constellation. small constellation for the damage that will be -- con sue ration for the damage that will be done. for individual people, to the economy. just one fact, f.h.a. will not be able to issue any giern tease on new -- guarantees on new mortgages. f.h.a. guarantees 80% of our mortgages, including mortgages for the middle class. the bulk of mortgages. middle-class people will not be able to take mortgages. what does that do to our economy? the social security administration will not be able to mail out a good percentage of refunds. what does that do to the economy, when the money is stuck in washington instead of going back to people who rightfully own it and they will spend it in the stores and in the shops and on vacation? and there's other

irresponsibilities. we have american troops fighting abroad. we want to make sure that they are fully funded. a government shutdown will not do that. colleagues on the other side are coming up with a unbalanced short-term extension that funds the troops. well, i say to my colleagues, you want to fund the troops not for one week, don't shut the government down. that's the best way to support our troops. so it's time for republicans to be responsible. it's time for the majority of republicans, who i don't agree with on many issues but who i know are mainstream and really don't like this government shutdown, to stand up to those on the hard right, to accept the compromise we're so close to working out and drop the

ideological riders so that we can move forward. mr. president, we are at a crucial time in this country. we've had a rough few years. we're beginning slowly to climb our way out of it. this is risky. a government shutdown is risky. and, mr. president, the shame of it all is it is so easily avoided. all we need, again, is a little bit of strength and courage from the speaker to tell the hard right in his party that, yes, he will try to accommodate some of their needs but he will not shut the government down, to tell them that, yes, we do have to cut government spending. and we democrats, the vast majority of us agree with that.

we don't believe in cutting things like cancer research or loans that go to students who are going to college. there's a lot of waste in the government. there's a lot of excess. we can wring that out without hurting people and reduce our deficit. we agree. and the proposals we have made, including $73 billion below the president's proposal for this year shows that we put our money where our mouth is. every time we come to a -- close to an agreement, speaker boehner, not on his own, in my judgment, but pulled by the tea party, pulls the goal posts back. he pulls them back on the numbers, although we've gone so far that it's hard for him to do that any longer, but he also does it with these ideological riders. and so, mr. president, we are at a sad moment. we are at a time when the

continuation of this government and the hard-working people who compose it is right on the edge of closing with untold damage to innocent people. i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other house, i would plead with them, let's stop the political games, let's stop the ideological posturing, let's stop thinking it has to be only my way and no one else's. let's come meet in the middle with a reasonable agreement, keep the government going and move forward to do the things the american people have asked us to do. i yield the floor. i note -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, thank you i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. be bennet: thank you. i came to the floor the other day about what i had learned in town hall meetings for two years in colorado regarding our deficit and our debt. what i said the other night, that people in our states, whether in red parts of the state or blue parts of the states, have a commonsense way of approaching this and they've got a three-part test that they want to apply. first test is, they want to make

sure that we actually come up with something that materially addresses the problem we face. they're tired of gimmicks. they're tired of tricks. they really want us to sort this out. they know it's not going to be fixed overnight but they want us to get started on it. second test is that we're all in it together. they're tired of the us against them conversation that happens in washington. they're tired of hearing that one person's ox is going to be gored or one group of people's ox is going to be gored and everyone else is going to be left alone. everybody wants to contribute to solving this problem. the third test is that they want it to be bipartisan because, frankly, they don't have confidence in either party on this issue and they want to see us working together. that's it. and we should be working toward that as a senate and as a house. we should be having a serious conversation about how not to

leave our children stuck with a bill of $15 trillion of debt and a $1.5 trillion deficit. i feel that keenly as the father of three little girls myself. but i think it is very important for the american people to understand the debate we're having right now, the threat that we're going to shut the government down has nothing to do with the broader conversation about our deficit and our debt. in fact, shutting the government down is just going to make matters worse. i said the other night that there is not a superintendent of schools -- i used to be one -- in colorado, there's not a city council or a mayor in colorado, from the largest city to the smallest town, who would dream, who would dream of saying to their constituents, we can't work this out so we're going to close the government next week. mr. bennet: we can't work this

out so we're not going to plow your snow next week or pick up your trash next week or educate your kids next week. not one local official in our state. the presiding officer knows this. he was a mayor. he would never have gone to your constituents and said, oh, by the way, we're closing next week because we have a disagreement. it makes no sense. nowhere on the planet would that make any sense. to say nothing of the fact that we find ourselves at a moment in the country's history when we are engaged in wars all across the globe, when we're now involved in a multilateral effort in libya, when we've got thousands of people that are government employees trying to help the japanese weather this unbelievable tragedy that they're facing. when we have economic competitors all over the globe that are trying to seek an economic advantage against the united states in the 21st century. we're saying, well, we're going to take a time-out because we

can't agree. we're going to pause, take a rest, close the government. the american people must think well, you guys must be very far apart. and that's why i brought this down. now, i don't know the exact details here. i don't know the exact details here. nobody does. the reports on the news tonight were that several billion dollars separated the negotiators. and i've heard it range from, you know, $5 billion to $10 billion in there so i picked the number $7 billion, which is more than "several," but that appears to be what divides the parties. $7 billion, mr. president. $ billion. that is a lot of money. $7 billion. that is a lot of money. it is a lot of money. but look at it in the context of our deficit and our operating budget.

so here is -- this line -- you can't even see it -- this line is the $7 billion right here. okay? this is our deficit and this is our operating budget. $1.5 trillion, $3.6 trillion. i apologize, mr. president, but i couldn't fit it on one sign. i had to have two signs to be able to show what the order of magnitude difference is between what we're scwablg over here i in -- squabbling over here in washington and what our deficit looks like and what our operating budget looks like. that's it. that's it. that's it. do you know this difference, if this were the city of alamosa -- the former mayor is the presiding officer -- in my state, which has roughly a $14 million operating budget in the san louis valley, if they

were saying we were going to shut down our government based on this difference, that would be like alamosa saying we can't figure it out because $27,000 is what we're apart. mr. president, if you or i went to appleby's tonight and we took their -- we had their $20 dinner for two and then we had a fight over the bill, we would be fighting over four cents. that's what would separate us. roughly .19% of our operating budget. i could even understand if the parties were saying we disagree, we disagree, let's keep negotiating. but i can't for the life of me understand how on those terms, anyone could threaten a government shutdown, especially when we confront the dangers that we confront today. and the answer is that it's not

about our budget. the time that we consumed here is taking time away from the conversations that you and i have been part of, that people on the other side of the aisle have been part of, that the gang of six, a bipartisan group of senators, three democrats and three republicans, led by mark warner and saxby chambliss, have been working on. that's what we should be doing. but we shouldn't be threatening to close the government. i don't think we should be threatening to close the government under any circumstances, but certainly not when the economics are as thin as that. and i know there are people, and it's not all republicans, there's some people in the house that, you know, just feel like the social issues that they've attached to this piece of budget legislation are somehow more important than keeping the government open. or that litigating those issues in the context of trying to keep the government open is the right thing to do. i disagree.

i think they should have a hearing. i think that we ought to have a floor discussion about what we want to do with women's reproductive health or the other issue as that are there. i'm glad to have that debate. but don't threaten to shut the government down based on that. and so i will say again, as i said the other night, that i encourage the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, our president to find a way to settle this, to find a way to work it out, to find a way to keep this government open at this moment when we've got troops deployed all over the globe. to live up to the standard of every single local elected official in my state, whether they're democrats or whether they're republicans, who are making tough choices in this budget situation but managing to respond to their constituents'

priorities. this week in colorado they reached a budget agreement. the governor's a democrat. the senate is a majority democratic. the house is republican. the speaker of the house, who is a republican, says this is the first budget i've been able to vote for in years because of the leadership of john hickenluper, our governor, and the leadership of the democratic and republican congress there. that breeds confidence in people's work. and i think that if we can find a way to work together here across the party lines in a bipartisan way and demonstrate that we can keep the government open and, much more important even than that, that we can create a path toward fiscal san knit this country -- fiscal sanity in this country, i think the american people would cheer. right now we haven't given them very much to cheer about, mr. president. thank you, mr. president. i see the senator from texas is here, and i would yield the

floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i think we've been talking for a long time today about this fiscal crisis because i don't think anyone is looking at the looming deadline that's going to occur tomorrow night as something that we want to happen and government to shut down. i hope so much that the president and speaker boehner and the democratic leader of the senate, senator reid, can come to terms, because we are so close to having an agreement on a continuing resolution until the end of this fiscal year, which is what we need. no one would run a business the way this government is being run

in two-week continuing resolutions and one week and three weeks. it is not the way to run anything. it's not organized, and you can't plan, and most certainly we know that taxpayer dollars are not being the most efficiently spent if we are going in one- and two-week increments. but the stakes are very high. i look back at the year 2000, before 9/11, and we had balanced budgets. we had a balanced budget in the year 2000. we had a balanced budget up until 9/11. that was only ten years ago, and we ought to be able, as the united states congress, working with the president, to say, if we had a balanced budget ten years ago, he we can't possibly be so far over the line that we

can't bring it back into balance. but to bring it back into balance, mr. president, we're going to stro look long-term. we can't do it on $30 billion of difference in now to the end of the fiscal year spending, the fiscal year ends october 1. so we can't do it -- twoaf have a ten-year plan. we have to have clear cuts in spending, and we have to start working toward a balanced budget in a responsible way. now, i can't say i agree with everything in it, but one of the house budget committee chairmen, one of the republicans in the house, has proposed a budget that would do exactly that. it would get us to a balanced budget. and now we need to start talking

about the plans that he has put forward. the president hasn't, but congressman ryan has. we're going to change some of it i hope, but we should have the same goal, and that is to get to a balanced budget. -- over a period of time, five to ten years. but we certainly are not going to do it in the next 24 hours, talking about $30 billion or $36 billion going for the next six months. so i hope that we will settle this issue so we can go to the long-term issues. the long-term issue is going to happen in about a month and a half when we're going to be called on to raise the debt ceiling. the debt is $14 trillion. we're looking at a debt -- a deficit this year -- this year alone -- of $1.5 trillion, if we go with the budget that the

president submitted. $1.5 trillion more over $14 trillion? no wonder the people of this country are up in arms. and we need to listen to the people of this country, who say, stop doing business in washington the way it's always been done. stop it now, and start cutting back on the appetite for spending so that we will be able to have the balanced budget that we can see in our future. mr. president, what we're looking at now is the potential of a government shutdown. i hope that it does not come to that. but there is one thing that we ought to be able to do in this congress, and that is at least protect our military who are serving in afghanistan and iraq and their families who are back

home, worried enough about them because of where they are and most certainly should not have another burden put on them of not knowing if their paycheck is going to come at the normal time of the month, the 1st and the 15th. so i have introduced senate bill 724. i want to ask unanimous consent to add senator sessions as a cosponsor. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: and i will say that that makes our 46th cosponsor of senate bill 724 that is a very simple bill. it just says that if there's a government shutdown, the military will be paid. the secretary of defense will have the discretion to also pay the civilians and those who are serving our military so that the food service in afghanistan and iraq will not be stopped because

