requested earmarks and have funneled that money to those particular companies. is any of this going to be a real, hard-core smoking gun? sometimes. maybe not all the time, though, but at the very least you can have the information to try to connect the dots for yourself in whenever revenue care about. host: one last call from seattle, washington, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: please be brief. caller: i dismounted to say that in seattle, washington once she got in, she raised taxes on businesses by over 50%. they wonder why unemployment is so high. either she is stupid about business or i do not know why she would do such a thing.

they cannot hire anyone. it is an outrage and a shame. i did not know what politicians would do something like that. that is my comment. thank you for what you do. guest: one of guest: one of the cool entities of our side is that you can track specific issues. you can see on lobbying on issues, you can see how frequently they do it. you can see, well, are lobbying congress, the fda, the department of homeland security? if you can actually find that out. we just encourage people to go to opensecrets.org and an opensecret/blog.

and here is a tweet -- host: and here is a tweet. guest: that information is not actually contained in the financial disclosure reports, but you can expect given his wealth ranges into the hundreds of millions of dollars that he is certainly paying into the tens of millions of dollars when it comes to his personal taxes. host: thanks very much for being with us. of course, we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning as we do each and every day ipod 7:00 a.m. eastern -- every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] be sure to check out all of our programming at c-span.org and a reminder that these lawmakers will take up the bush era tax cuts and the vote today. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. >> the senate is in this one for a rare saturday session to work on extending some of the bush era tax cuts that expire at year's end.

president obama called for a compromise in a tuesday meeting with congressional leadership. his follow-up remarks are next. then comment from republicans. after that, senate debate on the cost of increased for elderly social security recipients -- recipients. followed by a discussion of the middle class. now, president obama describes his meeting with congressional democratic and republican leaders. he speaks for just under 10 minutes. leaders and reporters. >> hello, everybody. by the way, for those of you >> hello, everybody volunteers decorating the white house. we are spending time in here. i just wrapped up a meeting with both parties. it was our first chance to get face to face since the election to talk about how we can best

work together to move the country forward. it's no secret that we have had differences, that have led us to part ways on many issues in the past, but we are americans first, and we share a responsibility for the stewardship of our nation. the american people did not vote for gridlock. they didn't vote for unyielding partisanship. they are demanding cooperation and progress. they will hold all of us, and i mean all of us accountable for it. i was honored by the fact there was broad recognition. i want to say it was a productive meeting. i thought that people came to it with a spirit of trying to work together, and i think it's a good start as we move forwardment i think everybody -- forward. i think everybody u understands we have to focus on their jobs,

not ours. we have to accelerate the recovery and get americans back to work. they want us to confront the long term deficits that cloud our future. they want us to focus on their safety and security and not allow matters of urgent importance to get locked up in the politics of washington, so today we had the beginning of a new dialogue that i hope as well as most americans hope will breakthrough the noise and produce real gains. as we all agreed, that should begin today because there's things we need to get done in the weeks before congress leaves town for the holidays. first, we should work to make sure the taxes will not go up by thousands of dollars on hard working middle class americans come january 1st, which would be disastrous for those families, but also could be crippling for the economy. there was broad agreement that we need to work to get that resolved before the end of the

year. now, there's still differences about how to get there. republican leaders want to perm inaptly extend tax cuts not only to middle class families, but also to some of the wealthiest americans at the same time, and here we disagree. i believe, and the other democrats in the room believe that this would add an additional $700 billion to our debt in the next ten years, and i continue to believe that it would be unwise and unfair particularly at a time when we are contemplating deep budget cuts that require broad sacrifice. having said that, we agreed that there must be some sensible commonground, so i appointed my treasury secretary, tim geithner, and my budget director, jack lou, to work with representatives of beth parties to breakthrough this log jam.

i asked leaders to appoint members to help in this negotiation process. they agreed to do that. that process is beginning right away, and we expect to get some answers back over the next couple of days about how we can accomplish our key goal which is to make sure the economy continues to grow, and we are putting people back to work, and we also want to give the middle class the peace of mind of knowing their taxes will not be raised come january 1st. i also urged both parties to move quickly to preserve a number of other tax breaks for individuals and businesses that are helping our recovery right now and that are set to expire at the end of the year. this includes a tax credit for college tuition, a tax credit for 95% -- a tax break for 95% of working families that i initiated at the beginning of my presidency and a tax cut for businesses that hire

unemployed workers. we discussed a number of other issues as well including the importance of ratifying the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty to monitor rush sh's nuclear arsenal and strengthen our relationship with russia. i remind the room that this treaty is bedded for seven months now. it's gone through 18 hearings. it has support from senators of both parties. it has broad bipartisan support from national security advisors and secretaries of defense and state from previous administration both democrat and republican, and it's absolutely essential to our national security. we need to get it done. we also talked about the work of the by partisan deficit reduction and the sacrifices required to get our house in order. we discussed working together to keep the government running in

this year a fiscally responsible way, and we discussed unemployment insurance which expires today. i asked the congress act to extend this emergency relief without delay to folks who are facing tough times by no fault of their own. now, none of this is going to be easy, so we have two parties for a reason. there are real philosophical differences, deeply held principles to which each party holds, and although the atmosphere in today's meeting was civil, there's no doubt that those differences are going to remain no matter how many meetings we have, and the truth is there's always going to be a political incentive against working together particularly in the current hyperpartisan climate. there are always those who argue the best strategy is to defeat your opposition than working with them, and frankly the

notion of bipartisanship itself is caught up in this mentality. a lot of times coming out of the meetings both sides claim they want to work together, but paint the o poppet as unyielding and unwilling cooperate. both sides come to the table, read their talking points, go to the microphones to win the new cycle instead of solving problems, and it's another move in an old washington game, but i think there was recognition today that that's a game that we can't afford, not in these times, and in a private meeting i had without staff, you know, without betraying any confidences, i was pleased to see several of my friends in the room say, let's try not to duplicate that. let's try not to work the washington spin cycle to suggest that somehow the other side is not being cooperative. i think there was a sincere effort on the part of everybody

involved to actually commit to work together to try to deal with these problems, and they understand that these aren't times for us to be playing games. as i told the leaders at the beginning of the meeting, the next election is two years away, and there will be plenty of time for campaigning, but right now, we're facing some very serious challenges. we share an obligation to meet them, and that will require choosing the best of our ideas over the worst of our politics, so that's the spirit in which i invited both parties here today. i'm happy with how the meeting went, and i told all the leadership that i look forward to holding additional meetings including at camp david. harry reed mentioned he's been in congress for 20 years and had never been to camp david, so i said we need to get them all up there sometime soon. i appreciate the presence today and conversation today. i think it will actually yield

results before the end of the year, and i >> after the bipartisan meeting with the president, republican leaders returned to the capital and spoke briefly with reporters. >> the president with had a frank conversation and it's interesting both democrats and republicans and the president understood what the american people had toay on election day pretty carly because the president and democrat leaders acknowledge that the american people want us to create jobs if it cuts pay.

