just want to share with our colleagues and see if there is any response to a story that has just come out from the "washington post" and the last few minutes. is as house democratic leaders say -- lets you pick houston but leaders say they will take a separate vote on the senate health care bill rejecting an area much criticized the strategy that would have permitted them to gain the measure passed without an explicit vote. and i just wondered if this is a decision that has been made by the house democratic leadership? >> as you know, we're having to sing and we have not put able to get the. that's the whole point of this. at the end of this hearing we will meet and try to speed as it like it has happened. >> reclining my time here. spent with a gentle you yield? >> yes. >> i believe that there's been

significant discussion that i want to thank the house leadership for impact indicating a number of us that that is a fact of what would happen, and i think that we that sanity prevails here and i'm very pleased about that. not as i said before, it's not that it was unconstitutional or illegal. but it was something that we should just done in the light of day straight up. and i want to -- >> it has never been done before on issue of this magnitude. >> we claiming my time here. mr. miller, did you want to say something? >> just to build on what congressman andrews said. we have been incrementally tinkering with this system for 50 years at a minimum. and so when you want to make the kind of change that brings about the efficiencies in the system, the expansion of the system, and controls and you say she in terms of getting value as opposed activity, if you don't, as mr. andrew said, put everybody in it doesn't work. that's an insurance companies. that's from the medical action is, the providers who say to you

over and over again, not as, not as a agree with this bill, this is what you have to do. you are moving to write pieces around. whether you're talking to the providers or the injured industry. they will argue over bits and pieces of this. what we have is to date is a history where all of the actors indicators are just tumbling downhill. businesses, large and small are shedding the coverage. small businesses are shedding the coverage. one of the premier insurance providers, employers in our state government is now putting this surcharge on spouses. a surcharge on children. they are offloading and they have been offloaded for a decade. the cost to the enterprise onto the employees. that is going on all the time. if you're in an organized union, what you see is more and more is going to health care and less and less is going to discretion and, in people's pockets. so the trends are all in the

wrong direction, and they are accelerating. they are absolutely accelerating in terms of dramatically increasing the uninsured in our state today, the l.a. times tells us it's one in four. they tell us there's a 1000-dollar cost bring on that on every californian. so you got to bring the people into the system. you've got to try the efficiencies that you got to drive the savings that you've got to drive the value of the engagements to take place. and the fact of the matter is, with medical i.t., with these changes, you get change in behavior. the kaiser hospitals, one of the most successful enterprises, now patients are able without getting a doctor office visit, and ask their doctors questions and get immediate replies within a few minutes but of what's bothering them. they can check their blood pressure, cholesterol at home and he could be moderate back and forth. studies can go on because of the data systems about what works for people under 45, over 45, with different prescriptions at how generics match up. and all that is taking place.

and there are employers in our state as a if kaiser was not available they could not provide health insurance because of the dramatic difference in those premiums. that's what you are trying to inherit on behalf of businesses, families, and on behalf of our economy. are those changes in this system. because what is the business roundtable, the chamber of commerce, small business grants, family groups, all the rest of this, all of these indicators are getting worse with the status quo. and with the constant incremental fooling around with a system. and that's what we are today. you don't get to do this without being comprehensive. if you want, the savings and the efficiencies and the expansion of service to people of quality care of. >> thank you. 30 seconds. >> as a member of the energy commerce committee, i think what's been left unsaid is that the health care systems that we operate right now on medicaid a 60 cents on the dollar. medicare pays 70 cents on the

dollar. your discounted the impact of this cost escalation, and where developing a new government system that's going to underpay. and that's our concern about instead of a private market solutions the. >> for primary care, the reimbursement from medicare and medicaid level pics of anything we're doing speedy's i'm using a centralized system. >> retaining my time. i thank what we're saying here is in order to have this kind of reform, to better care the ring the cost, covering more people, making it more affordable, is that you have to have a companies of system because it's all in balance. so with that i yield back my time. >> doctor fox? [inaudible] >> buckle your seatbelts, everybody. [laughter] >> bumpy ride.

>> doctor fox, your time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like what mr. sessions said earlier in this characterization, of what we're dealing with here. we are dealing with a bill that your site is very bad. that's the senate bill. but you like the reconciliation bill. i think it's important to say, codified as again for the american people, once the senate bill passes and it goes to the president to be signed, it becomes law. so you're passing a bad bill, a bill most of you say you don't like, a bill that the chairman of this can be said she doesn't like. so you're going to vote on that, pass that bill, in the hope that you will be able to pass what is

and the reconciliation bill to fix the bad things. and i think it's really important that we go over that occasionally in this debate, or in this discussion, to clarify that. the other thing that i -- >> would the gentleman yield on that? >> no. spirit but at some point i would like to respond. >> i would like to set the stage a. the other thing is that we been told over and over and over again that everything is going to be out there for 72 hours, and that we would have time to consider it. and we know that some of you have seen the manager's amendment, but we have not. it just came. but we're not going to have 72 hours to be able to consider the manager's amendment before we vote on the rule, and on this. so i just want to point out that the things i've been told to us are not accurate in terms of

what the rules are going to be. my -- and i want to say, to put it in plain terms, the things that mr. ryan was saying a little earlier about spending money to times are saving and spending it, you do, the folks in my district with a you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. and i think most people in this country understand that kind of language. i have several questions i want to ask. i'm going to start, if i can, with mr. camp. and say, again, would you talk a little bit about the expanded role of the irs in this legislation? >> well, in the senate bill, there is an unprecedented expansion of the irises authority, and i would say to my friends on the other side, they have given a very articulate description of central planning

and health care. and the central planning will be enforced by the iran us. the irs, under the bill, and i could, would regulate the economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for and what health insurance is purchased. there will be individual mandate -- skidding, and individual mandate tax which will be phased in over a period years which will go into effect fully into effect in 2016 which will be the greater of $750 per person, up to $2250 per household. or 2 percent of household income, whichever is greater. and again -- >> go back and read the definition again and the role of the irs. i just want everybody to hear that. >> the irs will regulate the economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for and what health care is purchased at the iris will be was vital for enforcing this individual mandate tax. that means the irs would audit

and assess interest and penalties on taxes to the irs, the irs determines, did not purchase government approved health care insurance, or pay the individual mandate tax. and according to the congressional budget office on november 20, analysis and the joint committee on taxation, nearly half, 46 percent of the individual mandate tax collected by the irs would be paid by households earning less than 300 percent of the federal poverty line. that is $66,150 for a family of four. >> and what was the presence promise about people not paying extra taxes? >> it was not to pay taxes on families earning less than $250,000 per year. now to assist the irs and enforcing the individual mandate tax, the bill would require that everyone provide, but everyone who has health insurance would send an informational return

