Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I will proceed on my leader time.

As we all know, the war on terror did not end last month when American forces shot and killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

General Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, wrote to me yesterday to explain that this is a moment of elevated threat to our country and that the intelligence community is

working to analyze the information gained at the Bin Laden compound. Al-Qaida and its associate groups remain a threat to the United States.

And our intelligence community, military and law enforcement professionals still need the tools that enable them to gather and share intelligence in this fight.

That is why all Americans should be reassured today in knowing that these dedicated men and women will continue to have those tools. I have no doubt that the 4-year PATRIOT Act extension that Members of both parties have agreed to will safeguard us from future attacks, and that everything we agreed to in this extension is necessary for this fight.

As FBI Director Bob Mueller has said, all the authorities it contains are critical. Every one requires the prior approval of an independent Federal judge. Nothing in this extension has ever been found to be unconstitutional. And most of these authorities have not even been challenged in court--ever.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has conducted aggressive oversight of the programs authorized by these expiring provisions. Over the past decade, we have seen how terrorists have proved themselves adaptable, how they have altered their tactics and methods to strike us at home. By extending this invaluable terror-fighting tool, we are staying ahead of them.

Now is not the time to surrender the tools authorized by this act, or to make them more difficult to use. It was absolutely imperative that we renew these authorities under the PATRIOT Act. They have enabled others to keep us safe for nearly a decade. Our law enforcement professionals have been able to use tools just like them in traditional criminal cases for years. We should be relieved and reassured to know they won't expire this week.

A Looming Crisis

Mr. President, last June, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, made an observation that may have surprised some people. A day after Democrats here in the Senate refused to allocate tens of billions of dollars in unemployment assistance unless the costs could be added to an already unsustainable debt--he said that, in his view, the biggest threat to our national security is our debt.

A few months earlier, the President himself identified the debt as a looming crisis. He pointed out that almost all of our long-term debt relates to the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. And he said, ``if we don't get control of that, we can't get control over our budget.'' He was right.

But the co-chair of the President's debt commission may have put it best just 6 weeks ago. Speaking about the consequences of the fiscal path we're on, Erskine Bowles said simply:

It's the most predictable crisis in history. The most predictable crisis in history--and that was a Democrat talking. And yet Democrats in the Senate don't even want to talk about it.

Yesterday, here in the Senate, Democrats rejected every single proposal we have seen on our Nation's fiscal future. They took a pass. They have chosen to ignore this crisis just like they ignored the last one.

Three years ago, as the financial crisis approached, the senior Senator from New York was holding press conferences trying to link the war in Iraq to what passed for an economic slowdown at the time. The majority leader was postponing votes that we all knew would fail so Democrats who were running for President could be here to vote on them. Now, in the face of a looming crisis we all admit is coming--they are doing the same thing.

This crisis is staring us right in the face. The Democrats themselves--from the President on down--say they see it. Yet, once again, they are so focused on the next election they refuse to do anything to upset the status quo. They are more concerned about their own jobs than preventing a economic catastrophe that could affect everybody's job. They want to wait this out--while they hammer anybody who proposes a solution. They rejected their own President's budget. They rejected three Republican budgets. And they have not even bothered to offer a budget of their own. They're just marking time, treading water.

So I think Democrats have lost the right to express concern about this crisis. Until they propose some solution of their own, they are part of the problem.

The American people didn't send us here to hide in a corner until the next election. They sent us here to act on their behalf, and this is their message: If you see a crisis coming, you better do something about it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

I object to the Leahy request.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2011.

As we all know, the Department of Veterans Affairs strives to provide the best possible health care for our nation's heroes. However, it has come to my attention that the quality of care provided to our nation's veterans remains inconsistent among community-based outpatient clinics. Some of these clinics are operated by private health care providers under VA contracts. These VA-contracted health care providers are compensated for their work at community-based outpatient clinics on a capitated basis, which means they are essentially paid based on how many new veterans they see during a pay period. These firms are therefore rewarded for the number of veterans they sign up, not for the quality of treatment provided to our veterans. While I am not opposed to capitation per se, I am concerned current VA policy provides contractors with the wrong incentives. Contracted health care providers should have incentives to provide the best possible care for veterans, not simply get as many veterans as possible through their doors.