we have a government shutdown and the paychecks aren't going to come. i want to alleviate any fear on the part of any member of our military overseas that -- whose family is watching the debate in the house and on the senate floor and watching this play out and thinking, am i going to be ail to pay the mortgage on time? i want to alleviate that fear right now. i hope that we will be able to pass this -- this bill that is gaining sponsors about every 15 minutes. as people start looking at the looming shutdown of government that will happen about -- a little later than this tomorrow night, if we don't have an agreement. i think all of us should put o r military in the front line and say, they're going to show up for work. let's assure them that their pay will not be dislaid. -- let's assure them that their pay will

not be delayed. that is not the message they are getting right now. but i think we can assure them that they will get it. i have a letter i just received from the national association of uniformed services which says, "on behalf of more than 180,000 members and supporters of the national association for uniformed services, i offer our full support for your legislation, senate bill 724, "the ensuring pail for our military act of 2011." and i ask unanimous consent to put this letter in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: so, mr. president, i hope that we come to agreement and do not shut the government down. we are so close to getting this temporary fiscal year, which we are already halfway through, finished and let's take this off the books, because what we ought to be doing right now is

focusing on the 2012 budget that starts october 1, where we're having our hearings and we're asking our quetion and we're trying to -- our questions and we're trying to soirt priorities with a lower -- to sort our priorities with a lower set. we're going to prioritize our spending. we had the f.b.i. director mueller testify before our commerce-justice committee, our subcommittee of appropriations, to talk about the law enforcement needs of our f.b.i. i want to spend my time talking about the needs of the f.b.i. and the other functions of government that we must do and certainly our armed services bill. and i don't want to be talking about shutting down government in the middle of a fiscal year because we are not coming together on $6 billion or $3

billion -- i don't know exactly where they are now, but it's not very much in the scheme of things. what we need to do is get this behind you alleviate the fears of our military personnel, alleviate the fears of their families that they might have a high yea us in their -- hiatus in their paychecks and we need to start the big-picture thinking. and the big picture, mr. president, what we must focus on is cutting spending so that we can go towards a budget and agreed on a five- to ten-year trajectory that will put us back in a fiscally responsible position for our country to have the credibility in the world that we should have, for our children to be debt-free for what we have used in government in this country. we don't need to pass that debt to our children if we are responsible stewards of both their lives and our taxpayer

dollars. and, mr. president, we need to be the leaders that people expect us to be. the people spoke in very loud terms last november that they do not want more spending, and i hear it everywhere i go. i hear it in the airports, on the streets, when i'm talking to people in informal meetings, the grocery store. people are stared to death of a $14 trillion debt. it has never been so high. -- in our country before. i don't want that to be the legacy of this congress and our generation. that is not the legacy that we should have as leaders of the greatest country in the free world. so i implore the leaders of congress and the president to

get the continuing resolution behind us so that we can focus on the big picture, and that is the $14 trillion debt that we are facing right now and doing the responsible cutting that will begin to cut back on the deficits and take down the debt and address the issues that have not been addressed for all these years once and for all. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to commend the senator from texas for her bill, which i'm very proud to be a cosponsor of, to make sure that our men and women in harm's way continue to receive their compensation and support for their families if, in fact, there is a government shutdown, which certainly i'm going to continue to do everything i can to help from happening.

and i'm not going to give up, and i know others aren't as well. but i want to commend the senator because i think this is very important and we need to send that message, and we need to get this done. we need to get the bill done. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i just want to say to the senator from michigan that she was one of the first to sign on as a cosponsor of this bill, and i think that is the right thing to do, and i appreciate her leadership. and i just got a note from my staff and would like to ask unanimous consent to also add senators scott brown and amy klobuchar as cosponsors of senate bill 724. thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you to the senator from michigan and i would like to add them as cosponsors. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. i think we can do this together if we will come together and focus on those great young men and women in afghanistan and iraq serving right now and do something that is right for them, regardless of whether we have to face a government

shutdown for all the rest of us. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow:i couldn't agree more that we need to do this. and i think it's important that the senate take the lead as we did on another piece of legislation that our friend from california brought forward and was passed fumely by the senate to set down another very important principle, and that is that if we, those making decisions, cannot come together, then it should be the members of congress not getting a paycheck. our troops should be getting paid, but members of congress should see their paychecks stopped. unfortunately, under law right now, members of congress will be the only ones whose paychecks didn't stop. and that's something that we have passed in the senate, to change that. frankly, mr. president, i found that to be pretty embarrassing and that it became outrage us a when we found out in fact that the troops' paychecks might stop. so it is important that we send two messages -- that people

responsible for making this decision ought to take responsibility and paychecks stop if it doesn't get done. but we've got make sure our men and women in harm's way continue to have our not only support verbally but that we show it in our priorities here. mr. president, i hope we're not going to see this happen. there is no reason for this to happen. we're talking about a shutdown that would not only affect many, many, many people around this country -- families, small businesses -- but affect also the markets, our international standing. i mean, this is a very serious issue. and people of good will can solve this. we all know that we've got to be smart, we've got to change the way washington operates and cut the things that aren't working and invest in the things that do. there is knee question about that. we've got to do that. and in fact we have agreed to major changes in that direction.

but it's a challenge -- and i just want to take a second because i think the toughest job in town today is from the speaker, and it's very clear that he has a very difficult job when there are people giving a standing ovation for him when he's talking about preparing for a shutdown. we don't need this. that's not what we need. what we need is to continue to have people of good will coming together, like we've just been talking about in supporting our troops, and saying, we can complete this year's budget. we're half the way through the year. let's just get it done. what happens if it doesn't get done? it's not about us. it's not about us. we'll be all right. it's not about us. it is about the people that are affected. we know, and let's just go through -- what happened in 1995. in 1995 there were 400,000 veterans who saw their

disability benefits and pension claims delayed. our veterans. again, we're talking about our troops, but in the last shutdown, 400,000 veterans had delays in their disability benefits and pensions. that's really -- that ought to be a motivator for all of us, mr. president, to get this done. and it would be outrageous if that were to happen again. there were approximately $3 billion in u.s. exports that were delayed because they couldn't get through the export licenses and so on. and that's jobs for us as we look at a time when we want to export our products, not our jobs around the world. delaying that affects our jobs. we know that hundreds of thousands of medicare and social security requests were delayed the last time this happened. and for the first time in history, six states ran out of federal unemployment insurance at the time and small business

loans we know could be stopped or delayed. as well as tax refunds from people who have been waiting, hard-earned dollars, stretching every penny to make ends meet who are waiting for those refunds. so it makes no sense. it makes no sense for the economy, for families, for seniors, for veterans. we need to come together to get this done. we also need to make sure that whatever is done and what we've been fighting for, the majority here has been fighting for, is to make sure that whatever's been done does not one more time ask middle-class families and small businesses to be the ones to have to sacrifice. in my state our families, middle-class families, people trying desperately to stay in the middle class or to get in the middle class have been the

ones hurt over an over and over again -- and over and over again. losing their job or losing their income, their house underwater, trying to make ends meet. not sure right now if they're going to be able to have the kids continue to go to college. all of the things -- gas prices going up like crazy. are you going to be able to just get back and forth to work? those are not the folks that should be one more time sacrificing. carrying the load. the same people sending their children, grandchildren to work, our middle-class families should not be the ones continuing to be the only ones sacrificing in order to deal with what is a national debt and the need to balance the budget and change the way we fund washington. reduce spending, change the priorities. what i'm concerned about is that middle-class families and small businesses not continue to be the ones that get the brunt over

and over and over again. you know, i think about the struggles, mr. president, in the last couple of years in michigan and what we've had to go through with our automobile industry and how proud i am of where we are now, but the sacrifice that it took to get there. you know, we're making the best automobiles, we're winning all the awards. our people are smart an skilled and we've got the best engineers and the best skilled workforce. but a couple of years ago we had a horrible crisis and it took sacrifice from everybody to turn that around and some smart thinking. workers had to sacrifice. beginning pay cut in half. retirees, the companies, shareholders, communities, everybody had to sacrifice in

order to turn this around. but we did something else. we then said, while you're cutting back, we're going to invest in the future. we're going to invest in innovation. we're going to invest in those things that are going to allow us to grow and create more jobs and be successful. and after two years of a tremendous amount of hard work and everybody sacrificing, with some smart decisions and investments, we're turning it around. we're making a profit for the first time, each of our companies, since 1999. we're turning things around because people were willing to be in it together. and that's really what i'm fighting for is the kind of decisions because we know we have to change the way we do business and we have to cut the things that don't work to invest -- work, to invest in the

things that do, but everybody's got to be in on this. everybody. not just some people who are being asked to give over and over and over and over again. not just small businesses who didn't cause what happened on wall street, but can't get the loan because of what happened with the crisis, holding on, trying to make it, trying get the capital they need to keep the doors open or to expand. they didn't cause this, and, yet, we find the same people over and over again having to make the sacrifices. that doesn't make sense. i don't think it's american. and so what we're seeing now as we close in on the final decisions of people coming together is a question of whether we're going to have everybody be a part of the solution or one more time ask the middle class and small businesses. we can come together and get this done if people want to do that. there is no question about it.

that people of good will can get it done and i think that it's in everybody's best interest to do that. -- to do that on every single level. but there is no question as well that we have very different priorities that are being debated today in our country. and we saw that this last week in very stark terms which goes to the whole question of, again, how do we solve our problems and is everybody in? every american going to be part of turning the ship around? and that goes to the budget proposal this week that has added in my opinion, insult to injury, which relates to the proposal coming from the house budget chair to change medicare as we know it. to change medicare from an insurance plan for our retirees and people with disabilities to

something that would be a voucher for insurance companies. it's stunning to me, actually, in looking at this proposal, and extremely, extremely concerning to me about the ramifications of what is being proposed. and then what adds insult to injury is that a the proposal is being made to unravel medicare, do away with medicare as we know it, raise the cost, the premiums, the medical costs for almost every senior in the country, according to the congressional budget office, but at the same time this same budget document would give ove over $1.8 trillion in new tax cuts for special interests and the millionaires of this country.

not the folks that have been working hard to try to make it who haven't gotten the big breaks, but one more round big breaks for the people who have not felt this recession, the people who have gotten the special breaks who have somehow not had to go through their house under water, their income go down, worried about the kids, worried about the car, worried about the gas. the folks who earn over million dollars, the special tax breaks for those interests that are doing extremely well in this country. that's not how i view shared sacrifice in order to be able to solve the country's problems and get us out of debt and grow the economy. cutting medicare for seniors, dismantling it and at the same time giving one more round of tax breaks for millionaires and

the major special interests of the country. that's wrong in my judgment. that's the wrong set of priorities and it's worth debating and we will debate that. you know, it's interesting i remember, mr. president, when we were passing health care reform and we were focused on the fact that we had to make sure medicare was healthy for the future and make some tough decisions so that it would be strong and there for seniors. and we took a look at overpayments for for-profit insurance companies and there are major overpayments. and we decided to cut those back. it was actually causing the majority of beneficiaries, the majority of seniors to see their premiums go up because of some participates to a few that were overpayments. and we decided that we would cut back on those insurance

companies overparticipates and we would -- overpayments and we would instead focus on quality in medicare and make sure seniors could go to the doctor and get their cancer screenings or wellness visits without out-of-pocket costs and bring down the cost of medicine and that we would focus on ways to streamline, focus on quality and streamline in a way that would cut costs. and we were able to save, according to the budget gurus, we were able to save over, i believe it's 10 years years, $500 billion. it didn't cut any benefits for seniors. but the other side of the aisle said that this was terrible. it was terrible because we were focused on cutting overpayments to insurance companies. and now we see the proposal that would dismantle medicare and it would cut what is the average

amount of senior -- a senior spends on medical care in a year, which is about $15,000 a a year and it would instead cut that amount down to $6,000 a year and giving a voucher to an insurance company, and that's okay. well, that's a different set of priorities than i have, mr. president, and i know that you have. and so these are debates we are going to have and they're important debates for our country. how do we go forward? how do we solve the budget deficit? how do we grow the economy? how do we create jobs? and how do we make sure that what we are doing is fair for everybody and keeps what works while cutting what doesn't? medicare's a great american success story. do we need to make sure that it's there for the next generation? absolutely. do we need to look at ways to

streamline and cut costs? we've done that and we need to continue to do that. absolutely we need to do that. but it's a great american success story. that has allowed a whole generation of older americans to live healthy lives, play with their grandkids. and now that i have two beautiful grandchildren, who, by the way, are the most beautiful grandchildren in the world, mr. president, just for the record. but now as i have my 3-year-old and 1-year-old and i look at the fact that you know, i want to be healthy for a long time so i can be there for them. and what a wonderful gift as americans we have given to seniors. that gift of medicare and social security and so that they can be healthy and live in dignified ways in their own homes and be able to live long lives for their grandchildren and their great grandchildren. that's something that we should be proud of. so as we go through this debate, we have two kinds of debates.

