.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, there is no doubt that we must take action to reduce our budget deficit. The question is, How will we accomplish this? Will we do as we have done all too often over the last few years, and protect the tax cuts of the well-to-do at the expense of middle-class families? Or will we seek a balanced approach that seeks to spread the burden of deficit reduction so that the upper income folks who have so prospered the last few years also contribute to the solution?

There is no question in my mind that deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice. By that test, the legislation before us is highly problematic. True, it manages to avoid some of the most extreme budget cuts that House Republicans included in their original appropriations bill. The bill before us is surely reasonable in comparison with that extreme measure. But the test cannot be whether it is better than HR 1. We can and must do better.

What troubles me most is that this legislation seeks to address the problem in only one manner, targeting nondefense discretionary programs that make up a fraction of our budget. I remain convinced it is a mistake to attack the deficit only through cuts in domestic discretionary spending, and not also end the huge Bush tax cuts for upper incomes, and close tax loopholes and reduce tax expenditures that most budget experts believe must be part of any serious deficit reduction plan. Simple math makes clear that those kinds of revenues must be a part of the solution.

The refusal to take a balanced approach in this legislation means that to reach its deficit reduction target, this bill makes cuts that are, in my mind, too large. It reduces funding for the COPS program and grants to state and local law enforcement agencies by more than one- quarter, making our communities less safe. It reduces energy efficiency funds by 18 percent, as though this issue wasn't crucial to our Nation's future security and prosperity. It cuts funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 11 percent, as though the health of our citizens was not a priority.

This bill eliminates all funding for the HUD Housing Counseling Assistance Program, eliminates it entirely, ignoring the fact that communities across the nation are reeling from a foreclosure crisis.

This bill cuts by 20 percent funding for Army Corps of Engineers construction. That provides funding for the barrier that we hope will keep destructive Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, and believe me, that is false economy. The economic damage Asian carp can do if they establish themselves in the Lakes is incalculable. The bill also cuts more than one-quarter of funding for vital water infrastructure programs important not just in Michigan but around the state, and it makes a deeply misguided 37 percent cut in Great Lakes restoration initiative funding, a totally unjustifiable reduction of our commitment to lakes that are an engine of economic activity for all the states in the Great Lakes region.

There are some important programs that have escaped the worst cuts. I am pleased that students will still be able to receive a maximum Pell grant of $5,500, and that the misguided proposal to reduce these grants has been defeated. I am pleased that this bill generally avoids misguided Republican attempts to deprive financial regulatory agencies of the resources they need to prevent the next financial collapse.

This bill rescinds highway funding that was provided at least 13 years ago, including funds from the ISTEA reauthorization bill. That should mean that the funding for the traverse city bypass, later reprogrammed to the grand vision, will not be included in that rescission since it is no longer part of the ISTEA bill. At the request of the community, the funds were reprogrammed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 for an entirely different purpose than the original legislation and in an entirely different bill. Since that time the community has completed the comprehensive grand vision study and is now poised to implement its recommendations.

I am also glad that the bill contains a full year Department of Defense Appropriations Act, so that our troops and their families will no longer have any doubt about when their next paycheck will arrive. And I am pleased that it does not include ideologically motivated policy riders that would interfere with women's health care and environmental protection.

But on balance, this bill lacks balance. It seeks solutions only in cutting domestic programs that make our Nation safer and more prosperous, that protect our environment, and that help the families that have suffered most during the financial crisis and recession, while protecting the tax cuts that benefit those at the very top.

Because of that lack of balance, that lack of fairness, I am unable to support this bill. But I am encouraged that, thanks to the leadership President Obama showed this week, and thanks to the voices of the many of us who are arguing for a balanced approach to deficit reduction, we are finally engaged in an open and honest debate over the vision we should follow for the future of our country.

In the weeks and months ahead, we will finally seek an answer to the question of whether we will all share in the

sacrifices required, and whether the same people who have done so very well over the last decade or so will be asked to contribute. I agree with our President, who said this week:

At a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its

lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us

can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax

cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we

have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare.

Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college

scholarships that I wouldn't be here without. . . . And I

believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They

want to give back to the country that's done so much for

them. Washington just hasn't asked them to.

