back going. there is samantha garvey. where is samantha. stand up, samantha. samantha spent years studying muscle populations in the long island sound. when she learned she was a semi finalist for the intel science talent search, when she found this out and her family was living in a homeless shelter. think about what she has overcome. she wants to by the way work for maybe noaa or epa. she is the head of nosaa and lisa jackson, head of epa. you might want to, you know, hook up before you leave. the young people i met today,

the young people behind me, you guys inspire me. it's young people like you that make me so confident that america's best days areme. s when you work and study and excel at what you are doing in math and science and compete in something like this, you are not just trying to win a prize today. you are getting america in shape to win the future. you are making sure we have the best, smartest, most skilled workers in the world so the jobs and industries tomorrow take root right here. you are making sure we will always be home to the most creative entrepreneurs and science labs and universities and making sure america will win the race to the future. so as an american, i'm proud of you. as your president, i think we need to make sure your success stories are happening all across the country. that's why when i took office i called for an all hands on deck

approach to science, math, technology, and engineering. let's train more teachers go get more kids studying these subjects and get the respect and attention that they deserve. that is not just a government effort. i am happy to say the private sector answered that call asrta future. led by the garnot key corporation and a group of businesses and foundations is announcing a $22 million fund to help train 100,000 new science and math teachers. a coalition of more than 100 ceos is expanding innovative math and science programs to 1 thirst sites across the country. they are partnering from everybody from will.i.am to dean cayman to celebrate scientists to inventors and emergencies. not just the white house, but

every city and every city across america. many of those leaders are here today and i want to thank them for doing their part. we will do everything we can to partner you to help you succeed in your projects. i am proud to announce that the budget i unveil will include programs to help prepare new math and science teachers and mead an ambitious goal. one million more american graduates in science, technology, engineering and math. that is say goal we can achieve. in a lot of ways, today is a celebration of the new, but the belief that we long on the cutting edge of innovation is an idea as old as american tinkerd dreamers and believers in a

better tomorrow. our founding fathers were out there doing experiments and folks like benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson were constantly curious about the world around them and trying to figure out how can we shape that environment so people's lives are better. it's in our dna. we know that innovation helped each generation pass down that basic american project no matter where you come from, you can make it if you try. nothing more important in keeping that promise alive for the next generation. there is no priority i have that's higher as president than this. i can't think of a better way to spend a morning than with the young people who are here doing their part and creating unbelievable stuff in the process. i'm proud of you and i want you to keep up your good work. i am going to make a special

plea to the press and folks who are here and the editors. give this some attention. this is the kind of stuff, what these young people are doing and make a big difference over the life of our country than just about anything. it doesn't belong just on back pages of a newspaper. we have got to lift this up. we have got to emphasize how important this is and recognize these incredible young people who are doing things that i couldn't even imagine thinking about at fifth grade or eighth grade. or in high school. so pay attention to this. this is important. this is what's going to make a difference in this country.

over the long haul. this is what inspires me and gets me up every day. this is what we should be focusing on in public debates. as for all the folks who are here, don't let your robots wander off anywhere. thank you, everybody. appreciate it. congratulations. thank you. . >> ladies and gentlemen, remain in your seats until the president and the students have exited the room.

>> caucuses are taking place in colorado and minnesota and there is a primary election in missouri. those contests are non-binding

meaning no delegates are being awarded. maine is continuing its week long caucus. join us for results and later republican presidential candidate speeches. look for those about 9:30 also on c-span. a remind they're super tuesday is coming up on march sixth with primaries and caucuses in ten states and follow them at campaign rallies and town hall meetings and other events on the c-span networks and our website at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> my friends knew america where freedom is made real for all without regard to race or belief or economic condition. i mean a new america that ever lastingly attacks the ancient

idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to c-span.org/the contenders to see those who had a lasting impact. >> the prophets of the radical liberal left offer one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again we should spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/the contenders. republicans and democrats this congress continue to disagree on how to pay for the extension of a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits that

expire at the end of this month. they approved a short-term extension in december, but couldn't come to an agreement. they return to freezing federal pay and increasing medicare payments for affluent seniors. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning. last week we had a good discussion on the policy merits of extending the payroll tax until the end of the we're and reforming unemployment as well as the dock fix and other extenders. i think i heard consensus that those three policies are at the heart of this conference committee. i heard members suggest that some of the items could not be concluded until we had a better

idea of what the pay fors are. as you know the provisions were offset in the bipartisan deal in december. they were also fully paid for in the house bill and extending the policies through the end of the year would cost between 150 and $160 billion. i understand there will be differences of opinions on some of these items, but for today's purposes i will start with three policies within the scope of this conference that have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past and such will have 45 minutes to discuss each of the following. the first will be a one-year pay freeze. the federal employees can save $26 billion. second, the president's proposal to get subsidies to wealthier seniors that saves $31 billion and overpayment in the health care law that could save $13 billion.

