and i think that would address senator begich's point. and i think, from what senator collins said, i'm not quite as sure in terms of making this statement as i am about saying that what i'm proposing would reflect what the chairman said. because i know senator collins -- >> i apologize. >> no, no. this is technical stuff, and i'm sorry. in rendering a decision under this paragraph -- this is the bill is -- the arbitration board shall consider and the way it's worded, such relevant factors as. and what i think senator begich is driving at and what i think the chairman said is intended is to simply say shall consider any relevant factor including those three. >> we're back to the debate on including. >> right. >> that we had during the department of -- preauthorization. >> it's reminiscent. i think this is what senator begich is driving at. let me put it this way. are there any other relevant factors as the chairman said beyond these three? if so, they ought to be considered, subject -- >> i don't think of any. and the third, the reference

a no vote. >> senator begich? >> no. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> aye by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no by proxy. >> senator mccain? aye by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> aye by proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> aye. >> senator moran? >> aye. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are two, the nays are six. >> can i ask the clerk to go back to the senators we passed. >> senator landrieu. >> yes by proxy. >> senator mccaskill. >> no by proxy. >> and senator brown has just appeared so rather than his voting by proxy -- >> senator brown? okay. mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the ayes are two, the nays are seven. on the vote by proxy the ayes are four, the nays are four. on this vote, the ayes are six, the nays are ten and the amendment is notgr >> all right. i thank the clerk. thank you senator paul. senator pryor? >> i think that senator landrieu wanted to be noted that she based her vote on the napoleonic code. listen, this amendment should be noncontroversial. i

i can. >> senator begich? >> has there been a response from folks on medicare what this will do to their costs? my assumption is if one saves, the other pays. does anyone have? >> one point i would make on that is postal employees are paying into medicare now. >> right. >> so it's rather -- in some ways, they're paying twice. they are paying into medicare when they are active employees. then if they don't enroll in medicare part b or d, they are not getting the full benefit of all those payroll deductions over the years made both by the employees and the postal servic and they are instead getting the federal employees health benefits plan. so in a way, they are paying twice. >> right. but i guess my question is when you now require them to take the benefit, the cost, they're not taking it now. they're paying into it. it's actually a bonus to medicare. i'm taking a different hat on here for a second. it's like free cash flow without having to pay. it's not bad deal. >> but that's not fair. >> well, i understand

then senator begich. >> we would ask that the witness answer the question. many of these are simple questions. >> well, you have -- >> answer the question. >> well, let me just say, let me just say, when we ask a question here, a witness deserves the chance to answer. that's the way this committee will be conducted. for anyone. senator whitehouse is recognized. >> and give a straight answer -- >> senator whitehouse is recognized. >> welcome, mr. zients. >> thank you. >> for as long as there has been discussion about medicare, there has been opposition to medicare and there has been resentment that medicare exists. the forces that opposed medicare initially and that have resented it since are still out there. there is enormous value to certain sectors in the private sector of turning medicare over to private control. giving people vouchers and sending them off into the private health insurance industry for instance would be a significant windfall for the private health insurance industry. so i think it's important that we recognize that political fact and rec

begich: stock act is stop the outrageous pay for fannie and tprepld act. the bill -- and freddie mac act. our bill comes in the aftermath of a series of events that began last november when reports surfaced that the federal housing finance agency, fhfa, approved nearly $13 million in bonuses for ten executives at the enterprise -- that enterprise that supervises fannie mae and freddie mac. in response, senator thune and i spearheaded a bipartisan letter signed by 58 other senators to the fhfa acting director, edward demarco, and treasury secretary timothy geithner. we expressed outrage over these pay levels. almost three months after the letter was sent the pressure was on. government regulators were cutting the pay of executives they hired to replace the departing heads of fannie mae and freddie mac. also in response to our efforts, house finance services committee chairman spencer baccus introduced legislation suspending these bonuses and limiting future compensation packages for fannie and freddie employees. in november his committee passed the bill by

. >> senator begich? >> no. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> yes. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> yes. >> senator johnson? >> aye. >> senator portman? >> aye by proxy. >> senator paul? >> yes. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman on the vote of those present, the ayes are five, the nays are 12. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> okay. senator akaka. you're next. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i want to offer akaka amendment number one, to strike title three regarding governmentwide workers compensation or feca reform. let me tell you why i'm offering this. feca reform should not be done in postal reform. most of the employees affected by this are not postal employees. and the savings expected from these changes would have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. feca has not been reformed in close to 40 years. we need to take a closer look at comprehensive reforms to make shush we get it right and we -- to make sure we get it right and we can include adequate measures to reduce waste. there are co