Let me add that I will vote against both of the correcting resolutions before us today. It is ironic indeed that Republicans claim to be fighting the deficit by blocking the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which according to the Congressional Budget Office will reduce the deficit by $210 billion from 2012 to 2021. Likewise, the attempt to prohibit funding for Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with the deficit and everything to do with extreme ideology.

Mr. President, I have been fighting over the past several years to stop the thousands of trash shipments entering into Michigan from Canada. This year brought some welcome good news: Canada has stopped shipping its city trash to Michigan, eliminating about 1.5 million tons of trash a year that had been dumped into Michigan landfills, and taking more than 40,000 trucks a year off Michigan roads. The end of these shipments fulfills a 2005 agreement that Senator Stabenow and I reached with Ontario officials to end all shipments of municipally managed trash to Michigan by the end of 2010.

However, private trash shipments from Canada are still being brought into Michigan. Tons of waste from private companies, including from construction, industry, and commercial sources, are being imported into Michigan for disposal in our landfills. Most of these shipments enter at three border crossings in Michigan: Port Huron, Sault Ste Marie, and Detroit. The loads of municipal solid waste are more than just a nuisance. These trash trucks from Canada pose a threat to our environment, health, and security.

This legislation Senator Stabenow and I are introducing today would require the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the methodologies used by the Bureau to screen for the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in municipal solid waste. The report would need to indicate whether the techniques used by the Bureau to screen for these dangerous materials in municipal solid waste are as effective as the methodologies used by the Bureau to screen for such materials in other items of commerce entering the United States. If the Bureau of Customs cannot demonstrate that screening of municipal waste shipments is adequate, then they have 6 months to implement the technologies to implement adequate screening procedures. If such measures are not implemented, then the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deny entry of any commercial motor vehicle carrying municipal solid waste from Canada until the Secretary certifies that the methods and technology used to inspect the trash trucks are as effective as the methods and technology used to inspect other vehicles.

I believe this legislation will help to protect the people of this country, and I hope this Congress will act quickly on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have been fighting over the past several years to stop the thousands of trash shipments entering into Michigan from Canada. This year brought some welcome good news: Canada has stopped shipping its city trash to Michigan, eliminating about 1.5 million tons of trash a year that had been dumped into Michigan landfills, and taking more than 40,000 trucks a year off Michigan roads. The end of these shipments fulfills a 2005 agreement that Senator Stabenow and I reached with Ontario officials to end all shipments of municipally managed trash to Michigan by the end of 2010.

However, private trash shipments from Canada are still being brought into Michigan. Tons of waste from private companies, including from construction, industry, and commercial sources, are being imported into Michigan for disposal in our landfills. Most of these shipments enter at three border crossings in Michigan: Port Huron, Sault Ste Marie, and Detroit. The loads of municipal solid waste are more than just a nuisance. These trash trucks from Canada pose a threat to our environment, health, and security.

This legislation Senator Stabenow and I are introducing today would require the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the methodologies used by the Bureau to screen for the presence of chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons in municipal solid waste. The report would need to indicate whether the techniques used by the Bureau to screen for these dangerous materials in municipal solid waste are as effective as the methodologies used by the Bureau to screen for such materials in other items of commerce entering the United States. If the Bureau of Customs cannot demonstrate that screening of municipal waste shipments is adequate, then they have 6 months to implement the technologies to implement adequate screening procedures. If such measures are not implemented, then the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deny entry of any commercial motor vehicle carrying municipal solid waste from Canada until the Secretary certifies that the methods and technology used to inspect the trash trucks are as effective as the methods and technology used to inspect other vehicles.

I believe this legislation will help to protect the people of this country, and I hope this Congress will act quickly on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there are various proposals before us that would impact efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change.

While I have concerns regarding EPA's regulatory efforts in this regard, Senator McConnell's amendment not only restricts EPA's regulatory work, but it would explicitly overturn an important science based EPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions may endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Further, the McConnell amendment would repeal the mandatory reporting of emission levels of greenhouse gases, which began in 2009. The results of that reporting will help inform important policy decisions regarding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator Rockefeller's amendment would establish a 2-year delay on any EPA action pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, with the hope that Congress will act to reach a legislative solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide. I could support that because I prefer comprehensive climate legislation with targets and timetables that are technologically achievable instead of a regulatory regime administered by the EPA to address greenhouse gas emissions.