we -- the president did suggest that to unlock the tax disagreement that we have, that secretary of the treasury, of the director of omb would sit down with four of our members, one from each congress on the hill to begin a discussi to try to unlock this disagreement we have over extending all of the current rates. i think the republicans made the point that stopping all of the looming taxes and cutting spending would create jobs and get the economy moving. working forward in the conversation in the white house over extending the current rates, and i remain optimistic. >> i only add that i thought it was useful and a frank discussion. we did have an opportunity to reiterate that it washe view of 100% of senate republicans

and a number of senate democrats as well that the tax rates should not be -- other words, we ought to treat all taxpayers the same. as john indicated, we will each designate someone to try to actually get the agreement. i think it was widespread agreement that the two most important things is decide how to fund the government for the next ten months and the tax issue in the senate. we were wrestling with a lot of other matters with some level of encouragement but not at the same level of deciding everybody's tax rates. i hope we can sort of reach up on our priorities on the senate side and get them in line with these two big issues and hopefully wrap up the 111th congress. >> i would say on a number of accounts the president did recognize that the election meant that the people want to see results out of washington.

i think you heard now in tas and processes put into place, hopefully we can see those results and take away the uncertainty around the tax cuts or rates that's there right now. i was encouraged by the president's remarks regarding his perhaps not reaching out enough to us in the last session, and that this meeting was the beginning of a series in which he hoped we can work together in a different fashion for the benefit of the american people given the problems that we face. >> the meetings are rather conservative or optimistic. did they dial down the rhetoric on the president or is there a softer tone from the republicans? >> you make the point the american cared about government

more since world war ii. it's notnusual. it's also important to remember that some of these periods with divided government it's quite productive. i think of the sect clinton administration with trade agreements. i think we agree there's no particular reason we can't agree and do things for the american people over the next two years. >> the president made an important point that was mentioned. he hadn't spent as much time reaching out and talking to us, and he commended to do so. i think spending more time with the president will help us find commonground. there's a difference. there's a reason why we have democrats and republicans. we believe in different things about the appropriate role of the federal government of the having said that, the more time we spend together, we can find

the commonground because the american people expect us to work on their behalf. >> do you see this to be more positive in the future? >> we had a nice meeting today. the question is can we find the commonground the american people expect us toind. >> i would say this too. it was pretty revealing tt the leadership in the democratic side of the aisle in the house right now is ready to go and get the job done. i think that somehow it's a difficulty in trying to help priorities come into being on the other side of the capitol, and, you know, i think all of us were here, and you know, the president, i think put his best foot forward saying we have to produce results. i do think and am hopeful that we can work together. [inaudible conversations] >> s.t.a.r.t. treaty or --

[inaudible] >> well,he s.t.a.r.t. treaty is a senate issue. there was discussion of it, and i know the president would like to go forward as soon as possible. i think the view of the senate is let's take care of the tax issue and fund the government for the next ten months, and if there's time left for other manners it's up to senator reed on whether we turn to other things. >> [inaudible] >> i think we're hopeful they'll begin meeting today. >> [inaudible] >> we believe mr. camp represents house republicans. >> [inaudible] >> i will announce that in the next hour or two. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] .. >> also this week, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell announced that senate republicans would block all legislative work until centers act on those tax cuts and fiscal year government -- fiscal year 2011 government spending. senator byhouse spoke about

social security benefits and republican john barasso objected. distinguished colleague from wyoming here on the floor. i would like to make a few remarks about the social security cola. the presiding officer: there's no time remaining with the majority at this moment. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes? the presiding officer: without objectio mr. whitehouse: thank you. and at the end of my rarks, i will propound a unanimous consent request that the minority party sae wear is coming -- is aware is coming. and i wanted to -- let me find the language of the request. i want to make sure i get that rhode island -- i get that

right. thank you. i travel around, madam president, my state pretty often, and when i travel around-dade a lot and i see people are in very, very difficult economic times. many of my constituents have adjusted to this difficult economic climate by cutting back on extras and finding savings in their personal lives wherever they can, but for our seniors in rhode island -- we have a very big population of seniors who live on a limited budget. simply cutting back is a very, very harsh option for them. in 2008, rhode island seniors on social security received an

average monthly payment of about $1,100. $1,100 per month is not a lot to live on. particularly in the northeast. i have heard from the seniors to worry about keeping the heat on in their homes because oil prices are so high. i have heard from seniors who have to see if the pills or skip doses because there -- split pills or is it does is because their prediction costs are so high. i'm hearing from people who all their lives paid into the system throughout their careers and who believed that they would be able to grow old comfortably. instead, many of them are just scraping by on their social security benefits and the benefits often no longer cover the daily living expenses. for people in this situation, every penny counts. this past year for the first time since 1975, social security

recipients in rhode island and new york and elsewhere did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or cola, and it appears they will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in 2011 either. these yearly adjustments are dictated by formula that is tied to inflation and i know that because of the slow economy inflation has been stagnant over the past two years. the rigid mathematical formula that drives the cost-of-living adjustment does not properly provide for the cost-of-living adjustment that seniors need. this is a misfire in the cost of living calculation because it is based on an market basket that includes things that seniors do not buy a lot of and it does not put adequate weight on heat and oil and energy and prescriptions and medical devices and things that seniors

to spend a lot of money on. -- the seniors to spend a lot of money on it also overlooks people like chuck, a 67-year-old retiree from north providence rhode island who wrote to meet recently, concerned that his social security income will be frozen at its current level for another year. he wrote that the cola formula concludes -- and conclude, his costs of living formula continues to rise. in co-payments. today i'm paying more and gettinless for the dollar. madam president, i believe that chuck speaks for many american seniors wn he expresses concern about the lack of an increasen social security payments. so today i rise in support of the emergency senior citizens relief act introduced by my colleague, senator sanders of vermont. this bill would help ease the