we've got to deal with what's happening immediately, complete this six-month -- not six-year, six-month budget in a commonsense way, make sure that troops get paid, make sure that we don't have any veterans losing their opportunities for disability benefits for pension benefits and small businesses not being delayed from getting their loans and those kinds of things right now immediately. and in my judgment we need to put down a marker saying if we can't come together, that we're the ones that don't get paid, not the troops. and then the next step is to debate the vision of this country and where we go. what is important and what's not? and should some americans be asked to sacrifice in order to solve our problems and be stronger to compete in the global economy or should everybody -- everybody be asked

to do their part? i think that people want to do their part and they're willing to do their part, but we need to make that clear that we expect everybody to be a part of the solution. and in closing, mr. president, i would just say what i find most concerning today when we're in a global economy and we ought to be talking about the united states competing against china. the united states against competing with germany or india or korea. we're not doing that. we're standing here on the floor of the senate on a thursday night talking about whether or not people will come together to complete a six-month budget and make sure our troops can get paid. that's not the debate we should be having. we have precious time available

to us. and the debate we should be having is about how as americans we're going to compete in a global economy and win. that's what we need to be doing and that's the debate that i'm anxious to have. and i hope we're not going to give up. i'm not going to give up. and what we need to do right now to be able to come together, get this done, avoid a government shutdown and get on to the real business of creating jobs and competing in a global economy. thank you, mr. president. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about the disastrous consequences if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to prioritize politics and posturing over what's best for americans and

our fragile economic recovery. we have 27 hours to convince them that shutting down the government shouldn't be treated as a gimmick. shutting down the government is a serious matter with serious consequences for almost every american. before i go into the consequences, the impacts, whatsoever, my constituents, i want to take a moment just to reflect on how we got here. how are we now in a position where a government shutdown is 27 hours away? well, one thing is certain, there is a lot of misinformation and confusion out there. a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been saying that the democrats and the president refused or failed to pass appropriations for fiscal year 2011. this is revisionist and confused history. one of my colleagues, a new member, said today -- and i

quote -- "why was it that a few months ago after the election but before the new congress took over, when the president had both houses of congress under control of his party, why did he opt not to pass a full budget for fiscal year 2011?" now, the presiding officer knows this is just not true. okay? this isn't true. and i've been hearing a lot of this. we had appropriations legislation for the entire federal government ready to go. democrats were in support of it. we were prepared to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. but remember, it takes 60 votes to pass something like that in the senate. there were 58 democrats in the senate last december, there were 42 republicans, so we needed some republicans to pass a full budget for 2011. not many, but we needed two.

we didn't get any, not a single republican agreed to support the bill. that's what happened. now, for awhile we were told that a number of republicans were going to support it. the bill had been negotiated on a bipartisan basis. but then by all accounts their arms were twisted and they were turned against the bill. the majority leader said -- and i quote -- "i am actively working to defeat it." and he did. he killed it. that's the truth. and my friends on the other side of the aisle celebrated. after they made clear that there would be not enough votes to pass the omnibus bill, my friend from illinois engaged in a colloquy with senator mccain asking for, "for those who didn't just happen, did we just win?" and senator mccain responded, "i think there is very little doubt." and senator kirk concluded the colloquy by saying, "i congratulate the senator."

you know, we really do owe it in these serious times to engage in -- in debate where we're really being honest with the american people. so there's little doubt about who opted not to pass a full budget for 2011. it wasn't the president, it wasn't the democrats in the majority, it was my friends on the other side. my friends on the other side protest that they do not want to shut down the government and then they point the finger at us. yesterday there was a rally for the tea party on capitol hill. my -- part of my delegation, michelle bachmann, who i like very much, said to the crowd there, the democrats are trying to make it look like we want to shut the government down. we don't. but they're trying to do that.

silence. the same day, the same rally, pence, mike pence, said to them, it looks like we may have to -- it looks like we're going to have to shut down the government. and what did the tea party crowd do? they started chanting, "shut it down, shut it down, shut it down, shut it down, shut it do down." according to his own account, when speaker boehner told his republican colleagues that he had taken -- his caucus, he had taken steps to prepare for a shutdown, he said, "i got a standing ovation." there have been no standing ovations on our side. about a prospective shutdown. come on.

we're trying to keep the government working. we desperately want to keep the government working. the republicans are busy fighting ideological battles. for them, this is not about the deficit. it's not about the budget. it's certainly not about jobs. this is about ideology. i was on the floor today -- i was presiding today and i had the opportunity to hear some of my colleagues talking about the bill the house passed today to fund the troops. we want to fund the troops if there's a shutdown. we do. and there's all this sanctimonious talk about how republicans want the troops to be -- how the house had passed this bill to fund them. do you know what was left out? that steny hoyer, the minority whip in the house, the

democratic minority whip, had offered up a bill to pay the troops if there was a shutdown, clean bill. nothing attached to it other than that. it was voted down by the republicans in the house. what passed? a bill with a ride other it about abortion -- a bill with a rider on it about abortion. i didn't hear that, i didn't hear that in all the sanctimonious talk. let's at least have an honest debate, really. antiabortion. look, i know -- i know there are people that have very strong, heartfelt feeling, obviously, on abortion on both sides. this is something we've been talking about for decades.

why put it on a -- why put a rider on abortion to pay for our troops? and then go in front of this body and say, democrats don't want to pay our troops. this is not -- this can't be about holding a gun to our head and saying, you have to come down on this side of this issue that people feel so strongly about and have been debating for 40 years. the constitution, it was written -- the republicans in the house talk about the constitution. they made -- they started by reading the constitution. they started this session that way. they left out some of the embarrassing parts, the thre

three-fifths of -- slave is the three-fifths of a person, they left that out. but there is two houses and there's a president. and so -- but they don't want to compromise. they just want to put a gun to our head. they want to put -- and they -- and it's in the form of aborti abortion, in the form of global warming. look, 99.6% of climate scientists in the world believe there is global warming and it is caused by human beings. the other .4% work for coal companies or oil companies or the heritage foundation. and then there might be another guy somewhere.

why put a rider on this that's about ideology? this should not be an ideological debate. this is about getting our deficit together. this is about -- and our econo economy. look, we had 216,000 new jobs last month. we're beginning. this is fragile, it's fragile, but we're beginning to come out of this. this is not the time to shut the government down. and what it's going to do to people in my state, the seniors. every day there are hundreds of -- every week there's hundreds of seniors -- how many a day? -- 270 a day applying for social security. they're not going to be able to do that, who just turned 65. there are people who are going to try to get f.h.a. loans that

won't be able to. there are farmers who want to put seed in the ground who are not going to have the farm -- the farm service open. this is not the time to do this. there's going to be 800,000 federal employees laid off. what's that going to do to our economy? this is an -- look, there are things in this that i don't li like. and i'm willing to swallow them. they want to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in hunger programs. $700 million-plus to cut food for women, infants and children. and it's been analyzed and because of that the neediest kids will not get their allotted

amount of fruits and vegetables that's recommended. not just during -- and that's not during the closing, that's what they want to do for the rest of the year. and presumably beyond that. and at the same time, we're here last december and we wanted t to -- they wanted to extend the bush tax cuts, they insisted on it, not just to your first million dollars but to your second million dollars, to your 10th million dollars, to your 30th million dollars, to your 300th million dollars. the top 400 income earners in this country average over $33 $330 million a year in income. they would rather those kids,

those women, infant and childr children, not get food, the food they need to be healthy. i don't like that. boy do i not like that. boy, do i not like that, but i was willing to swallow that, whatever is in this compromise to keep the government going so we can go for the year, we can get this economy going, so we can continue the job growth that we've had. look, they know how to keep the government going. take the ideological stuff off. let's not resolve abortion in 27 hours. we've had more than 27 years, 37

years since roe v. wade. let's not -- let's not put a gun to everyone's head and say we have to resolve roe v. wade in 27 hours. that is just plain inappropria inappropriate. well, i think you know how i feel. i think we know which side gives standing ovations when it's announced the government may very well be shut down. i think we know which side's crowd cheers and chants when they hear there may be a shutdown. i wish it weren't that way. i wish we were working together. i hope we're working together. i hope we're working together on monday.

thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and, i guess, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes. the presiding ficer: without objection, the senator is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise today to express my stron concerns about the direction that republicans in the tea party want to take our country beginning with an irresponsible government shutdown simply for the sake of pursuing a social agenda. and continuing their reckless budget plan that will devastate seniors and those most vulnerable over the next decade while rewarng millionaires with even more tax breaks. i looked at this republican budget put out by chairman ryan and it's a proposal that takes

$1.5 trillion out of health care for seniors and children and gives it to the wealthiest but it does not even limit subsidies for special corporate interests like big oil. and in some doing, it fundamentally resets our values and turns back the clock on the progress we've made to protect our parents and grandpares, seniors and children in this country and keep the playing field reasonably level. but even before that discussion, i want to take a few -- make a few things clear about the implications of shutting the government down and what we on this side have already cut from the president's budget to reach an agreement. we started this year off with $41 billion less in spending than the president requested.

plus, in march we cut another $10 billion below last year's funding levels, including the complete elimination -- complete elimination -- of 33 federal programs. in total, we have offered up $33 billion in cuts for the remainder of the current funding year, which ends in september. but the most radical elements of the republican party won't take "yes" for an answer. they say we have not come far ough, which in tea party terms means we haven't given them everything they want. so they'll shut the government down rather than take "yes" for an answer. i saw a picture front page of one of the papers and it said, with a tea party banner, it said, "shutshut er down."