As a result of the capitated system, it has been reported that too many of our nation's heroes have faced difficulties at these clinics in scheduling appointments, have suffered from neglect or have received substandard health care. This occurred under the last administration and I am concerned it may be continuing in the current one.

As such, I am reintroducing the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, which attempts to fix the way VA-contracted health care providers are compensated at clinics. This bill would require the VA to begin to introduce a pay-for-performance compensation plan for contractors, thereby gradually incentivizing a higher quality of care for veterans seen at privately-administered community-based outpatient clinics.

This bill gives the VA the flexibility to begin to implement such a system through a pilot program and leaves the VA the discretion as to how to adopt and best implement the pay-for-performance standards. In this respect, the bill defers to the VA on how best to execute these changes. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this measure.

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

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

Mr. President, today, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, McCain and Durbin, to introduce renewal of sanctions against the military junta in Burma.

The casual observer could be excused for thinking that things have changed for the better in Burma over the past year. After all, elections were held last fall, a ``new'' regime took office earlier this year, Aung San Suu Kyi was freed and the lead Burmese general Than Shwe seemed to retire from political life. However, in Burma as is so often the case, things are not what they seem. And that is certainly the case here.

First, the elections that were held in November took place without the benefit of international election monitors. All reputable observers termed the elections not to be free or fair. This was in large part because the National League for Democracy, NLD, Suu Kyi's party and the overwhelming winner of the last free elections in the country in 1990, was effectively banned by the junta and could not participate in the election. There were restrictions placed on how other political parties could form and campaign. No criticism of the junta could be voiced. And the results were unsurprising: the regime's handpicked candidates won big and the democratic opposition was largely sidelined.

Second, the new regime is essentially the junta with only the thinnest democratic veneer pulled over it. The Constitution, which places great power in the military as it is, cannot be amended without the blessing of the armed forces. Those in parliament are limited in how they can criticize the regime. Moreover, sitting atop these new institutions is rumored to be a shadowy panel known as the State Supreme Council, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and which is led by, you guessed it, the military.

The only legitimately good news of late was the freeing of Suu Kyi. I was fortunate enough to be able to speak with her for the first time earlier this year. Yet, the extent of her freedom remains open to question. She was, of course, freed only following the sham election. She and her party have also been publicly threatened by the regime; thus, the extent to which she can move about the country or travel overseas remains unclear. Further, more than 2,000 other political prisoners remain behind bars in Burma; they are no better off than before. Neither are the hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons who are without a home due to the repressive policies of the junta.

Finally, it is worth noting that there are growing national security factors that cause one to be even more reluctant than ever to remove sanctions and reward bad behavior. The junta's increasingly close bilateral military relationship with North Korea is a source of much concern in this vein.

For all of these reasons, I believe the sanctions that are in place should remain until true democratic reform has been instituted. That is the position of Suu Kyi herself and of the NLD. It is also the position of the Obama administration. In a State Department letter dated April 27, the State Department states that ``in the absence of meaningful reforms, the U.S. government should maintain its sanctions on Burma.'' As Suu Kyi herself recently stated, ``[s]o far'' there hasn't been ``any meaningful change'' since the November elections.

We should not be fooled by the transparent efforts of the regime. It is merely trying to get out from under the international cloud of sanctions, without making true changes in how it governs itself, treats its people and interacts with the rest of the world.