strain on the budgets of our seniors by providing a special onetime payment in 2011 of $250 to all social security recipients. in effect, it would be a cola replacement. although a $250 cola replacement may not sound like much money, for those on a limited budget, the extra financial assistance provides a little extra peace of mind amid skyrocketing alth care and prescription drug costs. and for seniors in new england, the payment can help keep the heat on through the approaching winter. and this assistance would not be unprecedented. while this was the first year in and this assistance would not be unprecedented. disabled americans struggling through this recession. in 2008, i worked very hard with my colleagues to secure a $300 rebate for seniors and ssdi

recipients in that year's economic stimulus act. and in 2009, we again worked to make sure that the american recovery and reinvestment act included a onetime $250 payment to seniors and ssdi recipients. we now have the chance to once again lend that helping hand to our seniors. pa we now have the chance to once again lend a helping hand to our seniors. it is also a good thing to do for our struggling economy. in rhode island, for example, the payments would inject $51 million into our economy, money that would be quickly spent on essential items like food and medicine. madam president, as i said at the beginning, rhode island is hurting. unemployment stands at 11.4%. gas is now more than $3 per gallon and our seniors face more than another year of frozen social security payments.

bypassing the relief act we can show our seniors that they are not forgotten and -- by passing the relief act we can show our seniors that they are not forgotten. i urge my colleagues to join me in standing by our nation's seniors and to support the emergency senior citizens relief act. in that regard, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged of s3976, which is the emergency senior citizens relief act of 2010 that i have been -- discussing, that there be four hours of debate with respect to the bill, divided and controlled by senator sanders and the

republican leader, or his designee, and that no amendments or motions be ordered during depending -- during the pending this agreement. and a senate -- and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill. >> is there an objection? >> madame president. >> senator from wyoming. >> thank you, madam president. with the senator include -- would the senator include an would offset the that cost of the bill? >> at the moment, the unanimous consent that i have propounded is the one that has been cleared with the floor managers on both sides and i would stick to what has been cleared. i am happy to discuss with

colleagues on the other side how this can be paid for, but i thatt help but noticnote colleagues on the other side do not share their concern -- share the concern for the payment and paygo side of the equation when it comes to tax cuts for people making many, many millions of dollars a year. we are trying to get exempted -- dollars a year that we are trying to get exempted as middle class. it is hard to meet to hold the seniors getting a $250.10-time benefit in a year in which the cola formula -- $250 one-time benefit in a year in which the cola formula is frozen and other

costs are filling up and at the same time giving hundreds of millions of dollars, in some cases, tax relief that is not paid for. if anything, the seniors should be held to a lower standard than multimillionaire's for whom a tax benefit would amount to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. i appreciate my colleague's very legitimate concern about the cost that this would provide. i would submit that we are still -- elisse, in my state -- in a stage of recovery where we continue to revise the economy where it will be very beneficial to the country for economic recovery and it would be difficult to hold the seniors joyce standard for a $250 köhler replacement -- hold the seniors

to a standard for a $250 cola a replacement. i stand by the request as propounded for unanimous consent. >> is there an objection? >> madame president, reserving the right to object, and i note on the front page of "usa today" "jobless rate at record. arm the government report due friday is likely to show record high unemployment. many americans are still suffering, even though the government, the national bureau on economic research, has said that the recession has officially ended. people know what is happening in their own communities and in their own states. it does not need to be told differently by the government when they know the reality in which they are living.

at these are concerns that we all share about the economy and what best way to stimulate economic growth. i bust -- i believe that one thing you do is you do not raise taxes on anyone in this country during these economic times. we are unanimous on this side of the aisle in that position. but madame president, listening to my colleague, there are actually a growing chorus of members from that side of the aisle that are agreeing with me, including the two newest members of the senate from the other side of the aisle, who have come here -- the distinguished senator from west friedan and one from delaware. -- west virginia and the one from delaware. the one for west virginia while running said he would not raise any taxes. the senator a let and newly sworn in from delaware -- the

senator he likes and newly sworn in from delaware, in terms of tax cuts, he said he would extend them for everyone. there is a growing chorus on ways to give this economy and the job-creating segment of this economy some uncertainty. so they can then make the investment, make the decisions, and hire people to try to do that. we are unanimous in our support for not raising taxes on any one during economic times like these. >> i appreciate the senators objection. i would respond by saying that even if we assume that the right answer at this point is to continue a massive tax cut for people who make -- i think it

was recently reported that the 400 biggest income earners in the country earned an average each of $344 million, one-third of $1 billion each. the tax cuts for people like that create a very significant cost to the country. and i understand that is the senators theory that this is to our economic benefit, but clearly, there is a very high cost in our deficit to going down that path. my motivation in offering this unanimous consent is that our seniors, who will spend the $250

one-time payment virtually immediately, as every economic -- economist that i have seen who discusses these types of expenditures agrees would be far more beneficial if it were the $250 payment on behalf of seniors that and would be when the high as people get these massive tax cutrefunds and benefits. but it would be fair to treat -- that it would be fair to treat seniors in the same way. i regret that we face this objection and i think the objection is inconsistent in the sense that you are holding with this objection seniors to a higher standard, a harsher

standard then you are holding millionaires and billionaires to. and everybody knows about the marginal utility of money and for a senior on a fixed income, $250 at christmas time, whether it means keeping the house warm, prescription drug payments, money for grandchildren, that is important funding. and not just from a humanitarian point of view. from an economic point of view, it gets put right back into the local economy. i do not know what happens when somebody making $344 million per year gets a million dollar tax break. >> you have consumed your time. >> in that case, i will yield the floor. .com i thank the presiding

officer for her courtesy. -- and i thank the presiding officer for the courtesy. >> in response to my colleague from rhode island, despite over a $13 trillion in existing debts that we cannot pay back, democrats are adding another $13 billion to the deficit, added to the growing deficit. and this one is not even a new proposal. it is a proposal that was already rejected from -- rejected by 50 senators, including a number, from across the aisle months ago. if we're going to help those seniors that have been mentioned by my colleague, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. i support, i absolutely support helping the seniors that are having a hard time. i just propose that we pay for it. that is why i offered the

amendment to the proposal from the center for -- from rhode island that would, in fact, pay for it, a symbol as that. -- simple as that. rather than adding to the debt, what i have suggested is to cut and a corporate amount from other programs to help find money -- cut an appropriate amount from other programs to help find money for this program. >> will the senator yield to a question? >> yes. whyill the senator explaine it is that when it comes to the deficit is more important to protect our national debt then is to help our seniors, but it is less important to help our deficit and our debt then is to