well, i thought we were here to keep the government going. it's clear their real reason for shutting the government down at this point is to promote a social agenda that is not acceptable to the broader part of the country. they're willing to shut down the federal government, put our economy, our small businesses, our veterans at risk and potentially delay tax refunds for millions of american families, all simply to make a political point and to try impose a social agenda of a minority on the majority. shutting down the federal government over -- over a woman's right to choose or the federal government's ability to enforce laws that protect our children's health in my view takes irresponsibility to a whole new level. even the speaker of the house himself has said a shutdown

will -- quote -- "end up costing more than we save." the speaker's right. it would cost about $8 billion every week or .2% o g.d.p. every week the government is shut down. now, the speaker's right on the substance but he has not yet been willing to lead and deal with the tempest in the tea party on his right threatening to cut our economic recovery short to satisfy a narrow right-wing political agenda. at aime when small businesses are just beginning to get access to capital they need to create jobs for american families, a shutdown willesult in $400 million in capital each week not going to small businesses through the s.a. loan program and will throw the engine of

small business job growth into neutral when we want it to be in overdrive. in the last shutdown, more than a million dollars in small business loans to 5,200 businesses were delayed so we know what small businesses are in for if we have another shutdown. mr. president, this is not the ti in our recovery efforts to say "no" to helping small businesses put people to work. in housing, the f.h.a. loan process, which accounts for 30% of the housing market, will be interrupted just as we enter the height of the spring season homebuying in my state of new jersey. with prices low and so many houses on the market, this is not the time to prevent 15,000 homeowners from getting a home loan every week, more than half of which are for new home purchases that would reduce the

inventory of the surplus properties. now, unfortunately because social security is a mandatory -- fortunately, i should say, because social security is a mandatory funding program, senio and the disabled will continue to receive their checks. but if we let the tempests in the tea party shut down the government, interruptions at the social security administration could delay changes in people's benefits and payments. in just four days of the last shutdown, 112,000 new claims for social security, retirement and disability benefits were not taken. over00,000 callers were unable to reach the social security administration and certainly in this economy this is not a time to leave those who rely on social security with nothing. and with the tax seasonpon us, it's certainly not the right time to delay tax refunds that

families a anxiously awaiting in order to make ends meet and put into the economy and help the recovery keep going. it's not the time to shut down 368 national park service sites, the smithsonian, the statue of liberty, the monuments, museums, national parks across the country which in the last shutdown lost nine million visitors and the tourism revenues to those communities. given our last shutdown occurred in the dead of winter, we can expect a shutdown in the midst of spring breaks and high tourist season to have a higher impact on tourism and family wallets that have planned visits to national museums. if we shut down the government for five weeks, we could lose up to $1.2 billion based on th

the $12 billion worth of visitors brought to the national park communities last year. and if the tea party continues to insist on a government shutwn, military paychecks woul be delayed at a time when military families are struggling with multiple deployments and struggling like everyone else to make ends meet. they'll ultimately get paid, but only when the shutdown is finished. in the last shutdown more than 400,000 veterans saw their disability checks delayed. now, let's not repeat that mistake when more of our wounded sons and daughters are returning home from two wars raging abroad every day. and if the tea party continues to insist on a government shutdown, clinical trials of lifesaving drugs will be halted, new patients will n be accepted into clinical research programs at the natnal intiewts of health. if the tea party continues to

insist on a government shutdown, they'll put our entire economy at risk. as a matter of fact, business leaders have said that a shutdown could result in higher interest rates and chaos in the markets. every week 350 import licenses could be delayed resulting in holding up billions of dollars in american exports at a time when we need those exports to help fuel the recovery. during the 1995 shutdown shutdown, $2.2 billion in u.s. exports couldn't leave the country because of -- because a thousand export licenses could not be issued. the chairman and c.e.o. of verizon who is also the -- with the business roundtable said and i quote -- "i don't think any of the c.e.o.'s would welcome a government shutdown. it would have disruptions in the supply chain. john england, the president of

the business roundtable said -- quote -- "business would face the danger of the law of you unintended consequences. are interest rates could rise and there could be turmoil in the financial markets." this would all happen because republicans being held hostage by deepers have tea partiers have rejected spending cuts for this year because they did not get all that they wanted. because they aren't getting their way on unreled extraneous social issues like women's reproductive rights and enforcing laws on our books to protect our children's health. they simply will not take yes for an answer. because yes on spending cuts isn't really their only goa spending cuts is not why they are trying to shut the government down. i would remind our colleagues that democratic governments are not about total victory.

authoritarian governments do that, not democracies. in democracies we are all fairly elected to represent our constituents. we all have a view. we all have a vote. we all have an obligation to govern and legislate for every american, not just for those who hold the views of the tea party. th all due respect, mr. president, tea partyers claim to love the right to free speech but don't believe anyone's views but their own are acceptable. i would say to our colleagues we all have deeply held beliefs. defending them and shouting them from the rooftops is easy. t listening to those who disagree with us is the hard work of government. i would remind my colleagues on the other side that the word congress is derived from a latin verb meaning to walk together. we have already made cuts to the president's budget. we have already made real cuts

in this year's spending. we've offered reasonable compromise that seeks even more cuts, but more importantly a compromise that seeks common ground not capitulation and neither should our colleagues expect capitulation. all we ask is that those on the other side do what's right and act in the broader interest of the nation. not shut down the government, disrupt services, put the economic recovery at risk all to satisfy a narrow political agenda. now, i know there's a lot of fanfare on the republican budget proposal that was put out as we look to the next fiscal year. in my view, it is by f one of the most partisan, idealogical and fundamentally destructive budgets i have seen in my time in congress. destructive of fundamental

protections for every american and for what we've come to accept as fundamental protections that are uniquely american. it fundamentally take takes $1.5 trillion out of health care for seniors and chdren and it gives it to the wealthy. it would take health care from seniors and children rather than take subsidies from special corporate interests like big oil companies. if republicans got their way, new jersey residents would lose $34 billion in health benefits and almost 400,000 new jerseyians would see their coverage cut entirely. the republican proposal talks about cutting taxes, but in reading it i find two groups whose taxes would be cut, the rich and those who are even cher. corporations and millionaires or those soon to be millionaires would keep all of their recent tax giveaways and would actually see their tax rates slashed by 30%.

now, this proposal lose loses $700 billion on the revenue side over the next 10 years by extending the bush tax cuts, particularly to the wealthiest in the country, and trilons more by slashing tax rates for corporations and millionaires. those make more than a million a year will see tax cuts o of $125,000 each from the tax cuts. and tens of thousands more from proposed rate cuts. while people in my state would lose $34 billion in health benefits an 400,000 new jeeyians end up without health coverage at all. this will shift the balance to the wealthy making cuts that do not reflect our values as a people and as a nation. and at the top of the list of draconian republican cuts is medicare. let's, for a moment, look at the logic of the republican budget proposal when it comes to

medicare, a program that since 1965 has protected seniors an made sure no older american would be without health care when they need it the most. in 1965 we passed medicare. why? because senior citizens could not get health insurance. and the reason health insurance companies would not take the risk of insuring older americans who logically would need to see doctors and receive treatment re often than younger americans is rather clear. and even if there was such a plan the cost would be prohibi prohibitive for a senior on a fixed income. so we created medicare and today it is one of our most successful programs and no senior is left without access to lifesaving drugs or the care they need. what are the republicans proposing? they're proposing to end medicare as we know it. they want to privatize medicare. they say their privatization plan is a way of asking

wealthier seniorso pay more. let's ask ourselves logically how much do we think an insurance company will charge in premiums to a 65-year-old american male who may have had a art attack or a heart ailment or suffers from diabetes? how outrageous do we suppose the premium will be and how much of a vouch will that 65-year-old need to purchase even a minimal health care plan? mr. president, that logic escapes me. today buying a private plan on the open market for a self-employed middle-aged couple can cost as much as $18,000. the average retired american is making on average $19,000 a year. again, the logic escapes me. this proposed privatization plan for medicare completely overlooks the history of why we needed medicare in the first place. it ill logically assumes

insurance companies will provide quality health care coverage at a huge discount to older americans. mr. president, if that isn't wishful thinking, i don't know what is. so let me close by simply saying it is time to make sure this government stays open. it is time that we don't thrust the economy backwards and it is time to ultimately ensure that those who have given service to this country, like the men and women in uniform, don't get hurt and that we do by coming together with a reasonable budget. i ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i could not agree more that we should not have a government shutdown. i could not agree more that we need to take steps to protect and improve our economy.

and i could not agree more that we need to take steps to make sure that our brave uniformed men and women are fairly compensated and otherwise treated. i must, however, express my profound, albeit resctful, disagreement with my colleag, the junior senator from new jersey. this is not a possible shutdown that we're facing as a result of the republican party or the tea party. as a life long republican and a founding member of the tea party caucus, i can tell you there is not one member of this body, nor is there one member of the senate tea party caucus who -- who wants a government shutdown. certainly no republican. republicans have, from the outset of this, attempted to bring forward proposals to make sure that we don't get into a shutdown. the question we need to ask

ourselves, is why does the president of the united states, president barack obama, want a government shutdown? les ask a few questions. why was it that a few months ago, after the election, but before the new congress took over, when the president had both houses of congress under the control of his party, why did he opt not to pass a full budget for fiscal year 2011? that was the first seed that he sowed in the direction of a government shutdown. i submit that it was one that was either irresponsible on the one hand or deliberate an malicious on the other intending to bring about a sequence of events that would culminate in a government shutdown. number two, even after the new congress convened, after the balance of power shifted in the house of representatives and after a number of seats in this body sfted, the new congress convened in january of this

year, the president didn't bring forward something that could attract both houses of congress to approve and that he could fund the government with for the balance of the year. he, instead, chose to operate on a series of continuing resolutions. we're now moving up again, what? i believe will be our seventh continuing resolution if it's passed. what we have from the president is radio silence in the direction of what we need to do to move forward. a number of us have suggested all along in this process that at a point in time in america when we have a national debt approaching $15 trillion, at a point in time when we're adding to that debt at a staggering rate approaching $1.7 trillion a year, it doesn't make sense and it isn't responsible to continue even in small increments perpetuating that degree of

reckless deficit spending. so what we want to see more than anything, is it any specific set of social issue legislation it's not any specific degree of spending cuts. it is, instead, a plan -- some plab plan objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 10:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and, madam president, that the morning business be for debate only. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i rise to speak in morning business, even though it's the evening. it's the nature of the senate rules and procedure. but during the course of the day, we've had a number of colleagues coming to the floor talking about the looming shutdown of the federal government. during the last several hours, as we've spoken, the leaders, majority leader of the senate, harry reid, and speaker of the

house, john boehner, had been meeting with president obama. it's my sincere hope that it's been a productive, fruitful meeting and that they will report to us soon that we have found a way out of this difficulty. i certainly hope that's the case. but if it's not, if we are destined to see this government shut down tomorrow night at midnight, it is a sad commenta commentary, one that most american voters will resent and be disappointed with, and understandably so. it basically says that people who are leaders today have been unable to reach an agreement. fingers of blame will be pointed in both directions and the public can reach their conclusion about who is responsible. from my point of view, having worked with senator harry reid on this from the beginning, attended many meetings and heard many reports, it has been a frustrating experience because the speaker's position in the house has changed so often. the amount of money that they wanted to cut from the budget, where it would come from, and

the riders, the policy riders that were part of this conversation have been changing with each meeting. i know that senator reid is a patient person. i've watched him as my friend since we were both elected to the house in 1982 and as my colleague in the senate now for this, my third term. and i know he's a patient person but i know he's been frustrated because of these changing scenarios. the most recent change is one that i find most troubling and that is that it appears that the debate is no longer over deficit reduction, it's no longer over spending cuts, it really isn't about how much money we're going to cut during the remainder of this year. most americans thought that was what we were debating and negotiating. it turns out now that the -- has really devolved into a debate over policy questions that have nothing to do directly, maybe even indirectly, with the budget deficit that we face or the money we're going to spend. for example, speaker boehner has

been insisting today that the senate adopt a provision which removes the authority of the environmental protection agency when it comes to issues involving pollution. i disagree with that position but i have to say to the speak speaker, he should check the "congressional record." it's not the most exciting publication but if he looks at yesterday's "congressional record," he will find that we spent most of yesterday debating this very topic. in fact, four different amendments were offered by democrats and republicans, including senator mcconnell, the republican minority leader, on this issue. we debated them for days and voted yesterday on the question of the authority of the environmental protection agency. there were four votes. on the first vote, there were seven people, seven senators voting in favor of the change in that amendment. the second amendment, seven senators again. the third amendment, 12 senators voted in favor of the change.