it totals $70 billion and half of the estimated total and with that i will turn to senator bacchus to begin our round robin discussion beginning with the debate on the pay freeze for members of congress and federal employees. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator reid for the technical support. >> chairman, thank you for making real progress here. american people are counting on

us and i am hopeful that this h the position for senators so we can sit down and get to work. getting to work means reaching an agreement. we don't have time and in fact we have less time than we think we have. i think we have to wrap this up. at least close to wrapping this up in a matter of days. i would urge us to think of ways to compromise. i suspect and i'm hopeful that some of those clues and compromises in this discussion is open here. it's also helpful for both sides

to learn what can and cannot be accomplished to help us reach that compromise. we don't have time. very little time. to go ahead and begin to talk one degree orsets that are goint another in this bill. are we off? >> yes. >> okay. my understanding is you are going to go ahead. >> mr. chairman, are we on the first item of the agenda, the extension of the pay freeze for members of congress and civilian workers. mr. chairman, let me talk about the federal workforce and how much i oppose the freeze included in this conference report. i would urge us to reject it in its entirety. let me first point out that the federal workforce made

substantial sacrifices to help bring our budget into better balance. we had a two-year pay freeze which equates to about $60 billion of deficit reduction that has already been on the backs of our federal workforce. if the president's proposed .5% increase is approved for this coming fiscal year, that will be another $18 billion of deficit reduction that our federal workforce is putting on the table. we are asking our federal workers to do more services for the public with less people. the number of federal workers has been declining and yet the amount of responsibility they are being asked to shoulder has increased. i want to address this comparable pay study that has been quoted substantially by members of the congress and take issue with how the results are being interpreted. when you look at the study, it points out that the lower wage federal workers, that is those

who are the high school graduation level or less, when you look at their salaries, you find that they receive comparable benefits that are higher than the private sector because we provide retirement and health benefits, etc. i hope we will not have a race to the bottom and the private sector when you look at the lower wageworkers, they are much less likely to have health benefits and much less likely to have retirement benefits and i would hope we are not trying to race to the bottom when it comes to the lower beige workers. it's interesting when you look at the report of those who have professional degrees for those who are working for the professional government and those who are working as nih as researchers and engineers and

nasa as scientists and fda to keep the food safe. when you look at the professionals, you find in effect their salaries are less than the private sector making it difficult to recruit and retain those who are trying to answer the most difficult challenges. whether it's divine cures for cancer and keeping america competitive in developing the best technologies for the future. whether it is in dealing eping safe and the list goes on and on and on. the work that's being done by our federal workforce. let me point out that the study does not reflect the fact that we had a two-year pay freeze. that in and of itself made the workforce less competitive than the private sector. i want to quote from the afge study that is very telling.

i think this is part of the misconception out there. the private sector pays men more than women, whites more than blacks, old more than young. the federal government does not reproduce the differentials because the pay system and the demographic traits are irrelevant and the pay is to the job and not the traits of an individual holding the job. i think that is true to a large extent. you want the government to be a model for pay fairness and sometimes we don't see a duplicated in the private sector. when you look at the federal workforce, you find that 25% of the federal workforce are veterans. veterans. private sector is about 8%. we all talk about doing right for the veterans. let's take a look at those who are working for the federal government and make sure that we don't treat them unfairly. mr. chairman, you put on the schedule the pay freeze, but i have to point out that the house

bill came over to us with others for the federal workforce including significant changes in their retirement calculations. the effect of all of what you put in would have a major negative impact on our federal workforce. i want to talk about fairness for one moment. i want to talk about how fair it would be to tell federal workers that yes, we are doing this payroll tax holiday to get more money in your paycheck. by the way, you will pay more than that and lose more than that through this pay freeze overtime. that's what we are telling the federal workforce. the middle income families will not get the benefit of the payroll tax holiday. that makes no sense at all from the point of view of fairness. the relief we are providing through the payroll tax is temporary. it lasts through the end of 2012. the pay freeze is permanent

damage. where is fairness? we have a challenge with the federal budget. i understand that. that's that's not the issue that's before this conference committee. the issue before this conference committee is whether we're going to extend tax relief to middle-income families and deal with the protections of unemployment insurance and make sure our seniors have access to their doctors. that's the focus of this conference. not the deal with the underlining budget problems of our nation. i hope we get to that discussion. i hope we get to $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next decade in a balanced and fair way. but when you start using the federal workers here, it tells me that we're not serious about deficit reduction and comingala. lastly, let me talk about fairness. i don't know how any of us could atl ack to our districts and people, our fbi agents, or our