give a tax break to multi-multi millionaires. as i said, the four highest income -- the 400 and highest income earners made one-third of $1 billion on average each. it strikes me that the debt is a matter of national concern the should apply equally to multi- super-cold drug millionaires -- multi-super-ultra- millionaires. the people that have their own jets, the people that have their own yacht, the people that have seven homes -- additional tax relief that most millionaires came forward and said they do

not want or need it, but it is unpatriotic to say that they do not want more. >> the way that i propose to help those seniors, to help those that have those needs, is a proposal that is very familiar to this body. it is because 21 of my democratic colleagues voted in favor of this way to pay for something earlier this week ended was attached to an amendment from my colleague senator joe hand from nebraska. i would be happy to list all of the senators who voted for this. i'm sorry that my friend across the aisle is not joining me in supporting this fiscally responsible support for our seniors. but as i say, on the issue of stimulating the economy and giving some certainty in this

nation to those job creators, the republicans are united, 42 of us, saying you should not raise taxes on anyone during economic times like these. and a chorus of democrats that support that continues to grow. and it grew this past week from five members of the democratic conference 27 with the swearing in of the senator from delaware and the senator from west virginia. senator tim conrad said the general will of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn. that would be counterproductive. do not raise taxes during an economic downturn. evan bayhth -- senator kevin b said it would put more money

into the economy to not raise taxes. senator ben nelson from nebraska said, i support extending all of the expiring tax cut until nebraska's and the nation's economy is in better shape and perhaps longer because raising taxes in a weak economy could be labor recovery. and of course, senator koons, i would extend them, the tax cut, for everyone. and senator manchin accetta and i would not raise any taxes. at a time of 9.6 unemployment, at a time when our nation continues to struggle economically, at a time when people are wanting to work, looking for work, looking for jobs, the job sector in this

country needs some certainty. and with the mandates in the health care law, which are expensive, and the environmental mandates coming from the epa with their rules and regulations' impact in the cost of energy, and the uncertainty, the significant uncertainty that exists in this country as to what tax breaks will be and how that is going to impact all taxpayers with their take-home pay come january 1st, it is no surprise that people are concerned and reluctant to make long-term commitments and investments in businesses and in the future. that is why i stand here to object to my colleague from rhode island when he makes a proposal which there is support for, but it is un-paid for. if we just need to pay for it. i bring to the senate floor in response to wait for which to pay for it and which he has

rejected. >> this week on premise to questions, prime minister david cameron talks about the state of the british economy, if the economic forecast an unemployment figures recently outlined in the office of budget responsibilities reports. prime minister's question sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. kfar on news makers, james talks about the bank's world in shoring up the economy. salman rushdie is on both tv's in-depth this sunday. best known for his novel, "the satanic verses," he will discuss his other works. this is sunday on c-span2.

and at booktv.org you can find the entire weekend schedule. thursday, the house voted to extend permanently the bush tax cut for those making up to $250,000. it also includes a two-year extension of limits for those affected by the alternative minimum tax and continue small- business investment write-offs. here is the 19-minute debate leading up to the youth -- the 90-minute debate leading up to the vote. this is the moment to stand up and be counted on middle income tax cuts the republicans want to continue to keep middle income ta cuts hostage, hostage until it's combinedith upper income tax cuts.

it's in part because they don't want to have to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy. but as i have said, the time has come, we must not let middle income taxpayers remain hostage to a partisan agenda. indeed i was going back over comments that have been made these last months and i refer to one from my colleague from chigan, the ranking member. he's here. he said just a few months ago in talking to a.p. that it would be difficult to block extenon of middle income tax cuts, even if it doesn't stop tax rates from increasing for high earners saying, and i quote, i'll probably vote for it myself, end

of quote. today is the test, whether the hostage taking ends. every single provision here, every single one is about tax cuts. tax cuts that are so important for this country. and let me if i might refer to some of them. for families making less than $250,000 a year, this bill permanently extends the following, the 2001, 2003 tax cuts, including the current income tax rates. that means a lot more mid -- for middle income families throughout this countr

the marriage penalty relief that means so much for tens of thousands, for millions of families. lower rates on capital gains and dividends and the $1,000 child tax credit. and for two years, very importantly, this bill will protect more than 25 million taxpayers from the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax, by extending it, as i said for two years through 2011. and very importantly, it permanently extends the small business expensing. so add it all up, these tax cuts. we're talking about tax cuts for middle american families over $1.5 trillion.

and i want to be very clear because often it's raised about small businesses. 97% of american small businesses receive a tax cut under this bill. it's only 2% of the very wealthy which will not receive a tax cut. so in a word, the time has come. the smokescreen is now being lifted by this bill. you have a chance to stand up or back down on tax cuts for the middle income families of our country. i hope that we can rise above partisan politics. i hope that we can rise above partisan politics. but i hope that we can no longer

hold a families that are counting on us hostage. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> the unemployment rate in october, the latest data available was 9.6%. that marked 15 consecutive months we were at or above 9.5% unemployment in this country, the longest period since the great depression. all told, nearly 50 million americans remain unemployed -- 15 million americans remain unemployed. democrats on the bill before us today are targeting half of all small business income in the country. democrats are targeting the very employers we need hiring more

workers and buying more equipment. let's face it, this bill is as misguided as it is futile. this is the wrong policy at the wrong time and the majority is wrong to bring it to the floor today. in fact, many members agree with me. i have here in my hand a letter signed by over 30 democrat leaders in the house. "in recent weeks we have heard from a diverse spectrum of economists, small-business owners and families who have voiced their concerns that raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth hamas. given, -- growth. given the continued fragility and economic patterns a of our economy, we share their concerns." i want to repeat that. "raising any taxes right now could negatively impact economic growth." i asked that this letter be submitted into the record. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> set aside the political rhetoric and let's look at what small business save the tax hike will be. according to the federation of small businesses, the business's most likely to face a tax increase our businesses employing between 20 to 250 employees. according to the u.s. census data, businesses began -- with 20 to 299 workers employed 25% of the total work force. those who are most likely to be hit by these taxes -- these tax increases employer one out of every four workers in this nation. this democratic tax hike is putting a target on the back of every worker in every small business in america. as for the futility of this exercise, it would be, " if it were not so irresponsible. -- it would be comical if it were not so irresponsible. i'm told they had to hold a