like a 1099 to the irs and also then, if it is unemployed they would send it to the individual and the irs as well. so that the irs will be charged with tracking the monthly health insurance status of roughly 300 million americans because even if you are out of compliance, for one month, if you don't have health insurance for one month, under the legislation you would they want wealth of the annual penalties i want to early. now, the congressional budget office has assumed in their analysis that the irs budget would have to grow by $10 billion. this is not my number. this is cbo's number of. >> and thus i put in the cost of this bill? >> that's not include any analysis. so while we had a big discussion on the cbo analysis, i agree with the analysis, as far as it goes. and the analysis does not include the $10 billion that cbo

says in or to fulfill all these new duties and obligations in the legislation, that they would be. and if you look at an estimate -- let me just say we did have testimony before the ways and means committee just this week, from the national taxpayer advocate, and the national taxpayer advocate is very concerned that the iris will be able to offset people's refunds. so here you've been struggling to make ends meet. you finally get to april 15. you think you're going to be receiving a cash refund to help you and your family, and the irs can offset that if you come at any period of that year, on without health insurance for any portion of any time. >> and hasn't been any analysis of how much this is going to cost employers in this country to send the statements out to the employees of? >> no, i've not seen an analysis with the private sector obligations will be. the congressional budget office only tracks what the government

expense or the impact on the federal government will be. there's no comparative analysis on the private sector, or on jobs. the legislation and though would exempt two groups of people from the individual mandate tax. one is incarcerate individuals because obviously they get health care by the fact that they are in prison. and secondly, illegal aliens. those two groups of people are exempt. and if you -- i guess i would just include -- >> can you follow up on that a minute. if illegal aliens are exempted from this, then that assumes something different from what i believe mr. andrews said earlier was that illegal aliens would not be allowed to be covered under this bill, and answering mr. sessions questions. >> no, i will say this. they don't allow them into the exchange so they can't, there's

an issue there whether they do or not. but the concern is, if an average american doesn't have health insurance, and the reason that they have to pay this individual mandate tax is the cost of them going to the emergency room without health insurance, then why does that not apply to illegal aliens who will also be unveiling themselves of emergency room services when they need help wax so i guess i would say that, you know, to summarize, illegal aliens will be able to continue to go to the emergency room, not have to be responsible for this individual mandate tax. well, the uninsured american must pay that tax. and i would just go by sink there's an unprecedented level of involvement by the irs, a dramatic increase in the role and function, under this legislation that led tens of

billions of dollars to the cost of implementing this. it's not good in the cbo report. >> let me see if i can summarize what you said about illegal aliens. illegal aliens will not have to pay a tax for not having insurance. they can continue to go to the emergency room, or get their care and free clinics or whatever. they don't have to pay a tax, bright? >> right. that's correct. >> but we will still be paying for the health care. >> do illegal aliens pay taxes or -- is that something we're collecting right now the? >> some do, obviously they do. they are working and they're paying taxes. they do that all the time emac they're obligated to pay taxes, where they did do out. >> some do and some don't. so they are paying taxes. some are paying taxes, some are

not think taxes. >> a gentle lady you for another question? is what we're saying here is they are not allowed to buy insurance through the exchange. exchange. so i don't see how you could penalize him for not buying it through the market place. so are you suggesting we should allow our undocumented population to purchase insurance through the market place of? >> i'm not suggesting anything. i'm just trying to clarify what you all are allowing and not allowing spent under the house bill, we did allow our undocumented population to buy insurance through we caught the exchange is on or the marketplace mechanism. there were several of minutes that were offered by members of your party, i recall at the time, for this committee, that would've ended the ability of our undocumented population to buy insurance through the exchange. i asked one of them, i recall, how we intended to pay for the. and we don't allow them to buy insurance, we are then forcing others to pay for their uncompensated care.

unfortunately, the senate bill does not have this provision. so the gentle lady is correct that by not allowing undocumented immigrants to buy insurance through a market place where forcing taxpayers to cover the subset of them that otherwise wouldn't insurance. i yield back. >> dr. park, if you would you do one quick observation the mac we also want to remember that because the undocumented were left out of the exchange and therefore cannot dissipate in health program, their own access would be to the emergency room. they can't use the emergency room the way you use your doctor visit or regular hospital visit. when you go to an emergency room you get care based on the urgency of your condition. and so for folks are coming to the emergency room, it's because they have an emergency condition. if they don't, they go to the very back of the line and may or may not get treatment. the emergency room is less for those who have an emergency condition. contagious disease. i don't believe that we would want to say that we want to

exclude anyone who happens to be in this country if they have a contagious disease, the bird flu our swine flu or whatever, you would not want to exclude people if they truly have an emergency condition. that's a really the undocumented population with. >> we have to go vote. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> house rules committee going into a short recess to attend the votes in the house. also meeting with president obama coming to talk to members, democratic caucus. house conducting a series of those and we're told that this will wrap up legislative business for the day in the house. the conclusion of the house votes rules committee members will return for more deliberations on rules for the debate on the health care legislation this weekend in the house. house will be debating and voting on to health care measures. one passed in the senate in the center, and a reconciliation bill that makes changes to the senate bill. the second bill, the senate bill, also includes changes to the federal student loan program. if the senate bill does pass now tomorrow it will go to the present for his signature. the reconciliation bill is agree to, would go to the senate for possible consideration next week. and we are learning from a number of sources now that democrats do plan to drop the

demon pass them or the slaughter solution proposition on the senate health care bill and there will be a separate vote on the senate bill altogether. vote on health are expected to take place sometime tomorrow. we will have live coverage on the c-span networks. also remember that you can continue to fall the truck of the health care debate on the c-span networks. also at our website, c-span.org. you can read the bills as well as watch the debate. while voting continues in the house we will look at health care floor debate from earlier today. >> certainly i yield. >> i thank my friend for you to come and i appreciate this exchange but i just want to share with our colleagues and see if there's in response to a store that has just come out from the "washington post" in