and the fourth, offered by senator mcconnell, was 50-50. at the end of the day, none of the amendments passed. so for speaker boehner to insist now that we include in our bill a provision which has already been debated largely in the senate and rejected, is fundamentally unfair and goes way beyond any question about deficit reduction and cutting spending. the second item that he's raised is one that is even more puzzling. for some reason, the republican majority in the house believes that the last election was a referendum on whether we provide medical services to women in america. we have a title 10 program primarily there for low-income women that gives them access to basic health care, to the type of cancer screening and infection screening that we want all of the women in america to have access to. the house republicans have decided that we should eliminate that federal commitment and

close the clinics, denying access to millions of americans to basic primary health care. how can that be in the best interests of our country and the costs that we incur to provide medical services. how can it be fair to these people, the women and men who use these clinics because they are accessible and affordable? they want close them down. i don't recall that debate in the last election. i don't remember any candidate for the house or senate saying, i want to go to washington and close down access to health care for women, children, and men across america. that's, in fact, what they're saying now is the reason why we need to close down the government. they think it's better to close down the government than to continue access to medical care for women under title 10 in agencies like planned parenthood, which has a clinic in my hometown of springfield, illinois. for the record, planned parenthood, and any clinic

operating under title 10, is prohibited from using any federal funds for the purposes of abortion. the only exceptions are those that have been in the law and accepted by both political parties for decades, the so-called hyde amendment for women who were victims of rape, incest, or their lives are at stake in a continued pregnancy. now, this isn't an abortion issue. it's obviously a health care issue. and for some reason, the house republicans would rather close down the government than allow this kind of health services to continue. that's troubling. it's also troubling that the underlying house budget that they passed has been judged by economists to be a job killer. 700,000 jobs would be lost if the republicans had passed their budget and the senate had approved it. at a time when we were celebrating the creation of over 200,000 new jobs last friday and the lowest unemployment rate in 24 months, here come the republicans with a budget proposal which will cost us

700,000 jobs, pushing us back toward the recession instead of away from it. that isn't sensible and i don't believe the american people ever considered that part of the bargain in the last election. it is true the american people are focused on the deficit and cutting spending and we are, too, on both sides of the aisle. that's why we've reached agreement on the amount of money to be cut from the remaining part of this budget. but for us to now face a shutdown of the federal government over the question of women's access to health care or whether we're going to accept the environmental protection agency change, which has already been rejected on the floor of the senate, shows the unreasonable level of this debate. we had a meeting today of the democratic senators and john kerry spoke, and i told him afterwards that what he said had a profound impact on me. he reminded us that what we're doing isn't just being -- isn't just being observed by politicians on capitol hill or reporters and journalists in washington.

it's being watched by the world. it's a sad commentary that this great nation, this united states of america, with its government has reached a point where we face closure. we know that we can do better and it's unfortunate that the house republicans, with their new leadership facing growing pains, have really brought to us this moment. i hope that we can reach a point where we can find an agreement even now. i hope this evening there will be a breakthrough. they said that last week when the speaker announced to his republican caucus in the house that there was going to be a shutdown of the government, there was a standing ovation, cheering the idea of shutting down the government. i'm not going to cheer that. that's a bad outcome. it's bad for taxpayers, it's bad for our nation, it's bad for the federal employees who are performing essential services in north dakota and illinois and -- in north carolina and illinois and all across the world. these are men and women who are working to keep us safe, they

are performing important duties, like watching dangerous prisoners, making certain that our planes take off and land safely, and to even jeopardize for a minute the funding for these agencies is irresponsible to the extreme. let's hope that there's an agreement. if not, let's hope that we can extend -- somehow extend the functions of government and not close them down at midnight tomorrow evening. at this moment, there's no report, there is likely to be one later. but i will at this point yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i've just returned from the white house. we had -- we've narrowed the issues significantly. however, we have not yet reached an agreement. in 22 hours -- i'm sorry, 26 hours and 15 minutes, the

government closes if we don't work something out very quickly. so i repeat, we've narrowed the issues. we've not yet reached an agreement. we're going to work throughout the night to attempt to resolve the remaining issues and the remaining issues are extremely, extremely narrow. but having said that, i've been to this podium before, i've been out speaking to the press before, and i've said we've narrowed the issues and we have. but the sad part about it, we keep never quite getting to the finish line. so i hope that we can work through the night to get this done. the president set an early morning deadline before we have to start notifying almost a million federal employees that they'll have to report to work and say they won't be there on monday. it's a technical thing they have to do. and they have to do it tomorrow before closing time. so we need to try to work toward that deadline. i'm hopeful that we can get that done.

i'm not really confident but i'm very, very hopeful. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i understand the senate has received h.r. 658 from the house. under the previous order, i ask the senate proceed to that measure. the presiding officer: pursuant to the order of february 17, 2011, all after the enacting clause is stricken and the text of s. 223 as passed is inserted in through will of and the bill -- in lieu thereof and the bill as amended shall be read a third time. the clerk: half. r. 658, an act to amend title 49, united states code, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the clerk shall read the paygo statement. the clerk: this is the statement of budgetary effects of paygo legislation for h.r. 658, as amended. total budgetary effects of h.r. 658 for the five-year statutory paygo scorecard, net reduction

in the deficit of $17.796 billion. total budgetary effects of h.r. 658 for the ten-year statutory o scorecard, net reduction in the deficit of $19.467 billion. also submitted for the record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the congressional budget office which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this act. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the bill as amended is passed, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, the senate insist upon its amendment request -- the senate insist upon its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses, and the chair appoints the following as conferees on the part of the senate.the clers rockefeller, boxer, nelson of florida, cantwell, hutchison, ensign, demint, and from the

committee on finance, senators baucus and hatch. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 136 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 136, to authorize document production in united states v. douglas d. hampton. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the mairchlt. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if revmentd. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate noid proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 137 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 137, supporting the goals and ideals of take our daughters and sons to work day.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that following bill be placed on the calendar, h.r. 1363. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: srz 768, a bill to provide for continuing operations of government in a fiscally responsible manner. mr. durbin: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time in the next legislative day. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completees its business today it

adjourn until 11:00 a.m., friday, april 8. following the -- the journal of proceedings be approved to date, senate proceed to to a period of morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees understand that any time spent in quorum call be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we're hopeful we can reach an agreement on the budget tomorrow. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. madam president, if there is in further business to come before the senate, i ask at that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on friday, april the 11:00 a.m. on friday, april the

top officers from all four branches of the military told house lawmakers preparations for repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, than in gay people from serving openly in the military, has so far gone better than anticipated. testifying before the house armed services committee, the commanders also indicated that all training of personnel for the change in policy should be completed by early summer. but cautioned it could be several months before they will declare their forces ready for implementation. a california republican buck mckeon chairs this hour and 45 minute hearing. >> i think we're going to have the votes and about 20 minutes, so we will try to get through as much as we can before we have to break for that.

today the committee will receive a status report on the process for repealing all and changing the policies governing the surface of openly gay and lesbian service members. this past fall i was troubled b the process and lead to set the stage for the repeal of bill la. known as plus "don't ask, don't tell." w following theed december release in the department of defense report on the issues associated with the repeal of the mask of t howe, there was none of the in-depth analysis that is so do' essential to sound decision making here in the house of representatives. as a result of the rest of judgment that bypassed this committee contras was denied th opportunity to ask questions an. weaknesses in thement that retialby implementation plan. and we are confronted by an implementation process that's it peal impuickly to the completion of the education training phaser our primary interest today is to ensure that the senior leadersye trainih service have the opportunity to communicate their current views about the implementation of repealed.

several of the service chiefs have expressed reservations about the timing and potential t impacts of thhee repeal during a hearing before the senate armed services committee and we want to understand if our militaryves leaders remain concerned about the prospect of the full repeal of the law. for example, general casey,nd chief of staff of the army indicated that the repeal was a major cultural and policy change.w. in the middle of a war that with that stress and complications for combat units. c he stated that he feltlicy implementation would be more that w difficult than what the pentagon survey would suggest.e felt eeneral schwartz chief of theulr stuff from the air force recommended not carrying out any su repeal until 2012 because of th stream of high operations temple on the forces. he stated i do not agree with o2 teo onudy assessment short-term riss to affect military effectiveness is low. general amos,, not of the marine corps stated of the law is

changed successfully implementing the repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven fabric of the combat units has i strong potential for disruption at the small unit level.xual mas as it will no doubt prefer leadership potentially from the central focus on preparing the t units for command. those comments were made aleadea preparing months ago at a senate hearing. for the one outcome that must be avoided is any course of action that would put the combat readiness of the military force at risk. our witnesses today are the fout leaders of our armed forces. mit general peter courelli, chief o staff united states army, admiral gary roughead, u.s. u naval chief of operations, general james amos,, but marine corps congenital norton schwartz, chief of staff, u.s. air force. general courelli, we thank you.

for standing in for generalon casey today and ask you to please extend our heartfeltk you condolences from the members ofr the committee and the staff of r the armed services committee to general casey and his family onm the passing of his grandson, thm jackson run in casey. committee to general casey and his family on the passing of his grandson jackson ryan casey. admiral roughead, you're moving closer to departure from your current position and may not have the opportunity -- should would probably not call it an opportunity to testify before this committee again. i want to express collective thanks of all the members of the committee for your 38 years of service and best wishes for the future. >> thank you. i join you in passing along my

i ndolences toal se to our country on mask "don't ask, don't tell" was put into place almost 18 years ago since that time i guess even at that come there was hotly debated discussed studies don't tell wan place years ago. at the time it was hotly debated, discussed, studied and argued about. in the 18 years ó feedba we have analyzed this enormous length over an enormous period of time, and at some point, youe have to make a decision about what the best way to go forward is and i am pleased this congress and the president made that decision last year and made

what i think was the only logical choice and that was to allow gay and lesbian to serve openly in the military because it's i nteresting. and onlyll know that gays and lesbians have been serving in the military for quite someianso time, and i have yet to meet am. service member who wasn'tgays ad abundantly aware of somebodyen they were serving withhe milita quite sometime. i have yet to meet a service member who wasn't abundantly aware that somebody they were serving with was gay or lesbian, yet we have the finest military in the world. the unit has been able to function and function quite well under that circumstance. the only oddity we had in the law if in fact a gay or lesbian happened to bubble up to the command structure, the law required you at that point to take the person out of the miller. they have served, served well, served alongside other service members who found an easy way to work with them and give them the finest military in the world. when you look at these questions, it's frequently asked

whatever policy comes before the military, does it make us safer? does it strengthen our national security? in this case the answer to don't ask, don't tell is no. driving able-bodied people out of the military who are serving us well during a time of war does not make us safer and does not give us a better military. i grant you there will be some implementation issues here. but there are many policies problematic and difficult throughout military for service people to work with and they find a way to work with them and they find a way to move forward. i applaud you gentlemen and plowed the military for the way they approach this. they are trying to do it in the most user friendly way possible to make sure it is effective. it is long pastime to study this issue. it is making us weaker to drive people out of the military who are serving us well. i hope we will go forward with the implementation of the change in this policy as quickly and expeditiously as possible. i look forward to your

testimony. thank you. >> as bipartisan as this committee is we can disagree but we can do it in a gentlemenly like way and i thank the ranking member for his comments. >> i should say i think the chairman is doing an outstanding job running this committee and i agree with him most of the time. we work very well together. we just have those moments like anybody. >> thank you. i do have unanimous consent request knowing general casey, chief of staff of the army, would not be able to testify. i asked that he provide answer toss a series of questions i put to him in writing. we have his response. at this time i ask unanimous consent miler of april 4th, 2011 to general casey and the general's response of april 6th, 2011 be entered into the record. the letters are now or have been distributed to the members. >> without objection, so ordered.

