an abnormal pap smear, feared getting an aristide, or any woman who needed -- getting and , or any woman who needed help. she is here today sees say thank you to planned parenthood for saving her life. we want to thank her for being here on behalf of all cards people. unfortunately we are here today because some politicians on capitol hill are working overtime to take a lifesaving health care away from women. instead of putting people back to work, they are trying to lock women out of planned parenthood health centers.

that will not help the economy. it will not save the government a single dime. we will not stand for that. we have heard from more than 800,000 people around the country who told the congress no to blocking access to doctors and nurses at planned parenthood health centers, no advancing political program at the expense of our health. we are standing tall today. we are united. we come with a single goal to make our voices heard. [applause] as all of these negotiations and discussions are taking place and are coming down to the wire, we are here to say, "no compromise on family planning. if no compromise on planned parenthood. and no compromise on women's health." i will leave you with this last thought -- we are joined by ed

harris. he starred in "apollo 13." we have awakened a sleeping giant. and hundreds of thousands of people across this country are standing up and saying do not women's itics with health. if you remember on apollo 13 when it looked like the astronauts could not be saved, ed harris said, "i believe this will be our finest hour." by god, it is going to be. [applause] now it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you a woman who leads pro-choice america, nancy keenan. [applause]

>> hello, pro-choice americans. [applause] on behalf of pro-choice america, i am proud to join you for calling an end to the war on women in this country. election, thear's politicians promised us eight smaller, less intrusive government that focuses on creating jobs. the truth is, john boehner and his allies lied and our failing to live up to their promise. they are showing the american public their hypocrisy. let me tell you, these guys what

a government that is just small enough to fit into your bedroom and your medicine cabinet. [applause] in addition to the aid and debt pit and private insurance coverage for abortion. their agenda would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care to women who will die with about it. their agenda manipulates the tax code that would do the rape survivors to audit by the internal revenue service. john boehner does not have a

mandate from the women across the country. the war is out of country our country's values. we are here today and every day to make sure that john boehner here is as loud and clear. let's make some allies. -- some noise. if you wrote a book to get here -- rose eight -- run a bus to get here, and make some noise. if you are under 30 years old, and make some always. -- make some noise. but this is the first day you are mad as hell, make some of

noise. if you are part of his pro- choice nation, make some noise. many of them could not be with us today. each of you hold the power to persuade these elected officials to stand with us. and activist from march massachusetts could not be here. she said you have to tell them your story. you represent at least 100 voices that cannot be with us today. i stand on your shoulders. if you are pro-choice america.

together we fight, today, tomorrow, every day until we and this war on women. [shares] cheers] >> please welcome chuck schumer. [cheers] >> hello. i am a graduate student at syracuse university and the president of voices for planned parenthood and on campus advocacy organization. i am so thrilled to be here today with all levier as eight

-- with all of you. this is a dream come true. thank you very much. i am incredibly honored to be introducing our next speaker who is one of the top leaders in the democratic caucus. senator chopped schumer -- chuck schumer. i am also honored to represent one of the 84,000. i stand with petition signers. i have a list of names over here today to give to the senator schumer. [cheers] these are just a few of the more than 800,000 signatures we have gotten from supporters of from every state showing the amazing support for planned parenthood

across the country. [shares] without further ado, it is my pleasure to introduce my senator, senator chuck schumer. >> thank you. i stand with my colleagues here from two of the greatest advocates and senators that we have in the u.s. senate. barbara boxer and patty. the dangerous ideological cuts to planned parenthood that passed are never going to pass the senate. [cheers]

let me repeat that. all of those who want to stomp on women's health and rights can hear as loud and clear. the danger is ideological cut to planned parenthood that passed the house are never, never, never going to pass the senate'. as you are aware comment there is a movement afoot in this country that want to turn the clock back all away on the environment. they want to go back to the 1890's when polluters were free to contaminate our air and water. it comes to the rights of people to collectively bargain.

a right that helped to create the great american middle class. they want to go back to the 1920's when workers were powerless. when it comes to the right of women, if they want to go back to the 1950's when women were denied access to save, affordable, and life saving reproductive services. we will not let them turn the clock back. we are going to move a foreword. you are standing up for hard one of progress. -- hard won progress. we stand with you. [cheers] >> please, give a warm welcome to planned parenthood advocate and one of our greatest allies barbara boxer.

>> thank you for having me today. my name is angelica. i'm a freshman in college. i've been a part of this program for five years. i let them know that we are staying protected. i believe that birth control and education are important for people all over the world in every community.

today i stand as a proud resident of los angeles, california. i'm very proud to have barbara boxer as my senator. she is a tireless champion for women's health and right and opposes efforts to prevent plant parents said from providing health care. >> i am barbara boxer from the great pro-choice state of california. thank you for your words. we are here today for a very important reason. we are going to send a powerful

message that we are not going to stand idly by as women's lives under attack. we are going to fight back. republicans have made their intentions clear. they want to roll back every protection and every dollar of federal funding for women's health and family planning that is essential for our women today in america. are we going to let them do that? are we going to let them do that? that is right -- what i thought you would say, thank god. we are not going to just eliminate funding for planned parenthood. we will not let them eliminate funding for title 10, which is

the way we reach women who need basic health-care. we will not turn our backs on the women of america who rely on the services. we stand for those women and we stand for them proudly. we tell them "do not give up hope. we are there for you every day." [cheers] i have a constituent -- let's do that. every day. every day. every day. [chanting "everyday."] this is so great. i want to give you the place that we are fighting for it today. like nikole when she was 23 years old and had no insurance. she went to planned parenthood

for a pap smear which found cervical cancer. planned parenthood how can get the treatment she needed. she says she would not be alive today without their help. that is why we are here today by team for the nicoles of america. i have great news for you. you know that there are 100 senators. if you want to get something done, you need 60. if you need to stop something, you need 41. 41 senators signed a letter that said we will stand against any budget cut that put the health and lives of women at risk. back [cheers] we got it in writing.

we got it in writing. that is what elections have consequences. to not get me started on that. you know the republicans a stream -- extreme budget introduces extreme bills. you need to hear what they are. we must say no to an extreme agenda that blocks a woman and from using their own money to buy the health insurance that works best for them. we say no to that kind of a bill. we say no to an extreme agenda that punishes businesses and families with a bill that says he will have a tax hike if you tried to buy private insurance that covers a full range of reproductive health care. we say no to that. this is america. there is free choice and

america. we say no to another extreme bill. listen to this. it would put the irs in the middle of the personal and private decision by requiring millions of women who have had an abortion to disclose it to tax auditors. we say no. we are not turning the irs into a police van. -- policeman. we cannot allow these bills. we cannot allow cuts that will hurt the women of this nation. i am here to say to you, because i see it in your eyes right here that the opposition does not know that they just woke up a sleeping giant. the opposition does not understand that women and people

who love them will not sit idly by. i say to my republican friends "get off of these bills that heard women. the whole world will know that this agenda has the thing to do with the choice. it has nothing to do with this. we already know federal funds cannot be used for abortion." this this is about denying women the basic health care they need. we stand together. we will win. thank you very much. see you later. [cheers] >> washington state's first female senator and the chair of the democratic senatorial campaign committee, patty murray. >> thank you. it is great to be with you here

today. thank you. this is what a real rally looks like. i am here today like everyone of you to speak with one of the place -- one voice to deliver one message. no budget that cut the funding for women's health care will make it out of the building behind me. [cheers] this is too important. there is too much on the line. there are too many of you who will stand up for women all across this country. i have been overwhelmed

by the unified response to this extreme proposal. i know in my home state of washington planned parenthood organizers collected over 45,000 signatures in opposition to this. just the other day, i posted a message on my facebook page saying i would be speaking here at this rally. i asked if anyone had a story about their personal experience with planned parenthood and told them i would try to included. the support end stories -- and stories poured in. one story from a woman named maggie struck me. when she was 18 years old, she because of an abusive situation. she had no money and no access to health care. she told me because a planned parenthood was there for her

with medication and regular checkups, she survived. she needed it because she had cervical cancer that ran in her family. people like that are what and who is at stake here today. you all know that they are out of this budget debate and even there the last election republicans made a big promises about just what they were going to come to washington, d.c. to do. they said they wanted to come here to create jobs and reduce the deficit. it turns out that it was not really true. it turns out that what they came here to do was more about ideology than our economy. it turns out that when push came to shove their real target is

not unemployment. it is planned parenthood. it turns out that there would rather it jeopardize women's held than jeopardize their standing among the most extreme in their party. it turns that what they came here to do is to threaten your reproductive right. i will tell you what, i am not one to stand by and watch it happen. -- i am not going to stand by and watch it happen. i will not stand by as republicans try to make right to cancer screenings a thing of the past and they turn their backs on low income women with no where to go for a family planning services. i'm not going to stand by and watch as they take away resources for prenatal care. i will not stand by as

republicans try to block patients' access to planned parent access centers that they can go to every year. it is pretty clear that you will stand by either. today there -- to get there, today, it is important that we tell them that we are not going to budge. [cheers] we will not allow ideology to come before women's health care. we will not allow them to defund planned parenthood and dismantle progress. walking the halls of congress with your help held high and proudly. raise your voices. raise awareness. at the end of the day, you will

make the difference for millions of women in this country. the stand and be proud. thank you very much. -- stand by and be proud. thank you very much. >> please join me in welcoming senator frank boston bird -- lautenburg. like you have heard this before. we are on fire and ready to go. no matter what disguise the one to use, we will not let them fall us, right? they cannot have a mission that says that women who cannot afford their own health care program should be deprived of having breast cancer examinations that will save their lives. we are saying you cannot do that

to us. if you cannot do that. i wonder if they know that taxpayers -- pap smears and exams have reduced mortality by 74%. they want to take it away. we will not let them do it, a friend. i enlisted in world war ii to make sure that americans stay free. we will continue that battle matter what happens. they cannot pull that kind of stuff on us. this is not a financial matter. it is taking away choice, confirmed by the 1973 bill that says women have the right to have an abortion if that is what she chooses to do. it did -- if not for them, -- it

is not for them to override family decisions about how and when a pregnancy happens. they are not going to sit in our houses. it they will not sit at our table and tell us what to do. they will not do it here either. i promise you that. how many people here are from new jersey? how many people are not here butter on the same -- are not from neat -- anyway, we are ready to fight. we will continue. i feel very encouraged. harry reid says the woman's

right to choose is her choice not been their choice. -- kirk choice, not of their choice. stay strong. we will win this battle easily. thank you very much. >> please welcome ed harris and amy madigan. >> yeah. [cheers] it is so fantastic to be here today. i am a national board member of naral pro-choice america.