the last a few minutes. it's as house democratic leaders say -- let's see, house democratic leaders say that they will take a separate vote on the senate health care bill rejecting an earlier much criticized a strategy that would have permitted them to in the measure passed without an explicit vote. and i just wondered if this is a decision that has been made by the house democratic leadership. >> as you know, we're having this hearing and we have not put able to get the. that's the whole point of this. at the end of this hearing we will meet and try to -- >> this sounds like it has happened. [inaudible] >> reclaiming my time here. stuck with a gentle lady he'll? >> yes. >> i believe that there has been significant discussion. i want to thank the house leadership for in fact indicating to a number of us that that is a fact what's going to happen, and i think we've had

said he prevailed here, and i'm very pleased about that. it's not as i said before, it's not that it wasn't unconstitutional or illegal, but it was something that we should've just done in the light of day straight up. and i want to praise -- >> it has never been done before on an issue of this magnitude. >> reclaiming my time here. mr. miller, did you want to say something? >> just to build on what congressman andrews said. we been incrementally tinkering with the system for 50 years at a minimum. and so that when you want to make the kind of change that brings about the efficiencies in the system, the expansion of the system, and controls, the utilization in terms of getting values as opposed activity, if you don't, as mr. and is said, put everyone in it doesn't work.

>> thank you very much madam chairman pierre the and members of the rules >> and now back to opening statements from the rules committee from earlier today. >> or the room back there please the we can get it started. >> we are on the verge of taking a decisive step to provide access for all americans to affordable, quality health care. health insurance today is failing our families and our businesses. if we do nothing, the system will go bankrupt, premiums will keep the skyrocketing, benefits

will keep getting slashed. and what you get will cost you much, much more. and our country's expenditure on health care will continue to grow unchecked. americans with health insurance know that they are just one serious illness away from debt, losing their home, and bankruptcy. with this legislation, we provide american security that they will always be able to afford and access health care for themselves and their families. first and foremost, this package of measures provide health insurance security for all americans. it builds on the system that we have, what works, and it reforms what does not work. you can keep your doctor and your health care providers. if you lose your job, you will not lose access to health care am and if you have a pre-existing medical condition, you will not be denied health

insurance or charged more for that insurance. health reform provide significant benefits that will be delivered shortly after enactment, and able to be used by the american people in this calendar year. for example, seniors will see immediately with their medicare prescription drug costs a 250-dollar rebate. insurance companies will not be able to cancel your insurance when you get sick. and parents will have the option of keeping their children up to the age of 26 on their insurance policies. when we fully implement this reform, we bring 32 million americans who are now uninsured into the health insurance system. this expansion is not only equitable, it enables a substantial insurance reforms that are needed to stop the abuses and discrimination currently in the insurance market. in addition, even within the strict limits of the reconciliation rules, we have taken strong and effective

action to improve the senate bill to make its provisions more effective, more equitable, and more progressive and more consistent with the overarching goals of insurance affordable access to quality health insurance. the principal improvements we have made under our committee's jurisdiction include closing the gap in medicare prescription drug coverage by 2020, including a rebate this year to eligible seniors. eliminate the special medicaid deal for nebraska and increasing federal matching rates to all state for the cost of services to newly eligible individuals beginning in 2014. improving federal medicaid payments to states that now covered low income childless adults so that they are treated equitably. increasing medicaid payment rates for primary care physicians, so that medicaid beneficiaries will have access to primary care. greater investment into

committee health centers, reforming medicare advantage insurance medicare's sustainability and strengthening medicare's services. health reform is not only a moral imperative, it is an economic one. it will reduce the deficit by more than a trillion dollars over the next two decades. i look forward to the deliberation of this committee, and to your approval of the rule and the house approval tomorrow of the most important health legislation since medicare, and the most important package of domestic legislation since social security in 1935. thank you. >> thank you to much, mr. waxman. mr. barton? >> is this on? doesn't work? thank you, madam chairwoman, and members of the distinguished rules committee. i've been in congress 26 years. the only member of the diocese better as long or longer than he

is mr. dreier. i think i've got everybody else outgoing. i don't have mr. miller, mr. levin, mr. waxman here at the table. this is the most important domestic policy issue in my time in the congress. so i think it's a very serious, serious meeting today of your rules committee. i've got a statement that i put in the record, that what i really want to emphasize is that i hope whatever you and your wisdom decide to do that you put up some sort of a rule that is based on regular order. i want everybody to understand, if, in fact, a decision is made by george leadership to pass this come a what is called the self-executing or the deem and pass, you're going to have a vote or you're not going to have a vote on a bill that passed the senate on christmas eve, that comes to the house, and if the

rule is passed, it is deemed that is passed, and there will be no vote, no debate on the substantive policy differences between the house and senate. now, i am told that on its own, the build of the senate passed would not passed the house because there's not a majority and is not 216 votes in your conference to pass it. so we start off, if that's the way you guys decide to do it, we start off with dean means something passed, that nobody in the house really needs to debate or have an up or down vote on. and then we debate perfunctory, maybe an hour, maybe two hours, i don't know how much time you're going to give us for debate, and reconciliation package. that the only people that have really seen it in depth are those distinguished members of the rules -- of the budget committee.

and since 1983, which is the year before i got elected, the senate has only one time accepted a reconciliation package that came out of the house first. . .

the same conference report to can bring the bill back to both bodies for an up or down vote. that's not easy. it's hard to do but it would work. this process corrupt and prostitutes the system. i can't, you know, i know personally i would not respect to the co this respect to and use such language by didn't believe it. we are about to unleash a

cultural war mike in this country if we use this process and don't allow the legitimate differences to be debated and on the grade in compromise. my main point is don't do this demon pass. officially i'm asking for an open rule. i know that's not likely to happen that you could do a modified closed rule you could make the republican substitute in order of several amendments the most important in order. we could have some sort of debate tomorrow afternoon and i might point out as far as i can't help in both of the senate bill and reconciliation package the main components in terms of policy change don't kick in for 2014, so it's not like we have to be here on sunday afternoon. it's not like we don't have enough time to actually have a debate if you remember some of the debates in 1986i know mr. dreyer was a part of that

and mr. miller and mr. live in was certainly a part of that. if you remember the debate on the war resolution under the first iraq gulf war, we have extended debate in fact we let every member of the house that wanted to speak on the war resolution of the iraq gulf war. madam speaker, i could go through the substance, but we have a number of myself and of the energy and commerce committee offering. i would hope at a minimum those amendments would be made in order to kick out the special deals that were put in for various states and localities, and i can't emphasize strongly enough for the sanctity of the institution we adopt a rule that is based on regular order and not some sleight of hand subterfuge that was never intended for things of this