general. >> chairman mckeon, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the army's implementation plan for repeal of legislation commonly referred to as don't ask, don't tell. as you acknowledged, mr. chairman, general casey is unable to participate in today's hearing due to the recent loss of his grandson and he deeply appreciates everyone's thoughts and prayers during this very sad and difficult time. in december general casey testified before the senate armed services committee state his belief that while the implementation of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell would add another level of stress to a force already stretched by nearly a decade of war. it would be more difficult in combat arms units, and it would in general be more complicated -- be more complicated an endeavor than the

comprehensive review suggested. if properly implemented, the repeal would not preclude our force from accomplishing its worldwide missions to include combat operations. general casey assured the s of themitt .. experienced, seasoned leaders who with appropriate guidance and direction can be relied upon to effectively overseas the implementation of don't ask, don't tell repeal with moderate risk to military effectiveness in the short-term and to our ability to recruit and maintain america's all volunteer force over the long hall. finally he assured the members if directed to implement the repeal, the army would work closely with the department of defense and other service toss make certain the implementation is conducted successfully, in a timely fashion, and in the same disciplined matter that has characterized our service to the nation for over 235 years.

i stand by the chief's previous remarks. i know he does as well. since that hearing, consistent with congress's decision and the president's and secretary of defense's guidance, the army has begun the deliberate process of training and educate our force on exactly what the repeal means in terms of regulation and policy changes. as in everything8ñ9 and noncommissioned officers, soldiers, army civilians and interested family members are properly insufficiently educated on this important policy change. its potential impact on them ons anorexic patients of them. to this end, general casey'simpt guidance to commanders is clear

readership matters most. this training is not disruptivee in february, general casey personally led the first sessiot with offers to our generals. playing by the army subject e under acts is, the judge four s. flanged by the army's subject matter experts, the judge advocate general, inspector general, chief of chaplains and deputy chief of staff for pernell, i participated in this session and i can attest the process works. the chain teaching program facilitates thoughtful, constructive dialogue between leaders and subordinates. this dialogue is hugely important, especially at the lowest levels where ownership and consensus are most critical. the soldiers response to the repeal has been generally positive. we cannot assume there will be no opposition within our ranks and the days ahead.

in fact, we recognize there are some segments of the force primarily with the combat arms that have expressed concern regarding the appeal. on the whole, our forces stressed and stretched by nearly a decade of war, a war that is not over yet. mindful of these and other considerations we recognize if we are to mitigate the rifsks t readiness, recruit and retention we must continue to do this deliberately. training is just the start. although i'm confident in our efforts to implement the repeal of don't ask, don't tell are on track, the entire process done properly will take time. mr. chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of our secretary john mckeon and the chief i thank you for your patience, your continued generous support and demonstrated kmipt to the outstanding men and women of the united states army and their families and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, admiral.

>> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address how our navy is preparing to implement repeal of 10 u.s. code 654. i testified before the armed services committee in september that i supported repeal of 10 u.s. code 54. the united states navy can successfully implement a repeal of the law. combat effect i haveness is what we provide the nation and repeal will not change who we are or what we do. your navy will continue to be the professional global effective and relevant force for the nation it has been. although a speak day for repeal hasn't been set we have gun the process for prompt and thoughtful transition. we're preparing policies and regulations and training our leaders at all levels. our training exercises leadership, professionalism discipline and respect.

we have not conducted sensitive training. we are focus on sailors understanding what the repeal means to them, their families and navy, and that our standards of conduct and behavior will not be compromised. we're using a tiered approach to ensure all sairs receive the appropriate training. we have 17 master training teams providing training to leaders in 17 geographic regions. once certified by master trainers, command leaders will then train pernell within their respective commands. specialized training being provided to experts who may deal more frequently with repeal issues such as chaplains, judge advocates, personnel report professionals and recruiters. july is the navy's goal for training and we're on track to achieve this goal. feedback from the sailors indicates the training is comprehensive, well delivered and effective. additionally we have not

observed impacts to readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting or retention during this training period. i continue to provide updates on training process to the secretary of defense and chairman of joint chiefs of staff and remain personally engaged with them throughout this process. i'm confident my assessment of the navy's repeal will be competent during the process and it is not necessary to provide additional or separate input outside of this process. i have the ultimate confidence men and women with the united states navy, character, discipline and decency will successfully implement this change in the law. navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone, create an inclusive and respectful work environment and enforce our high standards of conduct throughout the navy as we serve the nation. our sailors will continue to live with core values of honor, courage and commitment which endure as the foundation of our

navy i thank you and look forward to your questions. >> thank you. general amos. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and report on the marine corps's process of certification of don't ask, don't tell. i had the opportunity to specifically address congress on don't ask, don't tell on december 3rd where i stated to the senate armed services committee that should congress change the law, that our nation's marine corps will faithfully support the law. the law signed by the president on december 22nd established the conditions for the eventual repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the marine corps is working diligently to meet the corresponding requirements as are all the uniformed services. once met the required certification process may be provided by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, secretary of defense and president to the congressional committees.

overall i am confident that marine leaders at all levels will ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the new law once it goes into effect. as suture marine corps is taking the follow significant actions in line with the direction of our civilian leadership. after the house of representatives and senate voted to repeal title 10 u.s. code 654 in december of 2010, i published the following guidance to the following marine corps. quote, as marines we abide by the laws of our nation. we implement -- we will implement the new policy in accordance with specific directions and implementing guidance from our chain of command. fidelity is the essence of who we are. accordingly we will faithfully execute this new law and continue to treat each other with dignity and respect. while in afghanistan over christmas, sergeant major kent and i spoke to 12,000 marines and sailors about the pending repeal and my expectations for

successful implementation. shortly after returning from afghanistan, he and i made a video for all marines and their families to reinforce our message and to reach out to marines in locations that we could not personally visit. your marine corps has closely followed the recommendations of the comprehensive review working group in developing and executing our implementation training. some of the very first marines to receive this training were my three and four star general officers in late january. on 7 february, the marine corps as a whole began corpswide training. the marine corps completed all of tier one and two training. as of today our tier three training is 40% complete throughout the marine corps. i anticipate full completion of all training by 1 june. we will complete this training with the aid of the internet online when absolutely necessary, but the majority of

our training is done face-to-face. successful implementation of this policy depends upon leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. leaders at all levels of our corps are setting the example and are fully committed to the sustainment of our unit effectiveness, readiness and cohesion. in our profession of arms adherence to standards of conduct is essential. leadership is the key to creating and sustaining an environment where the opportunity to contribute, achieve and advance to all is available. before making my final recommendation to move forward with repeal, i intend to use both the objective and subjective measures to gauge the effectiveness of training and readiness to implement this new policy. before i recommend certification, the marine corps will have completed 100% of its special staff and leader training and approximately 90% of all remaining marines training for both active and reserve components.

while useful objective measures alone are not sufficient for me to recommend certification. i will also use subjective tools to include command climate surveys, enlisted retention surveys and inspector general reports to measure training success. additionally, i will rely heavily on feedback from my commanders throughout the marine corps. prior to recommending certification i will confirm all preconditions for certification have, indeed, been met. i am confident that your marines will faithfully abide by the laws of this nation and will conduct themselves in accordance with the intent of the new policy. while leadership is the ultimate key to successful implementation of don't ask, don't tell repeal, our core values of honor, courage and commitment will guide us throughout training and implementation. i appreciate the opportunity to provide these details and i stand ready to answer any additional questions the commit may have. >> thank you, general schwarz. >> mr. chairman, congressman smith, members of the commit, thanks for the opportunity to

report on air force implementation of the pending repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. our implementation plan comprises two key components. necessary revisions to policies and regulations and then training of all airmen. we will rely on steady leadership at all levels to implement this change in a manner that is consistent with standards of military readiness and effectiveness and with minimum adverse affect on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention in our air force. until applicable directives are updated and released, current policies remain in effect and will be enforced uniformly. over our team policy changes updates, recruiting guidance, standards of kubt and separation actions are the basis of our implementation training which began on february 14th and will

complete on or about june 30th of this year. the air force is administering the three tier training program, which was developed in conjunction with the services. and with osd's repeal implementation team to ensure consistent training themes for the entire source from functional experts to commanders and senior leaders to all airmen across the force. so far we have trained 23%, some 117,000 of our members and are on track to train the remainder within the prescribed training window. we will ensure implementation is achieved responsibly, deliberately, and effectively. our preferred method of training is in person. however, when face-to-face tier three training is not feasible for example during convalescent

leave or deployment to locations where interrupting the mission to conduct training would have an adverse impact, commanders have discretion to use computer-based training or schedule training upon return to garrison. as training progresses, we will continue to report completion data to osd twice a month. in the post repeal environment, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our training through existing processes for follow-on assessment in monitoring. mr. chairman and members of the committee, we thank you again for your support of the armed forces. the standards of conduct we expect, you expect of all airmen entitling every airman to dignity, respect and equal opportunity, commitment to service above self will not change, guided by our core values of integrity, service and

excellence, we will implement this policy change with the same professionalism that we demonstrate in all of our daily endeavors. mr. chairman, i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. thanks to each of you. the law was passed. you understand the relationship between military and civilian law. you're doing your best to see that the law is implemented and followed correctly. i would have expected nothing different. general correlli, general amos, general schwarz, as i indicated in my opening statement, each of you -- and in your case, general correlli, i'm referring to the comments of general casey -- expressed reservations about the central conclusion of the dod

department of defense group that the risk to all military effectiveness was low. as you proceed with the education training phase of the implementation plan, has your attitude changed and what is your current professional military judgment about the risk to military effectiveness? >> mr. chairman, thank you for that question. as you indicated general casey did indicate that he felt the risks walgreen's moderate. i believe it remains moderate today, as far as we've gotten in our training. i will say i had a session with commanders last friday. they have indicated no issues so far in tier one and tier two training as they get ready to kick off our tier three train g