we are the legislative arm of the pro-choice movement. we work state-by-state commodore by door, twitter, e-mail, anything the impossibly imagine to get our coalitions together and say we have the right over our own health care and their own bodies. i get asked many times why i do this. it is very easy for me to answer. i am all did not and i can admit it. al is a round of pre-roe v wade. there was a time when young women did not go to their parents or their friends or their doctors. they did not know what to do. people went underground and had to get money from their friends and get in a car and be shamed

and victimized. we will never go back to that situation again. [cheers] today is an incredibly important and special day for me. i have my family with me. my husband and my daughter. shot that to all the people who have their families here. s -- shout outs to all the people who have their families here. without them i would not be able to do this work. they will carry on this a work. i would like to thank you all

for showing up. this is just the beginning. you have to go to five people and have them go to another five people. this is just the beginning and it will not end peacefully. i am very fortunate to live with it really hot guy. he happens to be my husband. he is also my best friend, the most incredible father and an advocate for weapons rights -- for women's rights, that mr. ed harris. >> thank you. i cannot tell you how proud i am of my wife. she has been fighting this fight for as long as i have known her. i know she will fight it out until she can no longer breathe.

thanks for everyone who boarded buses to be here today. be are honored to be a part of the pro-choice community. amy mentioned our daughter. not only will she graduated from high schools in, but she will also be turning 18 and registered to vote. i have a message for the politicians who are waging this war on women, denying my daughter's generation access to contraception, cantor screens, and reproductive choice is not a smart move.

i know that some people have said that today's teenagers have a short attention span. i strongly disagree. v remembersotes what -- will remember what vote you cast and the affect. they will remember who stood up for women and who did not win the time comes to evaluate our lawmakers. the attacks on women's freedom and privacy will end up making generation ther's most pro-choice generation they

have seen. [cheers] thank you at each and everyone of you. thank you for all you do to protect the choice. thank you very much. >> please welcome the advocate for women help. -- health. >>

hi, everybody. are you fired up? we are in a fighting mood. i hope you are in a fighting mood, because we have a fight on our hands. the fight we have is the perennial fight for women's health. we cannot let the 112th congress take away our rights to health care. the you agree? ok. you might have heard that we have 9% unemployment. apparently this is not the agenda of the new leadership in congress. apparently, the agenda of the new leadership in congress is to

systematically take away with an's health, and you know this, and we are not going to let it happen. the very first bill they passed was a bill to defund the health care bill, which gave so many services to women and eliminated discrimination on the basis of gender. we think that is wrong, and we will fight to make sure that that does not happen. the second thing they did, they passed a bill that said you cannot buy an insurance policy and get a tax credit as if you offer for reproductive services. we are not going to let that happen, either. you might have heard as well as a few other far-right social issues that the thing that is

holding up the budget negotiations right now is their desire to deny women in the district of columbia the right to full reproductive services. we are not gone to let that happen, either. make no mistake about it. there is a systematic assault on women's health care. health care. prevention, birth control, full reproductive rights, and it is happening right now, right down the hill, and there's only one way to stop it, because we do not have a pro-troops majority in the u.s. house of representatives. in thet-troy's majority house of representatives. -- pro-choice majority in the house of representatives. we need to call them out on

this. we need to say to them, it is not just about abortion, although abortion rights are important. it is about birth control. it is about preventing unwanted pregnancies. is it -- is about cancer screenings. it is about women's health care, and you cannot take your right- wing assault on women, and we are not going to allow it to happen. i am so glad you are here supporting me and the caucus, which is 170 strong in the house. i am glad you are here supporting each other, but what i really need you to do is march down the street right here and tell every member of congress, house and senate, democrat and republican, man and woman, we are not like to stand for it. we are going to fight for

women's health, and we are going to fight until we win. thank you very much. >>, and now, one of the strongest advocates for women's health, rosa dilauro. >> thank you, thank you so much. yes, stop the war on women and women's health, stand up for women's health. that is why we're here today. thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for your energy. we need your help. , and this ison hav a fight about choice, it is a bad choice about republicans that threaten woman tossed out, basic rights, and economic well- being. everyone agrees that we need to

get our fiscal house in order, reduce the deficit, cut programs backed that did not work, but why don't we start by getting rid of the $40 billion and oil company subsidies that we get out every year? it is time to stop billions in tax breaks for the wealthy, billions in the loopholes that are for corporations who should our jobs overseas. but the majority instead of trying to cut the deficit to create jobs, they are spending all of their time on an extreme and the prices social agenda. -- divisive at a social agenda. make no mistake, this congress wants to turn back the clock on women's help and basic rights. they want to take us back to a

day when family planning was not an opportunity for women. and today, the rules committee meets on a bill, and a congresswoman will talk about it, which raises taxes and restrict our access to basic reproductive rights. that is not all. it is seeking a radical step that this majority budget eliminates title x, which has connected millions of women to health care since 1970. in 2009, listen to this because it is important, i am a goo survivor of ovarian cancer. i know what screening means. i know what health services are. title x perform 2.3 million breast exams, and nearly a million hiv tests . but republicans want to zero all

of this out. for every dollar invested in title x, under the guise of budget cutting, the majority's trunk and this cost-cutting lifesaving program. understand their real purpose, to of this -- to impose their view of a woman possible. that is it, and the story. there reckless budget excludes planned tariff could from all resources. planned parenthood, which brings characters over 5 million americans, immunizations, gynecological exams, nearly 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, nearly 4 million treatments for sexually transmitted infection every single year. this would all be lost. let's get real. let's get real.

none of this is about federal funding of abortion. funds are already banned from going toward services. rather, much like they're at tends to repeal health care reform, this is part of a republican agenda to force women back into traditional roles with limited opportunity. we're not going to let them do it. my colleagues and i felt out against these unhealthy cuts. we did it for hours, well into the night and in the early morning, and 41 democratic senators have said no way, not on our watch. it is time to stand up for women's health, the stand against the republicans' reckless assault on our health and our basic rights.

these republican proposals are bad policy. they heard women, and they do nothing for our economy. they will cost american dollars and will cost american lives. we need to make it clear, as you are standing here, from this day forward, we will not stand for it. thank you for being here. let's get to work. thank you. god bless you. thank you. >> please welcome louise slaughter. >> you sure are a good sight to see. all right, who is here from new york? way to go, all right. i am honored to be heard today, but i am sad about that because i have spent 40 years of my life working on this issue.

first, i am tired. said as a member of the league of voters and planned parenthood, then as a member of the state legislature, and ever since i got the town here. this is probably one of the worst times we have seen because of the numbers of people who were elected to congress. i went to this as the co-chair of a caucus. they are now here to kill women. it is a very difficult time for us in washington. there is nothing -- it is their bills that have nothing to do about the health of the woman. you are allowed to have an abortion if you have been raped or it is a matter of incest. however, you have to keep a receipt. did you know that? it is like an old german nazi movement, show me your papers.

it happens as you have to prove that you have been raped with police documents, proved to the irs that it was all right to have your abortion coverage, and in many cases you need to be able to prove that you paid for it yourself. this is one of the biggest setbacks i have ever seen. do they do that for vasectomies? no. if they were serious they would stop -- voting against medical procedures. it has gone to the point where it is absurd. this afternoon we are brought to the bill, i will be in the rules committee, fighting it yet agai we hope we >> we hope we can -- but what they did against planned parenthood and npr is simply ideology. it makes no sense at all, and ii

have been pretty sad watching be civilization being peeled off m, atuntry here, a layer at a timeh i think it's time.ake but what we have to make certain ofhi is that the burdens that ae placed on women will not stand. they have been designed specifically to chip away at insurance. i think all of us understandill mak. it's going to make it se o difficult to get insurance that companies will drop the abortion rider and insurance companies in fact made no longer cover it ifu this keeps up. that is really where are main saget is. we got a message from the white house wants up on the floor a few minutes ago, the president will veto this bill. [cheers and applause] great. i hope he can hear you from here. way to go, way to got!