sort. some may say the republican eustis, too. we did but we did for bills that already passed the house or there was at least agreement between the house and senate and it was an expedited process that was pretty well agreed upon. that's not the case here. the majority party in the house and the senate cannot even agree on what should be in the reconciliation package as far as i can tell. so i do appreciate your courtesy of allowing me to testify, and i do hope that regular order will prevail. >> thank you, mr. barton. i think we will question the xin commerce savitt can be allowed to be the table. >> thank you. [laughter] >> so we can get more people yes indeed. mr. barton, conference would have been one, would have been a wonderful the last three years because you know we've not been

able to do that and i know senator mcconnell of announced last year there would be no conference on this bill. i appreciate that you were the bluebird of happiness. >> the bluebird of happiness? [laughter] >> yes and somehow we believe we can do this lovely a sweetly and light but we don't have evidence to do that. i would love to hear and i agree with you nothing would please me more than we are all working together because it is the most important thing and i will be voting on in my career here and i hate it when of the parties is opted out of something of this magnitude that we have to play the hand that is built and so we are going to be doing the best we can but i always appreciate your advice. >> could i comment on that briefly? >> of course.

>> the thing i've probably worked hardest on in my time in the past was energy policy. we passed a comprehensive energy bill when i was chairman back in 2005 with that same bill didn't get off conference in 2003, did not even get out of the segment -- senate in 2001. but we did finally get a billion it had bipartisan support than ranking member dean signed the report approximately one-third of hosta madrid's voted for, the majority of the senate democrats, senator bingaman ranking member beagle, myself and mr. domenici put in a bipartisan fashion. it took six years but it did happen. i'm not saying that sweetness and light to go the regular order but it brings everybody to the table and forces compromise

if the reconciliation package that the budget committee put together the only people that have had input into that are the inside democrats in the house and senate and the president and his staff so it automatically isn't going to have all the compromises but what if you have a little bit different process like i've talked about. >> i don't know of anything that has had more hearings or more workers in minsk on over the bill's section by section in our caucuses and work hard on but i was here during the clinton health care debate which is the same and i remember the things that were said about it and one of the worst for me was the information that will not senior citizens that under the clinton health care plan if by some chance a senior went to the wrong doctor it was going to cost them under clinton's plan

tindals and dollars and maybe jail time. that's the kind of thing we've been having to fight and i have to stand up for my side. we have tried to be bipartisan and we as wanted conference is and we have simply had as i said a while ago had to play the hand that has been dealt. i wish we could have done better and i think in time everybody will see that what we have done here has made a good difference in the united states. we have to get on with it. mr. waxman, thank you for the good work that you've done and your staff. i have no idea how many hours you have put it on this. i couldn't even begin to contemplate that. but i know like anna eshoo from california said yesterday we feel like we've been pregnant 17 months. let's get on with it already. thank you. mr. dreyer. >> thank you. let me first say that i was told

what we came up today we were going to hear from the witnesses and question them. i know a number of members of the panel have very important commitments they would like to address and so i would like to propose, i will make a statement and then maybe we can hear from the other witnesses as we were told before we came up and then go to questions because if we have all 13 members of the rules committee ask mr. waxman and mr. barton questions means the other witnesses will be sitting here. >> i wasn't given that news. >> we are going to hear from the chairman and ranking member of the committees and we were going to begin with questions. >> it's fine with me if mr. klein will over to mr. waxman said mr. jazeera can get over here by mr. ryan and we can have everybody at the table.

is that okay? we will go ahead and do that. we will now hear from mr. levin of the ways and means committee. >> it's a little close there is in it? that's a lot of brainpower. [inaudible conversations] mr. levin. >> thank you for this opportunity. let me say hello to some longtime colleagues and i am sorry my back history you to be we face a challenge not only --

>> is your microphone on? >> it isn't. is it on? it's all? >> that's better. >> today we face a challenge not only in this congress but in the country, and indeed i think it's a crisis. for those who like their insurance it's important that we be able to keep it. the problem is it is it too expensive to keep. the costs are going up. i look at my home state of michigan, blue cross blue shield has a majority of the consumers in the state that requested an increase of over 40%. people are subject to what are

called a rescissions, the termination of their policies, and you will limits, the subject to lifetime caps. the data are not entirely clear but a huge proportion of the bankruptcies in this country come because of medical costs. if people want to move and many are locked into their jobs because it's the only way they get insurance but if they decide to move they can be handicapped because of pre-existing condition say they can't get insurance and then as we all know we have 45 million americans or more who don't have insurance. and so with this bill does is build on the present system and 95% of americans would be

covered. we are the only industrial nation that has a huge number of uninsured people and that is more than a challenge, it is a crisis. what we do here is have an individual mandate and i've heard all of the discussion about the dangers of an individual mandate. in 9394i remember it well the linchpin of the approach on health care reform was an individual mandate. we provide tax credits and i want to talk about substance and not just focus on process. that's what we're here today to do. we have tax credits to make this affordable for people and we also then provide that if people

will not pay, provide insurance there will be a payment. we have employer responsibility in this bill but this has been so miss stated. smaller businesses will be excluded altogether and that is the vast majority of businesses and we provide in this bill a tax credit to help small businesses cover people. so we have an individual mandate helping people pay and we have employer responsibility. as mr. waxman suggested we begin to close the doughnut hole, the payment for prescription medicine by seniors that was in the bill, the stone of whole passed by what is now a minority in this congress.

so we go beyond this. this is a fiscally responsible -- >> we leave this portion earlier today now as the house rules committee which is setting floor debate parameters for the health care bills coming tomorrow is about to gavel back into session to continue their rules. been widely reported now house leaders decided to take a separate vote on the senate health care bill rejecting a strategy that would have been permitted them to be in the measure passed without explicit vote. back live now to the house rules committee here on c-span2. >> mr. ryan, a little while ago there was confusion as you were trying to answer your question of the questions being asked of you and i would like to give you a chance uninterrupted to tell

us why this legislation does damage to the medicare program. >> what i was talking was the double counting. i will read again from the letter from cbo dated yesterday about this bill and the medicare policies. quote, in effect a majority of the trust fund savings and greater 35 fenty and reconciliation proposal would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the of the government to pay for future benefits. here's what that says. if you're taking five and $23 billion out of medicare by lowering payments to providers which is essentially what this does across-the-board in different areas and that money doesn't go towards shoring up the trust fund but it goes towards spending on other programs, then when medicare goes bankrupt which is scheduled to occur in seven years, you are that much money less the need to