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe 2-1 in the senate as it has in the hous

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe two-to-one in the senate as it has in the house. yesterday i received a letter that is literally signed by 360 different organizations from -- i got to imagine every member's home state that asks us to include this epa regulatory effect relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. they cite about jeopardizing critically needed jobs and how it could cost literally billions of dollars without a delay that again epa asked for themselves. it talks about serious legal uncertainty, particularly with the january 9th, 2012 court decision overturning epa's stay of the march 2011 rules as yet another example of the continuing marchias of uncertainty regarding the rules. inadequate time for epa to finalize the rules, let alone even read the thousands of comments that are coming i

. >> senator begich? >> thank you very much, thank you for being here. let me first ask -- it's interesting as i'm listening, i have been three years, kind of deja vu the debate we'll have. and the real question is how do we craft the right package and you have given some scenarios. and let me -- let me ask it in a question. do you believe to move this economy forward, get better revenue streams, reduce the deficit, create the right kind of mix, can you cut your way out of this? >> well -- >> if that's the only scenario that you have, that we're going to cut the budget. >> so our estimates say that if you were to have sharper cuts in spending, then those already embodied in current law. >> that means the automatic caps. >> we'd come back to you with a lower projection of economic growth in the next few years. depending on what happened to those policies over time, we might have different sorts of answers to the effect on the economy later in the decade. depends whether those policies were sustained. whether other policies might be made in the budget. but

begich, cole, landrieu, mccaskill, mikulski, both nelsons, pryor, webb, and former energy and commerce member ron wyden from oregon have all co-sponsored legislation with a number of republicans. so we believe actually that this vote, if it's allowed to occur in the senate, could pass along similar lines maybe 2-1 in the senate as it has in the house. yesterday i received a letter that is literally signed by 360 different organizations from -- i got to imagine every member's home state that asks us to include this epa regulatory effect relief act of 2011 as part of the conference agreement. what we've got now is, as some before me have said is deceptive. the thing that struck me when i got here is that when we were looking for savings in the house and the senate does it and both parties do it, but we're looking for savings eight, ten years down the road. and we count that as saving money. well, the truth is, we don't know what's going to happen eight years down the road. in fact, the congress eight years from now will decide what's spent eight years down the road. we don't have a clue

>> we have bipartisan support, and it is a bill that both mark begich the senator from alaska and i have produce and we are paking up cosponsors on the order of 20 cosponsors at the moment both democrat and republican and we hope the add to it. it is something that is even right now being debated. an amendment offered by senator mccape on tin on the floor to t current legislation that we are debating right now the prevent the bonuses from being paid, you know, going forward, but what ours would do is to also set compensation levels at a more reasonable level going forward so it is going to go farther than that, but it is still very much, i think, a part of the national discussion, and, you know, especially when any news comes out about those two agencies, and there has been plenty of that in the news here in the last, and continues to be in the last several weeks. >> we are talking with senator john thune , senator of south dakota. part of this is taking on the dodd/frank, and do you feel that in the next congress it faces a repeal? >> well, it is possible that there are attempts to do t

when we talk about subsidizing what senator begich just said is if we do it right. that is the main question -- who is making the choice of subsidizing things when we are running a $1.30 trillion deficit? i think these are legitimate questions. i want to throw that over to you. in terms of a highway spending what is the percent the federal government provides in funding for basic infrastructure versus state or local government? >> i am not sure of the current percentage, but i believe generally off the interstate, the majority of funding comes from state and local governments. most of the federal money goes to interstates and federal highways. >> part of the concern isn't when we -- is when we make these decisions, we really are subsidizing one state at the expense of others. how effective do you think that has been going on over the years? >> it has helped, i think, build an interstate system. it did not start in all 50 states. you know that. was one state disadvantaged over another when they started in new york and not my home state of illinois it? maybe temporari

begich: i come with a simple message about our economy. i know we're in the process of the transportation bill and the chairman of the committee may come out momentarily so i'll yield when that happens because that bill is about jobs, about jobs and creating infrastructure investment. we've made incredible progress, and we continue to make incredible progress, when you think about three years and where we are today. now, i know some in washington like to focus on the scare tactics and how bad things are, how they could be worse if we continue on whatever path they think we're on, but the fact is, you just have to look at the recent information, not produced by a bunch of politicians, but by other people looking at the economy or investing in the economy or participating in the economy in a pretty direct way. one statistic that's an incredible chart when you look at it, it speaks for itself really when i look at it. we've had now just prior to 2009 and a little bit after, we had about eight million jobs that were lost. we've now had -- actu