It is my hope that my colleagues will once again renew this bipartisan measure that in 2010 enjoyed the support of 68 Senate cosponsors and was adopted 99-1. The bill is identical to last year's in that it does the following: continues the ban on imports from Burma into the U.S., including products containing rubies and jadeite; authorizes the freezing of assets against a number of Burmese leaders; prevents the U.S. from supporting loans for Burma in international financial institutions; prohibits the issuance of visas to junta officials; and limits the use of correspondent accounts that may facilitate services for the regime's leaders. These measures would remain in place until the regime undertakes meaningful steps toward democratization and reconciliation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2011.

As we all know, the Department of Veterans Affairs strives to provide the best possible health care for our nation's heroes. However, it has come to my attention that the quality of care provided to our nation's veterans remains inconsistent among community-based outpatient clinics. Some of these clinics are operated by private health care providers under VA contracts. These VA-contracted health care providers are compensated for their work at community-based outpatient clinics on a capitated basis, which means they are essentially paid based on how many new veterans they see during a pay period. These firms are therefore rewarded for the number of veterans they sign up, not for the quality of treatment provided to our veterans. While I am not opposed to capitation per se, I am concerned current VA policy provides contractors with the wrong incentives. Contracted health care providers should have incentives to provide the best possible care for veterans, not simply get as many veterans as possible through their doors.

As a result of the capitated system, it has been reported that too many of our nation's heroes have faced difficulties at these clinics in scheduling appointments, have suffered from neglect or have received substandard health care. This occurred under the last administration and I am concerned it may be continuing in the current one.

As such, I am reintroducing the Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, which attempts to fix the way VA-contracted health care providers are compensated at clinics. This bill would require the VA to begin to introduce a pay-for-performance compensation plan for contractors, thereby gradually incentivizing a higher quality of care for veterans seen at privately-administered community-based outpatient clinics.

This bill gives the VA the flexibility to begin to implement such a system through a pilot program and leaves the VA the discretion as to how to adopt and best implement the pay-for-performance standards. In this respect, the bill defers to the VA on how best to execute these changes. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this measure.

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

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

Mr. President, today, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, McCain and Durbin, to introduce renewal of sanctions against the military junta in Burma.

The casual observer could be excused for thinking that things have changed for the better in Burma over the past year. After all, elections were held last fall, a ``new'' regime took office earlier this year, Aung San Suu Kyi was freed and the lead Burmese general Than Shwe seemed to retire from political life. However, in Burma as is so often the case, things are not what they seem. And that is certainly the case here.

First, the elections that were held in November took place without the benefit of international election monitors. All reputable observers termed the elections not to be free or fair. This was in large part because the National League for Democracy, NLD, Suu Kyi's party and the overwhelming winner of the last free elections in the country in 1990, was effectively banned by the junta and could not participate in the election. There were restrictions placed on how other political parties could form and campaign. No criticism of the junta could be voiced. And the results were unsurprising: the regime's handpicked candidates won big and the democratic opposition was largely sidelined.

Second, the new regime is essentially the junta with only the thinnest democratic veneer pulled over it. The Constitution, which places great power in the military as it is, cannot be amended without the blessing of the armed forces. Those in parliament are limited in how they can criticize the regime. Moreover, sitting atop these new institutions is rumored to be a shadowy panel known as the State Supreme Council, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and which is led by, you guessed it, the military.

The only legitimately good news of late was the freeing of Suu Kyi. I was fortunate enough to be able to speak with her for the first time earlier this year. Yet, the extent of her freedom remains open to question. She was, of course, freed only following the sham election. She and her party have also been publicly threatened by the regime; thus, the extent to which she can move about the country or travel overseas remains unclear. Further, more than 2,000 other political prisoners remain behind bars in Burma; they are no better off than before. Neither are the hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons who are without a home due to the repressive policies of the junta.

Finally, it is worth noting that there are growing national security factors that cause one to be even more reluctant than ever to remove sanctions and reward bad behavior. The junta's increasingly close bilateral military relationship with North Korea is a source of much concern in this vein.