fix the problem so let's say seven years forward bankruptcy occurs we will have to go in and take more money out of the program to shore up the solvency so all of the cuts occurring now do not add to the medicare or extend solvency and what we have to do to work to make it solvent we will go deeper into the program and these things are right now to actually adjust the solvency. so that's the problem. you're taking money that could otherwise have been used to accelerate -- advance the solvency of medicare and instead it's being used to create a new government program. one more thing. the chief of medicare is telling us the way that this bill is written if the kind of cuts they put in and the arbitrary nature and some of them are policies of a i think are justified. some of these other issues i think are justified but they should go to the medicare program to make it solvent the actuary is telling us that one out of five producers in medicare, providers, hospitals,

nursing homes, ambulance systems, doctors, they are going to go out of business or stop taking medicare patients suite experienced that with medicaid. somebody said medicaid pays about 60 cents on the dollar, 70 cents on the dollar, more and more providers are not taking medicaid patients saw with the actuary is telling is that is the fate and future of medicare under this bill. >> let me ask a very brief follow-up on this. i'm not an economist as you are but i think there is an economic theory or maybe even a law of economics, something about the more of something you subsidize the more demand there is going to be so would you say more about that in terms of what this bill would do? >> if you get the architecture of this policy, what they are doing is saying the federal government will be the regulator of health insurance, the federal

government will tell you what insurance is and isn't meaning what you have to buy from an actuarial stand point and benefit standpoint and then if you want held by adding that meeting a federal subsidy you have to go to the exchange to get the subsidy and in the exchange is adjusted so that people making up to 400% of the poverty line which in 2014 is just about $100,000 for a family that will subsidize their purchase so that people have if they spend more than anything from two to 9.8% of their income on health insurance the taxpayer will pay for the rest. the government subsidy kicks in and covers the rest of their health care expenditures. that means covering all of their excess of out of pocket costs above the threshold amounts so one of the problems with health care and economists from the left and right would agree with you have a system you feel like you're spending someone else's money you have higher propensity spending with reckless abandonment. when you don't think it is your

money you don't scrutinize or act like a consumer and so what this does is furthers us down the path and accelerates and exacerbates the notion of spending someone else's money except in this case it's not your employer if the taxpayer so that is why actuaries will get this program and see cost explosion in the future. the congressional budget office i believe has a low estimate as to how many people would be in the exchange plans take their number it's about 10 million. dustin million people in this subsidy scheme if you get the private sector that race who for a living measure these things they think about two-thirds of people and the employer market to have employer provide health insurance would be dumped in this exchange in the system. if you look the incentive structure with a reconciliation package it basically says to companies look, if you want to dump your employees in the exchange you've got to pay $2,000 per employee. that is a good deal for their employees because the costs are

more than 2,000 city condemned your employees in the exchange for $2,000. if you're providing health insurance for your employees and the government doesn't approve of how you do it if it doesn't meet their definition or if one of your employees goes into the exchange then it's $3,000 per employee so clearly the incentive structure is to get employers to dump their employees meaning stop offering health insurance and dumped them into the exchange. if you are a small business which is defined as 50 people, once you hire the 51st person than its $2,000 per and please would you go from 50 people working for your business you don't have a penalty it's not $2,000 per person you add one more the its $2,000 for everybody, 100 grand right there. so the incentive structure for my opinion is to get it to be in the exchange, subsidize their health care, till virtually everybody in america if you exceed more than 9% of your

adjusted income taxpayer will pay for the rest of it this is going to be a program that will level the size for sure in my opinion. >> i thank my friend for yielding. mr. ryan and i madam chairman are with acolytes of the late jack kemp and if i could extrapolate on one of our former colleagues mr. kemp most famous lines that was a few tax something you get less of it. if you subsidize something you get more of that. and in america we tax work, growth, savings, investment, productivity. and we subsidize all the work, welfare, consumption, leisure and now health care and it is very clear -- i must post to subsidizing banks i would say to my colleague mr. hastings. he just said banks on the subsidization of what about

banks? excuse me? don't believe in subsidizing rhodes i believe in building roads. i don't think that we should be subsidizing rhodes. i'm saying we tax work, gross savings and productivity and subsidize all of these things which we get much more of when we subsidize and that is the point being made about this whole issue a and that's why i hope there will be a realization that the strike expansion is going to exacerbate rather than improve and i thank my friend for yielding. >> i met with a large employer in wisconsin. this employee is in a low-margin business. it's a private employer. they have two primary competitors were publicly traded and publicly traded competitors told this employer they're going to dump their people in the

exchange because the cost of insurance is so much more than this 2,000-dollar penalty and the private employer who employs 7,000 people told me i don't want to do that. i love my employees, like the idea of giving them health insurance but the difference in the cost is more than my margins. as my competitors dump their employees in the exchange and pay this $2,000 per employee penalty i can't stay in business, can't price my product of a competitive level so i will have no choice but to dump my employees in the exchange and pay the 2,000-dollar penalty. what i fear will happen is you will have competitive dumping. firms will want to do this but to stay competitive because the competitors will that's what is when to happen. this is my own personal opinion. i needed based on the anecdote site been speaking with employers through the state of wisconsin and i'm very worried that is what is going to in that happening once the bill is up and running if it passes.

>> thank you mr. klein, -- >> weld gentlelady yield site in a point about mr. ryan said? would that be okay? >> okay. >> it's not a hostile point i think. [laughter] did mr. ryan drew on his anecdotes and opinions to conclude employers what of the employees into the exchange. the evidence in massachusetts it's contrary to that. we talked about the massachusetts plan today but my understanding as in massachusetts and mr. mcgovern could correct me if i'm wrong the sanction for an employer who doesn't insure is a lot less than the sanction of the plan i believe it is several hundred dollars and the evidence has been few and will years have dumped employers into what they call the connector in massachusetts. cbo looked at this carefully as a matter of fact i would say my friend from wisconsin -- the

number of people -- let me say this the cbo analysis is the number of people covered by private employer based insurance will rise over the first ten years of this and i had the discussion when i was very skeptical about this to me it was counter intuitive that a sing should i felt was modest would have the effect of thyssen's sending people. in fact that is what has not happened and the real world examples of massachusetts which has higher premiums but a much lower sanction has not resulted in the dumping of employees the way the gentleman talks about yield back. >> never prejudge what she wants to do. cynics may i respond? i don't want to review, can't comment cbo was telling the number of people and employers sponsored health care does go down in this bill.