nih researchers, that we're going to freeze their salary but the feds -- the hedge fund operators on wall street. those who have made obscene amounts of money during this recession, they're going to keep their tax rates just where they are now, which, by the way, is lower than your tax rates and, by the way, we'll then put another freeze on your salary when they get the benefits. where's the fairness in this? where do we come out with fairness? so mr. chairman, i urge us as quickly as possible to put this bad issue aside. this bad proposal aside it shouldn't be in our proposal and i think it really is a front to the fairness in our society of making sure all of us contribute. our federal workers have already had a two-year pay freeze. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i think i'll denver to our house colleagues since these are were included in the house-passed bill the? >> mr. levin? >> i'm going to ask chris van holland to discuss this but i don't think we should only ask those who have a higher percentage of federal employees than the rest of us to carry the entire load. because this is an issue can that affects all of us and all of the country. there are from employees working everywhere. and i think what ben said is not at all parochial.

and what chris is going to say isn't at all parochial. it's something that's national. in that regard, i want to point out that the three issues we're discussing today, basically, hit middle-income taxpayers. there are a few exceptions. i suppose there are some federal employees that wouldn't that be classified as middle income but there are very, very few. and for the bulk, there are very much middle-income taxpayers and middle-class families. and when we talk about health care and pension benefits, for federal employees, those benefits have helped them become an important part of the middle class of this country. and all three of these items on

the agenda essentially hit middle income taxpayers. the health care coverage provision and the medicare payments. i want to pick up what -- before i turn it over to chris. >> you're bite of the apple may be so lash-- large that we're g move to the republicans if you don't conclude soon. we're not going to have double and then one. no two bites at the. >> let them finish and let them go. >> all right. and then we'll come around. >> i wasn't sure about bites of the apple. >> now you know. let me say a word about the urgency of this. i'll pick up what max baucus

said and others. we must reach agreement and we must reach agreement within ten months and i think that means we need to resist finger-pointing and, instead, really work very hard together. the urgency demands it. all right, i'll let the next bite of the apple be postponed. >> i think there upton is psyching recognition. >> using the baucus touch on the mic. the light doesn't work but it's on. i want to say, just a cou things. this provision was within the scope of the conference because we included it, if you recall, in the house-passed bill. and we had a separate vote on this issue as an item under suspension and it passed nearly 3-1, i would compliment my

colleague from pennsylvania for voting for it last week, as i recall. 99% of federal employees that were eligible last year for a step increase, all federal employees have the table. they know where they are, step one, et cetera. so nearly 100%. 99% of federal employees were eligible for a step increase and, in fact, got it. an increase that averaged $1,300 per person. our rules in the house, if you have more spending you have to have the offsets. this is eligible and part of the agreement. this is a pretty sizable offset that we, on the side, certainly on the republican side but on the house side are looking at. i would say that the median household income this last year was $52,000. so maybe as we look for an

agreement here even to many of us would support a total pay freeze on federal employees, maybe you look at just those workers that are earning more than $52,000 which would include members of congress, to say that that should be included as an offset for this in spending. americans across the country are looking for congress to sacrifice, too. that's one of the reasons why, literally, the first week last year of session, the second day, we had an amendment on the house floor that cut congress's spending below what it was the year before and we did it again this year as part of our budget. so federal workers know that they are being asked to sacrifice here but, in return, we're making -- trying to make sure that, in fact, the deficit doesn't go up, knowing that we took concrete steps thisscretio to make sure it did not.

elback. senator baucus? >>? anybody? go back to you? >> very briefly. to congressman upton's point. those are professional degrees that work for the federal government are the ones that are in greatest risk of us losing their talent. we're talking about the researchers at nih. our scientists who can make more money in the private sector. so i would resist trying to draw a line as far as the pay issue is concerned. as it relates to members of cock you're not going to get any disagreement on that issue. we fully expect there's going to be a vehicle as we go through the appropriation process to deal with that issue. i don't think we should confuse the issue of our federalbers of congress. let's not put them in the same

category that we're in. >> if there's no further speakers? mr. levin? >> i think senator casey wanted to say something. he wants a bite at the apple. >> thank you very much. we're trying to have one speaker per side and we'll keep doing additional rounds so if there's a senate republican that would like to speak that's who's up next and we'll come back. >> mr. chairman i wouldn't get too locked in. the goal is to get people to speak their peace and frankly, i'd like to yield to senator casey and senator kyl. >> mr. chairman, just a couple of different items. you can parse in a lot of different ways but the statistics from crs and the office of personnel management are what they are. federal employees on average make a whole lot more than people in the private sector. the taxpayers that pay our