president now admits. unfortunately, the plan he outlined yesterday does not seriously address it. americans know the stakes in this debate. they know the reason we're in this situation. it's time the president and the democrats in congress acknowledge it as well. the debate has shifted. and while the president doesn't seem to see that quite yet, we will not solve our problems until he stops campaigning and joins us in a serious bipartisan effort to change not only his tone, but his direction. that's how we'll ensure that the future that he and we envision and want actually comes about. that's the onlyk you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate any quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to mr. president, i rise today to to explain why i'm voting no on the budget deal with laterhi

this afternoon. first and foremost, i'm voting no because i don't think this is a meaningful substantial start to getting our hands around what is the biggest threat and bigge potential crisis we face asst al nation come out of control spending and debt. $38 billion is supposed more of a cut than was ever done but ift you put it in any other context, any other context, it's very, very modest indeed.s take a look at the eight days ac leading to the announcement ofem the deal and those eight days alone barely more than a week we as a nation wracked up $54 billion of brand new debt. we more than $50 billion of cuts in just eight days. that gives some perspective on

exactly how modest and limited in meeting this is.per when you dig a little deeper tos look at the details of the cuts on the of phrase the picture gets even worse. a lot of the cuts are paper cuts only, only cuts on paper that o don't have a meaningful impact in the real world.in there's been significant reporting about this. the justice department fundmple- other examples that probably o accounts for 12 for $13 billion, of the cuts. in addition just yesterday the cbo issued a report that said only 1% of those cuts, 350 or sd million dollars would have an impact this fiscal year. all the rest is pushed off well into the future. i'm voting no fiscal house in

order.cerned about in addition, mr. chairman, i am very concerned about what this f budget deal continues to fund i, terms of policy. in terms of impact on americansf lives, and the clearest example of that for me is a continuing funding of planned parenthood. i think that it's morally wrong to end an innocent human life and i also believe that it'soray reprehensible to take tax dollars of millions of pro-lifen americans in order to fund organizations that do just thatd the americans shouldn't be forced to subsidize abortion. it's much less nation's abortion provider and that's what planned parenthood is pure and simple. g opponents of the funding plan ke have argued in the news and even on the senate floor the many organization provides many vitac

health care services other than we well, we have seen recently that is a big correction. planned parenthood's ceoanned repeated this assertion recently on news shows she claimed,centl. quote, if this bill ever become" law, meaning the funding of planned parenthood, quote come if the delivered from smallionso millions of women in the country are going to lose their healthaa care access. that is the abortion service to basic family planning, you know, many grams, or else i have said, en the recent days, this has b been shown to be a huge friction. cal a pro-life group recorded callsp the last few days for thelinics planned parenthood clinics in 3h states. calls in and asks if she can schedule an appointment for a mammogram and in eachithout

conversation without exception,d the planned parenthood representative tells her they don't provide mammograms, period. one staffer admits, quote, we don't provide those servicesanot whatsoever. and another explains we actualle don't have a mammogram machine hot our clinics, end of quote.rt the staffer at planned parenthood here in d.c., it was perhaps the clearest. she said, quote, we do notthe provide mammograms, we don'tsidf deal with the health side of it. so much. we s are mostly a surgical facility, and of quote. by the way, surgery means one thing, abortion. as planned parenthood stafford is right, 90% of their services to pregnant women constitutes abortion.hart 90%. this chart ways this out very pe

clearly.ha this pie chartrt represents 2,09 planned parenthood services to pregnant women. the universe of services to pregnant women, abortion is in darkness to 90%.n adoption referrals is in blue. i apologize if you can't see ish that, this letter is that tiny. you have to be up close and all other prenatal care is in green and that is the reality of planned parenthood.ecent we've also seen an onslaught oft ads that claim planned that parenthood is simply a leading o provider of women'sf health s services that abortion accounts foron roughly one-third of the on $1 billion generated bye- its bted clinics. i in fact planned parenthood's own it provides primary care to only

19,700 of its 3 million clients. so a number of clients, pmillion, those to whom it provided primary health care if 19,700. t the provision to cut keitel tofd the tile ten funding forervice services such as breast cancer screening and counseling and v services, wouldn't block the funding for those services at nn mullen abortion providers.y bloc but simply block the funds fromg subsidizing america's largestor rtortion provider. abo and abortion is almost nthood everything planned parenthood does. for their medicaid spends $1.4 billion on family planning each year. those not 1 dollar of the funds wouldt be effective by the resolution and this proposal.n so the question we face today is

not if the family planning and women's health services will bee provided but if instead we are u going to use that as an excuse to fund the biggest abortion provider in the country whiches does l little else.'t though i personally don't a rigt believe abortion is a rightn, guaranteed by the constitution, i recognize this unreality that abortion on demand is legal inhs this country. againis but again, this debate isn't about that.bout it isn't about whether a planned parenthood has the right tom perform abortion and it isn't th about funding true health care i services. the real question is whetherf millions of pro-life tax payers have to fund this entity. every year since 2000 thencreasd government has increased itsfunn funding of planned parenthood. on average $22.2 million periret year.t as a reflection the number of

abortions they perform has dramatically increased even though the overall abortion d, in th rate, then got in the u.s. has . this chart please help the situation clearly. what r is in green represents government grants and contracts to planned parenthood. it goes up and up and and significant increase virtually every year. what is in her red representslad abortion by planned parenthood.y very interesting. the virtually the same sloped of an. increase while at the same time for this entire period until 2008, abortion nationwide was actually going down.nderstand i don't understand how anyone can look at this and say there's

not a connection. that to say that we are not using dos taxpayer dollars to promote ando fund abortion. it's not used directly for c abortion services is a convenient fiction because it is a shell game because it in facto funds planned pdarenthood and 9% of what they do is about abortion. acrding according to their latest annuad reports, planned parenthood boasted more than $363 million in taxpayer funding.erform the same year it performed anedd unprecedented 324,000 abortionss planned parenthood's abortion rate massively outpaces itsls i adoption referrals in8, a particular. a in 2008 a woman entering a planned parenthood clinic with y 134 times more likely to have an abortion than to be referred for an option.

and in fact, the final chart as shows that its planned trenthood abortion ratencreased steadily increased to that staggering number 332,000 in 2009. rerrals its adoption referral is to actually decreased to just 977 9 the same year. so again, and abortion is inadoi deep red and adoption referralsl are in blue.l car all other prenatal care is in green. histo what's the reality, history, the fact is, abortion goes up dramatically in planned parenthood. prenatal services go down, adoption services go down as abortion goes up. planned parenthood has made a profit every year since 1987 $ including the $63.4 million

return in 2009. f there is no justification for ps subsidizing planned parenthood'e profitable venture with taxpayer dollars particularly when half or more of the taxpayers deeplye deeply disagree with abortion. f >> the sanctity of human life as a principal of the congress should proclaim that every timea opportunity and the time has many millions of americans who y adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars of abortion by denying all federal funding to this ine. machine. this is a social issue of a course. it's also a fiscal issue.our feu our federal budget is out of control. we are facing unsustainable debt. that in so, given that in particular sto isn't it time to stop funding an organization that millions of fe americans have fundamental

problems with.federalovernment the federal government has any hope of regaining fiscalwe haveo restraint, we have to makecant t significant cuts, more significant than are being proposed in the deal put forwaro today. that d i refuse to believe planned parenthood is the one secrettand that should stand untouched and be untouchable. the time has come to change thee situation and respect the wishes of the huge majority of americans, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, spendot taxpayers' dollars should not subsidize abortion and that thay is clearly what is going on with planned parenthood. thank you, mr. chairman. with that, i yield back the quo. floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call fogle. >> mr. president? >> the center from california -d

>> without objection, so objeion, s ordered.mrs. >> i am so amazed that the liese in state about plannedstat aboud parenthood on this floor haveons been repeated again and againha and you know it gets pretty bad whenag you are so outrageous tht steven colbert and jon stewart t start to look at what you say the floor is a rarity. start when senator kyle took to ore floor and said 90% of thelo planned parenthood does is abortion, will come about as a t little bit wrong. 90% of what planned parenthoodds does is health care, no abortion debate as a matter of fact it i. 97%. of and every dollar of federale 97nds goes to health care and 1 since the 70's not won a slim co line can go towards abortion. vr

senator vitter optus and now is 98% of the planned parenthood planned pare does is abortion i don't know what he's thinking. parenthood is a non-profit organization. he says they make a profit.it dt you could say anything. it doesn't make it true. and i think it's interesting that in the 60's and 70's planned parenthood has become the prime target of the right-wing republican drew theot support of prominent members of the gop.ixon richard nixon signed family planning legislation thatal authorizes federal funding for groups like planned parenthood.s former senator barry goldwater'y wife, peggy, was a member ofof n planned parenthood and it goes r on. president and former president george herbert walker bush, asrepubl cs republican congressman from

houston, spoke frequently on the house floor about the is frequee house floor about the issue. now, it is astounding how the right wing of the republican soa party has walked so far away. com the most revered leaders. that's their choice.slso but it is also our twice as to o whether we are going to stand here andre take it or come here. and rebut what they're saying. d so count me in.nt and count the democratic women and men on this side of the h disle who have stood sentry onoo this and told the truth about this. the truth is we are in a budgete debate, mr. president. every symbol republicans it is we've got to close the deficit gap. g. we've got to cut spending, cutst spending, and we said okay, we

will join you, but where werehew you during george bush's days?ed never said a word but put that aside. we will meet you because when wl had the majority and bill clinton was president, we're tht only ones that did get the 23 million jobs. we know how to do that, and of course we are going to work with our colleagues to read over 70%e of the way on the spending cuts, but guess what, they are so ideological and extreme when yos heard from senator vitter today is not the discussion about the budget deficit and the fact we d have to get on top of it and gee the budget balanced like we did under thehe clinton days, but y, heard about abortion, abortion, abortion. which has nothing to do with the issues at hand because not one slim dime of federal money has been able to be used for

and 97% of what plannedpa parenthood does is healthcare, not abortion.so we so, we know what the real the priority of the republicans in congress, we know the real priority.it's we know what it is. n' frankly puts women's health and women's lives at risk. here we have this huge debate over the budget.n, we getting down we were all dowhin sweating it of and within anhe hour of the day the government what shut down and the twopublii things the republicans insisted on voting on of a budget bill ht have nothing to do with the budget. because for every dollar planned parenthood gets, to help them do cancer screening for women,r

perhaps years, breast cancerd ty screenings, s tds and they do for men as well hiv testing, blood pressure checks, diabetes checks get arg charge sliding wi scale. you walk in there, have no no my insurance, have no money and get the services for free. s if you have some, you pay some. the bottom line is this is whati they angre holding up the the disagreement over. of forced us to vote on parentho a planned parenthood and, mr. president, repealing healthl carein reform. i what i say is it's extraordinary because we met them on theer numbers, but in order to appeasg the right wing agenda, they are forcing the votes if the votes were to pass, who gets hurt?