training. i think general casey would remain with moderate risk only because we're not far enough in our training to change that. >> thank you. general amos. >> chairman, you remember the results of the survey that came back for the marine corps and it was well above the 50 percentile from our combat forces that had concerns about unit cohesion and come bat affe-- combat effectiv. i had an opportunity to report that in my testimony. i traveled around the marine corps. in fact this morning i was on a vtc with commander on the ground in helmand province. i'm looking specifically for issues that might arise coming out of the tier two and tier three training. to be honest with you, chairman, we've not seen it. i mean, there's questions about

billeting from marines. the kinds of questions you would expect. there hasn't been the recalcitrant pushback. there's not been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field. i will tell you that i asked specifically this morning from major general, i said, john, what are you seeing in the young marines out there. he said, sir, quite honestly they are focused on the enemy. maybe they will have questions when they get back to the united states of america but right now they are focused. he doesn't think it's an issue. >> mr. schwarz. >> i'm not prepared to fall off my assessment of moderate risk either. but we have trained 100,000 airmen to date. the way we have approached this and the reaction we have experienced thus far indicates

to me that we are mitigating the risk in the way we're approaching this. and so i am more comfortable than i was on the 22nd of december, but we still have a ways to go. and it requires the constant attention of all of us to bring this home. >> admiral, what are your thoughts today? >> i think, mr. chairman, my view as the report was conclu d concluded, as i testified in december, it was consistent with the force i had the opportunity to engage over time. our training is going very well. in those areas that we detected there may be some areas of

moderate risk, particularly some of the expeditionary forces we had engagements similar to my ship mates here indicate that it is not at the level that we had originally forecast and it is going rather well. similarly as the training is connected, the types of questions reflect the professionalism, the maturity and the decency of our people. so i'm very comfortable. i was comfortable in making the recommendation last december. it's consistent with what i continue to see in the navy today. >> i think one of the problems i ad, as i express in my kind of the way it wast presented to us and given a to f the way it was presented to us

and given to us. we didn't hold a hearing at the full committee level. we were given a briefing. and the study was handed out to us just as the briefing started. we really didn't have adequate time to read it, to ask i felt appropriate questions. and so my concern was more the procedure of how it was all laid out. but i -- that's past and now we're moving forward. i want to make sure that we really are in tune with what's going on. everybody has the opportunity to be involved in the process. i'll hold my other questions for later, ranking member smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll make a quick comment. i have a question. i think you gentlemen have answered all the pertinent questions in the opening

statement. to the chairman's questions, is it a fair process, is there time to implementment it. you seem to be working through it. it seems to be better than expected. we'll see what happens. there was not a rush to judgment. we didn't automatically repeal don't ask, don't tell. part of the way we put it in place the way we did was to give you a gentlemen a chance to do what you're doing now. it ultimately has to be approved by the joint chiefs. the comment on unit cohesion and effectiveness, i would imagine there's a fair number of things on a day in, day out basis that challenge unit cohesion and you have to pull together to make it work. i think you ask the question in a survey do people have concerns. they may very well express them. if you follow up what happens on numerous occasions in the military part of the job, you have to do a lot of difficult things. have you to do things but they come together and do it. that's why we have such an incredible military. your comments about the initial stage of the training bear that

out. yeah, we have concerns but we'll make it work. that seems to be the direction it is going. it is not going to undermine what the military is doing. again, as all you gentlemen would acknowledge, it's not the first time it occurred to anyone in the military they are serving with gays and lesbians. that's been known for a while. so i appreciate your work. i think the training you're doing helps make sure this will be a successful implementation, but i, too, am 100% confident with the military, all of the services, will keep doing the fantastic job they are doing and be better for it because we won't have to drive people out of the military who are doing a good job just because of the sexual orientation. we stand ready to help with the process. with that i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had a couple of questions, again, going back to when we had

the hearing. it wasn't technically a hearing, i guess. the first thing is, particularly there was a sense of resistance in the combat arms. that doesn't surprise me particularly. at least it seems to make sense. because if you're dealing with a regular office situation, that seems to me to be a very different environment than if you're bivouced in the field or in tight quarters under pressure. it doesn't surprise me. what were the numbers, first of all, in the marine corps, combat arms section there. what were the numbers on that survey. >> congressman, they were in the 60s for -- i don't have the precise number. >> rough number. >> 60% for combat arms. >> was that your assessment the same as what seems to me to make sense in a more combat-type

environment than tensions could be stressed as higher. and also the conditions you're living in are more complicated. do you think that's what drove that number? >> i think it could be that i think in the units predominantly are principle combat units, they are all male. typically there's a few that have females in it but predominantly male. i think it's the function they are just worried about combat. they are not sure what to expect. i think it was expectations and anticipation. >> okay. now, the way the policy used to work, particularly in one of those combat situations, or whatever admiral, if it's a submarine or wherever there's tremendous amount of pressure, if someone's behavior started to become detrimental to the mission the way it used to work, then they could be asked to leave the service. so that tended to be a pretty

strong -- sort of kept a cap on behavior, perhaps. with the new policy, you have to figure out how it's going to work. you could say everything is going to work. obviously you've had to do a lot of thinking, if this happens, if this happens, how to you handle those different types of situations. if there is somebody who is openly homosexual and their behavior starts to get in the way of the mission, what are your alternatives now and how are you advising the officers to handle those kinds of situations? >> thank you. i would say that the fact that someone is gay or lesbian doesn't really enter into a disruption to the mission. as you know, on most, almost all

of our communities, and very soon to be the submarine community, we're a very diverse force. it is not necessarily someone's sexual orientation or even someone's gender. if there's inappropriate behavior, the kubt is unacceptable and undermines good order and discipline, that is the mechanism that causes a commander to take action and process that individual or individuals through a judicial process or administrative process. so the same standards, the same regulations, and standards of conduct will apply as to good order, discipline and sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. so it's not as if we're having to create new policies. we will be enforcing these as we have for many years.

>> so then in the scenario i'm talking about, that's handled the same way as if somebody were disruptive in a heterosexual kind of context and if somebody's behavior is therefore a distraction in getting in the way of mission you discipline them the say. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you. miss sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, gentlemen, for being before us again today. when we were going through this whole process of don't ask, don't tell, i did not believe that our military units were so fragile that finding out having somebody next to you that was openly gay would be so disruptive to our units. i am very proud, so far, as you've discussed today, of all our men and women in uniform who have -- who not only go out and

fight for us every day but who are also working through this new policy that you're trying to implement. so i always thought they were strong and a great military force, and i think they are proving us right. my question today, gentlemen, is about those gay and lesbian members, service members who were discharged because they were gay under the don't ask -- during the time of don't ask, don't tell. now, it's my understanding that those service members if they didn't have anything else on their record, there was no other problem or judiciary issue or anything, they would be discharged with honorable discharge. is that correct? okay. now the policy will be in the

normal process, those who were discharged under don't ask, don't tell can come back and ask to be put back in military services. is that right? >> ma'am, those former members can apply to reenlist and will be considered for reenlistment based on the needs of the services and our normal entry process. >> okay. so will they have to start all over, or will they get to reenter given credit for the service they have held. if the only reason they were put out is because it was known they are gay. >> it is an individual case consideration, but there is no guarantee for returning at the same grade necessarily. again, it depends on the needs of the service. >> but if that position were open, is there a process, or are you working on the process in which a person says i've been

out for two years. i'm still fit. i want to go back. i had a career. i'd like to go back to where i was. i see there are openings there. >> once again, if that scenario unfolded, it would probably be accommodated. >> what are the guidelines if someone feels they have gone back to the recruiter or they have gone back to try to reenlist and they have pushback? what is the -- what are the policies in place or what are you working through to make sure they get a fair shake to get back their career. >> there's opportunities to appeal both to the inspector general of the recruiting service in their case as well as the air force board of corrections for military records. and in those two mechanisms, former members can appeal the des ig nation that they have received.

>> and lastly, what are the reporting -- if you get harassed by someone of the same sex, who happens to be gay, is it the same process as you would in any normal -- i know i heard it from the other side. what happens in the perpetrator is in the chain of command, the supervisor? is it the same rules we see, for example, you said sexual assault or sexual harassment in the normal context we've been working with. >> zero tolerance. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, those are my questions. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. we have a series of votes probably going to take close to an hour. if the -- mr. simmons has said he will make his office available if the chiefs would -- i apologize for this, but this

is -- we're trying to go see that your pay continues. we'll be in adjournment until the votes are concluded. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. thank you for your patience. mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for joining us in thank you for your service to our nation.

i wanted to pick up on the issue of readiness. i know as this discussion comes up about "don't ask, don't tell" and the challenge in the policy, as i have heard from folks in my district, both those recently retired in this neck of duty, one of the elements they bring it to me is an issue of readiness. i know in looking at the past survey were out with them, if you look at the survey results as you get back room those men and women who serve in combat don't come easy results are different from those serving in. other capacities. so i think that naturally begs the question about that for going forward in looking at how the policy is put in place, are we going to expect from you all the proper due diligence to make sure that evaluations take place that are rigorous and really chill down to look at her readiness capability and making care that we understand if there are problems with the

implementation thhere, would've been going to happen?tation i have a couple questions. one is from each of you, the is rigor under which he will pursui evaluating the implementation oc this policy. and if it does create issuesatit unreadiness, operational issues, how do you expect to address them and will that affect certification? lerageneral shorts, i'll hand it to you. b >> sir, the bottom line is we will do this through the chain t of command and we will certainly monitor all the typical metrics that we look at, whether it be inspector general reports, whether it be sexual harassment certainly the commander contact, which is continuous. if problems develop, we willvel, design and approach to mitigate

those challenges. i mean, we understand what the law of the land is and that is the approach will take. the it is my conviction that we will probably have some occurrences, send mediations from our standard of conduct and we will deal with them as we do others, whether it heterosexual, personal conduct of other matters, not of a subordinate mature and so on. we are a force to be a liar that our compliance-based and we're going to continue to be thatcomb way. >> general santos. >> congressman, this may sound trite, but really it's about what i think for all of our

services and i can speak for rel hours is that it really isnd leadership. so it is not that we are puttina so weee are not putting additional training, additional hours of training with decay ad training, additional hours of training. ast, ge get past with our young marines. there's face to face. there's how are we doing? that's when we'll get a real sense that -- what are the real issues that may come out of this? we can probably expect there will be some. i can't anticipate what they will be. i don't want to be naive and i want to manage some expectations here but i am absolutely confident that good order, discipline, standards of

conduct, those things that are the hallmark of all our services will prevail at the end of the day and that's the part that will make sense to our young men and women. it's not okay. we're going to go another 30 hours of this instruction or every year hit the refresh button and do this. it will be that constant, persistent leadership by our ncos and staff ncos and officers. we'll get that feedback and work our way through that. >> thank you. we monitor readiness and all of the complements of readiness continuously and all of the factors that are involved and we look at how we are constantly making those improvements so the visibility we're going to have om readiness i think will be very good. i think it is also telling that in the survey itself in those units where members served with

gay and lesbian sailors that they rated the unit readiness either well or very well. so i think that our observation of readiness, the factors, the elements of tone or the force that we pay attention to will be clear indicators of where we are. >> my time is running out but i did want to emphasize how important readiness is and our role here in oversight to make sure that in no way, shape, or form in any respect is readiness to be sacrificed with the implementation of this policy. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you. mrs. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. i certainly apologize for the time. i know that you are all extremely busy and we respect greatly what you do and respect your professionalism. i wanted to also express my condolences to general casy and certainly his family and i also