special caucus this morning just to move forward. their position is so precarious they will not even allow republicans to offer amendments or any alternative. why? because democrats know the republican bill to extend the current tax rates for all taxpayers would passed with bipartisan support. once again, house democrats have closed on the amendment process in order to pass a bill that will never see the light of day in the senate. just yesterday, 42 senators sent a majority -- a letter to majority leader read that stated in no uncertain terms, a "that they will not agree to vote cloture on any legislative item until we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all american taxpayers." mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent of this letter be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> clearly, this bill is going nowhere. democrats are wasting time while americans are looking for work. democrats are playing games while american struggle to make ends meet. the american people did not send us here to posture. they sent us to provide solutions. i have hope that after the election we would get down to working together to solve the serious problems americans are facing. that is why i was encouraged that the president agreed to have republicans and democrats, house and senate members, sit- down with his administration to hammer out a deal on these expiring tax rates. i thought maybe we'd turned a corner. instead of letting that process work itself out, instead of working with republicans to prevent job-killing tax increases, house democrats are back at it again putting politics ahead of everything else. this is a time for serious negotiations and solutions, not political stunts. far too much is at stake. far too many families are out

of work and far too many families will soon seek real and sizeable amounts of money taken out of their paychecks if the democrats continue with these games. i urge my colleagues to reject this democratic tax hike, this job-killing tax hike, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speakepro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve -- i yield 15 seconds to myself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: this is the fact the tax policy center. only 3% of small businesses would be affected, and of that only a small get most of their income from small businesses. this i't about politics, mr. camp. this is about people. i yield -- i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thk you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of

this legislation as the best way to move our economy forward. the middle class tax relief extends significant tax relief to every american. let me say that again. every american. under this legislation no matter how much you make, the first $250,000 will continue t benefit from today's lower rates. and given the softness in our economy and the number of households that are still struggling, that's the right thing to do. but what this legislation does not do is put an additional $700 billion on our national credit card, as our republican colleagues would like to do, by extending an extra bonus tax cut to the folks at the very, very top. instead, for the top 2%, those reporting income over $250,000, we have the clinton era tax rates on just that additional portion of that income. and with our annual deficits now topping $1 trillion and our national debapproaching $14

trillion, it's the right thing to do to make sure our economy is on a sustainable footing for the futu. we have the bipartisan commission debating that question right now, and yet our colleagues want to put $700 billion on our credit card. now, our colleagues that we just heard said that it was necessary to create jobs. real? these are the tax rates that are in effect today, and during the bush years and during the eight years of the bush administration00,000 private sector workers lost their jobs with these rates compared to the clinton administration. $23 million -- 23 million jobs created in the clinton administration with the old rates at that particular time. moreover, the nonpartisan congressional budget office recently looked at 11 different options for strengthening the economy. this one came in dead last. now, we also heard from our colleagues that they tried to use -- they tried to use small businesses as a smokescreen for

their plan to protect this bonus break for the folks at the top. first of all, as my colleagues said, on 3% of sll businesses are affected. 3%, 97% not. but what's interesting is when you look at the 3% what you find out is in the definition of the tax code, one that apparently has been used by our colleagues, people may be surprised to find a lot of mom and pop operations like price waterhouse coopers, set manager fidelity investments, and k.k.r. fall under the pass-through income definition. just the other day, k.k.r., that small business, purchased del monte foodsor $4 billion. now, those are all good businesses, but they're not small businesses and they would benefit from the proposal that we and the preside have made to provide 100% depreciation

for their investments this year. that will help jobs and the economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means, the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the geleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. why are we playing these political games? we have 15 million people out of work. we have families, small businesses, seniors, job creators facing a near $4 trillion tax bomb that will go off on january 1. and here we are playing political games. this bill's dead on arrival in the senate. everyone knows it. we're wasting time today. worse than that, it undercuts the president's own sincere efforts to work with dave camp, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, senate republican, senate and house democrats to actually come up with a real solution to solve this problem. instead, this body is rushing forward with more political

theater. my question is, wasn't september the time to play political games? right now with the clock ticking, shouldn't we be all about solutions? let's talk about two myths. democrats say let's pass this, it will help jump-start the economy, it will do just the opposite. one, the people they hit, these consumers hold one of every $1 -- hold $1 out of every $3 in consumption. instead of spending money r christmas, send it to washington. secondly, it damages the small businesses who are the backbone of job creation. you'll hear this claim that it only hits 3% of small businesses. you know how they figured that? me counted the tax i.d. number. so people that have small businesses that have been vacant for years are still counted. but if you count the actual income from small business, that's what gets taxed, half of

all small business income, half of all the income that creates the jobs in america will be hammered by the democrats' tax bill. and don't take my word for it. the joint committee on taxation, the congressional budget office, the president's own head of the council of economic advisors said passing all tax relief for all people in america will boost the u.s. economy more than this bill. final point, these dollars won't be used for deficit reduction. democrats and the president signed seven bills. $625 billion of tax increase in the last few years. guess how much went to deficit reduction. not a dime. all went to expand the government and double that to a bigger gernment. let's stop playing games. let's get real solutions. let's have an up or down vote that extends tax relief for all americans, that helps move us into the next two years and

let's stop that ticking tax bomb. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. mr. neal: i want to disagree sharply that my colleague, mr. brady, just made. america needs have this conversation. we need to have a conversation as to how we gotnto the mess that we find ourselves in today. and part of that conversation is the discussion and debate over whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. that's the difference of opinion that we're debating right now. now, our friends on the other side are going to tell us that this has a big impact on small business despite what the i.r.s. says, and i'd even offered a proposal that would address the 3% issue moving down the road. but let's listen to one small business owner. barry fox. the president of marble king. the last remaining american manufacturer of marbles.

he thinks we've lost our marbles. when asked whether the way to economic recovery was tax cuts for the wealthy, mr. fox simply replied, absolutely not. america has paid the price for its theology. the theology that tax cuts pay for themselves. they inherited a near perfect economy 10 years ago. record job growth,deficit eliminated, the debt being paid down and alan greenspan warned us we were paying down the debt too quickly. this argument today is about fairness. it's the type of taxes that we wish tone vision in this matter helped to create. even the nonpartisan tax policy center analyzed the bush proposal at different income levels. they found that next year for someone earning more than $1 million he or she can look forward to an average tax cut of $128,832, if we extend these tax cuts for the wealthy.