women and their families. lettes i have some letters i received from california because 775,000 women00 are served by planned 775,000 women. that's actually more than some states had. and i'm going to share you a o letter.hem. i just got one today, mr. president. senator boxer, i don't read toou htten because you already standg up and fight for everything i believe in.g about i heard you talking aboutepubliw women's health and the cost the republicans want to make to 42-e planned i am a 42 year old married professional. highest bracket but the combined income puts us in $170,000 a year range. frankly, we are happy. $1,000-a more than happy to pay our fair share of taxes for the thingse e

the will help our society. f we areai appalled by the budgets discussions. if you really want to cut realln spending, dto so where it's really outrageous. look at defense, with thet the military. there's 60% right there.that but, what has me out rage right willing to shut down the over af government over a few dollarspln for plannedne parenthood. if you really care aboutrtion, limiting abortion, fundinglann family-planning isin the first step.as se says we're talking to schooa i was a sophomore in collegencom with limited income, no parental support, no health insurance one thing i did have access to medically was planned parenthood the services on a sliding scalee so at my income of $850 a month a gynecological exam was $10. mt

that meant i went. i also got my birth control con however, the most significante crossroads in my life came aboue because of planned parenthood. f my family has a history offemale female cancer, she says.as when i was 21. had one, had it not been for planned parenthood i wouldn't have been able to afford the annual pap smear.lanned pood planne dd parenthood did a biopy on the abnormality, again it wag a sliding scale, and i remember how much it was, but it was something i can manage. who biopsies.y sho it was a potential very dangerous precancerous growths o that needed to be removed. e ford, i did eat beans and riceto the next two months to pay my rn share for removing this growth.e five, i have to have pups missed twice a year for the next

several years, again, all i affd could afford was planned parent. parenthood.n't f frankly, if it wasn't for planned parenthood is a prettyte good chance i wouldn't be here t today. so this isn't about abortionion. it's about women's health. t so, i have to say these are the letters i've been getting what they after day after day and i am very proud of the people that have stood up and told the truth the votes we are going to have them this is about budget, if ie was aboutt, a budget but they gy more money to planned parenthood

because for every dollar they s apvest we save $4 on the other h side, what would have happenedt if heather didn't find out that she had a dangerous precancerous growths that would have gonee we forward and she would have gotten cancer. w lord knows what it would havee t cost. any m she didn't make money at that time. she would have had him to have help from her county it wouldax have cost taxpayers and sheep have been ill and gone through hellti and back fighting this as who knows if she would have needed. now, the second of a we are having has to do with running back healthcare reform and other attacks on women. eryone, it's an attack on everyone but i want to look at what it does to women. do you know, mr. president, ir know you know this because you've been a leader in this issue. reform law being a woman was a

pre-existing condition. if you're a victim of domestic violence and a woman, they you. wouldn't ensure you. diey would say you have aing con pre-existing condition. your hut your husband beat you, and guest what, he could do it again, you are at high risk.and goodbye. said, and we said no. no it can't happen. get and you try to get insurance they say now.ean since you had a cesarean sectior it is too's expensive. tt. you can't do that. you can't turn our great peoplet simply because they were victims of domestic violence or had a cesarean.n you can't turn away a personbe s because she is a woman. insurance companies will not be able to deny anyone because of w

preexisting condition. also another issue that we fought hard on along with all the fuss, engender everything. t insurance companies charge women inin california 40% more than m. for similar coverage. can you imagine. yo when they say let's repealree health reform who are they hurting. disproportionately women. no re when they say no more fundingfon for planned parenthood to continue theirth great work on basic health care who are they hurting disproportionately? women. preventive care was a key in that health reform. mr. and mr. president, i think you.a usurp on the appropriate committee that made that tel decision. and i would tell you right nowvd women delay or avoid getting preventive care but oneself reform goes into place we know l

there will be preventive healthv care services like mammograms without a copay or deductible. d so when you repeal the health reform and everything for thewhn people who do you heard? women. and who's going to get sick mor? than any other group, women. it's not covered by manynsurance we've changed all that. wl and by 2014, insurance will beor required to cover maternity card services. and let's look at medicare we rs made many reforms in health reform dealing with medicare. more than half of the people who depend on medicare are women.f 56% of medicare recipients are women. so-lled ryan so as to when mr. ryan does in his so-called budget wh bere he ends medicare let's call it what

it is you are throwing women. under the boss, this time it is elderly women. that, how proud are you of that,. rya? mr. rahn and?that well, i am not proud that kind e of proposal would come out, and it's starting here today when we vote to repeal healthcare reform health care reform extended thed life of the medicare trust fund why on earth would the republicans want to repeal then law that is spreading toat medicare and makes it a viable l what me tell you what else would be repealed if they had their way today. everything on medicare is into e free annual wellness examined. let me repeat that. on m every person is going to get a a free and will wellness' exam anm will get them access to preven preventive health services like

screenings with no co-payment and no deductible. why did we do that. first and foremost, we did ity e because it's the right thing tot do.nd but it saves money at the end ot the day when we invest up fronte congressional budget office said our bill saves billions and billio billions of dollars over time. because investing and preventiod just like planned parenthood did with my constituent where a cancer was discovered earlier ta means that an individual will get the care early, get on top i of this asnd will not have to spend a lot of money on it. dnd the pain and suffering andan all the rest that goes with cancer. there's one more thing that they've repealed. the

if they get their wayot going mr. president, they are not going, seniors aren't going to see that infamous doughnut holes that we all went to on the prescription drugs.ot goingo happens after you hit a certainn amount for your prescription drugs a couple still some of thy dollars. then they recently say medicareg prescription drug is not going to cover you. so you fall into the doughnut hole. we close that forever by 2020. y seniors have to pay more for their prescription drugs. now we live in the greatest country in the world and wet hae access to so many wonderfulth as health advances beat a medical e devices, prescription drugs butn

what good does it do if all of a sudden you can't get those things the? so, buy repealing health care o reform, which our republican friends want to do and today we have the vote to do it, seniors, women and their families will lose access to life-saving. drugs.'l they will lose access to preventive care, they will loseo access to their insurance coverage and again,ts disproportionately impacts jus e women. it's just the way the the demographics are. and let's be very clear and send aee strong message tonight whenever time it is tonhe we vote on thee two amendments.re we are standing strong if we vote them down.

we d are standing strong for won and for their families. str we aonre standing strong for ann americans. and anyone that would take these important reforms away, anyone e that would say we don't care their health care from planned parenthoodre are saying they dot care much about those people. te by the w way, there was some nes program that said what you needy planned pouarenthood for? ed plann you can go to walgreen's and get getting a pat screen at wallgren or breast cancer screening that doesn't come to mind and so will france had to put out a press re release stating that they don't do those things.on't so let's start talking the trutt

on the floor. and the truth is there's anogicl ideological agenda around thisos place and its crystallizing and my republican friends have gone a bridge too far. people are catching on because now it's starting to affect thei and the republicans and independents and democrats. t parties.t abou i can assure you the people peoe writing me who go to planned go parenthood to get their health care, their preventive care,th their blood pressure checked, cy their diabetes checked, they poc come from every political party. and planned parenthood in the beginning and when it was formee had the strongest support from republicans. that's what was.ubli, that's but these republicans today have walked so far away from their own party that they're looking ot a bill signed by richard v nixon who voted for by george herbert walker bush and say we

are not interested in family planning. and they are distorting the debate. ifg people want abortion there'f one place we can all walk together and that is prevention walk tog of unwanteetd pregnancy, birth control. contraception.prie they don't even want that.they a today don't even want that.'ve j and theyoa have just over reachd and i am the person who says i respect you no matter what youry i iwould stand in front of a truck to protect your views i don't tell people what to to think about the issues.s. i think they should be respectey for what they decide.vernment but big government shouldn't be ople w telling people whahat to think about the most personal decisions.

that is what america is about.ee we have over the years crafted rome good compromises in the rep area of reproductive healthose e care. stage people have a right to choose in the early stages of the the pregnancy that's what the supreme court has said and it's been upheld since the 70's. in the beginning of a pregnancy a woman and her family and her doctor, that is who will be be consulted and to her to make a that decision early in the pregnancy as the pregnancy moves on the state has an interest in ha making and deciding this issue as the pregnancy moves on but ah always her life and health must be protected.rotected that is the law.not oneenny not 1 penny of the federal fundu can be used for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother.ho and i happen to be the one who carried that amendment on rapebr and incest because before thatht

we didn't have the amendment. years ago. so we have a compromise.and i wu we have a compromise. f and i would say tori my friend f you don't like that compromisefr then come on the floor and makea the woman a criminal and make a the doctor a criminal and introduce your legislation. we will fight it out and the people will weigh in. and what the people will say is compromise. that compromise is fair. it's not perfect but it's fair.n but no, that's not what they will do. they because they know if they said , woman as a criminal it is a bridge too far.an so they wanted to fly an organization that's been inow m place for how many years?95 ylan years bill fi in organization

95% of their work goes to the basic health care and family planning. it's really sad. it's wrong. comes and every time it comes up, the women and democrats, we've already been on the floor we are going to cont'rinue this battleo with our male friends becausemet nobody can tell me they carehe about women when they are about to vote to t deny women basic ct health care no one can tell me they care about families when theyou are about to get my family's basic health care. no one can tell me they care about families and the repeal of discrimination that outlaws the ability of insurance companies to turn you away if you're the e victim of domestic violence or had a cesarean section.arean nobody can tell me you care

about seniors when you break the budget that in this medicare nol one can tell me you care about seniors when today you're goinga to have a vote to repeal healtha care reform that gives them morr funding for the prescriptionthee drugs that gives them freewi wellness checks without co-payments or deductibles. we always say whose side are yos on? are you on the side of the sidef people or the insurance t companies? are yoheu on the side of the people or more t interested inol scoring political ideological points with the extreme wing ofu your party. those are the questions and i the answer is going to come back ck tonight. we are going to defeat thesewo radical amendments, and i will send a message to the houseriens friends over there who are goino to have a radical budget thatng the experts tell us are going te

lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. the experts the was it would lead to the law of 2.2 millionn jobs. can you imagine?can can you imagine? the only budget is billionaires'. and multimillionaire's so s listen, i'm happy to be in the senate in this moment in history because to me these are the issues, these are the issues. at and i have to say these are the issues i had in my campaign and they were very direct so i want to thank the people of california for m sending me back here.e, the we have 38 million people, the largest state in the union.now, every time, y you know, you takd away something from a plannedlth

parenthood or another health hre care center you heard more of me people than anyone else because we're such a large state. today we start the votes, andt c i'm grateful i can stand up here end speak out against both of these radical amendments to be found in organization that isle helping 3 million people a year. in america. and repeal health care reform that does so much good, and i think we are going to win these votes.ope i certainly hope so.u very think you very much,t, and iield mr. president, and i yield thepi floor.s consentequests >> unanimous consent request for the committees to meet today. te the of the approval of the and a majority minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent these be agreed to and be printed in the record

1861 confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina igniting the civil war met. secretary-general discusses the nato mission and libya. he spoke of the meeting of the foreign ministers in berlin for

about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, thank you very much for coming to the secretary-general will make a short introductory statement and then we will be happy to take a few of your questions. secretary-general? >> good afternoon. nato foreign ministers and contributing partners will met today to discuss the crisis in libya at a key point in our mission. it's been a very, very positive discussion and clear expression of the unity of purpose and result. today we have agreed on a joint

statement that clearly lays out the military objectives of our mission in libya which can be recapitulated in three points. we are committed to provide all necessary resources and maximum operational flexibility within our mandate, the high operational tempo against legitimate targets would be maintained, and we will exert the pressure. as long as necessary and until the following objectives are achieved. first and all attacks and threats of attack against civilians and civilian populated areas have ended.

second, the machine has verifiably with strong and military forces including snipers mercenaries and other paramilitary forces including from all populated areas the of forcibly. or beseeched throughout all of libya. and third, the machine must know permit immediate full, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access to all the people in libya in need of assistance. this is a very clear statement.

and let me remind you there are 42 countries involved in this operation and this shows our strong and shared commitment to fulfill our u.n. mandate and to protect the people of libya. all of us agree we have a responsibility to protect libyan civilians against the brutal dictator. the united nations gave a clear mandate to do it. the people of libya desperately needed and we are determined to do it because we wouldn't stand idly by and watch the discredited regime attack its own people with tanks, rockets and snipers and let me be very

clear in its historic resolution , the united nations security council called on the world community to do what it takes to protect civilians in libya. and that is so we are doing. day-by-day and strike by strike we will continue to counter the brutal and systematic attacks against civilians. our mission is to protect. we will do what it takes to fulfill that mission and this isn't just in words but indeed since nato took over this operation, our aircraft flown over 2,000 missions, 900 of them strike sorters we've destroyed

tanks, armored vehicles, the ammunition depots and air defenses. yesterday we continued to strike bunkers, rocket launchers kers,d systems in the key areas including outside tripoli. the contact group on libya with held its first meetings yesterday and doha welcomes the military operations. i know that questions have been raised on whether we have a sufficient number of military assets and capabilities to accomplish this mission. the supreme allied commander has briefed ministers and he's given

an overview of the whole operation would. of course income his conclusion is overall we have the necessary assets to carry out this mission but of course our requirement change as the situation on the ground and the tactics of the regime forces change. now they are heavy arms, populated areas in there before many targets were easier to get to. in to avoid the civilian casualties, we need very sophisticated equipment of, so

we need a few more precision fighters and ground attack aircraft from the air to ground missions so while stressing that he is generally content with forces he has been made this point with ministers at the meeting and i am confident that nations will step up to the plate. we are keeping the very height of operational tempo and keeping that the pressure and we will do so for as long as it takes because we have a responsibility to protect and we will live up to it and with that i'm ready to take your questions. >> don't forget to introduce yourself and organizations.