For all of these reasons, I believe the sanctions that are in place should remain until true democratic reform has been instituted. That is the position of Suu Kyi herself and of the NLD. It is also the position of the Obama administration. In a State Department letter dated April 27, the State Department states that ``in the absence of meaningful reforms, the U.S. government should maintain its sanctions on Burma.'' As Suu Kyi herself recently stated, ``[s]o far'' there hasn't been ``any meaningful change'' since the November elections.

We should not be fooled by the transparent efforts of the regime. It is merely trying to get out from under the international cloud of sanctions, without making true changes in how it governs itself, treats its people and interacts with the rest of the world.

It is my hope that my colleagues will once again renew this bipartisan measure that in 2010 enjoyed the support of 68 Senate cosponsors and was adopted 99-1. The bill is identical to last year's in that it does the following: continues the ban on imports from Burma into the U.S., including products containing rubies and jadeite; authorizes the freezing of assets against a number of Burmese leaders; prevents the U.S. from supporting loans for Burma in international financial institutions; prohibits the issuance of visas to junta officials; and limits the use of correspondent accounts that may facilitate services for the regime's leaders. These measures would remain in place until the regime undertakes meaningful steps toward democratization and reconciliation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Madam President, sometime today or tomorrow, Senate Democrats will have an opportunity to show what kind of future they believe in. They can vote for one of the Republican plans to get our Nation's finances under control, each of which involves the kind of tough choices we will need to make to bring down our deficits and debt, or they can vote on the President's plan, which continues the unsustainable status quo. A vote to preserve our very way of life or throw it in jeopardy.

It is interesting; when the President first announced his budget, most people panned it as tepid and irresponsible. The Washington Post summed it up pretty well by saying the President punted. Yet Senate Democrats embraced it.

The senior Senator from New York said the President's budget should have bipartisan support.

The chairman of the Budget Committee gave the President, ``good grades for a beginning.''

Other Democrat Senators called the President's budget ``a step in the right direction'' . . . ``an important step forward''. . . ``a good start'' . . . and ``a credible blueprint.''

One even described it as ``wise.''

That was then. How about today? Well, if we are to believe the news reports, every single Democrat in the Senate now plans to vote against the President's budget. They do not even want to use it as a starting point. Why? We got the answer earlier this week from Senator Schumer, when he indicated that Democrats now believe avoiding this debate altogether helps them in the next election.

In other words, they think it is better not to keep track of our Nation's finances at all than to support any plan that does. So much so that they are about to reject a budget that even they embraced a few months ago. They will vote against every budget that comes to the floor, including the President's.

Six weeks after the Democrat cochairman of the President's own debt commission told us that our Nation's deficits and debt are like a cancer that threatens to destroy America from within, Democrats are ready to call it a work period without supporting any of the proposals that have been made, without producing anything of their own.

Nothing. That is their answer to this crisis.

Their focus is on an election that is still almost 2 years away.

I think it is a mistake. At a moment when our debts and deficits threaten the very future of our Nation, Democrats have no excuse for proposing no vision of their own. There is no defense.

Washington is currently on pace to spend about $1.6 trillion more than it takes in this year, three times the biggest deficit we ever had before President Obama took office.

Members of the President's own Cabinet admitted last week that Medicare is in need of urgent reform if we want to preserve it for future generations.

Congressman Ryan has shown courage by proposing a budget that would tackle these problems.

Democrats are showing none by ignoring our problems altogether. This is the contrast Americans will see in the Senate this week. More than 2 years have passed since Democrats have produced a budget of their own. This is a complete and total abdication of their responsibilities. And there is no excuse for it. We have an obligation to come up with a plan. Democrats are officially abdicating that responsibility this week.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. Con. Res. 18, a resolution setting forth the President's budget, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for the information of everyone, this next vote will be a 10-minute vote, and the next will be a 10-minute vote, so I wouldn't go too far from the floor.