that's the spreadsheet -- >> i may have misspoken. i may have been wrong. >> here's the point i'm making. i talked to cbo about this and your part about cbo is correct, they have a labor market model and under their model they look at the long term labor market effect which we will have a tight labor market over the long term it's a function of birthrates -- >> is a function of the stimulus bill. >> the point is over the long term because the boomers are retiring, but birthrates are down, we don't have a labor market right now, we have employment that's about 10% so the theory under this assumption is that firms will have to compete for workers because there are more jobs at less workers to take the jobs to compete on benefits. >> you think the opposite? it is deployed and that is not where they are doing. >> i will yield one more time to the gentlelady but the gentle lady would say this as usual we

have an armature for this debate and the cbo looked at this and it is not concluded the kind of dumping would happen. >> i hope it's not 4 million which is what cbo concludes will lose the coverage. i know what's wrong. >> they wouldn't lose their coverage and would shift to the exchange. a different point. >> madam chairman, i should have said this at the beginning i have a terrible sinus problem and i apologize i'm clearing my throat a lot. it has nothing to do with what any of you are saying and i realize there are times in clearing my throat and i apologize -- >> we need better preventive care, a good example. [laughter] >> the gentlelady should be glad she doesn't have my nose. [laughter] >> -- guess i better not go there. [laughter] we have had some people say what we think the american people

want and i do think the way we judge what the american people want is by paying attention to the polling that is going on and i believe that is the case. i believe that all of you are paying attention to that, too, which is why folks are trying so hard to push the bill through the i think that what has happened somebody brought up the stimulus and it made me think mr. and riss the american people were sold a bill of goods in november of 08, bigot sold a bill of goods i think on the stimulus and i think the reason that you're seeing so much opposition to this health care bill is they are feeling like a fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. we were promised a lot of things that haven't happened and we are not been to buy this again.

i would like to ask mr. klein some questions because i have a great deal of on the education peace of the proposed reconciliation bill. mr. klein, which you please talk about the potential job loss in the private student loan industry mr. ryan talked about job loss many of us talked about job loss and i think it's important that we get a feel for what we think are going to be the overall job losses as a result of this bill. >> thank you, dr. fox. it's been estimated and not refuted as far as i can tell we lose up to 30,000 jobs in the private sector and i might add that is a time when unemployment is running about 10% and hard for those people to go and get more jobs and these are jobs that are spread out across the country in banks and guaranty organizations and so forth and

the bill recognizes there are going to be a lot of people put out of work. it puts a little piece of money in their $50 million in something called a job incentive fee which is supposed to allow the secretary to provide a payment to services for retaining jobs in locations the exist. not clear how that would work and some of these cannot be in place because of the federal government takes over its entirety the student loan business perino rolph originators across the country are guaranty organizations so clearly it will have an impact in the private sector i would argue at exactly the wrong time. >> can you tell us how you think this government takeover of the student loan industry is going to help make health care more affordable. >> it would seem they are unrelated except if you look at the numbers the way that i see them and looking to the cbo they

are going to divert out of the so-called savings from e eliminating the private-sector and student lending some $9 billion to help pay for this. that in my judgment does nothing to make it less expensive but it does move money into some portion of their health care legislation. >> is there any chance or have you heard that in addition to their looking for, quote, before that perhaps this bill can't pass this senate as a stand-alone bill? >> you're asking me to speculate on what the senate can and cannot do, dr. fox is a lost cause. [laughter] i've been trying to figure that out -- [laughter] >> controversy brackett was in the reconciliation bill was going to pass and you all made that assumption. >> if i may that is a risky assumption on their part. i don't know. we know that the house passed legislation last year that would

have eliminated federal loan program and has not moved in the senate and it's interesting when you look at the price there's so much discussion of the congressional budget office. last year when we did the bill there was a purported savings of something like $87 billion this year it went to 67 billion except we changed the period by a shearson it went to $61 billion i . that out and that is st. cbo, nothing to do with the market analysis the cbo responded to senator gregg is saying that if we used a market risk analysis the savings would be considerably less sometimes difficulty of chasing the money in this >> would the gentleman yield so i could respond of those points?

the question of moving to the direct lending program and getting rid of the 8 billion -- roughly $8 billion a year in subsidies paid to the bank and the government ensures those loans this turned out to be very wasteful recognized by president george w. bush whistle in his budget and bill clinton in his budget and now barack obama. barack obama is choosing to do something about it. the minute the direct loan program opened up because the crises when we pass on a bipartisan basis the bill sallie mae immediately repatriated 2,000 jobs to the united states because they were going to bid on the contract to service the government assets and you can't send that to china or india or elsewhere so 2,000 jobs came back immediately. the analysts of sallie mae on wall street are telling us that this servicing is going to be an area of growth. they have to of the contract bids because they are among the better servicers in the country.

maybe you might argue premier. along with nonprofits and others who will service, it's got to be done in the private sector this will continue to grow because people are taking out more loans because the cost of college and people who've lost their jobs are returning to college we all know that scenario. we see sallie mae in the newspaper in indiana telling the indian operation this will have no impact on our operations here. you will look lose your jobs in another story these were spokespersons and employees for sallie mae. as these jobs grow they will remain in the united states. what we try to do is provide a fund so as the transition from being an originator of loans to servicing some of the areas where they're heavier on origination date to the best they can to try to hold on to those jobs. and hopefully that will make a difference or it won't happen whatever takes place at that point of view but the fact is this is creating jobs and that

is what they are telling the conference calls to wall street and that's what wall street is telling investors and that's what they are telling their employees so i appreciate the are running around in the in the papers recite the meetings with employees were told them they had to lobby conference congress and they said no it's not going to have an impact. on the question of whether or not this bill pays for health care or health care pays for this in fact they go back and forth. a lot of care in this bill is going for medical education, life science education for people to come to the health care field for primary physicians all the resources we need as we expand the pool. what has happened here is under the rules of reconciliation in the senate don't go too far into the weeds but the committees of terrorist action to the reconciliation must match their outlays and pay force so we had to pay the health committee had to be charged for the health