all right. good. i think this legislation attacks the bedrock of our country. we have fought as women and a lot of good men to have our rights to vote. now they are chipping away at that, a piece of the time, reproductive freedom. i promise you that i will stand with you and for you in your place, whatever we need to do, until we see this through, and once again we have the ability, not have to go through what i had gone through back in the day, when women were simply sent to the back alleys and put their lives in danger. thank you so much for being here. thank you. >> please recognize the great champion for women's health, a

representative. please welcome connie britton and david eichenberg from "sex and the city." >> ok. today is the day. this is real here today, as real as it ever gets. politicians have been elected to the hill in d.c. to do something. i do not know exactly what, but they were not elected here to take away with an's health rights. i am honored and humbled, and it is a privilege for me to be here today and said with a courageous pro-choice america,

and planned parenthood, the heart and soul -- they took care of my wife thought reproductive health when she was a young woman. many of you know me from "and the city." i work with a couple girls. i love them. she went the other way in her own life. god bless her. i love cynthia. men are 49% of this nation. hope that soon there will be 49% of the men of this nation will be here supporting women's health and reproductive rights. we have a lot of men here, and it is a good thing to see, and

the man up here, also. i am a silly actor by trade, and i love what i do. but today i am here to speak to you all as a husband, father, and a brother. as someone who wants nothing but the best for all the women in my life. the way we treat our sisters and our daughters reflects entellus so much about our country. and i believe today with every fiber of my being that what we -- what we are fighting for today is not controversial. it is about common sense. and common decency.

do not take away a woman's right to choose. we know men and women that have relied on planned parenthood for health services. we know people in all our lives to have faced a difficult personal decisions. we are here today to honor those people. with every part of my soul, i believe we live in a country that agrees with our values, and i will continue day after day, night after night, to speak out until we have a congress that thinks the same way. i think you all. i want to thank the people from the coalition who have at our back, at my back today. planned parenthood, naral, has

her back. >> is nice to see a dude up here, huh? thank you, david, for being here. we're not here for anything controversial today, are we? healthomen's controversial? are women's wright's controversial? is a basic human dignity controversial? i am shocked that we are here today at all. i was talking to charlie back here, and he the same -- noted charlie? he said we have people here today in high school and in college. i will age myself now because in

1989 i was in college and there was a big, gigantic rally right here on this lawn to protect roe vs. wade, and i came down from hanover, new hampshire, to be a part of that. i can tell you right now i never, ever thought in my life that i would have to be standing here again. it is breaking my heart, i have to say. i could just break out crying right now, but it is thrilling to see you all here, and i am so grateful all the volunteers, to all the amazing men and women who are fighting this fight, which should not be a fight for us. this is a fight for our fundamental rights. as women and as human beings.

i am so honored to be here to stand with all of you today, and i know you are all going to go out and we are not want to make this a fight anymore. after tomorrow, we will be victors. thank you, all. god bless. keep up the good fight. >> please give a warm welcome to a planned parenthood patient and her daughter. >> thank you for inviting me to speak here today. i live in sarasota, florida. i am a single mom, raising two taylor,daughters, ann taylorand

18, is here today. i was diagnosed with cervical cancer when i was 19 years old. i was a young uninsured college student. i was a regular patient planned parenthood because they were the only place i could go for preventive care and checkups. it was a basic pat smear that found my first cancer, which enough thatearly it was treated successfully. in addition to keeping myself hopping, i have to make sure my two daughters get their regular checkups they need. my mother died of breast cancer when she was 57. i have had staged three breast cancer and have been tested for

the cancer gene, and unfortunately, i have it. that means my daughters have a 50% chance of getting breast cancer. a 35% chance of developing urine and cervical cancer. it is critical my girls get regular checkups. the only place i can take them for these is planned parenthood health center. they get that prevented the tests they need to make sure we can catch any abnormalities as soon as they caught mine. people talk about the importance of frequent checkups and early detection. i know for a fact that the checkups that i received at planned parenthood when i was 19 saved my life.

i realize now how planned parenthood in sarasota to make sure my daughter stay healthy. when i hear politicians talk about cutting funding for planned parenthood, when i hear them saying is they did not care about my family. they do not care about women like me who are trying to be responsible and stay healthy, so we need a little help. planned parenthood has been there for me since i was a teenager. without them i might not have survived cancer. i know i would not be able to keep my daughters safe and healthy now. we need planned parenthood. i am so proud to be here with my daughter taylor today and

standing here with all of you. thank you. >> join them as they introduce the leaders from two allied groups. [applause] >> ok, so you have done this, but join me in welcoming a champion for the rights of all people, dignity, and quality -- and the quality, get a huge welcome to my friend and our allies, wade henderson. >> thank you. thank you. good morning. you are america the beautiful,

and it is an honor to be with you today. i am wade henderson. i am president of the leadership council -- conference on -- can to build an america that is as good as its ideals. one of the reasons that our coalition is so strong is we have strong, dedicated organizations like the planned parenthood federation of america. working every day to protect and advance the rights of women and families. we are proud of planned parenthood, and we are proud to stand with all of you today to fight for women's rights and to make sure that women have access to the health care they need and deserve. all right? look, i think all of us realize

the nine -- the nine women pakistan -- denying women access to health care is a -- truth is that politicians who are threatening your health care, in seeking to defund is asians, are doing so for one simple reason -- they are afraid of you. they are afraid of you. that is right. the people here on capitol hill, right up there, are afraid of you. and why? they should be. they should be. because you are one of the biggest and most powerful obstacles standing in the way of their plans to take america back to the 19th century.

they want to dismantle medicaid and medicare and social security, but you are standing in the way. they want to destroy it public and private-sector unions that fight for equal pay, family leave, and people working the dish, but you are standing in the way. they want to keep your children out of head start and make it harder for them to go to college by cutting pell grants, but you are standing in the late. of all, they want to transfer more power to millionaires and make it harder for you to achieve the american dream. but you are standing in the way. that is why we have to stand together today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes.

to make our voices heard, and to send a message that we're not going back in time and we are not gone away. this is our time. we are one. together, now, and forever. thank you. all right. >> we have been here before. we have been on this mall in the 1980's. we came back in the 1990's, filled this place to the rafters. planned parenthood organize the march for women's lives. with over 1 million women and

wham who stood up for reproductive rights, and guess what -- we're not away. -- we're not going away. they pulled these shenanigans year after year, a battle after day, per day after forget of young people who will stand up for a woman's right to choose. why does a gay guy like me care about choice? i care about contraception because it keeps us healthy. i care about the fact that my niece's should be able to choose when and if they have a child.

that no politician should stand in the way of my sisters being able to decide what they want to do with their personal life. at the base of it, we control our bodies. we decide who we love and marry. halwe decide whether or not we l have a family. those folks have to hear it from us that we decide. our voices are not his to be heard across the street but in places like south dakota and north dakota, florida, where they are here. go home and tell your folks and

family that you decide and live your life with dignity the way you want. that is your god-given right in america. [applause] [applause] >> we decide, we decide, we decide. >> bravo. bravo. you have been amazing. are these guys amazing? [applause] it is my distinct pleasure to introduce one of the nation's foremost religious figures, spiritual writers, and activists

who will close our rally. please welcome her. >> we have this thing called testimony. we tell someone a story which we overcame or something that we want to rebuild to god. in 1969, i had a hard choice of having an abortion in a dark alley and i almost died from it. i had planned parenthood so i could have at least a healthy choice for my life and have healthy information. i brought my daughter and my granddaughter with may because i want her to be an activist.

women today, you have given your voice and vote. we need to have our choice. we need productive rights. we want to stop the war on women. i want to lay led to have the same things that the women are given today, equal health care, equal understanding of what their life choices are. not to be terrified by any man keeping us in darkness. show up, show out, stop the war

on women. to that, i say that is a woman not a man's decision. >> thank you. >> i will see you on this hill. good night. >> the senate gavels in at 11 eastern today for general speeches. senators are waiting for a deal on federal spending for the

remainder of this budget year. if a deal is reached today, the senate is poised to act quickly on the measure and end work for the week. live coverage when senators meet here on c-span2. you can see live coverage of the house on c-span. house members meet for legislative work at noon eastern. they're scheduled to debate a resolution disapproving the fc r r -- fcc's new regulations. if no compromise is reached, the government will shut could downt midnight. >> as washington works on funding for the current fiscal year, debate has also started on next year's federal budget. see what's been said online with the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share with everything we've covered since 1987. it's what you want, when you want. >> top officers from all four branches of the military say preparations for repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy

banning gay people from serving openly in the military have gone better than anticipated. testifying before the house armed services committee yesterday, the commander said it could be several months before they would declare their forces ready for it to go into effect. we're going to show you a 45-minute portion of the hearing. >> the committee will come to order. we're, i think, going to have votes in about 20 minutes, so we'll 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 the law and changing the policies governing the service of openly gay and lesbian service members. this past fall i was troubled by the process employed to set the stage for repeal of the law known as don't ask, don't tell.h

following the december release of the department of defense t report on issues associate with the the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, there was none of the in-depth analysis that is so essential to sound decision making here in the house ofthe representatives. don as a result of the rush to judgment that bypassed this committee, congress was denied s the opportunity to ask questionn and identify weaknesses in thes. repeal implementation plan. now we're confronted by an implementation process that's moving quickly to completion oft the education and training phase. our primary interest today is to insure that the senior leaders of of each service have thequ opportunity to communicate their current views about the implementation of repeal.ior several of the service chiefs have expressed reservations about the timing and potential impacts of repeal during a hearing before the senate armed services committee, and we want to understand if our military leaders remain concerned about the prospect of full repeal ofpa the law. for example, general casey,