. >> senator begich. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. bernanke for being here and the conversation with several weeks ago with transparency there's efforts and i am excited to see that you are going to be held in the circuit and will be anxious i might even turn into one of those to see how they go. senator johnson brought up the point i want to make sure there's equal treatment. i am new here and i appreciate, i'm not here to defend the president but we are all to blame for this dysfunctional washington, d.c.. it's not just the presence congress that is also part of the problem here. that's what i hear when i go back home and because of that, and you kind of answered it and i think i want to clarify, or make sure that i hear you are saying and that is because of the inability for this body to figure out and compromise and figure out pathways that have long-term certainty it does have an impact to the consumer confidence and the business confidence of this country. yes? >> yes. >> so, you know, what i've learned, i've been an executive c

obama and clinton begich and up until june, in 2008. >> -- beat each other up until june in 2008. >>rs of pick sometimes to be vice president candidates. what qualities does a vice- presidential candidate need to have? >> you are talking about the guy who has the job held by thomas jefferson. i am in love with my job. it is up to the candidates. sometimes they find someone who might supplement that things that they're rÉsume or characteristics minded couple met in of. it is a -- characteristics might need. you want someone who will be a good messenger. if i was making the call, it is not my call, i will leave it to you. >> governor bob macdonald, also chairman of the governors association, thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> governors gathered for day two of their annual winter meeting. one topic, a limit in childhood hunger. among the guests were tom vilsack and representatives from walmart. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> all right, the meeting of the national governors' asso

when we talk about subsidizing what senator begich just said is if we do it right. that is the main question -- who is making the choice of subsidizing things when we are running a $1.30 trillion deficit? i think these are legitimate questions. i want to throw that over to you. in terms of a highway spending what is the percent the federal government provides in funding for basic infrastructure versus state or local government? >> i am t sure of the current percentage, but i believe generally off the interstate, the majority of funding comes from state and local governments. most of the federal money goes to interstates and federal highways. >> part of the concern isn't when we -- is when we make these decisions, we really are subsidizing one state at the expense of others. how effective do you think that has been going on over the years? >> it has helped, i think, build an interstatsystem. it did not start in all 50 states. you know that. was one state disadvantaged over another when they started in new york and not my home state of illinois it? maybe temporarily,

i want to thank senators akaka, begich, leahy, harkin, blumenthal, and sanders for being initial cosponsors of this measure. the structure of our bill is pretty simple. if your total income, capital gains included, is over $1 million, you calculate your taxes under the regular system. if your effective tax rate turns out to be greater than 30%, you pay that rate. if, on the other hand, your effective tax rate is under 30%, like warren buffett's 11%, then you'd pay the fair share tax rate. after collecting input from some of my colleagues, i've also included a provision to allow the fair share tax to be gradually phased in for taxpayers earning between $1 million and $2 million per year. taxpayers earning less than $1 million, which is 99.9% of all americans, wouldn't be affected by this bill at all. taxpayers earning over $2 million would be subject to the 30% minimum federal tax rate. and those in between $1 million and $2 million would pay on a phased-in basis a portion of the extra tax required to get up to the 30% effective tax rate. this way we make sure that no taxpayer faces a tax cl

. >> senator begich? >> thank you. somewhat entertaining today. thank you for surviving the first seven rounds of conversation. first, more of the statement because people who watch this, and the assumptioassumptio n is magically if we had a budget we would vote for a budget then it goes to the floor in voted on in in theory the appropriators would follow the budget and the president goes fourth. that is fantasyland. the president's budget, talking to the people who are watching they think there is magic which is the budget process to lay out expenditures of the federal government. set aside we write to our own budget and the appropriators set it aside the we appropriate money and the president must spend. is that fair? it is great all of the show and tell but it is not reality. the people that are watching us believe we have a budget we will take it and amend its and vote on it. that works. but it is appalling. i knew the chairmen says to follow its but just for the education of those coming it is great show and tell today but the fact is that th

. >> senator begich? >> before i ask my questions or comments, i would like to give a little bit of good news. i do this on a regular basis because where we were three years ago and where we are today reaching headlines from just yesterday the u.s. when seals data from housing trends make home depot a buy because people are remodeling, spending the homes the levin, home sales rise to a near two year high. the economy moving in the right direction. national was a season for business economics forecasts have raised their expectations for employment in home construction and business spending. why? because the economy is moving in the right direction. consumer confidence is up for the sixth straight months to build along with that today if i recall the numbers unemployment claims are at the lowest level for the most consecutive level since march of 08. i like to do that because this is a budget committee meeting. we want to talk about not only cuts but where we are in this economy. is it where we want it to b