centers and accounting practices and insurance reforms. the finance committee had to account for medical and education resources that they were doing with primary-care physicians community health centers and that part of it so those are offsets. the idea that somehow we are taking this on just a subsidy to the bank using for health care goes to things are intermingled. that is a bookkeeping process to the senate reconciliation process. the fact is the end of this time we ended with a 10 billion-dollar deficit reduction and in up paying for this program and we are talking about so is your uncle but the last time you guys to $12 billion a week from the bank and gave it to pay for the tax cut for the wealthiest. so we are using it to pay for the families and the students

with caltrans and community college expansion and making the more affordable for individuals to repay their loans and that is going to benefit students and families. >> goodbye? >> short. >> dr. fox, just for a minute. it's interesting we are always talking of the federal government subsidizing the banks and private sectors in the loan business right now with the interest disparity the program is putting money into the treasury. i understand that can change with fluctuation but that is the nature of loans. right now the private sector is putting money into the treasury. in terms of jobs, creating jobs i'm sorry. we are hearing from the folks at sallie mae they are still worried about losing jobs but even if they hold every single job and even if they had some jobs it can compare with of the 30,000 jobs we're looking at across the country and there are many people in the whole guarantee industry will go away for example and banks will have to fire employees --

>> sallie mae is telling them the future is in private loans and servicing the existing $400 billion they continue to service over the life of those loans and the new servicing contracts that amount to the millions of dollars. >> reclaiming my time i think it's my time, actually beats mrs. box's time she lent me. there are jobs across the country we lost and can't be replaced because there are banks across the country that won't be able to stay in the loan origination business and the entire business will go away so there will be thousands of jobs. >> banks are in trouble we had a global financial crisis there is no question about and we understand we are using that global financial crisis as the reason for moving all of these loans and to the government and putting the department of education and to the $100 billion a year high of lending. there's going to be more government jobs because the part of education is going to need more people. no question my understand there will be jobs there and the big

companies perhaps two or three of the nonprofits they will be able to keep people employed but you will lose thousands of jobs across the private-sector. >> based on what? >> thank you to read on a yield to the gentleman from california >> i just want to say i've done something kind of perverse to realize that my time reading the manager's amendment to this measure and we only have two members of the minority here from the house ways and means committee. we have mr. kemp, the ranking member, and mr. ryan as well. i wish we had a member of the majority because i hardly expect the two of you to be able to defend what i have seen here if you all have copies of the manager's amendment? >> it was just handed to me.

>> i would like you to go to page six and the managers' amendment. right in the middle of page six of the manager's amendment reads as follows page 87120 strike medicare tax and insert an earned income medicare contributions. it seems to me if there's not any change from what was the medicare tax and that is the tax on donner earned income from investors who have income above a total of $250,000 the decision was made to take what clearly from my perspective what has been the most accurate description of what it is we have before us which is in fact a medicare tax and simply alter the moniker to somehow make that tax look more appealing by calling it to the honor and income medicare contribution and

if my friend from the grandfather community would continue to yield to me i would like to see if the only representatives we have from the ways and means committee -- we of the members of the ways and means committee so if i might buy a understand that but if i could just look to the members of the house ways and means committee who are here which is the tax writing committee and i would ask mr. kemp and mr. ryan. >> it's my understanding i had the manager's amendment put in front of me but it's my understanding that will change the description of what you would call the investment tax which would apply to annuity's also residencies' that are over and above the threshold level in current law and this is i think the 3.9 -- 3.8% tax on those individuals and the individuals that $20,000 of income and those

families it to enter $2,000 of income on a whole range of investments and the first time we see that it will raise a significant amount of money. >> you can't call it a tax you to call it an honor and income like your contributions notes of a tax it is a contribution. >> i'm sure if we went to the joint committee on taxation and asked if this was a tax they would say yes is a tax. >> we are moving from medicare tax due and other durham to medicare contribution i think we need to make sure we use the correct terminology. mr. ryan? i discussed members of the house ways and means committee is my understanding is not responsible for tax-writing. >> you don't have a majority of the people from the house ways and means committee. >> we have a majority -- [inaudible conversations] >> madam chairman, it is my

time. >> mrs. fox. well we got a little excited. let me make it clear a i regret mr. levitt is not here. we asked to find out where he is but i would like to ask the indulgence to allow mr. andrews -- >> ms. fox yielded to me. >> if i could finish my sentence >> i think ms. fox has the time and she yelled to me and i was asking questions of the of ways and means committee and i don't think there's anyone who doesn't want to hear from mr. andrews i just thought maybe members of the tax-writing committee might be something we could do first to clearly a explain how it is changing the name medicare tax to honor and then come medicare contribution is justified and if he would further yield i would

thank my friend for yielding and acquire mr. ryan if he might be able to enlighten us at all as to why this change? >> i just received this like you but a lot of people are confused what is earned income and what is unearned income, that is a tax term. on the earned income is like your wages and salaries, unearned income in this instance is dividends, interest, rent, annuity's, royalties, investment income like that. i don't think this changes the nature of the policy it just changes the label it is put in the legislation. >> so we understand but i would ask this question, mr. ryan. what would you say is a better way to describe what this is? medicare tax or unearned income medicare contribution? >> i would say medicare tax or unearned income medicare tax is how i would describe it.

>> days a potato -- >> i usually come political tradition is something that is done voluntarily and it doesn't sound to me like this that eckert checks will be voluntarily. if you would further yield -- >> i would like that. rather than focus on the name change which is semantic and obviously -- >> why was it done? >> so as not to confuse it with an existing revenue source of r. dee in the bill but already in the semantics that provides my friend from under the present law let's say i own an office building and that is my source of income, the revenue from that and you clean the building at night and make wages to do that and i collect $500,000 of net income from owning the office building. my medicare tax from that is zero. dupage 1% of your wages to medicare but when we turn 65i get medicare benefits and you get medicare benefits so we

think it's a good policy. >> i understand that. >> we would change the name of it -- >> the question would be to change it from medicare tax come from medicare tax, why not in fact call it an unearned income which is correct? you're absolutely right in the definition. a cynic would the gentleman yield? i don't think it is on the current. >> why not change it to unearned income and care tax which is what it was described as before because i think that what a very clearly -- it seems this notion going from medicare tax to unearned income contribution is a little less than accurate. >> the gentleman what further yield through the gentle lady i would simply say that i seek the semantics are important. the policy is more important and i would like to hear what he thinks of the policy changes. >> i understand what you have said about the policy. the point is should we describe the policy accurately that is