chief of staff at the army, indicated that the repeal was ae major cultural and policy change in the middle of a war that would add stress and complications for combat units. he stated that he felt implementation would be more difficult than what the pentagon's survey would suggest. general schwartz, chief of staff of the air force, recommended not carrying out any repeal until 2012 payoff the strain of the high -- because of the strain of the high operationsirf tempo on our forces. he stated, i do not agree thatil the short-term risks to militaro effectiveness is low. general amos, commandant of the marine corps, stated if law is changed successfully repealing and -- that is strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divere leadership attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units for command.t th

now, those comments were made a couple months ago at the senate, at the senate hearing. the one outcome that must be avoided is any course of action that would put the combatle readiness of our military forces at risk. our witnesses today are the foue leaders of our armed forces,tion general peter corellly, u.s. vice chief of staff, united states army; admiral gary roughead, usn naval chief of operations; general james amos,. commandant, u.s. marine corps; general norman schwartz, chiefvl of staff, u.s. air force. general chiarelli, we thank you for standing in for general casey today and ask you to,e. please, extend our heartfelt condolences from all the members ofy the staff of the armed services committee to general casey 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 -- some would probably not call it an opportunity -- to testify before this committee again. i want to express the collectiv thanks of all the member of the committee for your 38 years of service and best wishes for the future. ranking member smith.s >> thank you, mr. chairman.fo i join you in welcoming our witnesses and passing along my condolences to general casey. i welcome general chiarelli, general amos, general schwartz, admiral roughead. thankjo you for being here, and thank you for your incredible service to our country. don't ask, don't tell was put into place almost 18 years ago. since that time, i guess even an the time it was hotly debated, discussed, studied and argued about, and in the 18 years since that has continued. we have had countless studies and countless opinions expressed

through those years, and i'll disagree a little bit with the chairman. this committee has had many hearings on precisely this subject on the subcommittee level, and we've also debated it on the full committee level over the course of the last several years. i don't think it's fair to say that we haven't thought about this or that the military services haven't thought about this, of course, culminating in the very, very large study of service members to get their feedback and their opinions. i believe we have analyzed this at enormous length over an e enormous period of time, and at some point you have to make a an decision. i'm pleased this congress and the president made that decisio. last year and made what i thinkv was the only logical choice, and that was to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.de it's interesting, we all know ya that gays and lesbians have beeg serving in the military for quite some time, and i have yet to meet a service member who. wasn't abundantly aware of somebody they were serving with

was gay or lesbian, and yet wei have the finest military this world.ho w the unit has been able to function and function quite well under that circumstances. the only oddity that we had in the law was if fact that there was a gay and lesbian serving in the military happened to bubble up to the command structure, thm law required you at that point to take that person out of the military. they have served, served well b and served alongside other service members who have found some very easy way to work withp them and give us the finest of military in the world. and when you look at these questions, it's frequently asked by many people about whatever policy comes up before the military, it's a simple question: does this policy make us safer?ti does iton strengthen our nationl security?ic and in this case the answer to don't ask, don't tell is clearly, no. driving able-bodied people out of the military who are serving and serving us well at a time when we are at war does not make us safer and does not give us as better military. now, i will grant you that there

is going to be some implementation issues here, but there are many policies that ars problematic and difficult throughout the military for the. service people to work with, and they find a way to work with them, and they find a way toar move forward. i applaud you gentlemen, and iu applaud the military for the way they've approached this.rk they're trying to do it in the most user-friendly way possible to make sure it's effective, but it is long past time to study this issue. it is making us weaker to driveo people out of the military who are serving us well, and i hope we will go forward with the implementation of the change in this policy as quickly and mi expeditiously as possible, and r look forward to your testimony. thank you.h >> as bipartisan as this committee is, we can disagree, but we can do it in a gentlemanly-like way, and i thank the reactioning member foh his -- ranking member for his comment --we >> and i should have said, i think the chairman is doing an outstanding job running this committee, and i agree with him most of the time, and i think wn work very well together. we just have those moments, likn

everybody. >> thank you.ttee i do have a unanimous consent request knowing that general casey, chief of staff of the army, would not be able to testify, i asked that he provide answers to a series of questionw that i putin to him in writing. we have his response. at thisno time i ask unanimoussa consent that my letter of april 4, 2011, to general casey and the general's response of aprill 6, 2011, be entered into the2011 record. the letters are noalw or have ba distributed to the members. without objection, so ordered. general chiarelli. >> chairman mckeon, ranking member smith, distinguished members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the army's implementation plans for theral. repeal of legislation commonly referred to as don't ask, don't tell. as you acknowledge, mr. d chairman, general casey is unavailable to participate in today's hearing due to the recent loss of his grandson, and he deeply appreciates everyone'm

thoughts and prayers during thie very sad and difficult time. in december general casey testified before the senate v armed services committee stating his belief that while the implementation of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell would adde yet another level of stress to f force already stretched by nearly a decade of war, it woulo be more difficult in combat arme 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 members of the committee that we have a disciplined force led byt experienced, seasoned leaders t who with appropriate guidance and direction can be relied upon

to effectively oversee the implementation of don't ask, don't tell repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness in the short term and to our ability to recruitim and retain america's all-volunteer force over the long haul. finally, he assured the members that if directed to implement the repeal, the army would worke closely with the department of defense and other services tome make certain the implementation is conducted successfully in a timely fashion and in the samede disciplined manner that has characterized our service to ths 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' decision and the president's and secretary of defense's guidance, the army has begun the deliberate process of training and educating our force on exactly what the repeal means in terms of regulation and policy changes. as in everything we do,

ultimately, the success of our implementation plan rests on the shoulders of our heeders. leaders. as such, our plan is based on the chain-teach method of training. simply put, chain teaching places direct responsibility on commanders to insure all leaders, officers and noncommissioned officers, soldiers, army civilians and interested family members are properly and sufficiently educated on this important policy change. its potential impact on them and our expectations of them. to this end, general casey's guidance to commanders is clear: leadership matters most. this training is not disruptive. in february general casey personally led the first sessiot with all four-star generals. flanked by the army's subject matter experts, the judge advocate general, inspector general, chief of chaplains andn

the deputy chief of staff for personnel. i participated in this session, and i can attest the process cha works. the chain teaching program facilitates thoughtful, constructive dialogue between leaders and subordinates.s. this dialogue is hugely important, especially at the lowest levels where ownership and consensus are most critical. will soldiers' -- while o soldiers' response to the appeal has so far been generally positive, we cannot assume there will be no opposition from within our ranks in the days ahead. in fact, we recognize there arey some segments of the force -- primarily within the combat ra arms -- that have expressedah concern regarding the repeal. on the whole, our forces stretched and stressed by nearly a decade of war, a war that iser not over yet, mindful of these and other considerations we recognize if we are towh mitigae the rest -- risks to readiness,

recruiting and retention, we must continue to do this deliberately. training is just the start. although i am confident in ourfs efforts to implement the repealr 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 mckind our chief, general george casey, i thank you fur your -- for your pairches and your commitment to the outstanding men and women o the army and their families, an i look forward to yourrt a questions. >> thank you. admiral roughead. >> distinguished members of thee committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address how our navy it preparing to implement repeal of ten u.s. code 654.ear i testified before the senate armed services committee in december that i supported themet repeal of ten u.s. code 654. the united states navy can success any implement a repeal of the law.

combat effectiveness is what we provide the nation, and repealst will not change who we are ornta what we do. your navy will continue to be the professional, global effective and relevant force for the nation that it has always been. although a specific date foro be repeal has not been set, we have begun the process for a prompt and thoughtful transition. we are preparing the necessary policies and regulations to day implement this change in law, and we are training our sailors and leaders at all levels. our training emphasizes the principles of leadership, professionalism, discipline and respect. we are not conducting sensitivity training. we are focusing on insuring our sailors understand what repeal o means to them, their families and the navy. and that our standards of conduct and behavior will not be compromised. we are carrying out our training using a tiered approach to insure all sailors receive the appropriate level of training. we have 17 training teams

providing training to command leaders in 17 geographic regions. once certified by these master m trainers, command leaders will then train personnel within their commands.ns specialized training is also being provided to experts who may deal more frequently with issues such as chaplains, judged advocates, personnel support professionals and recruiters. i've established 1 july as navy's goal for completing training, and we are on track to achieve this goal. feedback from our sailors indicates the training they aret receiving is comprehensive, well delivered and effective. additionally, we have not observed any impacts to readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, recruiting or retention during this training period.ly w i continue to provide regular updates on our training progress to the secretary of defense and the chairman of r the joint chis of staff and remain personally engaged with them throughout this process. i'm confident my assessment ofin navy's readiness for repeal will be carefully considered during