>> you mentioned that the admiral stressed the need for the high provision fighters and ground effect. referring to the u.s. assets for plans which are highly accurate and known for their precision attacks especially now that the u.s. has withdrawn can you accomplish without those? >> he would refer to the specific duty to specifics. as a general appeal and let me add to this that actually the united states continues to contribute to the mission.

>> [inaudible] >> how would you achieve the raid of getting rid of gadhaffi common in the operational there has been able to dislodge the people that were on the ground without having the troops boots on the ground without entering nato and to which everything we are going to meet and beat asking more for the rest of thet asking more for the rest of the people like that happening in afghanistan when we start asking 150,000 every time there was a meeting there was the request for more and more. thank you. the operation was clearly defined within the u.n. as

security council resolutions and i would remind you of we conduct the operations in libya with the aim to fully implement security of the resolutions and no resolution 1973 which requests the protection of the civilian population in libya and this is the goal of the operation to protect civilians in libya. i fully agree that there is no military solution solely to the problems in libya would. what we need to ensure a long-term sustainable solution is a political process. which funds to the legitimate demands of the of the libyan people but that is the political track by the way in the last

statement today the nato foreign ministers have endorsed yesterday's statement from the contact group meeting which called for him to leave power. >> from "the wall street journal," to questions. one related to whether the admiral said anything about the rules of engagement, and whether they need to be altered to allow the targets to be hit that currently are not being hit. and what is your opinion on whether it would be nato would be able to allow arms to go into the opposition to the regime in libya or whether that would be forbidden by the u.n. arms embargo under 1973.

>> the rules of engagement -- >> visit to the council to enforce and the arms embargo and we would do so in straight conference the with the text of the u.n. security council resolution 1973. >> time for two more questions. b.c.. >> secretary-general, you said you're confident countries listed at the plate and provide additional aircraft for the ground attacks. can you tell us what gives you that confidence particularly when spain is specifically ruled out doing that today. is it that you have absolute assurances for the specific countries or this is your hope without any specific evidence.

>> promises from this meeting but i heard in locations and by nature i'm optimistic. >> the gentleman over there. >> regarding the definition of the second part of the resolution how far could the protection go, how far should it go regarding the part of the responsibility to protect it seems sometimes countries think a different way. also in that respect it is a unified alliance we have agreed on a set of rules of engagement and there's been no request to change these rules of to the engagement and our military

operates within in the current rules of engagement we operate on the and came to fully implement the u.n. security council resolution from 1973 is request effective protection of civilians and we would take the necessary methods as it is stated in the u.n. resolution we would take the necessary measures to protect civilians effectively. >> secretary-general, in concrete terms is nato or any of the member states the nato advising the rebels on strategy? >> it is for the libyan people to decide the future of libya would to interfere with the

libyan politics and its four the libyans to shape the future of their onawa country and however, we do have contact with the opposition. as an example, yesterday i met with him and in doha, and we discussed the current operation as well as future political solutions to the situation in libya, but the daily tactics for the opposition groups to decide themselves. >> one last question.

>> how will that affect afghanistan? >> the plebeian operations will not have any impact on our ongoing operations in afghanistan and by the way the reason i have to leave now is we would start in afghanistan meeting with our partners and a few minutes and it is also testament to our continued commitment to our operation in afghanistan, so i can assure you it lies within with the level of ambition and nato to be able to conduct an operation like the one in afghanistan in parallel with operations in libya without having any negative impact on the operation in afghanistan. >> thank you very much. the secretary-general will be back to answer questions tomorrow.

..

>> to be a parent means you are treating the people you can't live without to live without you. >> nothing like that had happened to me when i was really thinking about college in the mid-1970s. so i started to dawn on me this is a very much different

>> now, the governors of vermont and wisconsin testify about the fiscal health of their states. governor walker come a republican is best known for pushing three play in the strip's public employee unions in wisconsin the most collective bargaining rights. the plan was put forward as part of a budget deficit reduction package. the house oversight committee is chaired by congressman darrell a set of california.

>> before i begin and i don't think i have to remind the audience probably, but i will comment to quorum will be maintained your sewer to witnesses, both feet at governors are heard without any unreasonable interruption. if you agree with them, smile. if you disagree with them, smile. the fact is this is about america cheering for them to governors who have a high risk on stability to serve thursday and we have a high responsibility to you then. the chair cannot allow any disruptions and i appreciate all those who came to get the message out did so before the gavel. i appreciate if you take to remain you remain for the entire hearing. we are open to the public, but if there's any disruption, your seats will go to people waiting outside who also would like to be in attendance. this committee has a

long-standing history of doing that on a bipartisan basis. i now recognize the ranking member for nms can vent. >> i ask unanimous consent -- unanimous consent that representative gwen moore of the fourth district of wisconsin be permitted to attend this hearing pursuant to rule 11, section two g to see and ask questions of the witnesses. >> portal without objection the worker. >> the oversight committee's mission statement is that we exist to secure two fundamental principles, first americans have the right to know that the money washington takes mm is well spent. and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the government

oversight -- the government oversight on the committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because tax years overrates no what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people, bring genuinely want to the federal bureaucracy. this is the mission of the government of oversight reform committee. today's hearing continues the committees have fared to the famine crisis brought on by out-of-control spending and mounting debt at the state level. let me assure you that is not to say every state is out of control, but virtually every state in the union in many localities have increased their debt load at a time in which debt service is at an all-time

low. the american people are well aware of the fiscal crisis washington faces on a national level. they are ready for congress to cut spending and even president of him i has plotted recent spending cut championed by the house republicans. what is less known is the severe fiscal problems that some of our state municipal governments face. already this year, our financial services to committee under the leadership of chairman patrick mchenry has done a great service by highlighting problems created bystanders is supposed to mean. i think chairman mchenry for his efforts. the fact we have lengthened the subcommittee are telling. currently states face a combined budget shortfall of roughly $112 billion for fiscal year 2012, an amount equal to approximately one fifth of the

budget. .com if nothing is done will play one more tip for the future. the evidence for this has occurred clear. since 1990, state and local government spending has increased 70% faster than inflation. when the recession hit, state and locals simply no longer sustain that growth. looming just around the corner, unfunded or underfunded liabilities pose a daunting. to stateliness poker chips. this burdens taxpayers with an estimated $3 trillion to death. ics to me because nobody knows they have two, the fact that the bond markets are not transparent in the reporting rules to adequate disclosure. additionally, as we have seen here when we talk about the correct amounts to be withheld with postal carriers, we find

there is up to five and a half billion dollars -- up to six and a half trillion dollars -- this is not on the script, folks, so bear with me. 56 and have been dollars a discrepancy between two sides on this issue. indeed over the past 20 years, state and local government has promised government workers that they knew they could not keep in some cases, hoping that future wealth would continue to propel them. today we have two governors with us and we are pleased to welcome wisconsin governor, scott walker and vermont governor, peter shumlin. they come from two very different states, when my chair one smaller. one in the midst of a tough downturn that may in fact continue for a very long time if many of the core industries have

created both begin to change and the transition may be long and painful. vermont on the other hand, a wonderful state filled with a great deal of industry that may be facing challenges today, but likely less systemic than what wisconsin faces. this doesn't change the fact both governors are dealing with issues of shortfalls and today we look forward with how they're going to retain viability of the state on after terms that ended. unionized federal workers johnny do not collect two bargaining rights. governor walker's bold better retirement and health care system is not subject to collective bargaining, then in fact is based on a single system uniform throughout the federal workforce and not debatable as to withholding oreste benefits.

that is not to say federal workers don't have a good program. they do, but their program is based on a long list of requests considered by congress and funded. so i see its federal issues, hopefully we do with state issues who in many cases have less room to maneuver, are looking for more room to maneuver and believe they can achieve it to changes in their lives. lastly, the insolvency of portugal, italy, ireland, greece and spain, most often called the higgs tells us that states can in fact be a challenge for the union. the independent countries of europe that the long the european union are more loosely configured then the state. that means if we have been silent the we have a greater challenge to our nation than the

european union and the european union has been trying to maintain the state and got themselves out but insist they change policies that have gotten ms problem. we have not gotten her to intervene in the southern states before us. we are here to understand what they are doing itself hope. with that time i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent that statement of the national education associated 14, 2011 at minute the record. mr. chairman, i strongly support an economic recovery and eliminate budget shortfalls caused by the most severe financial crisis since the great depression. many states have been forced to

make significant cuts in budgets, tripping critical programs that help our nation's veterans to developmentally disabled, supply health care services to support and provide nursing home services to her seniors. these are difficult decisions and i have great respect for her governors who are able to work with government and nongovernmental entities to develop innovative ways to provide as many services as possible for an order fiscally responsible choices. i strongly oppose efforts for middle-class workers for these current economic problems. we know better than anyone else in the committee why those problems came about. this recession was not caused by then. working america, firefighters, teachers and nurses and the many others who are in the words of theologians swindle so often unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated

and a plotted are not responsible for reckless actions of wall street, which led to the crisis in the first wave. they also object to efforts by politicians who tried to use current economic downturns to strip american workers of their rights. mr. chairman, we are country who has consistently increased rights, not taken them away. as a matter of fact if enough of the principal, i would not be sitting here in the woman in the congress. the right to negotiate magicians better safe, the right to negotiate against being fired arbitrarily and fair pay for an honest day's work. we have two state governors. governor shumlin from vermont governor walker from wisconsin and we are glad to have both

faced shove budget shortfalls this year. governor shumlin of vermont a state budget shortfall, ladies and gentlemen of about $176 million for fiscal year 2012. he negotiated with state employees who have a two-year, 3% pay cut. for my teachers also agreed three additional years before retiring and contribute more towards their pensions. the vermont state common pleas association voted to increase pension contribution by 1.3% over the next five years. in addition to obtaining confessions, government shumlin also did something else. he propose spreading additional cuts are very seen each of these as well as raising additional revenues for elect surcharges. another was come he developed a plan to spread out and share sacrifices across the state and we should note those employees

went along with it because they wanted to strengthen their situation. he faced a projected shortfall of up to 187 in the current fiscal year, within days of announcing the budget proposal to address the shortfall, labor leaders and wisconsin agree to accept both the financial demands. the agree to increase contributions more than 20 fold in the agree to double their share of the health insurance premiums. governor walker did not accept these. instead committee would further by attempting to strip government employees have collective bargaining rights. he demanded numerous provisions that nothing to do with the state budget and no fiscal impact. for example, you wanted to require unions to continue representing their members and he wanted to prevent employees from paying union dues through paychecks. governor walker refused to meet with union leaders and he

declared publicly he would not negotiate with them. one of the big questions we have the governor walker today is why did he not say yes to the unions to meet financial demands? on a broader level, what is motivating this extreme effort to does until the unions themselves are in my opinion, it is shameful to play politics with american workers and families. they are trying to put food on the table for their family, keep a roof over their head and plan for retirement that does not burden their loved ones. we should be helping these workers come out attacking them because they are the american recovery. that, mr. chairman, i yield back. he met the chair now recognizes the distinguished annulments that committee chairman, patrick mchenry for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you so much for holding

this today. governors committing an act being here. congressman quickly as the ranking member of my subcommittee has held hearings in state budgets and pensions and their impact on municipal bond market. two essential questions in the least about. first, what is the true debt version and second, what must be done to mitigate the immediate crisis and put all forms of government on a solid fiscal project tree. after holding hearings, rating agencies and other parts about state budgets and pensions, we confirmed what we would hear from the testimony today. they are states and municipalities on record. we are now projecting aggregate budget shortfalls to 112 billion for this year alone and it only gets worse from here on out. if that wasn't enough, the