However, I cannot support the Rockefeller amendment because of its impact on the regulation of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment would explicitly allow regulation of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by EPA to go forward under the Clean Air Act, which leaves intact the authority for the EPA to grant a waiver to the State of California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The stated goal of the Obama administration, one I strongly support and have fought for, is to have a single national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, as is currently the case for model years 2012-2016. That

goal is defeated, however, if states can individually regulate these emissions, because the result is a patchwork of overlapping and conflicting regulations.

Senator Stabenow's amendment has many provisions I support. For instance, unlike the McConnell amendment, it would not nullify the EPA finding based on science that greenhouse gas emissions may endanger public health and the environment. It would also allow EPA to move forward with its reporting requirements, which will help inform policy makers as to how to best reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Stabenow amendment would also allow the EPA to move forward with its planning to reduce greenhouse gases from stationary sources. Emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural sources would also be excluded from EPA regulation related to global climate change.

However, the Stabenow amendment would also leave intact EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to issue vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards and authority for EPA to grant a waiver to the State of California. I support the EPA and the Department of Transportation together developing a single national standard. If there is going to be a single national standard for 2017-2025, then logically there must also be preemption of state authority in this area. I cannot support an amendment that addresses EPA authority but leaves in place its authority to grant a waiver that is so problematic for our manufacturing sector.

I particularly regret that I cannot support the Stabenow amendment because it also includes an extension of the so-called section 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, which I support. This tax credit--enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-- provides an important incentive for energy manufacturers to continue to invest in facilities in the U.S. I very much support extension of this tax credit and will work with my colleagues to try to extend it.

Mr. President, today a bipartisan group of Senators has introduced legislation that would allow the Senate to continue its leadership of our country toward a clean-energy future. Senators Schumer, Alexander, Kerry, Murkowski, Bingaman, and I have introduced a bill that would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the Senate at no net cost to the Federal Government.

Among the most successful job-creation efforts we have undertaken since the financial crisis devastated our economy is our attempt to help American manufacturers create the batteries and other components that will power the next generation of electric-powered vehicles. In my State of Michigan and in other places around the country, the grant program we enacted as part of the Recovery Act has sparked a boom of manufacturing job creation. Given a choice between watching our global competitors create those jobs and creating them in the United States, we have chosen the wiser course.

This has been part of a larger, and largely successful, effort to support the electric revolution in transportation. President Obama's goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 is one part of that effort. He announced last week that by 2015, the government will buy only alternative-energy vehicles for its fleets as part of a strategy to cut U.S. oil imports by 1/3. Such a strategy would help our country economically, protect our environment and enhance our national security.

The legislation we introduce today is another, though smaller, part of that effort. It would ensure that the Senate leads by example as we transition to a clean-energy future. It would establish--at no net cost to the taxpayer--charging stations to power plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. While these vehicles are an important part of our future, they will bring changes in how we think about cars and driving. Instead of looking for gas stations, drivers will need charging stations where they can replenish the batteries that power their vehicles.

The President and others have proposed plans to help encourage the creation of that infrastructure in communities around the country. So should the Senate. This bill would ensure that Senate employees have available the infrastructure to support next-generation vehicles. It would be an important statement of leadership from the Senate. It would provide an example to other employers of how they can support both the needs of their employees and our national interest in energy security.

I am thankful for the support of Senators Schumer, Alexander, Kerry, Murkowski, and Bingaman on this bill, and for the assistance of the staffs of Senators Schumer and Alexander on the Rules Committee. These Senators have recognized the value of Senate leadership in moving our nation toward a future liberated from imported oil, and I hope our other colleagues will as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today a bipartisan group of Senators has introduced legislation that would allow the Senate to continue its leadership of our country toward a clean-energy future. Senators Schumer, Alexander, Kerry, Murkowski, Bingaman, and I have introduced a bill that would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to establish battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the Senate at no net cost to the Federal Government.

Among the most successful job-creation efforts we have undertaken since the financial crisis devastated our economy is our attempt to help American manufacturers create the batteries and other components that will power the next generation of electric-powered vehicles. In my State of Michigan and in other places around the country, the grant program we enacted as part of the Recovery Act has sparked a boom of manufacturing job creation. Given a choice between watching our global competitors create those jobs and creating them in the United States, we have chosen the wiser course.

This has been part of a larger, and largely successful, effort to support the electric revolution in transportation. President Obama's goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 is one part of that effort. He announced last week that by 2015, the government will buy only alternative-energy vehicles for its fleets as part of a strategy to cut U.S. oil imports by 1/3. Such a strategy would help our country economically, protect our environment and enhance our national security.