I move to proceed to S. Con. Res. 21, a resolution submitted by Senator Toomey setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

A 10-minute vote.

Did we get the yeas and nays?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next vote be a 10-minute vote.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. Con. Res. 20, a resolution submitted by Senator Paul, setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, later this morning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint meeting of Congress.

His remarks come at a time of great unrest and instability in the Middle East. So we are all eager to hear his

perspective on how our two countries can work together to further our shared interests. Israel is, of course, a great friend and an ally to the United States, and the Prime Minister should be reassured that Israel will not be alone during this time of uncertainty. He should return home knowing that at a time when the Middle East is awash in instability, his relationship with the Congress is strong. We always welcome the Prime Minister to Washington. We are happy to be able to host him today.

lack of a budget

Sometime before the end of this week, Democrats in the Senate will have wrapped up their efforts for the current work period and flown home for the Memorial Day recess. So it is not too early to ask what they have accomplished over the past several weeks. More specifically, what have they done about a looming fiscal crisis in the 6 weeks since one of the cochairs of the President's debt commission called it the most predictable crisis in history?

Well, the short answer is not much. Six weeks after the Democratic cochairman of the President's own debt commission told us that our Nation's deficits and debt are like a cancer that threatens to destroy America from within, and nearly a year after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared our debt to be the single biggest threat to our national security, Democrats are ready to call it a work period-- after producing no budget, after offering no plan, and with no plan in sight.

Why?

Well, evidently Democrats have decided that avoiding this crisis helps them in the next election. That is why they plan to vote against every budget plan that comes to the floor this week, including the President's.

Democrats are apparently operating under the assumption that if they are on the record opposing everything, it helps them politically. So, in other words, we might not leave here this week with a solution to our nation's looming debt crisis, but Democrats are pretty confident they will leave with some good material for campaign ads.

Here is how the senior Senator from New York put it yesterday in a moment of candor:

``To put other budgets out there is not the point,'' he said, ``This issue will have staying power and be a defining issue for 2012.''

They are not even pretending to put principle over politics here. According to Senator Schumer, their focus is on an election that is still almost 2 years away.

Well, my suggestion is that Democrats start thinking about putting their names on something other than an attack ad. They could start with a budget. How about that?

Right now, America is on pace to spend about $1.6 trillion more than it takes in this year. That is three times the biggest deficit we ever had before President Obama took office.

The President's plan is to keep deficits like this in place for years to come.

That is the scenario Admiral Mullen and Erskine Bowles are worried about.

Meanwhile, entitlement spending is growing faster than inflation, meaning sooner or later these programs will either consume all the money we have or these programs are forced to change.

Members of the President's own Cabinet admitted this last week when they signed a report showing that Medicare is running out of money and urging prompt reform of the program.

So the question is not whether these programs need reform, the question is how it is done.

Do we do it now, together, or do we wait until we are absolutely forced to do it? There is no other choice.

Congressman Ryan has shown a lot of courage by proposing a budget that would tackle a big part of the problem. Democrats are showing none by ignoring our problems altogether. This is the contrast Americans will see in the Senate this week.

Republicans will vote on several possible approaches to our fiscal crisis this week, including the Ryan plan.

Democrats will vote against every one.

We will also have a vote on the President's budget, which Democrats also plan to oppose.

They say they prefer the ideas the President outlined in a speech he gave last month. Well, unfortunately, we can't vote on a speech. But if that is what it takes to get Democrats engaged in this debate, maybe we should revisit the rules.

More than 2 years have passed since Democrats have produced a budget of their own. This is a complete and total abdication of their responsibilities as a majority party. And there is no excuse for it.

Every year, Congress appropriates nearly $100 million to support the Office of Management and Budget. This money supports a staff of 529 people. OMB's job is to put together a budget. Why exactly haven't they been able to turn the President's speech into a budget we can vote on? They have had 6 weeks to do it. What is the problem?