unfunded liabilities upwards of $3.2 trillion in $383 billion for local governments. some of which a state's accounting, representing shadow accounting. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use words like extreme tax increases and use the words repeatedly to describe what it's either happening in terms of cuts are what is necessary to get out of the situation. we are not facing a revenue problem. as always, the numbers don't lie. since 1998, local governments have increased spending or roughly 70% faster than inflation. in addition to the unchecked reckless spending, the limit erdmann has been a triumph of dollars pensions and health care benefits with state and local governments in dire straits. as stated before they will be severe as if we are dishonest

about the fiscal obligations before us and refused to change course. the cost of inaction will be borne by young teachers were told their cash school districts can no longer afford their retirement if it's because they must finance and exorbitant benefits of others. many public servants like firefighters and police then with the early possibility their vital jobs that they hold will no longer provide a standard of living for their families will simply choose another career. in the end, the people we count on to protect their homes and families will realize their government has failed them and actively hurt their retirement security. we have an opportunity to change that. numerous states is seen writing on the the wall and decided to take action. in recent years, 15 states passed legislation reform some aspect of the pension system. for example, governor mitch

dando savimbi in a successively reformed collective bargaining, leading to more efficient and affect his government. government walker is boldly set out to push for similar initiatives in wisconsin and we've seen this in the national news. even in the face of extremely heated political attacks, governor walker understands and has a genuine commitment to reform and prevent this fiscal calamity. the governor's proposals were recently welcomed and duties, which the governor's walker plan will have a positive effect on the credit rating of the state. in the end, that will mean less cost and less expense to us taxpayers in order to get funding. if you wish to ensure an honest retirement for those who teach our children or protect their families to meet the next generation a country as economically vibrant as the one we inherited. we must be serious about the problems we face.

it is our responsibility to be fair to our current retirees and honor our commitment to them while at the same time not punishing the next generation of america for today's free spending ways. it's only possible if we take the necessary steps before it's too late. it is not too late. we still up opportunity for change and that's what this discussion here today is about. moreover, in light of the hearings we've had a discussion today, i think it's important taxpayers in the market generally have the transparency necessary to understand the fiscal situation state therein. taxpayers deserve it. those painted pensions deserve it in the american people probably deserve that. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for leadership and i yield back. >> i think that some of them for what is subcommittee on a

bipartisan basis has been doing on this matter. we now recognizes partner, ricky member of the subcommittee and t.a.r.p. financial services and bailouts of public and private programs, mr. quickly for his statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and they could thank you for today's third hearing and thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the first two meetings. i'd also like to think or six witnesses for contributing time and expertise today. let me begin by saying in the end i do think we have a problem in the revenue problem at the local level was because of the economic downturn. a chunk local governments revenues to medically as cities and states alike. it was a revenue problem. that doesn't mean you should raise taxes because they understand where you're coming from. raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. we have to recognize in the end this was in large part a revenue

problem. so having addressed that, the other things we're learning is many state had these big challenges and you don't have to tell me. i come from illinois. illinois failed to heed your testimony story but one should save during the seven figures to survive trying to seven liters. illinois current administration didn't take the what caught. it has to move forward on substance and fiscal reform. illinois and other states have similar situations or to taxpayers to fix the budget. if states like illinois and new jersey to get serious about reform, though never keep the basic, since they've made. reform should be emphasizing agreement governments and adapting to changing times the reform should not demonize public sector workers while dedicating careerist government series. states at the rate to make their own policy, i strongly support collective bargaining rights from public-sector workers and recognize we have toured together collectively to solve

problems. click the berg family didn't solve the question in curtailing them won't fix the budget deficits. pogo sticks budget deficits are commonsense reforms that restore sustainable path. collective-bargaining facts and figures and simple calculation shows state that allow public-sector bargaining have an average project did 2012 deficit of 14% relative to their budgets. 14% stake, but states that forbid public public public public project did anti-collective bargaining rights won't reduce budget deficit. workers have to play a role to meet these realities. it's obvious we asked readers to visit in long-term debt, we should take advantage to achieve one thing achieve wanting ideological goals. the book sector should continue to appurtenant right that we

need to work together to achieve responsible reform. soon i'll be releasing part 2 on reinventing our federal budget. this reform will recommend over $2 million in savings for the next 10 years. this report though some part on a release in november 12th on a series of reports released in the cook county commissioner. bring this because i remember how frustrating it was to try to achieve substantive reform at the local level. the truth is the same frustrations are here in washington, but we can't let frustrations get the better of us. states like illinois need fiscal reform. we need to streamline, consolidate and reinvent government, not because it's an important, but its mission is so important. it's where the wheels of the street and if we can remember the true heroes of 9/11 were civil servant workers. that's why we should restore local governments for sustainability rather than tear them down. thank you of mr. chairman.

i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair will have -- sorry, members will have seven legislative days in order to submit additional statement of extraneous material. we'd now like to recognize their first panel of witnesses. no one on this side can currently introduce them as well as their members, so with that i call on chairman james sensenbrenner to introduce as governor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is my pleasure and honor to introduce my friend and constituent, governor scott walker. i first got acquainted with scott about 20 years ago when he was starting to get a given public politics. he was elected 17 years ago to this state assembly and in 2002, he won a recall election for chief executives for county executive. he was reelect ted to two full

terms of the republican and one of the most democratic counties in the country and his political success has been based upon the fact that he tells people where he stands and once elected implement them. he faced some tough times in milwaukee county and as a result of that reaches pension scandal, his predecessor was at the heart is, you is able to pass nine county budget and proposed nine county budgets without a tax increase in the background allowed him to be elected as the 45th governor of wisconsin must follow. very few people here knew who scott walker was until the last two months or so. however, those of us who have no scott walker and his commitment to principle are really not surprised the proposals he made two close not $137 billion

budget deficit, or $3.6 billion budget deficit to the end of the next budget. so again, i am sure you will find governor walker is interesting as we wisconsin have. he's a very polarizing figure than those of us who love them and wisconsin really thank him for the job he's done. >> i thank the gentleman and with all the people governor shumlin could have introduced him, he chose peter welch. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. , mr. ranking member, members of the committee are probably serve on, it's my pleasure to introduce peter shumlin of vermont. first of all, a couple things about peter. as a private-sector person. he and his brother established and expanded a very successful private business in vermont.

he's been on the front line of creating jobs for having to pay good wages and good and fits into what the practical realities of keeping the business going day in and day out, expanding, growing to be an employer. he also served in vermont for many years, first in the house of representatives and then in the state senate. and peter is president pro tem served four years as senate president than any other vermonter in history and that's 10 years. so to his job with legislative experience, obligation to pay bills and make things run on time, he is now serving as governor amount after being elected in this past election. just to give you a sense of how vermont operates, she won a primary with four other

democrats and there was a recount because his original margin of victory was 200 votes. during the recount, peter and four other candidates rented a van and while we were awaiting the outcome of who won, went on a unity tour around the state of vermont, talking together rather than fighting each other turn the recount. every other member, five excellent candidates all said we trust our town clerks and just let them do it will accept the result. he also comes to the job with benefit of the tremendous history we in vermont are part of a bipartisan tradition that embraces two things. number one, we fight hard in vermont, republicans and democrats just like here. but in vermont, democrats think the republicans usually have a

mirror to their arguments and republicans think democrats have something to say. we actually do her best to listen to each other because both sides have enough humility to appreciate inside the street on both sides with the come together for the good of the state. we had governor sally, respected and revered have a downturn in the 80s. he did something with the democratic speaker of the house tried to adjust the fiscal situation because we pay our bills. we're cheaper would pay our bills. we're frugal. the democrats agreed to cut programs important to them. the governor agreed to a surtax because we needed revenues. it worked out. we came in the balance in texas but that we were able to support our programs. we then had governor dean and the times. he cut taxes. he's a democrat. and when he gets out, he had

implemented some tough budget reforms to make sure we didn't spend just because it is surplus. we sent money back to the taxpayer can put in replace budget controls. peter shumlin carries on the tradition. when we come in situation, governor douglas, his predecessor worked with the unions and said hey, we've got to share the sacrifice here. they negotiate a pay cut. they sat down at the table and worked it out and there is a sense of common purpose should sacrifice. if there is pain, they have to be sustained. we have to share the pain together. and what it's done is help us make progress in tough times. peter just to give you an idea, the senate president where the large democratic majority, he did something you get kind of mentally tested around here to get it. he appointed republicans to chair major committees.

so in vermont, the two principals are listening to each other, truth on both sides. it is my pleasure to introduce governor peter shumlin of vermont. >> i thank the gentleman. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in. which you please rise to take the oath and please raise your right hand. peter, you can stay seated. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony will give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect all witnesses answered the affirmative. please be seated. gentlemen, we have congressmen who come before us, senators and governors are always the best witness says. they understand the five minutes allows for the q&a that impact

your entire testimony be placed in the record to see typical green, red and yellow rights as a predecessor in the committee said in all 50 states we know what that means. so, with that, i recognize we didn't do a coin flip. he wants to go first? governor walker. >> to see which members bush member subcommittee, the same numbers as well, we got to know each other a little bit after the elections with new training for governors. it's another to be here today. this is such a method on the testimony from others 44 different states and the district of columbia facing the deficit. in total, over 111 billion hours total deficits ranging from 2% to 45% of the budgets. in our case in wisconsin which starts july 1, we face a

$3.6 billion deficit. governors across the country from a democrat republican alike. governors coming. school districts and it's forcing many of those states one of two things. either massive layoffs are massive property tax increases. in many cases, sadly some of those. in wisconsin where the different options, a progressive in the best sense. we are giving state and local governments the tools they need not to balance the budget this year were for the next two years or for generations to come. that's important. some hearing other places in the country may say it's a bold political move, but i would argue it's a modest request. we are asking government employees make myself a 5.8% contribution for pension and a 12.6% contribution for health

care. that's protecting the middle class. that protects middle-class jobs and taxpayers. if you have a class taxpayers mistakenly they tell you what were offering is reasonable. we're not going to go too far from that. my brother david works as a banquet manager, part-time as a bartender. they have two beautiful kids, winchester and four the other day. they are a typical. when the debate first started he said to me, i paid $800 a month for my health insurance premiums for little that i can set aside for my four o. one 401(k). i would love to a video of on what you're offering. i hear that all across my state. they say would love to a deal because on average are middle-class taxpayers are paying about 20% of health insurance premiums. federal employees pay an average 20% of the insurance premium. federal employees for the post

don't have collective bargaining rights for benefits and ultimately her salary. makes you wonder what protesters in madison and columbus in here in russian in d.c. you have to look at the facts here it's very clear to what we offer is more generous to much to offer federal government employees in the out rage is not here. it's in their state capital. more important than the fiscal responsibility, we are talking ultimately saves $1.7 billion in state and local government spending over the next two years. it is a piece of it. the other important elements remembers this makes government were better. i can take no better example by a young boy by the name of making sampson was named outstanding teacher of the year in a week later she got a pink slip issue is one of the teachers laid-off weird wide? or collective bargaining agreement required a contract and protected a system that pays more than $100,000 in

compensation for teachers with no contribution for health care and ultimately seniority. our reforms allow schools. we hang for performance and put our best teachers and workers upfront. that ultimately is going to make things work at her. i worked in indiana when mitch daniels said the six years ago we see the government more efficient and effective and ultimately create workers reworded in the state and are rewarded today. the last thing i'll tell you is this ultimately is good for status because in the end, investors want to look at a state with the state and local government is stable. we are showing wisconsin is open for business. the thing of the most important thing i bring it to you today is when you think about two high school science. in fact some of the classmates are here from his high school. our proposals are about making it a bit to the future, so her