the certification process, and i do not believe it is necessary to provide additional or separate input outside of this process. i have the ultimate confidence that the men and women of the united states navy with their character, discipline and decency will successfully implement this change in thehe law. navy leaders will continue toes set a positive tone, create an inclusive and respectful workuly environment and enforce our high standards of conduct throughout the navy as we serve the nation. our sailors will continue topect live by our core values of honor, courage and commitment which endure as the foundation a of our navy. i thank you, and i look forward to your questions.of >> thank you. general amos. >> chairman mckeon and ranking member smith, members of the of committee, thank you for thend opportunity to appear before yo. and report on the marine corps' progress towards 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 the 3rd where i stated. to the senate armed services committee that should congress change the law, then our nation's marine corps will faithfully support the law. the law signed by the president on december 22nd established the conditions for the eventualll repeal of don't ask, don't telln the marine corps is workhe diligently to meet the corresponding requirements as are all the uniformed services. once met, the requireddili certification process may be provided by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the u secretary of defense and the president to the congressional committees.ion overall, i am confident that marine leaders at all levels will insure compliance with thet spirit and intent of the new lai once it goes into effect. as such, your marine corps has taken the following significant actions in line with the n direction of our civilian leadership. after the house of representatives and the senate voted to repeal title x u.s.th code 654 in december of 2010, if

published the following guy dance to the entire marine corps.ber quote, asthma leans we abide byl the laws of our nation, and wer. will implement a new policy in accordance with specific directions and implementing guidance from our chain of - command. fidelity is the essence of who we are.rdan accordingly, we will faithfully execute this new law and will c continue to treat each other with dignity and with with respe while in afghanistan overingl christmas, sergeant major kentaw and i spoke to more than 12,000d marines and sailors about the pending repeal and my expectations for successful implementation. shortly after returning from afghanistan, he and i made about video for all marines and their families to reinforce ourul message and to reach out toom marines in locations that weade could not personally visit. your marine corps has closely followed the recommendations of the comprehensive review workint group in the developing and executing our implementation training.osel some of the very first marinesv

to receive this training were my three and four-star general january.in late on 7 february, the marine corps as a whole began corps-wide training. i am pleased to report to this committee that the marine corps has completed 100% of all tier 1 and tier 2 training. as of today our tier 3 traininge is is 41% complete throughout the marine corps, and i tie anticipate full completion of all training by 1 june. tie 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.n successful implementation ofhe this policy depends upon leadership, professionalism, discipline and respect.fa leaders at all levels of our corps are setting the example and are fully commit today the sustainment of our unit effectiveness, readiness and cohesion. in our profession of arms,u adherence to standards ofe

conduct is essential. leadership is the key to creating and sustaining an environment where with thein o opportunity to contribute -- where the opportunity toe to contribute, achieve and advancei to all is available. before making my final recommendation to move forward with repeal, i intend to use bothhi the object oive and the subjective measures to gauge the effectiveness of our trainingvef and our readiness to implement t this new policy. o before i recommendre certification, the marine corps will have completed 100% of itsn special staff and leading training and approximately 90% of all remaining marines training for both active and reserve components. .. 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 had, as i expressed in my opening statement and a little of the difference i had with ranking member smith was kind of 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] step we take you live now to waiting just for an announcement by house speaker john boehner. we are here live in the capital. just to fill you in on some of the latest that's been happening from "the associated press," the president obama and gop lawmakers are trying to prevent

a government shutdown today as the associate press reports a spokesman for house speaker john boehner says the biggest issue still standing in the way of the budget agreement is the issue of spending cuts. meanwhile, over in the senate majority leader harry reid said there's an ideological battle that has nothing to do with the fiscal integrity of the country. democrats say the gop's demands on social issues including denying federal dollars for planned parenthood are at the heart of our current deadlock. democrats and republicans fail to reach an agreement during talks last night here at the capitol, and the government is moving closer to a midnight shut down tonight. it's not clear whether the leaders of both houses will return to the white house today or not. they have been meeting with president obama three times over the past two days, and under pressure from the looming shutdown, the president has canceled plans to visit indiana today. we are just waiting here for

comments and an announcement by house speaker john boehner. you're watching live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you are looking at a live

picture of the capital. we are waiting to hear from house speaker john boehner, and his counterpart over in the senate, harry reid says the white house and republicans have agreed on a spending cut of $38 billion, but a fight over federal dollars for planned parenthood is still blocking a deal that will prevent a government shutdown. which is supposed to happen tonight at midnight. as the ap report senate majority leader harry reid spoke to reporters this morning. he says he's cautiously optimistic after late-night talks at the white house but the budget dispute has also become a moving target. senator reid criticized the republican stand on planned parenthood. meanwhile, the gop contends it is not reached an agreement on spending cuts. we will hear what the latest is as soon as we see the house speaker, john boehner, come out and take the podium.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. there's only one reason that we do not have an agreement as yet, and that issue is spinning. we're close to a resolution on policy issues. but i think the american people deserve to know when will the white house, when most senate democrats get serious about cutting spending?

a bill that fails to include real spending cuts to hurt job growth and signal that washington is not serious about dealing with its spending addiction. i think the senate should follow the house lead, and pass the true funding bill, and do it today. i also believe the president should sign the troop funding bill into law. this is the responsible thing to do to support our troops and to keep our federal government open. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and quickly, just a short comment by the house speaker, john boehner, and hear on c-span to the u.s. senate is about to meet for general speeches. they are waiting for an

agreement on federal spending for the rest of the budget year. if a deal is reached, centers are poised to quickly take up the measure. and until then they will spend the day on speeches on a variety of topics. the house is also waiting for a spending bill today. members have scheduled a resolution for debate to disapprove the fcc's new internet and broadband rules. you can see live house coverage on our companion network, c-span. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. immortal, invisible, god only wise, you know our needs before we ask you. but wait to bless us until we ask you for your help. so, lord, we're asking you to fill our lawmakers with energy for the tasks you have assigned their hands to do. let no pride of power betray them into rejecting your precepts and purposes, but help them face the challenges of these difficult times with a

total dependence on you. lord, save us from ourselves as you help them to remember that in our nation's history well-meaning people have sown to the wind, but reaped the whirlwind. while our military men and women risk and give their lives for liberty overseas, may we be willing to sacrifice for freedom at home. lord, without your help, we cannot succeed. with your power, we cannot fail.

we pray in your mercyful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., aprill 8, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorablemark r. warner, a senator from the state of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 4:00

this afternoon for debate only, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during this time, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. president, we're very hopeful that we can reach an agreement on the budget today. i'll have more to say about that in a few minutes. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. excuse me. i now ask unanimous consent the senate recess from 1:00 this afternoon until 2:00 this afternoon in order to allow for a special democratic caucus meeting. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, there are two bills at the desk due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 1255, an act to prevent a shutdown of the government of the united states, and for other purposes. s. 768, a bill to provide for continuing operations of government in a fiscally responsible manner.

mr. reid: mr. president, i object to further proceedings in regard to these bills en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, i've been married for a long time, more than 50 years. we have one daughter and nine grandchildren. i love these women very, very much. one day, though, i may not be able to help them, and one of them may need a cancer screening. it's not a pleasant thought, but that's a reality of life. and i may not be around to help them when they need something. over their lives, they'll be in need of other things like a cholesterol check. maybe a blood pressure screening, tests that are less serious but just as important to a woman's health. they should be able to get the

test that could save their lives. so should every single woman in america. i believe that and, frankly, that's no so controversial. it's not so controversial to believe. some women, of course, have doctors. others, including the poorest among us, don't. where do they go to get blood pressu or cholesterol or cancer screening? where do they go? thankfully there's a little known part of a little known law that saves many lives. it's called title 10. it is part of a public health law, and it means that women and girls can go to their local health department or community clinic and get these tests. mr. president, more than 5 million women use these centers for title 10 coverage every year. five million. five million. one of them could be my granddaughter or my daughter.

mr. president, some watching us today -- and we know the whole world is watching us today -- may be asking why i'm talking about women's health when the question before us is the budget of the biggest economy on the planet earth. some may ask why we're talking about the smallest corner of planet earth, with a government looming not weeks away or days away but hours a way, why are we talking about whether women can get something as simple and noncontroversial as a cancer screening? the answer is, mr. president, the republicans want to shut down our nation's government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need. and, by the way, title 10 does not include abortion. it's illegal to use federal funds for abortion services so anyone who says this debate is

over abortion isn't being truthful. it is about simple health services. republicans want to shut down the government because they think there is nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings? this is indefensible and everyone should be outraged. men and women should be outraged. the republican house leadership have only a few hours left to look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how positively shameful it would be, mr. president. for months this conversation has been about billions and trillions of dollars. it's been about weighty issues and difficult decisions. this debate is about saving money. that's what we thought it was about. but no longer. we have an agreement on the cuts and savings. i was there in the white house last night. and that agreement includes an historic level of cuts. we've always recognized we had to make cuts. that's why we agreed in the white house last night to make

significant cuts; hard but important. but now the tea party, among others, but they are the biggest push, is trying to move its extreme social agenda, issues that have nothing to do with funding the government. they're willing, it appears clearly, to throw women under the bus even if it means it will shut down the government. because that is where we are. that is the one issue that was remaining last night. that agenda is an extreme agenda. i don't agree with their ideas on social policy, but in our democracy those ideas, however radical or however you may disagree with them, deserve a debate if they want one. that's fair. but that debate doesn't belong in an urgent bill to keep the government running, and especially doesn't belong here

at this late hour. the consequences of letting our country's funding expire would be devastating. almost a million federal employees, mr. president, people who work for the bureau of land management -- not a big presence in the presiding officer's state but a huge presence in the state of nevada which is 87% owned by the federal government. forest service employees, f.b.i. employees, internal revenue service employees, people who work in this great government complex; almost a million of them are waiting on pins and needles. federal employees are like everybody else. they're working from paycheck to paycheck. they're wondering if they're going to be able to get that new car they've needed for three or four years. they're wondering with summer coming, are they going to be able to take that vacation that they've wanted to for a long time. federal employees are like

everybody else. the consequences of letting our country's funding expire would be devastating. people, individuals. it would be devastating to our troops, small businesses and to americans' everyday lives. people who want to get a home loan, to get their tax refund or, i repeat, their paycheck. it would damage our image and credibility around the world. republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife's health, my daughter's health and my nine granddaughters' health. they are asking me to sacrifice the health of women in nevada and all around this country. mr. president, i'm not going to be part of that. i won't do it. as a legislator, i'm very frustrated. as an american, i'm appalled. as a husband, a father and grandfather, i'm personally offended. would the chair announce morning business now, please. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the

leadership time reserved. the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and any time spent in quorum call will be equally divided. the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, at this very critical time in our country's history, a time when we have over a $14 trillion debt and we are desperately trying to find ways to reduce government spending and lose the possibility of a government shutdown, i think we would be best served to try to provide some information to our constituents. and as politicians resist the temptation to throw rotten apples at each other. i think also it would be wise for media to not hype or overhype a situation regarding government shutdown but try to put things into perspective.