If Democrats can't get 529 people to put some numbers together based on the budget plan the President outlined in his speech, then they have problems over there. Either that or Democrats are just looking for excuses so they don't have to vote for anything of their own. And they had rather put together political ads than a solution to this crisis. And this is inexcusable.

We have an obligation to our country to come up with a plan. Democrats are officially abdicating that responsibility this week. But Americans will remember. As the crisis approached, Democrats did nothing.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the incredible endeavors of a hardworking and extremely talented Kentuckian, Chris Grigsby of Laurel County, KY. Chris's lifetime of experience has taken him to many places, but he has always been proud to call Kentucky home.

Chris Grigsby graduated from Laurel County High School in London, KY. At the age of nine he taught himself how to play the guitar, mandolin, bass, and the fiddle, and continues to play and teach them to his family, stating that music is a major part of his life. After graduating high school, Mr. Grigsby enrolled in the Marine Corps.

Mr. Grigsby's passion for his position in the Marine Corps grew as he continued to travel the world and experience the endless opportunities that it provided. He was stationed for 2 years at Camp David where he was able to work closely with President Ronald Reagan. As his years in the Marine Corps came to a close, Grigsby found talent in other professions including, auctioning, truck driving, as well as being a police and security officer.

After working as a truck driver for 3 years, then as an officer with the London Police Department, as well as conducting his own truck hauling service, Grigsby came to realize his true passion was to be closer to home with his wife Bobbie and their family of five. As he set aside his traveling days he was offered a job at the U.S. Courthouse where he continues to be the lead court security officer. This August 17, Chris and Bobbie will celebrate their 21st marriage anniversary.

Chris Grigsby is a man who gives so others can prosper, and leads by setting an example. His life stands as an illustration that kindness does go a long way. A wonderful article about Mr. Chris Grigsby appeared recently in the Sentinel Echo, and I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, last night, Senate Democrats put forth a plan to raise taxes on American energy that, in their words, would have done nothing to lower the price of gas at the pump. As the chairman of the Finance Committee put it: ``That's not the issue.''

I think for most Americans, high gas prices actually are the issue.

According to a Gallup poll that came out this week, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say the high cost of gas at the pump is causing financial hardship for their families. More than half of Americans say they have made major changes to compensate for it. More than 1 in 5 say high gas prices are jeopardizing their standard of living.

Americans are struggling. My constituents in Kentucky are hurting. They want relief, and all they are getting from Democrats in Washington is a dog and pony show. Their own Members admit their legislative proposals are gimmicks. They spent a week vilifying the energy industry and another week trying to punish them.

The legislation they proposed yesterday would have done three things: destroy jobs, send American jobs overseas, and make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil. That is what yesterday's bill would have done.

Democrats themselves admit it would not lower gas prices by a penny. So it is a fair question: What in the world are they doing? Once again, Democrats have been faced with a crisis and have done their best to turn it into a political exercise rather than doing something to actually help people and create jobs.

They pushed a tax on energy because evidently some of their leaders think it polls well. So does Mother's Day. I would suggest Democrats spend a little more time looking at the price of gas at their local gas stations than at the latest polling numbers about class warfare rhetoric.

At a time when Americans are genuinely struggling out there, the Democrats have chosen to waste 2 weeks making a political statement rather than in trying to make a difference.

The American people deserve a lot better than that, and that is why Republicans have offered the Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011, which we will vote on later today.

Our plan has basically three objectives; first, to restore American offshore production; second, to improve safety; third, to require bureaucrats in Washington to get to work on the permitting process to make a decision one way or the other.

It would have three corresponding effects. First, and most important, our plan would help reduce the price of gas at the pump. By unlocking our own domestic resources and speeding up the permitting process, our plan would actually do something to increase supply, putting downward pressure on price. As the Democratic Senator from Missouri said yesterday: ``The more supply, the less the price.''