children still face even more dire consequences than what we face today. for more than a 200 years, this country has been based on leadership where leaders care more about children and grandchildren than they did about themselves. it's time here in wisconsin and across the country. we have leaders worry more about the next generation, the next election and that's exactly what we're doing. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, governor. governor shumlin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the invitation to all members of the oversight. particular thanks to my friend and congressmen, peter welch is an extraordinary job here in washington. it's great to be here also with governor walker. as governor walker mentioned, we met at the governor's school in colorado and i don't want to give you any ideas, but if you do come you get to go to school. read a wonderful dinner

together. we share a common challenge. we are not the biggest class of new governors in the history of america and we share a very challenging job. i said if they told us they be a governor's school, the message we were taking over, we might have rethought it, but it was too late. but we are doing with some tough economic times as you know. to help make governor walker's trip to washington more valuable, i bought a little bit down and i just want to make clear that were the number one people. governor walker is number four. >> governor, how did she get that through tsa? >> that's an advantage of being governor. there is no more tsa is, that's way above the surf down, but thank you. we are both facing the first hundred days for similar challenge is creating jobs and

are earning less money in vermont or on average the same money 10 years ago. as both of our challenges. mr. chair, i just want to directly address the question of what is causing the fiscal crisis but those governor walker and i find are so thin. we know as a result of the greatest recession in american history, the result for us is declining revenues and expanding expenses as we face higher unemployment rates, that's the challenge. without getting into how we got here because that's been debated and we'll save that for another day, i simply want to talk a little bit about what our challenges is governors to create jobs, economic opportunities and balance budgets. when i look at it, i don't start with collective bargaining and i don't start with a public

pensions. i start with the two costs. in vermont and this is true in most states, health care is my biggest rising cost. i've watched health care costs double over the last decade from 2.5 billion to $5 billion a year. in 2015, insurance commissioner tells me vermonters send an additional $1.6 billion on health care and that the biggest cost them a state budget. now what is not in real dollars? it means to $500 by 2015, 1.6 billion. $2500 in every vermonters pocket from those born yesterday to those on the other end of life in a state run average are people make the same wishes 10 years ago. so i'm going with the money is for both the state and people of my state to grow jobs and economic opportunities. return to get health care costs under control. the second driver, believe it or

not is corrections. our corrections budget has doubled. we're trying to go with the money is. i want to talk a little about our experience with state pension and retiree health care obligations for state employees because i think it really matters in this debate. what we learned in this area is errors types that you can take to significantly reduce the cost to taxpayers without undermining traditional defined benefit plans, which most objective parties agree provide better retirement security, serve to retain quality employees and are more efficient than a defined contribution plan. that's what we've learned. how do we get there and how do we work together to get the job done? what we did and i was then president of the senate with republican governor and republican speaker since we brought unions together and we

understood that he was going to be an example of shared sacrifice and so did our state employees says congressman welch suggested. in those discussions the lesson we learned is that we get more with maple syrup and vinegar. we talked about in here as a result, shared sacrifice 3% to 5% pay cuts depending on range of salary over a two-year period with no increases. two, we got retirement contributions from state employees. three, we raise retirement ages for state employees to help us with the problem. for, we reduce health care benefits and some of our teachers and five, we acquired with this resulted in was a 25%

reduction in our annual payment to pension funds and still have them fully funded. so the point and simply trying to make is you can get this job done. you can balance your budget you can create jobs in your state without taking on the basic right of collective bargaining. the reason i feel so strongly about that is i asked the question, what cut us into this mess and how do we deal with it? i can tell you from my perspective as governor ridge is kin to through the toughest winter in about 20 years. lots of snow, lots of ice. our plow trucks throughout almost every day. i'm sure governor walker has done to make it out as governors. when i got behind the windshield of the plow truck in a driving snowstorm with my plow truck driver working seven or eight

different levers at the 14th of plow in front of the track and a tractor-trailer truck on the right, i've got to tell you we can at 12 or 14 hour day workout for 10 bucks an hour when i go to challenges their kids do it if they don't get us into the mess. public employees don't get is here. we've asked them to share the sacrifice of getting this out, but it doesn't mean you take away collective-bargaining, which is what made the middle-class america strong and under assault in this recession. so in closing, mr. chair, i will simply say this. we have found, as i mentioned balance the budget, but you don't have to take on the basic principle of collective

bargaining. do not take on teachers, police officers and hard-working employees who work together with maple syrup, not vinegar. it works. thank you. >> thank you, governor. the sign behind me the last part says choice or necessity the cuts he made in cooperation with various union groups of public workers because most states 80% of which you spend years been directly or indirectly on the people that work for government. with a choice? was it a necessity to in fact find a way to provide essential services for less money cannot go into into deficit spending.

the night it was necessity. well, we don't have a balanced budget amendment as congressman welch suggested to get the job done. so we make choices we do in vermont because we'd really like for a aaa bond rating. on a business person to be fiscally responsible. >> i like to ask governor walker the same thing. and were rather in love with the title today can assert that we could then it grow. >> advertorial sense it's necessary for many it was a choice for many, many years they rated funds.

that is along with the meltdown of the economy largely why we can face a major budget crisis. >> thank you, governor. one reason why we mention that if they happen to be from california in week two in their state and democratic governors have been increasing debt claiming to have balanced the budget. unlike governor shumlin, if your asset or per se going up to my abilities going up come you don't clean your balance and that is the problem as seen in many states and particularly my own. you mention one thing in your opening statement that is very interesting to me. he said a defined benefits plan is more efficient. i'd be interested to see what efficiency do you get by having a plan, which promises something in the future that no one can be sure of actuarial stride, but obviously they have failed

because he's research adjustments. what is efficient about that versus i. know any amount of money would go into a fund in the amount of money would be best if fairly and in fact available as the yield? which one is more efficient from a standpoint of predictability? i'm not talking about 401(k)s. for example, unions and my state. if you're a contractor, you can't control a contractor so even though you try to defined benefit, you cannot make it in the year in which your employed as an electrical contractor from the comp and employed you'll make it that money in the next year you can't control and clawback to let your employees and clawback. so why did she say that it was efficient? the efficiency?

me. >> the first is because the employee a guaranteed retirement plan. i think there's been tremendous misunderstanding, which is in vermont the average pension -- >> i understand why it's more desirable for the recipient. for the federal government we have defined benefits plan. >> the returns for investment not taking investment but over time general motors and the saints go bankrupt and i believe bankruptcy has been greatly exaggerated. >> it's not in the constitution that gives you a choice. >> were out to get the standard for general motors retirement plan. the point being that it's your turn you spin around 3% and it gives us the ability to efficiently deliver a project to both defined benefit for an employee who was often working for less would get paid.

>> i've got your answer. governor walker, on that time, why is that more efficient than knowing the amount you give is the amount and even if you've invested and try to make the same returns ultimately the state knows the next year they're going to give a similar percentage. the mic is set in the federal government has defined benefits, the wife that more efficient versus perhaps making sure that you budget without these ups and downs that come in the occur? >> when you look benefits be that the public or your, defining contribution is ultimately more efficient. that's not what i meant getting. in our case, like you mentioned the federal government, we have defined benefit as well particularly for retirement with profession. or were asking for is not changing the benefit of those people are asking for people, get myself included as a contribution for the cost of that. mr. quigley -- represented

quickly talks about the state of illinois. that's an important distinction. in illinois this year the legislature raise taxes on individuals and on businesses in an attempt to balance the budget. yet today the pension system that have funded. we went the opposite way. we made it easier to do business and we have a pension system that's essentially fully funded. that's important because you get to the heart of this. i cite illinois in the category because they failed to make the tough decisions to get finances under control and that's going to affect our economy. >> i just want to make one thing clear for the record. the federal government currently for federal workers, 20% of what goes into our health care benefits are paid for by the federal worker. in the case of the post office, it has historically been 20% come for one of the major unions

has renegotiated to 25%. that is what's happening here since schilling washed in. i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you know, the thing that stands out here and i say this to both governors, that sometimes we lose sight of the man is just the postal workers who had reforest a few days ago, they were able to shed 100,000 employees under 700,000 in three years and one of the things they said they are americans too and they don't sacrificing. speaking of sacrificing, governor walker, when i listen to your testimony, you make it sound as if you would make very reasonable offers to the union, but they have been unreasonable by richard diener offers.

for example, you asked employees to contribute 5.8% for pension and 12.6 for health insurance premiums and you went on to say most workers outside of government with other proposal. you talk about your brother and like many other workers, who wouldn't love a dealer to one man offers to workers. the thing it not here though is that the unions agreed to double their share of the health insurance premiums and to increase contributions. that's not true? what did they do? >> i want to hear what you have to say. i'm just wondering -- >> on answer the question, representative. two statewide leaders made a statement about suggesting they thought they could have said that. in the weeks that followed to the bill was signed into law, nearly every local union that

handled the contract settled without a pension or health care contribution. to me, actions speak letters and words. the two statewide leaders could not speak for the unions of nearly 1000 municipalities, 420 for school districts in the once he decided up until the bill was signed into law they were not following the actions of the leaders. to me, actions speak louder than words. the other key differences we got into this trouble and republicans and democrats drove us into this by failing to make tough decisions. if we have a short-term fix and will push the problem to the future. we give permanent long-term solutions tools the state and local governments need if you make the sorts of changes. wisconsin has the strongest civil service protections in the country. i was passed more than a century ago. those remain even with the new law in place.

that protects grievances, civil service protections in hiring and firing decisions. all those protections remain after the exchanges. >> in an article from wisconsin journals, and this article democrat state senator john kurtenbach makes crystal clear public employees, including teachers agreed to financial or exit the proposal. and all they were asking for is to strip them -- that she not strip them of collective bargaining rights. that is not accurate? >> again, that was a statement pasty white leaders. the actions they may contradict the statements. if they'd agree to the five minute talk time you would've seen in janesville and la crosse and all other communities that they would've put money where their mouth is and i'm not. so i think you're right about the story accurately explains

what was proposed at the time. but in terms of what they actually did, their actions do not represent -- their actions did not coincide with statements in the statewide union. >> did you ever consider dropping your collective bargaining demands? did you ever consider that? >> i was a county elected official for eight years. we talked about shared sacrifice his nye county faced a crisis. i gave over the features $370,000 for my personal salary. to make a personal sacrifice. during that time, i repeatedly met with the union and asked them to make modest changes, modest changes in pension and health care contributions. when you write and ask them to cover workweeks to avoid massive layoffs and every time the response i got was go-ahead, lay for 500 people often don't care.

that's when i talk about protecting the middle class it's not just middle-class taxpayers benefit of government. the middle-class workers laid off are people i represent as well, just like in subconsciously consider wisconsin. if i have to choose between massive layoffs for making these sorts of reforms, i'd much rather understand the middle-class jobs. remember, the vast majority of people in the middle class in state and across the country have been paying the bill for the extensive government year after year after year and to me those are the people and standing up to protect. you never hear these weak throughout this entire debate when others may say a fair, i've never said a word of any of the decent public servants who work for you because the decent people in my state went for state and local governments in every respect for them. i know that in this together we've got to make changes to make sure their jobs are protected in the future. >> thank you.