and so let me try to do that here for a moment this morning. in the first place, obviously we're trying to reach agreement. i compliment the majority leader, senator reid, who just spoke; the speaker of the house, john boehner, for their efforts to get together, bridge the differences between the two parties, the two bodies and to reach an agreement. in the last two or three days the president has also weighed in on the issue, and he too, i think, is trying very hard to help the parties reach an agreement. not withstanding that fact, the law -- under the law, tonight at midnight the funding for much of the government stops, and the question is: what can be done about that? the house of representatives has passed a bill, they passed it yesterday. the senate could take that bill up and pass it. it would keep the government running for another week. from two* provide full funding -- it would provide full funding for the military not just for another week but for

the entire rest of the year. that is a reasonable measure to keep the government running. it also, by the way, reduces $12 billion in spending. most of that spending, i'm informed, has already been agreed to by the administration and would be included in any longer-range continuing resolution. well, what happened? the president said he would veto that bill. that's a very puzzling thing because if we're all seeking to fund the government at least until there can be an agreement on a long-term resolution, one would think that we would try to keep it going for another week and that we would adopt what the house did, especially since it provides funding for the military. the president described in his veto message, he said that the bill was a distraction. i do have to take issue with that. it's not a distraction. it's what's necessary to keep the government running. let me get back to that in just a moment. what would happen if we're able to reach agreement by tonight?

if we're able to reach agreement before midnight, at least theoretically both bodies, the house and senate, could pass a very short-term, two or three-day stopgap measure in order to have the time to complete the work on the full measure and then adopt that sometime next week. or -- and that would avert a shutdown. it's possible also that because in the senate it would require a unanimous consent. somebody might disagree with that process and would object. in that case it would take a few days for us to do the, in effect the paperwork to get this done, and that would then result in a government shutdown during that time, at least over the course of the weekend. that should be avoided if at all possible. but while there would be some dislocations and inconveniences, i do think the media exaggerates a little bit the result of a shutdown over the weekend. the biggest problem from my perspective is the military doesn't get paid during that period of time. they will get paid, but it's a

disruptive thing when you've got young military families trying to make ends meet and sometimes living from paycheck to paycheck to have that disrupted. that's why i think it makes so much sense to adopt what the house passed yesterday so that we have the time, the week, to complete the work on the continuing resolution that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year -- that is to say through the end of september -- and then not have to worry about a government shutdown and especially funding the military. there's a question that has been raise that had's very logical. -- that's very logical. why can't the parties get together? why can't you split the difference? in ordinary times it might be possible to reach an agreement that way, but these are not ordinary times. we're talking about a country that's on the verge of not being able to pay its debts. the president himself has asked us to raise the debt ceiling i believe sometime next month, that in effect we run out not only of money but of the capacity to borrow our credit

card in effect, the government's credit card is full up and we can't get any more credit unless we go to the credit card company and say will you extend the amount of money we can borrow? in that case, it's the congress passing the bill. we're in a very difficult position in this country, and everyone knows we're passing a lot of our debts on to future generations. we need to get a handle on that, and i don't think anybody disagrees with the proposition. that means we need to cut spending, and that's what this exercise is all about. so it's not just the usual thing of splitting the difference. we're talking about big spending cuts. and i was disappointed in the majority leader's comments just now. he said this debate is about saving money. indeed it is. and yet, it appears that the one thing -- and this is what he said. i don't tend to believe this is correct, but in effect what he was saying is it all boils down to a $300 million and some subsidy for planned parenthood. i do not believe that that is

really what is keeping us from allowing the government to continue to operate. the majority leader has been in the negotiations, he's in a position to say that. if that's the case, then it seems to me we're in a very untenable position here, at least the majority leader is, because planned parenthood is not the only entity that can provide medical care in this country. it gets a subsidy of something like $300 million and some a year. to shut down the government over that would be absolutely unthinkable. now, the majority leader never said planned parenthood, you notice. he said title ten. well, title ten doesn't receive a subsidy. planned parenthood is what receives the subsidy. everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors and so on. some people go to planned parenthood. but you don't have to go to planned parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. if you want an abortion, you go to planned parenthood, and that's well over 90% of what planned parenthood does. so this is a red herring to say

that somehow the government's going to be shut down over the fact that planned parenthood won't get a $300 million gift from the taxpayers of america would be absolutely irresponsible, if that's what the majority leader is saying, it is irresponsible. i can't believe that that's really the fact of what is holding up this agreement from being -- from being reached. as i said, we have this three -- the bill before us which would provide for a week-long continuation of the government, with a $12 billion reduction in spending and a full funding of the military through the end of the year, and it seems to me that that is a very reasonable proposition. we don't have to worry about shutting the government if we adopt that. and i said i would get back to the president's message. he said that it would be a distraction when he said he would veto that bill to keep the government running and to fully fund the military, he said it would be a distraction.

his act wording, this bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us close tore a reasonable compromise. well, i don't see how it's a distraction if it provides another week for us to complete the work to be done, and it's obvious that we're going to need time to get the work done because neither the house nor the senate can get everything that would have to be done completed by midnight tonight. the house has a requirement that they have any bill pending for 72 hours before it's adopted. this continuing resolution clearly would have to be posted for 72 hours. do we want to shut the government down during that period of time because the president thinks that the bill to do so is a distraction? i -- i find that incomprehensible, frankly. and also i just want to make this final point, mr. president. the discussion about reducing government spending is not just because we're having trouble borrowing from borrowers now. over half of -- well, about 42

cents on every dollar that we spend now is borrowed from someone, and about half of that is from foreign entities, but it's also because as the government spends more and more money, the private sector has less money to invest and spend, and it is the private sector that creates jobs. what we need to do is spend less government money not only to get ourselves out from under this huge debt burden, but also to allow the private economy to have the resources to grow, and included in that, of course, is to hire more people. on april 4, "the wall street journal" had an op-ed by a dr. john taylor, a noted economist from stanford, gary becker, a nobel laureate in economics, george shultz, former former -- three different secretaries, serving in two different cabinets, all experts in financial fiscal matters, and what they wrote in this -- and they called it "time for a budget game changer" is the

following two sentences: "credible actions that reduce the rapid rate of growth of federal spending and debt will raise the economic growth and lower the unemployment rate. higher private investment, not more government purchases, is the surest way to increase prosperity." so, mr. president, what we're talking about here is not drastic cuts for austerity's sake, but rather sensible reductions to create prosperity in this country. that's what we're talking about doing here. that's why i support what speaker boehner has been trying to do, and i urge my colleagues, instead of, as i said, throwing rotten apples at each other here and trying to preach a doom and gloom game, let's focus on what this country can do in a positive and constructive way to get our economy going again and to get our people back to work. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today in shock and anger that after weeks of negotiations, after pledges from republicans to come to the table in good faith, after repeated assurances that they want to talk about principles and budget numbers and not politics, after all the hot rhetoric that we have heard about concern for our troops and our workers and the veterans who will be hurt, republicans have decided to hold the federal budget hostage to their extreme social agenda. mr. president, it is now clear that this is not a debate in the last hours before this government shuts down about how much to cut. it is about whether or not women in this country will have access to basic health care services.

mr. president, as a woman, as a mother, as a grandmother, i find that appalling. they can say whatever they want to on the other side, but if they want to say this is about numbers, then i challenge them to say title ten is off the table. mr. president, millions of women in this country and men, their only access to preventative health care services, pregnancy diagnosis, counseling, preventative health services, cervical and breast cancer screening, sexually transmitted disease and h.i.v. prevention education, a broad range of access to contraceptive methods. that's what republicans now in the 11th hour are holding hostage to a government shutdown. mr. president, i don't think anyone in america thought that this last election was about that. we heard the promises about the

economy, about cutting budgets, about fiscal concerns, but we never heard from anyone that they would be willing to shut down this government and put this country at risk over an ideological debate about women's health care. well, mr. president, i have three words for them: women are pawns. we are not pawns. we will not be pawns in this debate and we will not give in. the access to these critical services are so important to so many young women in this country. i've told the story and i'll tell it again. just a few days ago, i heard from this young woman in my state who at 18 years old had to leave an extremely abusive family situation. out on the street on her own. she has cervical cancer that runs in her family. the only way she was able to get the medication and care she needed was through title ten federal funding through a clinic in her state.