It would also help alleviate our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and it would create thousands of energy jobs right here in America instead of sending them overseas, which is why this bill has the support of both the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I have indicated what our bill does in general. Here are the specifics.

In order to restore American offshore production, our plan directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct previously scheduled offshore lease sales in the western and central Gulf of Mexico, Virginia, and Alaska. In addition, the plan will extend lease terms by 1 year for gulf leases which were suspended under the 2010 Obama moratorium.

After the devastating oilspill we had last year in the gulf, improving safety is one of our highest priorities. That is why our bill amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require all lessees to develop spill response and containment plans, establishes a public- private task force on oilspill response and mitigation, and orders a study on Federal response to oilspills by the Comptroller General to examine capabilities and legal authorities related to spill prevention and response to clarify appropriate Federal roles.

Finally, it is imperative we put in place a process that makes bureaucrats operate more efficiently on the crucial issuance of permits. That is why our plan puts time limits on the review of and decision on drilling permits, providing for 30 days of application review, with two opportunities for the Interior Department to extend the time period. Beyond that, it provides for a default approval if Interior does not reject the application within 60 days, and it directs the Interior Department to provide rationale for rejection of permits.

This bill is not our last on this crisis. We could do a lot more to increase production here at home, and we should. But it offers solutions, and every provision in this bill has bipartisan support.

At a time of near record gas prices, this is a modest approach, a good first step that takes everyone's concerns into account so we can actually achieve a practical result.

That is what Americans want. It is time to stop pointing fingers. It is time to stop picking winners and losers. It is time to stop telling Americans what is best for them.

It is time to stop holding Americans back with moratoriums, fees, bureaucratic roadblocks, and the ever-expanding reach of a President who seems to think business owners in this country need to get his permission first if they want to create jobs.

Every single American is feeling the pain at the pump, Democrats and Republicans alike. It is time for the two parties to come together and get serious about results. I urge all my colleagues to support the Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to congratulate a friend of mine who is a valued servant to the people of Kentucky, BG Stephen R. Hogan. On March 12 of this year, the former colonel had his promotion ceremony to the rank of brigadier general. This promotion to general is a very special accomplishment, as very few career officers in our Armed Forces ever reach the general rank.

This promotion is well deserved for all that Brigadier General Hogan has done for his country. Serving as the assistant adjutant general for the Kentucky Army National Guard, he is responsible to the adjutant general for balancing the requirements of readiness, modernization, force structure, and sustainment of the National Guard for mobilization and domestic missions.

Brigadier General Hogan's significant duty assignments include tours with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY; the 6th Infantry Division Light, Fort Richardson, AK; the Army Operations Center, the Pentagon; and with the Multi-National Corps Iraq based in Baghdad, Iraq. When not serving on Federal active duty, he has served in the Kentucky Army National Guard as an active-duty guardsman with the State's Counter-Drug Unit, and $11 billion worth of illegal marijuana has been eradicated during his service.

Brigadier General Hogan's awards, medals and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, with three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters; the Army Commendation Medal, with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster; the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, with one Silver Oak Leaf Cluster; the National Defense Service Medal; with one Bronze Service Star; the Iraq Campaign Medal; the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, with ``M'' Device and Silver Hourglass; the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon; the Master Parachutist Badge; the Pathfinder Badge; the Air Assault Badge; the Kentucky Merit Ribbon; the Kentucky Service Ribbon, with three Oak Leaf Clusters; and the Kentucky Counter Drug Ribbon.

Despite all this accomplishment, at his promotion ceremony, Brigadier General Hogan said, ``All I ever wanted to do in life is be a professional soldier.'' Well, we in Kentucky are certainly glad he got his wish. I want to congratulate him on his promotion, and I know my colleagues in the U.S. Senate will join me in honoring his service and his sacrifice for our country.

An article extolling the virtues of Brigadier General Stephen R. Hogan appeared recently in the Marion Star. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.