The legislation we introduce today is another, though smaller, part of that effort. It would ensure that the Senate leads by example as we transition to a clean-energy future. It would establish--at no net cost to the taxpayer--charging stations to power plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. While these vehicles are an important part of our future, they will bring changes in how we think about cars and driving. Instead of looking for gas stations, drivers will need charging stations where they can replenish the batteries that power their vehicles.

The President and others have proposed plans to help encourage the creation of that infrastructure in communities around the country. So should the Senate. This bill would ensure that Senate employees have available the infrastructure to support next-generation vehicles. It would be an important statement of leadership from the Senate. It would provide an example to other employers of how they can support both the needs of their employees and our national interest in energy security.

I am thankful for the support of Senators Schumer, Alexander, Kerry, Murkowski, and Bingaman on this bill, and for the assistance of the staffs of Senators Schumer and Alexander on the Rules Committee. These Senators have recognized the value of Senate leadership in moving our nation toward a future liberated from imported oil, and I hope our other colleagues will as well.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today we vote on a bill that would repeal the 1099 reporting expansion that was made

into law under the Affordable Care Act. This reporting requirement was designed to improve tax compliance. However, many businesses fear this expansion could end up burdening not those who seek to evade their taxes, but those who innocently do business with those who do. This is why I support the repeal of this reporting requirement in the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with how this bill would pay for this repeal. This bill would hurt individuals who receive modest pay increases or bonuses during the course of a year. The Affordable Care Act subsidizes insurance coverage for middle-class families making under 400 percent of the Federal poverty level who don't have access to employer provided coverage. Under current law, people close to 400 percent line are protected from substantial tax penalties if they receive a modest raise or bonus that bumps them into a higher income bracket. This bill would eliminate that protection and impose a retroactive penalty on those families that could amount to thousands of dollars. Those families, even if they end up over the line by $1, would have to pay back the entire amount of their subsidies. For a family of four, for instance, this could mean owing more than $5,900 on their taxes because of an unexpected increase in income from $89,000 a year-- 398 percent of the FPL--to $89,500--$100 above the 400 percent FPL.

I support the amendment offered by Senator Menendez that directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to study the impact of this bill on health care premiums and coverage for small businesses and their employees. If the HHS Secretary finds that the changes in repayment amounts under this bill would increase health insurance premiums for small businesses or their employees or increase the number of uninsured, the repayment amounts would revert to current law.

I look forward to continuing to improve the Affordable Care Act and will continue to fight for affordable and available health care for all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Paul amendment on the President's constitutional authority to order the use of military force. This amendment is flawed because it doesn't allow the President to respond militarily to a completed attack and only allows action to stop an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.

The amendment would in effect make it illegal for the President to unilaterally order the use of military force to protect U.S. interests except only in situations that involve preventing an actual threat to the United States or an imminent threat to the United States.

Numerous Presidential decisions to order the use of military force over the last 30 years would not meet the standard of the Paul amendment.

For example, under the Paul amendment President Ronald Reagan would have acted illegally in 1983 when he unilaterally ordered the invasion of Grenada, which did not involve an ``actual'' or ``imminent'' threat against the United States from Grenada.

Similarly President George H.W. Bush would have acted illegally under the Paul amendment when he ordered the 1989 invasion of Panama. President Bush justified the Panama invasion based on protecting the lives of U.S. citizens, defending democracy and human rights in Panama, and countering drug trafficking, not on an ``actual or imminent threat to the nation.''

Also, President Reagan's ordering airstrikes against Libya in 1986, 11 days after Libyan terrorist agents bombed the LaBelle discotheque and killed or wounded over 100 U.S. soldiers, might have been illegal under the Paul amendment. The President's response to Libya's sponsorship of terrorism arguably would not have met the standard of ``stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation'' because the tragic act of terrorism had already happened days earlier.

Finally, according to this amendment, President Obama acted beyond his constitutional authority when he authorized the use of deadly force by Navy SEALs to rescue Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates on April 10, 2010.

There are numerous other examples over the past decades when Presidents have ordered the use of military force to protect U.S. interests, but where such actions would not have met the standards of the Paul amendment.

I urge my colleagues to vote to table this amendment.