and they found that next year somebody making $7 million can look forward to a $400,000 tax cut if we leave thbush proposals in place. this is a question about how we treat the working families of america. this is a question of not cementing into the law a system with skewed benefits and i urge support for a middle class tax cut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from the ways and means committee, from kentucky, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, what will the job create doers? this is the number one question we must ask ourselves when bills are brought to the house floor. there's always lots of talk about fairness. well, their idea of fairness toward job creators means that a lot of people will not have jobs. i'd like to remind my colleagues that under the current tax policy before the subprime mortgage meltdown that resulted largely from that dealing with

fannie mae and freddie mac, we had 54 months of consecutive economic growth. at would the job create doers if they were enacted? i wonder if my colleagues shouldn't get a brelet with the initials wwjcd on it, what would the job creators do, before plunging off the cliff with some of these policies. it's not a question we have to ponder long. the answer is simple for anybody who has owned a business and is faced with increasing costs imposed by them by the federal government. as a former small business owner, let mwalk you through the tough decisions this bill would force on millions of job creators. with obamacare and all the other burdens on top of this current tax increase. they'd have to cut back or eliminate on benefits, they'd be switching employees to part time. raises and bonuses would be replaced in l likelihood by pay cuts, layoffs or moving more companies to places that have friendlier tax and regulatory burdens. these are serious and re decisions that will face our job creators on january 1 as a direct result of this bill raising taxes on millions of job creators.

if there was one resounding message in the election it was th the american people were putting a restraining order on the increasing burdens this congress and this administration have placed on the american people. at a time when our economy's trying to recover, why would we raise taxes on anyone? why would we even partially want to impede our nation's path to economic recovery? under the current tax policy, we had growth. if we move into this direction, we will see a repeat of the failures of the roosevelt administtion in 19, causing a gross double dip in our economy and it's going to hurt every american. this past tuesday president obama hosted a summit at the white house where appoind members of congress were asked to work in a bipartisan fashion to device a solution to the pending tax hikes and what was the majority do here? simply try to once again force something down our throats without real discourse. house democrats chose to ignore this call for bipartisanship just as they've ignored the will of the american people on issue after issue after issue and are forcing a vote that will produce signifant job killing results

for small business owners faced with the uncertainty of a looming tax hike. over an ominous $3.8 trillion tax increase, it's one of the most severe plagues that we could put on economic recovery. as a result, private sector money that would be invested will continue to sit on the sidelines. mr. brady: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. small businesses are playing defense against an overreaching federal government. it's impeding the economic recovery and not fostering predictability in order to create jobs. this vote come downs to job creation versus worsening our troubles. before you cast your vote today, ask yourself, all of my colleagues, wwjcd, what would the job create doers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. with unanimous consent, the gentleman from texas will control the time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of our committee, mr. boccieri -- becerra.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. working americanbelieve that the tax code favors the rich and the influential and guess what? they're right. last year the average billionaire in america got about $100,000 back from the bush tax cuts while the average middle class family in this country receiv 1/2 of 1% of that. not half of that, 1/2 of 1% of that. it's time that this country began to tax fairly and invest wisely. republicans are holding these tax cuts for the middle class hostage, demanding an extra tax cut of $700 billion worth of bailout for millionaires and billionaires. all of which republicans would not pay for, which means that once again we'd have to go to china and a lot of other countries to borrow since right now the government is running a deficit.

these are the same tax cuts that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say will create jobs and we need to rev up the economy for that reason and keep these wealthy tax cuts. well guess what? these are the same tax cuts that we've had in place for the last 10 years and what have these tax cuts giving wealthy folks over $100,000 a year given us? 15 million americans are unemployed. the worst recession if not a depression we've faced since the 1930's. we've seen what the results are of these tax cuts for the wealthy for the last 10 years. now they say we need to do it again improve the economy. it's time that this country acted sanely. it's time that we focused our attention on the middle class, give folks who have worked very hard, those who every week, every month come home with a paycheck, they see the fica deduction, they know they've paid some taxes. we need to make sure they know we're doing everything to invest in them so that maybe one of these days when we turn over the oduct we buy in a store and we

see where it's made, it will once again say made in america because an amecan got a job. these tax cuts that are geared toward the wealthy would not do that and those 3% of small businesses that might be impacted, because 97% of small businesses in america would get the x cut, those 3% are populated by very wealthy folks. vote for this legislation. it's good for middle americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield myself 15 seconds. i would point out the chambers of commerce, 2,600 small businesses and business associations have signed a letter pushing and making the case for extending all tax relief for all small businesses and all taxpayers including a number from california, the orange county business council, the north hollywood chamber of commerce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brady: i would like to yield that the point three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas who has fought against higher taxes and f more small

business job creation, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the biparsan negotiations are fleeting around here. the white house photographers haven't even left, the ink wasn't even dry on appointing the negotiators and then all of a sudden house democrats spring to the floor their tax increase bill on small businesses, o american families. you know what? i've heard the rhetoric of my prend friends on the other side of the aisle -- of my friends on the other side of the aisle. i'm still looking to find, where is the tax cut they're talking about? i don't see any tax cut. all i see is tax increases. half of small business come is going to be taxed under their bill. 15 mlion of our fellow citizens are unemployed. how many more have to become

unemployed? how much more human misery? how much more rejection at the ballot box before my friends on the other side of the aisle come to their senses? they have tried to spend their way into economic prosperity, it has failed. they have tried to borrow their way into national economic prosperity, it has failed. they've tried to bail out their way into national economic prosperity, it has failed. and here today again another opportunity to tax our way into economic prosperity. it does not work. the american people have rejected this tired old class warfare rhetoric. you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creato the american peoplknow this. and thr voices were heard on election day.

you know, mr. speaker, what i find interesting is how many democrats have come to the floor to quote the economist dr. mark zainy, probably the most quoted economist by the democrats and yet he himself has rejected the idea of raisintaxes in this economy. dr. peter orszag, one of the architects of obamanomics, now th he's out of the administration, he has written in an editorial that we should not be raising taxes. i mean, mr. speaker, this is a group that can't even get keynesian economics right. keynesian economics says you do noraise taxes in a time of recession. i mean, look at the period of almost perpetual near 10% unemployment that we've had. again, how many more people have to suffer? how many more jobs have to be lost? it's simple, mr. speaker. no tax increases on no nobody.