>> thank you, gentlemen. the chair now recognizes mr. mchenry for his round of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. governor walker, cushy her testimony. governor shumlin, thank you as well. there is a discussion of tough choices. now, when we are looking at what the government does, there are services that municipalities and state render to their people as a matter of collection, whether it local governments providing police and protection through the police are making sure you have a fireman show a. their choices between the government provide and the obligations it has. ..

many other governors across the country, democrats republican, they are cutting millions of dollars from schools, universities systems, local governments and other areas that affect all the things you mentioned, and instead they are saying they are the cuts, now you either make it through massive layoffs or through massive property tax increases. i said in my state and can't afford to have anybody in the public or private sector in the more massive layoffs. i need more people working changing the business climate, showing in fact many issues, republicans and democrats alike we brought together to pass

legislation that this one of the most productive, pro job agendas in the country. we had to do all that to protect jobs. by the same token we know one of the other things that would cut down the recovery would be a massive tax increase. we saw it two years ago when my predecessor raised taxes on corporations and individuals, we saw the jobs, the exodus. we want those people to come back. >> i understand competitiveness especially in the midwest in terms of job creation of this competition on tax rates, obviously, it? >> absolutely. we love the fact our corporate tax rate is 7.9%, the effective rate is now 9.5%. we love that distinction and more people to come to wisconsin >> the other question i have is as opposed to a private-sector where those that are receiving the pension benefits are the ones that are affected by the changes they are the only ones really affected. the difference with that public-sector pension is that we as taxpayers have to foot that

bill. so, it's not simply a lie perpetrated to the beneficiary or the recipient of the pension saving perhaps too rosy of a scenario on the return of the investment or under funding the pension and so on and so forth. it's also to those taxpayers that have to foot the bill for those underfunded pensions or less than funded pensions. so my question to you, governor walter, do you believe there's sufficient transparency and disclosure with public sector pensions today? >> i think that both the state and local level as well there needs to be more transparency. one of the things we are most proud about is we've balanced the $3.6 billion deficit but the fact two years ago we had the largest structural deficit in history in my budget i presented the beginning of march to the state legislature we reduced the structural deficit by more than $2,000,000,000.90 per cent reduction. it's where moody's pointed out the caulkett credit positive.

when is the last time you heard anything credit positive related to the budget? because we finally took control of what we should have been doing for years and were not from both political parties. that is incredibly positive. the more people know about -- right now, actuaries and others pay attention to the pensions and retirement system. all of us should be because that is diverting come in many cases deferring the problem to the next generation. we can't do that anymore. >> thank you. i know my time is expired and certainly those are doing now about public sector pensions, and you have those that are saying these pensions are underfunded and it's bad. those are the optimists. those that look of the pension system and say this is a calamity or the other side of the coin. no one is saying public-sector pensions are too will funded or even sufficiently funded. so thank you -- >> the one thing i mentioned on the wisconsin distinction -- not only have funded but you have the speaker of the assembly,

democratic long time union allies spoke a long time ago about the possibility of reducing the pension benefit itself. that's what happens when you don't take the issues seriously. that's not republican or democrat. this is a stalwart defender of unions now talking about and eliminate the prospect of reducing the benefit. that would be on acceptable. we made a promise about retirement benefits were going to be and we should protect that no matter what party we just have to fix it on the way in. >> thank you. we now recognize the former chairman of the committee mr. towns for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. governor walker, why do people in general -- i've talked to people from your state, people are not the nation feel that your focus is on helping the corporations and the wellfleet -- wealthy at the expense of the

middle class and the poor. why would they have the perception of you? >> maybe it's because they're watching some of the tv ads the groups and was constantly because what we've done in the first month, the first two months almost democrats voted for the measures we pushed through that create a better business environment in our state. even the tax cuts we put in place for things like moving the state tax and health savings account which isn't about corporations. it's about small business and family farmers and about sole proprietorships. the incentives for job creation were targeted specifically for jobs since ultimately about the workers when a job is created and there is the incentive to do that. the other things in the legislative package were things about making it easier to do business in the state of wisconsin. and in our budget the things we are doing our protecting jobs and the middle class. >> when using easy what you mean by that? giving tax breaks to the big business? >> we don't give tax breaks to the big business. its target for the big business. we have a specific job tax

credit and to create a job as a tax incentives in there but it's tied specifically to job creation so that the person who benefits the most is the recipient of the job. if there's not a job there they don't get tax break. >> what is the in plenary of wisconsin? >> 7.4% and in plenary. still too high but obviously less than the national average. first two months this year we had about 13,000 jobs created in the private sector, 8200 in manufacturing and next week we will put out the job numbers and i think we are going to be on the right half. >> did you have to lay off workers, municipal workers, government employees, to put your budget in place and to get the 13,000 that was increased? i'm trying to get the real balance -- >> your life. in our case in putting the budget together we actually avoided it. for the remainder of the fiscal year 11, the deficit for the budget put together my predecessor, jim doyle, we had to make about $137 million. we knew to set the stage for the

$3.6 billion deficit we had to balance for the next two-year budget we had to do a series of things. we made other changes, other reforms. we are talking about today is one part, it saves about 1.7 for the next two years for both state and local government but for the state government, theat impact through the final couplel of months through june 30 of which is the end of the fiscalyr year, 30 million-dollar savingse bye getting that savings we avoid having to lay offlaying of approximately 1300 state workers so we avoid them that way. w >> do you think avoided that about using maple syrup? >> i've got some now. it's pretty good. it's not as good as the cranberry juice we make in wisconsin but it's good. >> rhetoric in using benner utter? >> i tried as a county again if eight years and they basically told me lee of people and to me that isn't acceptable. if you are for the workers in this economy the last thing i want to do is see people laid off and this was a much, much better approach. >> how did you get people to

have a different attitude i don't understand why people in wisconsin would think that way. wisconsin is just like a lot of other states in this nation any way, governor schumer? >> thank you, congressman towns. i'm listening to governor walker and sitting here realizing we all have similar challenges as governors on like the congress we've all got to balance our budgets. so, they're real question is what are we arguing about? and my plate is if you want to go after collective bargaining which i believe it helped build this country and build the middle class that's been under assault in this recession, just come out and see if i'm going to go after collective bargaining but if you want to balance your budget you bring people in. you talk to them, you have a dialogue. i can guarantee this. what vermonters are looking for is the same thing they expect in

wisconsin and expect in america, they want reasonableness, compromise, they want bright people working together to solve problems. and when you use vinegar and refuse to meet with units and don't sit down and talk with them, when you take on an outright assault on a basic principle and a space society which is collective bargaining, the thing my grandfather when he got off the boat and others rely on and rely on to make a decent living, to come from the beet farmer to success in america that in the build our country that is a different debate so what we are talking about as i sit here and listen to governor walker talk about he's opposed to these challenges all the governors for doing the same things here folks. the question is are you going to bring people together to solve problems or go after assault on the basic principal in america of collective bargaining. >> i think we are trying to do two different things if we want to go after collective bargaining just say we are taking you on.

but don't try to blame the worst recession in american history on the need to go after public pensions. the question over here let's be honest about this. tax payers have almost paid for a public pension retirement plan. this isn't something new, folks. this started with pensions, with asking public employees to give up economic opportunities they might have if they did what i did and build a business and made a lot of money. in exchange for getting the lower wage and the less economic opportunity, the targeting guaranteed 25, 22,000 on average retirement once they are all gone. it isn't new news the taxpayers pay a portion of that and employees pay the other portion. what is new is ice-t and governor walker's state are asking the employees to pay more than the did before. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> governor, keep using maple

syrup. >> we are going to try. >> mr. chaffetz for five minutes. >> thank you. governor, i'd like to talk to you if i could about the pension plan in your state and coming from utah i think we have two things that have served us well. one is in the state constitution we have a balanced budget amendment that forced the issue to actually balance budgets. number two, a defined contribution plan as opposed to the defined benefit plan and consequently the state has one of the lowest tax rates as business is thriving and we have hundreds of millions of dollars in the rainy day fund. now i went back and looked at the pew study on vermont and you're doing better than most states that funded about 92%. but you make a comment about the chairman of the predictability of the pension program and about talked about the health of the program because it can't imagine a defined contribution plan is

not superior to the defined benefit plan because how do you account for that? >> all i can tell you is that is served my and other states well that used defined benefit plans and that we have had over time -- >> somebody told me they thought they were going to get an eight to 8.5% return i would say they are smoking those maple leafs. and 8% return on investment nobody's getting that kind of return. >> if you look at the average for the state pension across the history of the defined benefit plans you'll find we get about an 8% return on average and obviously there are good years and bad years but unlike general motors since we aren't going bankrupt we have to look at the averages and that's what we've got that's why wall street -- >> you think you're going to get that -- >> going forward to you think we are going to get that? >> we do, that's why moody's and the other bonding agencies allow

us to assume that way of return on investments. we aren't making this up as governors that's what they require us to do based on history. if you're a governor you have to deal with the real world and the real world receive were to move from the defined benefit to the defined contribution plan hypothetically it would cost a ton of money in the first ten to 15 years for the reason that the current employees help to support the pension obligations of the states in defined benefit plan. if you pull the new ones out, you immediately have a high your up-front cost than he would otherwise if you've got to support your existing defined benefit as he moved to the defined contribution so there's a lot of reasons why the governors are not thrilled at the idea and you're hearing this from republicans and democrats, this notion that if you just move to the defined contribution of our problems are going to be solved isn't in the real world. >> with the gentleman yield very quickly? governor, if you are fully

funded that isn't true. if you are fully funded be able to stop putting money in the moment you make the switch because if you are fully funded you are 8.5% would pay all your benefits so you can't have it both ways. >> we are adequately funded. >> as long as we understand adequately is kicking the can down the road so this davies share with you like the right of return of the treasury would run out in 20, -- 2023. you would depend on the high return you cannot bank on in your own statement. >> if i can answer that, mr. chair --. >> both governor walker and botcharov on wall street to try to convince them we are running sound economic states that the bond rating depends on our economic future. we managed retirement funds based upon the expectations of wall street. vermont is doing that right

since the aaa bond rating. one reason is we use the actuarial projections that wall street gives us which are hybrid and the treasury return and i tell you if you study this issue you find vermont isn't giving anything radical here, we are doing but wall street expect us to do and it is a higher return than you'd get on the treasury. >> i don't want to go over my time. ausley really do think a flashing red light for investors for this country for the congress because we anticipate the states try to be running back to the congress we can't even find ourselves, we can't to manager. i don't want the states to think they're coming to the federal government to get a bailout. i think states that haven't made that difficult choice and made it difficult transitions to the defined contribution plans are putting themselves in peril and great risk. that's the experience in utah. we made that choice. it's on a more sound trajectory

and i think you will find the states who did make that effort and make that transition will be much more sound financially. that's my perspective but i think it's going to be on one of the biggest issues moving forward mr. chairman on your back. >> we now recognize the former mayor of cleveland ohio, dennis kucinich for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. governor walker, you said union leaders agree to the financial kutz but then you blame the the local unions for not following through on these pledges. that's because you refuse to drop the demand of the workers and collective bargaining rights that have nothing to do with the budget, and refuse to negotiate and reject the offer. governor walker, if the unions and wisconsin agree to the financial cuts that you saw it, i don't understand how this can continue to be characterized as to the debate of the state budget deficits supposed to be a hearing of state and municipal debt. i don't understand how revealing collective bargaining rights for public workers shows us anything

about state debt. let me ask you about some of the specific provisions in your proposal to strip collective bargaining rights, first, your proposal would preclude the need to require unions to hold annual votes to continue representing their members can you please explain to me and members of this committee how much money this provision saves for your state budget? >> that and a number of other provisions because if you're going to ask and you are going to put in place a change like that we want to make sure we protect the workers of the states so they have a right to know what kind of value they get and the same reason we give workers the right to choose which is a fundamental american right, the right to choose whether or not they want to be part of the union and whether or not they want a thousand dollars bid -- >> how much money does it say, governor? >> it doesn't save any. >> [inaudible] >> it has no effect whatsoever. reclaiming my time, it had no effect whatsoever on the state budget. i want to ask about another of

your proposals. under your plan, you would prohibit employees from paying union member dues from their paychecks. how much money but this provision save your state budget? >> it would save employees of to of thousand dollars per year the could pay for the pension and health care contributions. >> governor, it wouldn't save anything. the cost if anything it's obvious the real intention here -- >> it's to give the workers the right to choose. >> i will back it up mr. chairman, right here from the state of wisconsin legislative fiscal bureau a nonpartisan state budget agency much like the congressional budget office the bureau was asked to identify provisions in the governor's bill that are non-fiscal policy items that have no state fiscal fact. this letter confirms the obvious that governor walker's effort to repeal the rights of the state workers is in on fiscal policy item. no effect on the state budget

shortfall. i ask unanimous consent this letter be included in the record. >> reserving the right will inspected and plan to include it in the record. >> that's unusual you would reserve the right to object. >> the gentleman will suspend -- >> we fully expect to include in the record because it's not a publication that is widely distributed we simply would like to receive it and as soon as it has been quickly vetted during this hearing it will be accepted that is a consistent policy from both sides -- >> i would like to respond in the 14 years i've been on the committee have never had a chairman and reserve the right to object for putting an official document in the record that would central to the purpose of this hearing determining whether or not you stripping collective bargaining rights, governor, is a financial issue or not. it's not. it's a political issue. >> the gentleman is incorrect. chairman waxman they repeatedly.