. >> senator begich. i ask my questions or comments, i like to give a little bit of good news. i do this on a regular basis. where we were three years ago, where we are today. headlines from just yesterday -- "u.s. stock rises on home sales data." "people are remodeling spending in home state bank live in." "pending home sales moving to a year high." "economists have raised expectations for deployment and business spending." the economy is moving in the right direction. "consumer confidence is up in february for the sixth straight month." unemployment claims are at the lowest level since march 2008. why i like to do that is this is a budget committee meeting and we want to talk not only cuts, but where we are in this economy. is it where we want to be? it now. can it be better? yes. is it better? absolutely. i want to, to my colleague on the other side, it's your question when richards premiums, not that i want to see it -- answer your question on interest premiums, it not that i want to see military premiums increase. without the char -- the chart was interesting about the mil

senator begich, i do sympathize with what you talk about in terms of the ruralness of alaska as well as other parts of the country. while we are waiting for the m.o.u. to be finished, alaska is one of two places where we are proceeding with tribal interactions. i hesitate to use the word pilot, to get -- specific agreements within a tribal unit. in alaska i believe it's the southeast alaskan tribal association, and we are progressing in getting some arrangements made. it would be wonderful from my perspective if a veteran could make a choice and access tribal clinics if that was more convenient and the care was successful. we could work out the reimbursement arrangements. that's what we are trying to do in alaska. we have another effort going on in south dakota. >> you feel, i guess, you feel it's moving in the right direction? >> absolutely. >> excellent. the last -- i have two quick ones. one is senate bill 914, authorizes a waiver that i have introduced on collection of co-payments for telehealth, telemedicine i guess the general comment is we have about 200 veterans, 100 are alre

. >> senator begich, i think i have a graph to show you the surge in spending. i will use omb's numbers. this comes from president obama's budget last year and this year. it is called total outlays for 10 years. in the 1990's, last year's budget shows spending at $46 trillion. this year's budget shows spending at $47 trillion. i am doing you a favor and intra- -- answering senators' session's question for you. i have a question for you. you are claiming $4 trillion in deficit reduction. going back to your budget, it shows total gross federal debt in the year 2021. it showed a production -- projection. this year's budget shows total gross federal debt at $25 trillion. that is a reduction of $one point 3 trillion. we passed $900 billion in the first charge. that uses up to $1.3 trillion. where is the other production? >> deficit-reduction is the sequester money that we believe it should come through a balanced approach. then there is $2 trillion more. >> by realize those are your segmented talking point. if you take a look at the growth in debt the base line last

begich: thank you very much, and i'm down here to speak in support of the f.a.a. reauthorization conference bill that the senate will vote on shortly, and i do want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member chairman rockefeller and senator hutchison for their great work on this piece of legislation. a long time coming. it hasn't been reauthorized since 2007. so it's been a long time coming, so i'm very excited about this opportunity, and i think it's maybe a new trend for the year. last week, we passed the stock act. hopefully today we'll pass the f.a.a. bill. a lot of work and a lot of compromise on these two pieces of legislation, this one particularly today. the last time congress actually passed a comprehensive f.a.a. bill was in 2003. the bill expired in 2007. since then, the f.a.a. has been operating on 23 short-term extensions. these temporary extensions have been detrimental. they have hindered progress on modernizing our air traffic control. i will speak from someone who just literally flew in a couple hours ago overnight from alaska, which we cle

as senator begich, our distinguished colleague from alaska, said that's not easy if you're an alaskan. so this will bring that system up to date. the third part, i know controversial for some but i think sensible is to require that within 30 days of any stock trades, disclosure forms are filed with the senate and also online. i can tell you that the securities and exchange commission has made clear in testimony before the house committee and in discussion with our staff that that kind of periodic requirement for disclosure of trades in stock and security will enable them -- will help them do the job we want them to do to make sure that insider trading laws are not being violated, and of course we'll keep the public, our constituents, informed of what we're about. a number of amendments are up. as senator reid said, i sure hope we don't have roll call votes on all of them. a number of them i think will receive unanimous support on both sides and i hope we can adopt them by voice. there is one amendment, senator shelby's amendment 1491, to which as part of the agreement i have filed a s