wanted to acknowledge, i know he had been here just a little while ago and we acknowledged the fact that might be his last hearing and thank you, general, for being here as well but i know that as we look at the timelines that we're working with on don't ask don't tell after the training and the opportunity to move towards implementation i wondered if you could just comment, general, to general casy's comment i think to the chairman that the force would be about half trained before the time to actually certify. and i wonder whether general dempsey has been involved in this process and the current training agenda and whether you think that he is up to speed on the process and do you see any changes in trying to conclude

the training of the army which we know is taking longer by virtue of the numbers? >> as you mentioned, general casy did say, ma'am, that he felt he would be able to certify that on or around the 15th of may based on having trained 50% of the force, and i think his reasoning is the fact that we have commanders doing it and we really feel that commanders because they are doing the training are going to pick up on any issues that we might have. and the session that i had last friday was the first in trying to get any feedback. now we'll be going heavy into the tier 3 training. i can't tell you whether general dempsey will in fact feel the same but he has been involved in the training as the commander prior to confirmation and i have

readiness and the host of other criteria were being managed well and at the same time there was some reluctance to i think move forward on the part of members unless you had an opportunity to be here and i wanted to be certain there was no pressure, no -- you didn't feel that your voices were not being heard as we moved forward with this and

in fact when the actual certification was made no matter what had occurred that in fact you would have the kind of input that would be required of all of you in your position. is there any reason that people would have been concerned about that? >> no, ma'am. no pressure. no question that our voice will be heard as we go through the training and gauge routinely with the secretary of defense and the chairman on this and i have no doubt whatsoever about that. >> thank you. >> ma'am, the -- i want to be really clear that we've had complete open communication opportunities with the chairman and secretary of defense. they value our opinion and we talk about this pretty close to weekly or at least every other week. so it is a very frank and honest discussion so we'll have plenty

of opportunity between now and certification. >> ma'am, we'll make a written input. i will to the chairman on my recommendations to him and i'm sure that my secretary will make a similar interaction with the secretary of defense. >> i know general casy has mentioned to me several times the direct input that he has had often with both the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense over this issue. >> thank you. i know that you responded earlier to the question about the implementation. can i just ask you briefly in the letter the chairman to general casy, he mentioned that it had been stated that the general felt that implementation would be more difficult than what the pentagon survey would suggest. any -- is it going to be more difficult? is it going to be as expected, less difficult?

how would you characterize that? >> well, it's always difficult when you work with a force of 1.1 million with the large reserve component we have and the fact that they only meet three days a week if not deployed. with soldiers moving in and out of theeteer err, that's the difficulty. add to that the fact that some concern with combat, arms officers, and soldiers in the survey indicated they had more concerns than others. but what we feel about at least at the beginning is the training package is a quality training package that at least with early results seems to be mitigating some of that concern. >> thank you, miss davis. thank you, general.

congressman west of florida? >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member. to the great soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and just want to thank you for your service and thank you for the people that you represent here. i'll be very up front and honest. this is going to be implemented. we don't need to banter about what is going to happen because you being great leaders will take the guidance given and make sure it happens the same as i did in the military. but once again my concern is very simple. the military exists to win the nation's wars and i think when we get to the point where we are starting to discuss how the military con forms to accommodating individual behavior, that's what i get concerned with because if i'm not wrong, i think we still do have a height standard to be a member of the old guard, the third infantry regiment if i'm correct? >> i didn't get, what standard sir? >> height standard. yes we do. >> absolutely. i'm 5'9", i was a shorty so i

never could get into that unit. general amus, without a doubt i think the marines still have pfts correct? >> we absolutely do. >> and if there was a great marine that was serving well but cannot pass that pft and he has a problem with weight, we still separate that marine, correct? >> that is absolutely correct. >> and, general schwartz, i'm sure when we look at a commanding officer in your force if the commanding officer has a dui chances are that is going to put his career at risk. am i correct? >> in allhf i think the people on this side need to understand is that we are different. we have haircut standards. i'm sure a person with the ponytail could go out to make peace or justice, but but then i

did who we are. so i think the most important thing is us on this side misunderstand that we miss thats the military up for success. my worry discipline i think about the nature goodall hasan case. subordinate leaders and report the situation. i want to make sure that our subordinate peter sanders and the problems with the implementation of this program not afraid of fers t richard duchenne from special interest civilian groups that will cause them to exacerbate what couldot be dangerous that situation.o i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman. atid this time, ms. pan green of maine. thank you, mr.pengray of maine. >> thank you very much. anank lhe chair give to our country, for being here with us, for your patience in waiting for us to come back. i appreciate that.ly am a long

supporter of the repeal of don't ask don't tell so i am very pleased to hear your positive comments, to hear what many of us believed would happen, that our military would be fully prepared to do this and people would be handling it well. i'm glad to hear your positive remarks and the fact that all of you are working hard to implement this. last week in the military personnel subcommittee we were able to hear from dr. stanley who gave wonderful testimony about the implementation and process that we're in and talked about how this is frankly costing around $10,000 a big contrast to what many people estimate between 2004 and 2009 the cost of $193 million to discharge members of the military who are highly trained, serve their country well, and i don't believe we could afford to lose. i have a slightly different question. while i'm very pleased to hear so much positive coming out of this process that we're going through, i have had one early, isolated report of a training session where the educator, the education training of open service was mocked and

disparnlgd disparag disparaged by the commander. i know those are isolated reports but i'm interested to hear your comments. when we hear about them should we report them back to all of you or to dr. stanley? and i guess i'd ask you if you have any concerns about the idea that a commander who may mock the training or wink or nod or show something that's slightly disparaging may encounter future problems when we're in the serious implementation of open service. i do believe these are isolated and you've all said very positive things but when we hear those things isolated as they are i'm just interested in your take on them, how they're being handled and frankly what we should do and how we should convey it when we hear that. any of you. >> i've had one incident that's been reported to me of three senior officers engaging in such activity. i will tell you it was immediately reported by their superior and proper action is being taken like it would be in

any situation where something like that happens. >> thank you. >> in our case, ma'am, we -- as we do the training, there are opportunities for those who participate in training to comment on the effectiveness of that training and it'll also allow us to measure retention of certain elements of the training that we provided and so there's ample feedback on our website that deals with the topic. there are opportunities for individuals to post comments, to post questions. so we have good visibility that is not in a filtered process but one that i think is quite open and allows us to get a sense of the tone of the training and the reception of the training. >> let me just say for the rest of you, thank you, inwe're looking forward to launching another good navy ship from the bath iron works i think in may or june. we're excited about that. >> it's may, ma'am.

>> thank you. we're anxious to have that happen. >> congresswoman, we have not had any reports that have come up to me and if you, if any member of congress were ever to get that up i'd certainly want to know about it. because it really violates the very premise of marines will get stuff and do it smartly and follow orders. this is about obeying our nation's laws. and so i would -- we would take that very, very seriously. we have worked, in fact worked very hard to make sure that everybody understands we follow the law in the marine corps and so as the admiral described we have these open forums and discussion. i've asked for feedback from the commanders. and it'll be consistent between now and the time that i recommend that the marine corps is ready to go or not ready to go to the chairman. and i would say the clear majority of it is very positive. but there are questions about

bi billeting or policy changes or base housing. there are questions about gang showers. these come up in the discussions but that's healthy. i've not heard of a commander but we've got 202,000 marines on active duty and 39,600 reserve. it would be unrealistic to think that there's not a salty individual or two out there that's probably going to turn askance at this and we'll deal with that at the time. >> thank you. >> i would just amplify what the general said. this is about the constitution and our oath to it. and we're loyal and if you have information about an airman that's not onboard i'd appreciate knowing about it, ma'am. >> right. well, i appreciate your comments and i thank you for your hard work to make this work. i yield back. >> next we proceed to congresswoman vicky hartsel of

missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i just would like to ask -- i'm very concerned with what i'm hearing today that we are going to expose our troops to moderate risk and general casy said it's another level of stress. it's more complicated. i just want to know i guess for me to view when have you suggested a change in policy before that would put our men and women at moderate risk? start with you. >> well, i believe general casy indicated that he felt that the report characterized it at less risk than he felt, given the fact we are an army that had been fighting for ten years in both iraq and afghanistan and he rated it as moderate risk. however, we have not completed enough of our training for him at this time to say it's not

still a moderate risk but at the same time we put together a very, very good, good training package that emphasizes our role as professional soldiers that we believe is going to mitigate that risk and drive it down. >> have you been involved in recommending a policy, though, that, where there was a moderate risk before? that was the question. have you done that yet at some other time? your career? general, go ahead ma'am, i would say yes and i would say it's going to war, places the force at least at moderate risk. >> yes, ma'am. when you put someone's life at risk in an operation it is often times heavy risk obviously. >> sure. sure. >> ma'am, what we do is inherently dangerous whether it's falling from the deck of an aircraft carrier, running a nuclear power submarine at 800 feet under the sea. >> sure. >> it's inherently dangerous and

we know how to manage the risk. that said, for the process we're going through i'm very comfortable with where we are. >> okay. well i think there is a difference though. war is risk. i mean, obviously. but this is a change in policy that's going to add a moderate risk on to the already inherent risk of war. we're at war at two levels, maybe three if you call libya. we have men and women in harm's way. we're at war as a country and, yet, we are talking about one of the most monumental changes of policy this country has ever faced in its military forces. and i just want to speak from my heart to each one of you. i have the utmost respect for you and i appreciate what you are doing to lead our forces and to keep our country safe. and there's no higher respect that i have for you. but i want to challenge you that you are the last force to be

able to stop this onerous policy and i have to believe from my heart in your gut you know this is not the right thing. i appreciate that you follow command. you follow the constitution and you are fulfilling what you are charged to do but there's an opportunity to not certify this, and it's fallen upon you at this time in history to be able to give the final say to the secretary of defense and to admiral mullen whether you in your right mind and your heart of hearts and your professional career, you believe this is going to help improve our forces from this time on out and help us win wars. and i would ask you to consider this and to stand strong like you have stood strong against other forces outside foreign and

domestic that have come upon our country and that you would not certify this and with that i'm going to get into some specific questions but that's an appeal. i hope you'll think about it in the privacy of your own home, your own heart, before you do this because you can stop it still. and not do something just for political correctness. regarding chaplains will chaplains face career penalties if they defer performing same sex marriage to someone else? any of you? >> no, ma'am. we expect our chaplains to minister to all but in those activities that are specific to denominations, they can practice as they see fit. >> does that hold true for ministry assistants and having to hire them who openly engage in homosexual behavior or suffer career penalties for failing to do so? >> again, we have not experienced any of the eclee

ecclesiastical agencies withdrawing their endorsement of their chaplaincies so to date that has not been an issue. okay. our time is up but i appreciate your consideration and once again i respect what you're doing and we're counting on you. thank you. >> thank you. we now proceed to mr. bill owens of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a former j.a.g. officer i want to know if you're comfortable both with the status of the ucmj as well as your regulations for handling the implementation and as i think you expressed before the ability of chain of command to process and handle complaints and deviations from military standards. i'd ask that of each