she and five million others in this country depend on that, and we're going to take this away at the 11th hour in order to get an agreement? mr. president, not on my watch, not on the watch of millions of american families in this country who know that access to women's health care is basic to them and their families and their community. what kind of country are we that at the 11th hour on a debate like this, the issue remaining is about women's health care. i find that stunning. families across my state are hurting. they have lost their jobs, they are worried about getting a pink slip, their housing prices have dropped, they are worrying about making their mortgage, and this debate now has come to this, an issue of access to title ten funding for preventative health care for women. mr. president, we need to focus on the economy. yeah, there is going to be some

budget cuts in this that are going to be extremely hard for me and for many others who care about investing in education and jobs, but we know we have to come to an agreement. but we will not let women be used as pawns in this debate at this 11th hour. mr. president, we're not going to allow this debate to end by cutting off funding for health clinics across america that are often the only place for low-income women. in my state of washington, over 100,000 patients depend on these clinics to provide prevention. over three million americans do nationwide. we're not going to let the threat of a shutdown make us fade away. women are going to stand tall and men with them across the country to say not on our watch. women aren't pawns. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: the

senator has that right. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the american people have heard a lot of excuses over the past few days as to why it is that we're standing at a potential government shutdown here in washington. now, our good friends on the other side of the aisle are saying it's over social issues. this plays nicely into a political strategy they decided on to distract people from their own fiscal recklessness. republicans say the holdup is over the need to reduce washington spending. democrats, including the president, would rather see the government shut down than to allow a reduction in the size and scope of washington that is perfectly reasonable by any objective standard. those are the competeing messages, and generally speaking, people will probably agree with the party they tend to vote for. but whichever side you come down on, whichever side you come down

on, two things are not in dispute in this debate. first, that the whole reason we're in this mess is that democrats abdicated their responsibility to keep the government funded through this year. that's why we are where we are. and second, the democrats have rejected the only plan out there, the only one that keeps the government open, the bipartisan troop funding bill for no apparent reason. the president says he'll veto it, but he doesn't say why. and democrats in congress won't vote for it even though it funds the defense department and keeps the government operational and makes reasonable cuts in spending. in other words, what democrats are saying at this point is that they would rather see the government shut down either

because they won't accept a modest amount of spending cuts that fall well within the range of what democrats previously described as reasonable or because they won't reinstate a long-standing policy related to one american city that members of both parties including the president's of both parties have approved repeatedly, repeatedly in the past. the majority leader said yesterday that this particular provision relates to an issue that we have been unable to reach agreement on for 40 years. my response is that this is actually one of the few areas of agreement both parties have agreed on on this issue for years. let's be very clear about this. if the government shuts down, it's either because democrats are pretending, pretending that a previously noncontroversial provision is suddenly out of bounds or they refuse to take

another baby step in the direction of balancing the government checkbook, something we know the american people want. neither reason is worth a shutdown, especially when neither side actually wants one. and that's why i believe there will be an agreement here shortly. i have been in many negotiations over the years. i assure you, these are not unresolvable issues. so my suggestion this morning is that both sides sit back and give the negotiators a few more hours to work this out. let senator reid talk with his conference, let the speaker talk to his, and let's just hold off on the speculation and the back and forth for just a little while here. both sides are working hard to reach the kind of resolution americans desire. a resolution is actually within reach. the contours of a final agreement are coming into focus. there is virtually nothing in

the troop funding bill republicans in the house passed yesterday that won't be included in the final package. so let's not disrupt and derail that agreement. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, let's make it clear where we are at this moment in time. there is an agreement, there is agreement on the budget number. it was an agreement reached between the president with speaker boehner and with senate majority leader reid, an agreement on the spending cuts for the remainder of this year. it was reached last night in the house. and then it fell apart. not because of a change of heart when it came to the number, but, rather, because of the insistence of the house republicans that they would not let us keep this government functioning, they would not let us pass a budget resolution for the remainder of this year

unless we were prepared to virtually devastate the title 10 family planning program. let me ask you something. in the big national debate in the last election over the future of our country and what we would do with our deficit, how many times do you remember that issue coming up? exactly none. this issue over title 10 has been brought in by the house republicans at the last moment. it has virtually no impact on government spending. virtually none, and yet they insist on it. why? well, it is because of problems within the house republican caucus. the speaker of the house, john boehner, whom i know and respect and like, is surrounded by lean and hungry colleagues challenging his value, his resolve and his leadership.

this house power struggle has now reached a point where we face a government shutdown and a showdown on whether or not we are going to provide basic health care access for women across america. first, understand, not one penny, not a penny in title 10 funds can be spent on abortion other than the strictly limited provisions of the hyde amendment which have been the law of the land for decades, agreed to by virtually all republicans and democrats. it's about access to cancer screening. it's about pap smears, breast screening. it's about screening for infectious disease. and here's what it means. if we cut off the funding, as the republicans ask, for women to have access to affordable health care for their basic health, it isn't, as the senator from arizona says, just a matter of whether they'll knock on the next door down the street at a doctor's office, it's whether

they'll have any care at all. this is the lowest-priced health care for people who struggle to survive day by day. and if we fail to provide that health care and endanger their health, we run the risk that without access to family planning, they will have unintended pregnancies and, sadly -- sadly -- even more abortions in this country. if you really believe, as i do personally, that we should try to reduce the number of abortions in america, how can you do what the house republicans are asking us to do and close down access to family planning? in my state of illinois, it is estimated that if title 10 were eliminated, we would have a 24% increase in abortions in our states. i don't want to see that. i consider myself a person who is personally opposed to abortion but believe it's up to a woman and her doctor and her family and her conscience. but for goodness sakes,

shouldn't women, rich and poor alike, have access to family planning? that's part of what this debate comes down to. and i would say to my colleague over here, senator mcconnell, the republican leader, he blames us for not coming up with a spend bill for this year and putting us in this mess. my memory is a little better than his. i remember in december when we brought the spending bill to the floor and he objected to it, he objected to it, even though the spending targets in that bill were exactly what he had asked for before the senate appropriations committee. that put us into this current showdown. here's what i think we should do. let's not close down this government. let's face this hour of decision responsibly. let's say to the millions of critical federal employees across america who are basically keeping america safe, making sure that our planes are safe in the air, tending to the business of this great nation that they can come to work because the government will not close at

midnight. let us acknowledge that we have agreed on the amount of deficit reduction, the amount of spending cuts and move forward. but let's also agree, let's agree to save to another day all these other debates about all these other issues, whether it's the environmental protection agency or title 10. there's plenty of time and opportunity for senators and house members to give speeches until their red in the face over these issues and to call for a vote. but let us not close down the government of the united states of america over the access of women to basic health care. that is what the house republicans are insisting on and it is the wrong fight at the wrong time. it is important for us to step up and step forward and understand that if we do not invest a modest amount in preventive health care so that women can learn their health status before small problems become large problems, so that women can plan their family future, so that people

understand what their health status is, if we don't invest in that preventive health care, we will pay dearly for it, not only in terms of dollars spent but in terms of human suffering. that's something that we should rise above. that's something that we should care about enough to put aside and say keep the government op open. my plea now to speaker boehner is, you have fought the good fight, we are at the 11th hour, do not let us reach the depths of despair by closing down our government and sending a message across the world that there's something wrong with this american form of governme government. there's nothing wrong with it. there's non nothing wrong with , that people of good faith, responsibly stepping forward and accepting their duty in the house and senate can't cure by agreeing today. let's do it. in this hour of decision, let's get it done. senator kerry spoke yesterday in our senate democratic caucus lunch and, john, i still

remember your words of what an embarrassment it will be to the united states if our government is shut down. in the eyes of the world, so many people respect this great nation -- and i'm glad they do, and i do too -- but to allow a government shutdown at this moment in our history is a sad commentary. let us not shut down the government of the united states of america over the question of whether women will have access to affordable health care and preventive health care across the united states. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i think that everyone or virtually everyone in the united states senate does not believe that we should shut down government. the question is: what are the negotiations? and i'm not privy to them and neither is anyone on this floor about what are still the sticking points. mrs. hutchison: we all believe

it is our responsibility to assure that government doesn't shut down and to come to an agreement because, mr. president, this is a six-month bill. this is to the end of the fiscal year that we are trying to negotiate. it is a very small part of the big picture, which is we must get the deficit down, which is projected under the current budget that has been put forward at $1.5 trillion. that is wrong and that's what we ought to be addressing. we ought to be looking at the numbers that we can bring down so that we start getting this budget deficit down, so that our debt starts coming down and we can see an economy that is thriving through the private sector job creation. that's what we ought to be doing. but, mr. president, because there is so much debate and

because there is such disagreement about what is holding up the agreement for that six-month plan, there is something that is gaining a momentum in this country that i want to assure that everyone knows. and i was notified of it this morning through an e-mail into my web site. and it was from a woman that i don't know and she said, "my husband is active duty in the navy and i just wanted to let you know there is a facebook campaign supporting senate bill 724. please click the link blow because there are 437,000 people who have signed on that they agree with it." this is what america thinks about military pay being cut. because senate bill 724 that was put forward by myself and

senator casey, who came onboard, which now has 58 sponsors, is about making sure that no matter what happens in the next 12 hours, no matter what happens with the government shutdown, that there will be no question in the minds of our military and their families that they will be paid on time. because there's no question they're going to come to work, and i do not want one day or one hour of delay in the payment for our military. we have about 100,000 people in afghanistan today putting their lives on the line wherever they are in that country. and we have 47,000 in iraq. now, for the people back -- and i've already heard from one wife who has a one-year-old child whose husband is in afghanistan,