it may be poor gram -- on nobody. it may be poor grahammer but it's good economics. we should reject this bill and this employ. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 10 seconds. i suggest that the gentleman reread the bill, reread it. $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years, 97% of small businesses receive a tax cut. those are the facts, period. i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. without objection, so ordered. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, benjamin franklin once said, nothing in the world is certain but death and taxes. mr. franklin had never met the modern republican party. the only thing certain about taxes these days, if the republicans are going to use

them to take from the poor and give to the rich again and again and again. and now the senate republicans have brought all legislation to a halt, halt in this building, until the super rich get their tax cuts. they are determined to take care of the rich. that political maneuvering by the republicans brings uncertainty to the middle class at a time when they really need certainty. when they know what they're going to have in the next year. food banks are panicking all over this country because the republicans in the senate say the tax cuts for the rich go before any money for those unemployed people who are looking for their unemployment insurance. the food banks know what's going to happen. hungry people are going to be coming in. but it doesn't make any difference to the republicans. in fact, it's time to hang your

christmas stocking. can you imagine the rich in this country hanging their christmas stocking and putting in the gold of the tax cuts anthe unemployed hanging their christmas stocking? the poor, the unemployed, those who don't have a check to pay for food or pay the mortgage, they're going to look in their christmas stocking and see what? coal. we know how this movie's going to come out. this bl will pass over to the senate, it will come back with a big tax cuts for the rich, some of us are going to vote no, we'll vote yes today, but no when it comes back because it isn't fair to the unemployed people in this coury. that they get their money for sure when we dole it out to the unemployed one fight at a time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas.

mr. brady: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia who is a leader in cutting taxes, restoring the level of government spending, the leader dess nat of house republicans, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and thank the gentleman from texas. mr. speaker, on tuesday republicans had a productive meeting at the white house that we hoped promised a fresh start after an historic election. there was recognition on both sides that it was time to put aside the political gamesmanship and the partisan rhetoric and ben working for the public to produce results. clearly, mr. speaker, that mess amming has not been sent to some in the jority today. -- message has not been sent to some in the majority today. we have a bill that would raise taxes on many small business people and working families. we know the facts.

although some could say otherwise, 50% of the people that are impacted by this tax hike get at least 25% of their income from pass-through entities. these are the small businesses that we're relying on to create jobs in this economy. but sadly it appears that the outgoing majority is more interested in staging meaningless votes that amount to political cha grinry than it is to pursuing policies that get the economy back on track and americanback to work. simply put, mr. speaker, this bill is a job killer that runs completely contrary to the discussions that we had with president obama at the white house a few days ago. a bipartisan majority in the house supports a clean bill to ensure that no american faces a

tax increase in this difficult economic environment. mr. speaker, we call on speaker pelosi to stop the gimmicks and allow all members of the house, republican and democrat, to vote on legislation that would prevent tax increases for all, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, a hardworking member, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. i've heard in the last few moments about trickled down economics. you know, here we go again. and i heard the quote, what works and what doesn't work. let me tell you what doesn't work. if you look back just a few years ago, in 2000 we had a 2% unemployment rate. by the end of 2008 we doubled it.

not one word about that. those eight years have disappeared off your memory lapse. and by the beginning of 2009, the concentration of wealth in the top 1% was only matched by the period immediately before the great depression. so let's get it straight. in this piece of legislation, everyone gets a tax cut. even sammy sosa. i don't know if he's playing any more. even derek jeter. they all get a tax cut up to $200,000. and of course if they are couples, up to $250,000. even billionaires will get a tax cut up to $250,000. you have never communicated it because you have never told the total truth. this legislation is very specific about how we're going to help the middle class. i believe a five-year extension would provide better. i don't believe we should extend indefinitely any tax cut

, but i'm going to vote for this bill because i refuse to low the middle class to be the victims of partisan gridlock america's middle class is the reason i've come to the floor multiple times over the last six months to declare the necessity of taking a vote on these taxes. and, mr. speaker, i went to my own district. there are 334,000 households in the district. less than 1%, less than 1%, 1,092 are making $1 million or more. their argument is dead in the water with heavy sand that brings it deeper and deeper because they don't talk about the middle class. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i would just say in

comment to my friend's remarks, this is not about giving anybody a tax cut. this is about preventing a tax increase in a time of great unemployment that has gone on, as i said in my remarks, for more than 15 months at 9 1/2 percent. and now i'd like to yield to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. a couple months ago i'm walking through a manufacturing facility in the western suburbs of chicago with the entrepreneur that started it. this is a guy who about 45 years ago is living on the northwest side of chicag with his wife, and he's a tinkerer, you know, the type of person that goes in the garage and comes up with some idea, a blue-collar guy, and comes up with an idea. and over a period of time he borrows a couple thousand bucks from his mother-in-law and builds up a little business. this is a very typical story.

this isn't unique to chicago or detroit or new york. this happens all the time. he then builds that business up and i'm sitting down with him and his son whoa is now running it and -- who is now running it and the guy is 75 years old. i told him about his business. he talked about 2008. it's now a lean operation. he further says, congressman, the smart move for me is to put three quarters of a million bucks in this production line and he points to a production line on the floor. i ask him, are you going to do the smart thing? and he says, no, i'm not. of course i ask him why not and he says because washington, d.c., tells me i'm rich. see, i file as an individual, and washington, d.c., tells me i'm rich. so that means i got to hold on to capital because i don't know what's going on. i think my taxes might be going up at the first of the year. and then further, he mentioned health care, he mentioned cap and trade, he mentioned

ambiguity in the capital market. but for the life of me i can't understand why we as a body have not figured out that we need people like him, my constituent, the entrepreneur to go out and hire folks. and he's not going to do it if his taxes are going to go up. and this is not a uniquely republican revelation, mr. speaker. peter orszag recently said that now is no time to raise taxes on anybody. dr. christina roam ert argued now is -- romert argued now is not the time to tax anybody. since the democrats have been able to control this process for years and now we find ourselves 30 days out from the largest tax increase in american history and we're having this junior varsity argument about whether we should nickel and dime the ver people that we're trying to create an incentive for, i just think we can do better. i think the american public,

mr. speaker, has an expectation that we are going to do better. i think, franklythe white house has an eectation that we can do be leave this to the depressed conference held by democratic senators on the tax extension the bill. we expect to hear from senator chuck schumer of new york. >> is everyone here? ok. i think the vote today showed the american people where both sides of the aisle are. democrats are for a middle-class tax cut. republicans are willing to hold hostage the middle class tax cuts to get tax cuts for the wealthy. the middle class needs the tax cuts. their incomes have declined. the highest income bracket have done very well and there dollars

have shown a deficit reduction. that is how we feel. the other party seems to feel that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires is the most important thing this nation can do. we're going to continue this fight until we achieve our goal. permanent tax cut for the middle class but no tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires. we did not have anything against them. god bless them. they have made a lot of money, and that is great, but they do not stimulate the economy. only 30 cents of every $1 to the highest income people is spent. $1.52 is spent on unemployment benefits. we find it impossible to understand how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that if we can give tax cuts to the highest income people and not pay for it but we cannot do that for those who are unemployed.