in most cases just as here by the end of the hearing items which were not part of the widely distributed documents were accepted. i expect to do this and i would work with the gentleman to get it done before the end of the hearing and the gentleman may continue. >> just a matter of public record anyway. the title of this hearing is a choice or necessity. i think what we've been able to demonstrate here is that the attack on collective bargaining rights is a choice, not a budget issue. there are budget issues as well that need to be addressed in wisconsin for example according to the national nurses united and u.s. states facing budget shortfall revenue from corporate taxes have declined to .5 billion in the last year. in wisconsin two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes and the share of state revenue from the corporate taxes has fallen by half since 1981 savitt published in the nation by john nichols and i want to ask to submit by unanimous consent and

also in the real news network the have a report that points out the short budget, the budget shortfall of 137 million wisconsin could have been covered if the state had just kept going its state legislated taxes would say let expire after 2008 also points out if they had gone on to collect the estate taxes from the wealthiest citizens they could have paid down the debt. i just want to say in conclusion mr. chairman, that we really are here at the center of a great debate over the purpose of the government whether there is such a thing as the public's fear with public servants who perform duties on behalf of the public using resources that belong to the public or is the government going to be auctioned off it the highest bid to the corporations who privatized and inevitably drive up the cost of the government control of the cost

of services, taxes that is where this debate is headed nationally. i think that the benner walker is inadvertently done a public service by exposing the extent to which this mind set of privatizing what is the public's fear bringing this issue to the forefront, 72 for being here, both governors. >> thank you. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you governors for taking your time to be here with us. five of a point of clarification you begin your oral statement talking about how you didn't want to balance the budget based on the facts of and i do country of federal employees as well. the employees might do with benefits and the after the real crucial issue that the new vintage or statement by saying in the previous given this time they did deal with payment pensions, retirement words, so what will your not starting your

time, you did say that we have just dealt with a few months ago, is that correct? >> it's been an ongoing effort both the previous governor the middle forget i was the president of the senate and helped negotiate with the speaker of the agreement with the teachers' union. sinecure talking about you didn't want to do that on the backs of workers at this point you didn't see the corrections and saw health care as a major issue but dealt with the retirement issues and such. >> i don't mean to suggest we didn't ask for more state employees to make sacrifice. we did and they did. all i'm suggesting is we did it by bringing up to the table. >> sure, is just a method on that side and the cooperation that the others had with all of the leadership as well it takes two to tango on that one as well as people come together. let me ask a question to you think the federal government should be involved in dealing out states when they have that issue is there a point in time would say it's so far in debt and out of bounds the federal government should step in and bail them out? >> that is a question i'm going to leave to do and i never want

to run for congress. >> that is a question i'm going to ask because you represent the intent of the state. >> i don't think you're going to have to and the case for the bankruptcy states is greatly exaggerated for political reasons. when i go to wall street and i say as i did a few weeks ago we are in pretty good shape in vermont, wisconsin is in pretty good shape. tell us about some of the states we are worried of, california, new york, illinois and others and they say this is wall street speaking, we think that the case is being exploited for political reasons that there are not states that need to go bankrupt. we need to see your way through this and that the case for the pension crisis is being overstated by washington. >> do think the government should be allowed individual states? >> no. >> let me ask if all but to both of you as we have time and that is our their things we are doing is a federal government the right of your cost as a state,

but i'm looking for an am i committee has been dealing with are unfunded mandates, things that say i like the amount of budget and control, these i can manage and these i cannot because the federal government has the requirements, are there things we are doing to cause you more debt and problems in spending. >> we have two minutes i'm not going to able to answer that question. >> you have to submit all you can for that. >> number one thing you can give us? block grant medicaid to be to get a block grant for medicaid i had to put $1.2 billion more in the general purpose revenue, the state funding into the next budget also to cut everywhere else, it's the biggest challenge out there and we have efforts the required to maintain things by the federal government and to manage the cost me to get the point we did places like gunderson luther had been ahead of the curve when it comes to the idea and concept of local homes pay for performance and don't come at of procedure and we have that option -- secular

aware when on the budget committee we brought that lady we've been told the governors will certainly keep people out of nursing homes and be reflected the populations and you can't be trusted with these funds. >> your dad was made in the 90's when the different connie thompson was governor and push reform that bill clinton ultimately increase the welfare reform and in the end for giving block grants and the charges made back then we had the most successful welfare reform during the generation >> there are areas we are doing that is causing pain as far as the financial side. >> we're concerned about the cost of medicaid and medicare. the only thing i caveat is just a block grant makes me nervous is the populations grow older which is happening in all their estates as the cost and the utilization goes up. i don't want it to be an excuse for the federal government to get out of its obligation on the sharing of the cost of the same.

we are giving a block grant, you're on your own of the utilization was that it's your problem. so how that flexibility gets translated is important, the details matter. second, the biggest -- of the driver is the education costs and no child left behind and there is no question those mandates are driving education expenses in the public schools requiring us to teach protest and require an extraordinary people work of teachers when they could be teaching. >> thank you very much and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we recognize the gentleman from iowa. >> thank you. my name is bruce braley and i'm proud to be a public employee. in fact, governor walker, when you were a 6-year-old growing up in my field believe the planned field on the y got my first job with the county conservation board and i learned how to clean toilets and how to mop floors and scrape to come off the bottom of school desks and i

also worked out in the blazing sun building bridges on the farm to market rhodes driving an act and the spikes and the lumber and when they on the job my left hand caught on fire so i know a little bit about what public employees to and the groups from washington ran against you and yet you yourself have a large amount of support from secret to donor groups like the ones that attack me and my campaign are you willing to go on the record today to announce the influence of the outside secret money and political campaign ads? >> human campaign ads on the principal of good government, and i think that's what we are here to talk about today. in fact, you ran a campaign ad called real leadership and when the campaign ad ran it says your focus was bringing people together to solve problems you remember that?

>> you ask the question and that's what i did -- the first month and a half when democrats and republicans can together to push economic -- >> this is my time, governor pete you answer the question. >> if you to do a political stunt go ahead. >> i'm not to been a stunt if dr. phill were here he would say how is that working for you? you also man and have called yes we can and said working together we can put government back on the side of the people again. you also ran an ad called me get right talking about government scandal benefitting politicians and he ran all those ads. this is your chance to make it right. are you ready to apologize to the people of wisconsin for hiring the 27-year-old son of one of your major campaign donors was a lobbyist and that individual had no college education, every little managerial experience and had to try to conditions to the convictions hired for and 81,000-dollar your job and you obviously had better qualified applicants? are you ready to make an apology to the people of the county?

that doesn't sound like good government to me. >> please turn off the clock. the chair would remind all participants although members here have a right to speak for five minutes and say anything they want and they will consider it germane. our witnesses are only asked to respond to items which they came here prepared to respond to and consistent with the subject of the hearing so it's for the witnesses to decide whether a question is germane and in fact members here have an almost unlimited right to say what they want to say during the five minutes. the gentleman may continue. >> when i grew of a man plainfield chuck grassley what is the state assembly back then there were good decent people many of whom are farmers who recognized many of whom were deacons of my father's church who recognized when the time for talks you have to make tough decisions particularly when the times were tough and the

finances of the church and that is exactly what we are doing. we are talking about -- you may not want to talk about that and i will answer your question -- >> i'd be interested in your answer because people of wisconsin want to hear today. >> i'm glad you're interested in the people of wisconsin because that person was five levels before me and when that position was brought to my attention i had my staff go back and have that person taken out of that position and i acknowledge the fact there were more qualified people and i asked what else would be put into that so that is the answer to the question. >> i reclaiming my time. >> we've written an article about this and noted that to of the highly qualified candidates for that administrative or oscar, former state cabinet secretary under the republican governor, scott mccollum who had a doctoral degree and eight years of experience overseeing the cleanup of the petroleum contaminated sites, the second bernice madison was a professional engineer who served

since 2003 and the post to which mr. vv to he was appointed and had 25 years of experience in the state government and since the focus of this hearing is on good government practices and how that affects the that the states have a think it's time we got some straight answers from the people who were radically reforming state government and that's why this is still important, and i would ask the chairman to hold a hearing and i have a letter for the chairman since we have rolled jurisdiction according to the committee website to look into the other factors that are impacting the state budgets including cronyism in state government and i have a letter to the chairman to that effect i ask unanimous consent for the article from the telegraph herald in title walker insults young worker with cronyism published on april 11th of 2011 to be made part of a record and i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida for five minute. >> thank you mr. chairman and

thank you both for being here this is insightful for me especially my home state of florida but we are also going through some of the similar exercises you all have gone through. it's interesting because we look back at the history of collective bargaining and public-sector unions franklin delano roosevelt and with president john f. kennedy who didn't feel there should be collective bargaining or there should be public sector unions so on this issue if it shows the evolution of this and why it is a crucial issue especially in light of the debt and deficits each state in the country are facing. the federal government in the office of personnel management have published consecutively for years up until 2008 a study of the amount of time that was spent by union employees on officials time. last time this was published was 2008 and showed the federal government union employees spent 3 million hours of officials time to engage in union activity. this is a cost the federal taxpayers about $120 million of

2008. unfortunately upon the repeated request by several congressmen and enterprise institutes under this president wouldn't seem to respond from that. in your perspective states and i will start with you, governor walker, do you keep track of any official business or a union business done on officials time? >> i wouldn't have the numbers of the top of my head but state level we see this image the local level and we saw that when i was the county executive and it's an interesting cycle because in many cases they are paying money that normally goes to brokers but also goes to the employees' unions who then use it for political purposes and collect candidates who can advocate for more government and taxes under the middle class. it's a vicious circle. >> so wisconsin does keep track of official times and union activities? >> this time, for example, the state and local level that the employee -- people employees of the government designated as union officials have to account for time this taken as a part of

the contract. in many cases we saw the local county the number of individuals who were on the payroll working for the unions. >> governor from this in such a region in vermont? >> it's not an issue in vermont, the unionized work hard and work long days and long nights and we are certain that that is what they are doing and that is what they do with their time. we are a small state where everybody knows what everyone's digging, and in vermont, we work hard and public employees work just as hard as our private sector employees. in florida we are deliberating on the legislature something delivery did when i was in the legislature what was known as the paycheck retention act and would require the employees make an affirmative acknowledgment and confirmation that they will sign over a certain part of their pay check to the union dues and did it just having taken out regularly. it is something entertained in either of your states, governor walter? >> that's in the legislation i

signed to the law approximately a month ago and the concept of that is in the interests of the workers they should have the right to choose if they want to have that money taken out and to be part of the choice is whether or not they give that money that chooses them. >> it hasn't been a significant part of the debate. we are the governor facing a tough economy and budget challenge trying to balance it and thanks to the congress the deficit for all the governors haven't really had to be dealt with because they got so much money from washington and that's over and we have to balance the budget the old fashioned way so we are making tough cuts and tough choices and i'm doing it by focusing on what matters which is health care cost corrections and those are areas with explosive growth and i'm not worrying too much about the union dues. in accomplishing these objectives, whether they be pro union or anti-union, whatever they may be requires people to come to the bargaining table and people to come to consensus a

compromise and one of the issues we saw in wisconsin is the were senators on the democratic side who left the state to fail to come to the table to address and as a public official to take personal offense to somebody that aggregate's the responsibility by not owning up to their obligations to make these decisions as difficult as they may be. so, governor shumlin, i would ask do you condone such activities where elected officials who leave the state or aggregate their responsibilities to enforce their obligations as an elected official? >> well i've got to tell you i've got my hands full dealing with the challenges and facing in vermont and i don't comment much on what's happening on the other 49 states and is focusing on what is happening in vermont. in vermont everyone is working together with lots of maple syrup to get things done. >> thank you. governor walker? >> i have great concern and i talked factory workers the last month or two to point out the job for three weeks you wouldn't