who says, thank you for remembering that we have mortgages to pay and our husbands aren't here to help us or do anything about it. so i want to say that we have now, in the hour since we got this note, we went on the web site, ensuring -- the web site is called ensuring pay for our military act of 2011, which is the name of our bill. it now has 639,00,212 who have signed on in support of this web site. the people of our country know that there is one option we don't have and that is to pass a free-standing bill that will assure whatever the other disagreements are that our

military pay will be on time for the work that is being perform performed. america understands that and i am asking the united states senate to join. and, mr. president, i do want to ask unanimous consent for cosponsors to be added to my bill. senator mark pryor, senator john boozman, senator michael bennet, senator max baucus, senator johnny isakson, senator mark kirk, and senator tim johnson. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: that brings the total to 58. senator casey has been a wonderful supporter in this. he is the lead cosponsor. 58 united states senators have stepped up to the plate and sa said, this is not an option for us to equivocate for one minute. so, mr. president, i'm waiting to get two more cosponsors which will show that we have 60 and that we want to act as a united

states senate, and i am hoping that senator casey and i could get the ability to bring our bill up and pass it. very simple, very clear. military pay and those who are serving our military in civilian capacities will not be delayed because they're going to report to work and they need to have the peace of mind to know that the mortgages that they have, maybe our direct lines to the mortgage companies, are going to be covered. that is the very least that we could do as we are arguing about whose fault it is going to be if we have a shutdown. we need to say, first of all, it is our first priority not to have a shutdown. and we need to be able to come to an agreement. and, mr. president, we need to take the further action -- and i

hope we can do it very quickly -- of just saying we're going to assure with this simple bill our military will be paid. and if we send this to the house of representatives, my guess is they too will pass it. a senator: will the senator yield? mrs. hutchison: i yield. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to your legislation. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. that makes 59. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator yield? a senator: i'd like to be added as a cosponsor as well. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: senator warner ... senator warner, you're 60. we now have the ability to pass a piece of legislation, whatever happens on this floor, we have 60 votes who have committed to supporting our troops and assuring them that there is no equivocation in this united

states senate for having their pay on time, because they'll be doing their duty in iraq. they'll be doing their duty in afghanistan. and it is my great hope that we also will have the ability to assure their families so there's not one minute of stress added to what they already have in their lives. thank you, mr. president. senator blumenthal is a cosponsor. he was in the first 60. thank you very much. mr. president, with that, i want to thank those who started this facebook and the grass roots movement that has brought us to over 500,000 people in just a few hours. this is a true grass roots movement, and i thank those people who started it. and i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: well, thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the crisis that we have. and i guess i ask my republican colleagues, please don't shut down our government. a shutdown will hurt all americans, our businesses, our middle-class families, our service members who could see their paychecks delayed. it will hurt this economy. 80% of our mortgages are f.h.a. guaranteed. none can be issued that are f.h.a. guaranteed starting tomorrow. housing is one of our largest industries on its knees. this will put it on its back. i.r.s. checks that are mailed, where the refund is mailed back will stop. that's billions of dollars that would be circulating in the economy that will not happen. so we democrats have been

listening to the american people. we want to avoid a shutdown and have met all of the republican demands on the spending side. last night, mr. president, at the white house, speaker boehner said to the president, if you go with me, it's $78 billion in cuts. that will satisfy me. the president said, we will get to that number. we have moved in every direction that speaker boehner has asked. now, we believe there should be cuts. there's tremendous waste in government, and i think any democrat who ignores the lessons, the lessons of those who voted, the lessons of the last election makes a mistake that people did want government to cut out the waste and to shrink. but they didn't say cut everything. they didn't say use a meat ax.

i didn't have a single person tell me -- and i met a whole lot of the tea party people -- cut cancer research, cut loans to students who are going to college, because the american people have wisdom. cut the things that are wasteful and hurt the middle class but grow the things that help the middle class achieve a better life. that's what the president has tried to do when he said we are going to outeducate, outbuild, outinnovate. and that's what we are trying to do. there are a lot of tough cuts in our proposal, some that i don't like. every member on this side will be able to find things that they seriously don't like. but at the same time, we have gone to a level about as high as we can go that doesn't cut our future, a growing economy for our people and their children. and so, on cuts, we're in a good

place. so why didn't we come to an agreement? why after speaker boehner offered a number and the president accepted, why are we still here today worried about a shutdown that will hurt so many? the answer is very simple. the so-called extraneous riders, these add-ons which have nothing to do with deficit reduction, are standing in the way. why are they standing in the way? because a minority of the house, perhaps even a minority, although a large number of republicans in the house insist that they be there. they are the hard right of the republican party. they are the same people who have said we cannot give an inch on their h.r. 1 bill, which did cut our seed corn, did cut loans to colleges and cancer research.

and now they say they have to insert these extraneous riders dealing not with abortion -- the federal government can't fund abortion by the hyde act -- but rather about women's health. about who -- not how much -- about who should get the payments to do chest screenings and blood tests and cancer tests for women. now that, battle has been raging for a long time. decades. it has nothing to do with reducing the deficit. so why is it there? well, let me show you why in this little chart. this little pictorial representation. speaker boehner has said "no daylight between tea party and me." let me repeat that. these are speaker boehner's words: "no daylight between tea

party and me." now, does he have the exact same views as the tea party? obviously not. but he is pulled by them. he has a choice. he can listen to the tea party and shut down the government or he can do the very difficult -- and i admit it's difficult, and i believe speaker boehner is a good man. i like him. i think he is a decent, honorable man, but he is caught between a rock and a hard place. and the alternative is to take the mantle of leadership and tell those on the hard right that they cannot run the government completely. they will have influence; they already have. but they cannot run the government completely. and they certainly can't impose their social ideological agenda on a budget process, frail enough as it is. these riders are the straw that breaks the camel's back and

cause the shutdown. now, speaker boehner is trying to say today it is not these riders. it is the budget numbers, but that is belied by two facts. one, he offered a number to the president last night and the president accepted, $78 billion in cuts. and, two, if it were not the riders, as my colleague from washington state has said, and let me repeat, if it's not the riders, speaker boehner, take them off the table. take them off the table. tell the tea party and the others that this is not the time or place. there will be a debate on this issue. we can guarantee that. even if we didn't want it to happen, it would. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would make sure. but not here, not now. not when continuing the government with all the ramifications is at stake. so what we have here is a tail

wagging a dog. the flea are the minority of house republicans who are hard right. the tail is the house republican caucus. the dog is the government. and that flea is influencing what the dog does more than influencing; right now determining. and it is sad. leadership is tough, and frankly, when either party goes to the extremes, they don't do the right thing. when republicans go to the hard right, when democrats go to the hard left, my experience, they lose politically. but much more importantly, they do what's wrong for the country substantively. because we're a country that governs from the middle. we are a country that believes in compromise. we are a country of what the founding fathers profoundly weaved through the constitution, checks and balances. it says two things, when the

people want change, a new group will come in and they will certainly have an effect. our government is not, our structure of government the founding fathers created is not ossified. but they have also aid they won't, they won't control everything. that's the beauty of our government. and we here in the senate are the cooling saucer. and that's what we're doing here. we're performing our function. it's a function that the founding fathers wished us to perform, many of whom i might note come from the state of virginia that my colleague from virginia leads. in any case, we have a serious, serious issue ahead of us. i would say to speaker boehner, please tell the tea party folks they're going to get some of their way but not all their way, and they're not going to get their way on these extraneous

riders related to women's health. the battle for whether the government shuts down goes on inside speaker boehner's head. if you want a bird's eye view, people have asked me are we going to shut down, i said look inside speaker boehner's brain and see what's going on there. and i'm sure there's a lot of torment and tumult, and i sympathize with the situation. but this is a time for leadership. and if leadership emerges, this government, with so many people depend on will not, will not shut down. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president stph-p. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: the american credit card is maxed out. we continue to add about $5 trillion to that credit card every single year to where it's now at $14 trillion.

and the amazing thing, mr. president, is right now it's about noon here, and between now and midnight tonight, when this continuing resolution expires and if nothing is done, the government would shut down, we will add more than $2 billion to that debt. in a 12-hour time period, between noon right now and midnight tonight, we will add another more than $2 billion to that $14 trillion debt that's growing literally by the hour. and so we have a crisis in this country, an we've had experts tell us, the former chairman of the federal reserve, alan greenspan say there's a 50% probability we will see a debt crisis in the next two to three years. just interestingly enough, there was a story this morning in the "wall street journal" that says europe central bank became the first monetary authority in a major developed economy to raise interest rates since the global financial crisis struck, a sign

that an era of creep credit is coming -- of cheap credit is coming to a close. it goes on to say the e.c.b. increased its benchmark by a quarter point to 1.25%. now, mr. president, if we started to see an upward tick in interest rates, it would have profound impact on the deficit and on the debt, because the experts also tell us, the congressional budget office and others, that for every 1 percentage point increase in interest rates, it would cost about $140 billion every single year. to put that into perspective, the interest on the debt in the year 2015, if we stay on our current trajectory, will exceed the amount that we spend for defense. so we would be spending more on interest on the debt than we actually spend defending this country in 2015. now that's assuming we don't see any kind of