why masking because this manager's amendment has come out. >> the gentleman aborted deal if we agree to change the name to something you agree to vote for the policy because -- [laughter] >> reclaiming my time. >> i think in this area of disclosure and accountability should basically call it what it is. thank to my friend for yielding. >> mr. ryan, you wanted to respond? >> rather than debate the label of this policy, let's call this for what it is it is a $210 billion tax increase through the medicare tax system and remember what this is it is a payroll tax that until this legislation might pass it dedicates its money to medicare likely pay tax for social security we pay for medicare. this changes that. this is taking the medicare tax and diverting proceeds into the new entitlement so we are creating a brand new policy. this is a whole new notion we are going to set the medicare

trust fund and rate how many of you have done a town hall meeting where you have people say stop the rate on social security, stop taking the taxes out of the trust fund to spend on this other government that six ackley was being donner setting up a rate of the medicare trust fund to the tune of $210 billion so when we sit up the programs and financing to the programs and trust funds to protect those we usually think they ought to stay out from the rest of government. that is not what is being done. 1968 lyndon johnson passed the act and republicans and democrats since, presidents, democrat and republican presidents all have been raiding the social secure a trust fund to the tune of over a trillion dollars and this basically says that for medicare now so raise the medicare tax don't put the money in the trust fund to make it solvent use it to pay for this other government program and that to me is one of the cynical things in this legislation so who cares what you call it that's what it does

and that's wrong. >> mr. camp. >> thank you. i want to talk about what this is. the senate-passed bill does have an increase in the payroll portion of the medicare tax by .9% and that is on and we use only and because they won't know how much a person's spouse earns families will have to actually calculate that with the file returns it is going to further complicate the returns of small business people around the country and the other portion of the tax is i would call it a net investment income and that is going to be 3.8% tax on interest, dividends, capital gains, and you eddies, royalties, brandt, passive business income and income from financial commodity trading. this is a tax that will apply to the sale of primary residence. there is a threshold of course

of gains for a family to exceed $500,000 or $250,000 for single filers. and that's why the national association of realtors sent a letter to speaker pelosi and german level on march 17th and i'm quoting from that letter that said sadly this tax burden on real-estate owners william perry and delay further recovery and so as ill-advised from potentially destructive. we have a lot of senior citizens who rely heavily on interest and dividends and retirement securities co combined with the cuts that we talked about for quite a long time they are being asked to shoulder a heavy burden of this proposal. >> i will come to you mr. anderson is the second i just want to follow on something mr. camp said and isn't it true that many hard-working americans, they worked hard, they saved their money, they've been very diligent, they've put money into annuity's for their

retirement because they knew they couldn't live on social security, but they wanted to be able to live a decent lifestyle and they used these mechanisms for savings put money in savings and money in annuities and now you're going to be hit with a brand new tax which is going to reduce their standard of living when they have done nothing to create this problem for themselves. they played by the rules. they worked hard. they've done what we've told them to do and now we are zapping them with another tax isn't that true? mr. camp isn't that true? >> he agrees with you. [laughter] >> that answer is yes. i think what you have to do is look at what this means. capital gains and dividends ocher a top rate of 15%. if congress adopts the

president's budget the top rate on this income will rise to 23.8% which is a 20% scheduled to go into law plus three print 8% in the health bill and if the majority simply allows current tax law to expire the tax rate on dividends will climb almost 300%. currently to be taxed at ordinary income and 2010 with a top rate to 39.6% and 38% of this bill a top tax rate on dividends alone would be 43.4% of income so we are seeing a significant penalty on investment which is what we need to get this economy moving again to create jobs and when you look at taxes on investment the united states is out of line with where other countries around the world are and we are not operating in a vacuum, investment and finances are very

mobile and will discuss this further takes us out of the line and will make the economic recovery and lowering the unemployment rate which nationwide is near tannin michigan it's almost 15% and i have counties well into the high double digits 18, 20% unemployment so this will make it harder for that kind of investment to zero eckert and many people who fidelities income thresholds are small businesses. >> i thank the gentlelady for her fairness and allocating time and we would like to two points the first is we are obviously a very sympathetic to every family, every taxpayer but it's important to understand that the tax in question here does not affect families whose adjusted gross income is less than $250,000 a year and the tax described your only affect income in excess of that amount so if a person's $10,000 in excess of that amount of taxes

$380 that's significant. i'm not saying it's not but let's be clear with the record is. second, 17 years ago in this room there was a debate that echoes today and the debate was about the clinton economic plan which made similar increases to frankly the larger increases much larger than this bill both in real and absolute dollar terms and one can go back and read the record and hear the same things we've heard today that these marginal increases would be catastrophic to the united states economy. john casa de, friends people in this room said he would become a democrat if this plan worked. we are not sure how he felt about that but he's still a republican. the plan created 23 million new jobs. the dow jones industrial average quadrupled, the rate of homeownership went to the highest in history and the was the consequence of the decision last time it was made so i would say we should have the same

argument again and hopefully the same result. it is the gentlelady's time. >> mr. ryan? >> no. >> i think what you express, mr. andrews, is again a philosophy on your side of the ogle that we want to soak the rich every chance we possibly can and eventually you will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. that will happen eventually and it looks like that's the direction -- >> we don't want to soak rich, we want to help the whole economy grow which is what happened in the 1990's. the wealthiest of wealthy but the middle class got wealthier and low-income people of the rise. >> i want to say i have never, ever heard you all admit that the middle class got a better off -- stick in the 1990's they

didn't get better? sap images want to clarify one thing that was said. i think what ever we are doing to the well to do we have to make sure not to use it as an opportunity to scare people in the middle class struggling to make it here. the senior you describe that stalked away money for an annuity would have to be getting an annuity of $250,000.1 for any of this tax to impact them. per year. annuity. every year that would be the threshold to ticker dee dee to trigger the tax. >> other income, not just annuity. spinet no, no i'm saying they would have to be between all of their income in order to hit any of these thresholds part of the complicated analysis is what if you have in comes from two different places that make up the to get $50,000 but the point is if you are someone sitting at

home watching this and it's a beautiful day of sight he might want to reconsider that -- [laughter] i just want to make sure the people understand this notion that the rate is changing on the first dollar it's changing for all of these discussions whether .9% -- so these are not, people watching the net by anybody is free to change, you could figure a generous annuity and not be touched. >> or you could sell your house and have a nice capital gain and then get hit. mr. sessions has been wanting to say something. >> i appreciate the gentlelady yielding to me. >> i would suggest in the history we look back on great democrat tax increases in the 90's it never materialized with a good economy until republicans took over. that is a fact and you see now the