be working there anymore. i think it's pretty clear. so i think there is a real challenge and obviously the individuals in those working to decide whether or not it makes a difference long-term but you said something else about working together and i believe that but i also believe more important than working together is people want results. and so in the beginning of this year we work together but devotee republicans and one independent in the legislature. we passed some of the most aggressive job-creating legislation in the country and show wisconsin was open for business. sometimes working together is a problem in the past democrats and republicans worked together and push the problem off to the future and in some point leaders matter what part the have to stand up and so we have to do something about it. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from vermont for his statements. >> governor shumlin, i see behind you is a leader of the

employ union firefighters sitting next to his brother from wisconsin. you're the governor, public employee union, did one of to not get the memo you're not supposed to get along. >> i don't know if i can get it but we get along great as you know and there's nothing better than the fire fighters working hard for us risking their lives every single day. >> as i listened to governor walker described his problems, it sounds to me very similar to what you described to me this morning when we had breakfast the problems you face in vermont. governors cannot the escape the consequences of the greatest precision that we had since the depression and that recession is brittle and shows no mercy whether it's a republican governor state where democratic devin real-estate. you've described your approach, but clearly there are points of contention that you have to deal

with as governor. a legislature that is pushing you and you're resisting to raise revenues and public employees who did cooperate but on the other hand they have a represented their members and up for the wages and benefits. maybe give a brief summary how you manage to get from here to there. then a lot of people to talk to your governor walker i don't have that much time. >> i will try to be brief. as you know my guess is my approach is much different than other governors from the country, trying to create jobs and economic opportunity. i mentioned the middle class has been kicked in the teeth over the recession harder than in years and we are trying to raise their income and we do that by going after raising health care and the recidivism in the directors budget and what we have a high recidivism rate so by going where the money is while we've resist raising the taxes so that we can actually

grow jobs and economic opportunities peaden heard governor walker talk about wishing to import jobs, illinois and we are all doing that. i'm hoping in new hampshire and massachusetts as we manage the budget and we are a great place to do business. we raised a family the best place in my judgment. >> but we do it by getting along in using common sense. >> governor walker to make an observation we have a problem here in congress and this is my own personal observation but certain. there's a winner-take-all attitude i hear my republican colleagues say we have to deal with spending and i happen to think they are right. italy also think we have to look at other things, to back the tax code and in revenues i would say that quite candidly from some of my colleagues that one of the problems in congress is a winner-take-all approach where even if you see this in the health care debate, the democrats won on health care

last year and now a repeal it. if you win in a way where the other side feels they didn't have a seat of the table or things were crammed down both sides can be doing this there's a price because you end of winning the vote but you don't make progress on policy and obviously your state was the center of the storm with a very hard confrontation between the two sides, asking if you would just observe for comment on your thoughts about whether there is a price that may be paid in your state as a result of the fact that the approach that was taken did result in this enormous confrontation in a lot of controversy and a lot of pain that continues even after your policy i think was prevailed. >> a think the results obviously are frustrating. one of the things that frustrated the the most is it

you're going to practice it a democracy you have to be in the arena and when 14 of my colleagues in the capitol decided to leave for three weeks they made it difficult to do that. in particular one of them worked with before on the jobs initiative to work with the sand as he revealed in wisconsin state journal week ago sunday he was closer to less than his other colleagues. my hope is people like him and others will continue to come to the table and work on the jobs agenda and the things we need to continue i think we will be on the right track but again i go back to what i said before. people want us to work together but because they want results. when i look what mitch daniels did in indiana essentially for the state, he did what we are proposing in this legislation to do. his numbers were far beyond mine and that first six months he was an office dealing with the same passion just not as big because he did it through executive order not three piece of legislation but four years later he was active with 58% of the vote because people saw the

results. the fear didn't materialize and the results proved in that state the government got better, more efficient, more effective and good public employees in indiana. >> i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman mr. kelly for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. both governors, thank you for being here. i come from the private sector so i will understand inlet having your own skin in the game and being able to sign the check. sometimes down here we lose perspective whose money it is your spending and when somebody else is picking up the tab it's easier to say go ahead and keep on partying. i want to ask specifically because the chair start with a discussion and also mr. chaffetz about the defined benefits and pensions and i know in pennsylvania that while all of us took a hit when the stock market went down and we lost quite a bit of it that the end of the day that was a loss. if you can in both of your states tell me who makes up the loss for the benefit that is --

i think the defined benefit is a complete illusion that gives the believe somehow the future is with predictable and reliable and we all know it isn't so please tell me the deficiency, the difference between what defined benefit is based on the actuaries are saying and the equity who makes up the difference for that? >> i think it's really important to stick with the facts and the fact the matter is if you get vermont this is what happens. in the worst stock-market crash in the long time to go from roughly 12,000 to 6,000 the average person in a defined contribution plan sold the stocks when they got discouraged between eight to 6,000 those in the defined benefit plans of public vermont and raising them to hold on and hold out and that's what we did. so now retirement plans are higher than they were in the

depths of the loss. the large investor now has lost what they saved for retirement. saddam, the great example where a defined benefit plan protects workers more ably in a defined contribution plan in vermont example is exactly is a proof of that theory. >> who makes up the difference in the loss? >> my plan is there were no losses without the gains back. >> anderson there is somebody that does provide a safety net and we both know that. governor walker? >> it's the taxpayers, and in our case before this reform, we talked about for example my proposal for the five to 8% contribution it's clear in vermont and other states before this reform other than half literally a handful of state and please the taxpayers are picking up with the employee

contribution and the employee. so i'm not a thing the impleader contribution to be financially having the employees of the state including me pay for the employee contribution. the employer pays part and the other part. wires traveling in the midst of the debate particularly when i got an infection in plant 25 to 50% of the health insurance premiums most of them have retirement plan it wasn't a pension of the 401k and many of them to keep people working for suspending the match to be able to keep people from being laid off and when i'd walk them through what i was asking is with a minute you're taking all this money away. as an example in the basic family plan that my family has, we will go up to pay about $200 a month in premiums versus about $90 a month. again most people on the private sector wonder that's

unbelievable. >> that's the most important thing to understand. if i have a defined benefit i can go ahead and stick with that plan because come hell or high water i'm going to get my defined benefit but when you are the person that is in real money in the program and you have a chance to opt out now and keep what you have or lose it and you're putting it in the lockbox and my daughter and my wife is a teacher i've got a lot of friends whose benefits are guaranteed and they are guaranteed by people in the private sector who will see a reason the tax is to recover the loss on the pensions and i think that's where the deride comes. this isn't the union workers versus non-unions and versus democrats. it's about americans. and if we're going to share the games we are going to also participate in the payment but understand when you have your own money in the game it's just a difference between somebody who is guaranteed a benefit regardless of what they put in and that's the important thing. taxpayers make the difference in all these losses. that's the model and that's what's wrong with it. we don't have a safety net in

the private plan but the public sector does but that is a vast difference and makes it easier to stick with the plan that is upside down. one way or another i am still may hold. thank you for being here. i yield back mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome, governors. >> governor shumlin, did understand your testimony that he said the pension fund in vermont has an eight come 8.5% annual return? >> that's correct and it's important to address the question of who pays and the taxpayers do at least in vermont maybe we are unique i don't think so, 80% of the benefits we pay out are paid for by the return on investment, 80%. >> that's correct. >> you're a member of the national governors' association.

estimate is it your understanding from your fellow governors that vermont is unique and that most pension funds are in fact under water or are about to go so? >> it is not my and standing most were under water, no. >> mr. chairman i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record correspondence provided by the national league of the city's, naco nsa and other organizations pointing out as a matter of fact most state pension systems are very solvent that have been quite stable the last half century. >> have they been received by the parliamentarians it? >> received by the parliamentarians? >> we have copies here. >> we will bring them up and reserve and make a final decision by the end of the hearing. >> thank you very much.

>> governor walker, when you campaign for governor, did you can pan on the issue of collective bargaining being a problem with respect to the budget? >> i took that wages and benefits overall and ran campaigns but i didn't specify what for my talked about in the broad spectrum and in fact aft wisconsin, one of the unions, treen campaign for lawyers pointing out some of my statements about collective bargaining and other issues. so that was an issue that was part of the campaign. >> i didn't ran an ad i'm going to talk with this attack in a couple of debates about the fact the full spectrum of issues. >> that's a lot of debate. >> we didn't have that many. >> most members of this body.

>> in your dates with your opponent you actually brought collective bargaining and said that's something i'm going to address as the elected a are. >> i talked specifically about the five to 12% and they said how far are you willing to go? >> i'm willing to change the law from one and whether it is a outright change. i talked about it there and it ought to begin in the transition >> i'm asking a very specific question. due to explicitly -- >> nope. >> savitt might be -- you might see that some might be surprised that you made collective bargaining such a centerpiece of your so-called reform effort after you were sworn in. >> i would say no because 38 years as the county executive finally talked about it, broad and it was called the reali tour when i talked about the challenges we were unsustainable and the collective bargaining. >> from your point of view

nobody should have been surprised when you were elected and sworn in. >> 100% correct. >> were you surprised of the reaction in generated? >> for eight years it took on the status quo in the county that every elected. i was elected 54 to 57 and 59% because i think in a time of crisis people are not so much concern about republican or democrat, they want leadership. that is what we are trying to the state level. what did surprise me candidly is the level of the national attention the folks that came from washington and others to be part of that debate. >> thank you. let me ask a quick question. you got a famous phone call from somebody pretended to be david coucht. he said once you cross these bastards will fly you out and really show you a good time. youth responded by that same oil right, that would be an outstanding. what do you mean by that and what did you think he meant?

>> at that point i was done on the call and i was trying to get off of call and get to the next issue. islamic it wasn't that you were mr. coke and he was promising to reward you for what you were doing. >> did not on that regard, no. >> the foley out didn't strike you? >> no i didn't even know what cali is. >> have you ever had a conversation with respect to your actions and wisconsin? and using them to punish the members of the opposition party on this? >> nope. >> you've never had such a conversation? >> thank you. >> i've spent eight years talking about the challenges of the county officials and the fact i had a union or series of unions in the county that constantly told me to play people laugh as opposed to making modest changes. -- before. my time is up. >> thank you, mr. sherman and governors for being here today.

governor walker, i believe your statement in my home state of tennessee has constitutional requirements to balance the budget. obviously the constitutional requirement doesn't exist in washington, d.c.. do you believe that these constitutional requirements give additional support and leverage and to make the difficult decisions that need to be made to get your fiscal spending under control? >> yes, and i think both of us as governor talked about the fact that as governors regardless of the party, for us to succeed and have the states grow the economy we have to have a balanced budget within it is a constitutional requirement or otherwise i think the states are going to succeed regardless the governors or the states that take the fiscal challenges head-on. >> thank you. the last election is clear to me coming from the private sector that the american people have signed the referendum that they feel the government over always too large and intrusive and it's in the way of creating jobs, and

so i would take heed to that as we sit in these hearings and justify the programs within the federal government and whether they are good or not and have discussions of whether or not private sector versus public sector pay its fair. governor walter how would you gauge the workers in wisconsin? critics have said your reforms are hurting a group of workers already worse off in the private sector counterparts. or the wrong? >> let me point out too quick things in that. the debate is never about the level of pay for the compensation because i think they are a great people who work of the cities and county or school district state government. i said that repeatedly. with this is about is balancing the budget making sure we can do it long term getting the state governments the tools. there's plenty of studies over that show whether you have a higher education or not.

when i toured the state and talked to the constituents and talk to people in the middle class looking at the factory from locations they realize they are the ones that fit the bill for the more government and they think it's realistic they're paying an average 20% for health care for the pension or the 401k they think it's realistic for the rest of us who work in the government and something similar to that. >> governor shumlin, you mentioned in your testimony earlier that you went where the money was to help get your fiscal house in order and you mentioned health care. i was wondering if you had in sight you could share with us as to how you went about that and if you have a solution to the health care crisis and the cost. >> how long do we have? the answer is yes, we are working very hard to pass a health care bill will be the first in the country where health care is the amount of privilege for the individuals and isn't required by the employer which we think will be the job creator but m