we have an order here depending on who has to leave so we will go to senator lott and work first. -- lautenberg first. >> thank you, chuck. >> in order of the best or door. -- orator. >> we will get down to serious business. i look at what is going on here, this tax relief for people who are fundamentally rich. i had a good business career. i would be entitled to a tax cut for those over the one the dollar market. i do not want it. i do not need it. -- those over the $1 million mark. but this is is a great american travesty. think about it. while america is fighting wars

and over 150,000 of our people are off in afghanistan, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, face life and limb in the process. our country is facing a fiscal crisis. republicans are fighting to make sure we provide tax relief to the richest among cost. in a recent "the new york times" article, it showed eight faces of people made $1 billion per year, the richest among them $3.4 billion. they want to get more tax relief to those people. it is an outrage. this is a per-capita income in our country of about $60,000.

we have over 15 million people without jobs and now we hear from the republicans " too bad." but the richest, and thus need tax relief. when does conscious enter into the equation? when you say the extra money i get will not make a difference, but whether or not our country is stronger to provide a brighter future for those who need an education, for those who need jobs, for those in need some security? when will they say to hell with extra dollars on our tax report? when do we stand up for our country? they say stand down and it is just too bad. vote pointsoday's of a clear difference between

the democrats and republicans on the tax issues. by 53 votes democrats have shown that not only the overwhelming majority of our caucus and the members of the united states senate, the majority of the members of the senate say that in these tough economic times we need to make sure that the tax relief is continued for middle- income families. republicans in a unified voice said, "we are prepared to filibuster that. we are prepared to filibuster the tax breaks remaining the same for middle-income families in order to protect the very wealthiest in america." it is a sad day for the republican party. it is critically important that we make sure the tax relief is given to middle-income families. >> a colleague of mine on monday when i was presiding said we had to do everything possible that we can to prevent the deficit

from increasing. today he voted to increase the deficit by $700 billion. that is a very impressive reversal in one week. i just heard the republican leaders say that we had not learned the lesson from the election. nowhere on the ballot, or on any ballot that i saw, was, "do you want to extend the tax cuts on incomes above $250,000"? exit polling from the organization edison research that would do this for all of the networks and for ap said 60%

of the american people leaving the polling places did not want to extend these bush era tax cuts for people making over to market the thousand dollars. -- making over $250,000. we campaigned on that. we took the first vote and we lost. $250,000 is where i would draw the line, but we could compromise. $1 million. they are saying that if you make $1 million, i do not know how you define "millionaire." i know farmers in minnesota who own farms that are worth $3 million or $4 million and they are barely scraping by. i do not know how to measure it, but they sure do not make $1

million in a year. $1 million. i have heard colleagues over and over again saying we need to make hard choices. this is not really a hard choice. we had two wars. we are headed for a real, real, real crisis in terms of our long-term investment. this is a chance to win -- a chance to address it. i want to return to what truck was saying about unemployment insurance benefits. -- return to what truck was saying. in minnesota, i met a guy at a building trade union hall. these are guys that work of their lives, and now this is essentially a depression in that

industry. i met a carpenter there, on a big guy, calloused hands, he had tears in his eyes and he had barely worked in the last 18 months just getting an odd job here and there. he told me that if it were not for his unemployment insurance, "i do not like taking it, but if it were not for it i would not be in my house." what are we doing here? they are saying that we have to pay for the unemployment insurance benefits, but we do not have to pay for tax cuts for people who make over $1 million per year? what are we doing? where are our values? we are all going to go back some point soon to have christmas

holidays with our families. we have jobs. we have jobs. and it is a great job. our job, as i see it, is it to improve the life of americans. we know it has created jobs. when we see today -- what we see today is an economic philosophy that was a procter it during the bush administration that created 1 million jobs as opposed to an economic philosophy decorated 22 million jobs during the clinton administration. we want people working. i do not know when we are doing here. thank you. >> we have had 10 years of experience with the bush tax cuts. today, we have had the scene -- have seen the worst job performance in the poster-war

era. we have seen the middle class incomes stagnate, barely grow, and in some places decline. as a matter of policy, as a matter of doing what the american people want to do, to create a growing economy that produces jobs for all citizens, these tax policies have not worked. we have that evidence. it is all around us unfortunately. there is a need at this point to continue to give relief to middle-income families, to give them some relief as they struggle through this very difficult market. extending the middle-income tax cuts make sense economically and the governmentally. it makes no sense to extend the tax cuts for the very wealthiest americans. in the terms of growing jobs, the economy, the middle-class. then you turn around to the unemployment compensation issue, that, too, is a necessity

because of the policies of the bush should ministration, two unfunded wars, the tax cuts for the wealthy, and we see people desperately looking for work. story can be replicated in every city of this nation. people have worked their whole lives, reached middle-age, not only do they not have a job but they're coming to the terrible realization that they may never get back to where they were. that is not a financial blow, but it is a huge blow to a sense of self, a sense of family, a sense of what your family is about. here the republicans say not only will we not approve a middle-income tax cut unless you tax cuts for the very wealthy, but we will force you to pay for unemployment compensation benefits. we have never done that before under republican and ministrations, a democratic administrations.

today the unemployment rate is close to 10%. how they want pay for it? again, this goes back to the hard choices we have to make. and obligated funds, is that the border fence between texas and mexico? is that the border patrol station? i'm sure they would be the first to say it is not that. we need to make difficult choices. the obvious tourist today was to extend benefits to the middle class and come americans can help them to other provisions, and that was clearly rejected by the republicans. that is unfortunate. >> tuesday night at midnight, 85,000 people from ohio, 2 million americans saw their and a climate benefits and. -- saw their unemployment benefits and. think that means to a mother who says to their teenage daughter

that we will lose our home and we do not know what school district will have to move into. going to food pantries in columbus and akron. every food pantry i have visited, virtually everyone tells me that people who used to give food to the pantry are now coming in to receive food. yet because of republican opposition, 85,000 ohioans and 2 million americans saw their unemployment benefits and is. we tried to do something about that. i stood on the floor, my colleagues have gone to the floor, jack reed has led the effort on this time and time again just to maintain these unemployment insurance benefits. this is not a welfare program. is an insurance plan. people pay in the. if they lose their jobs, they collect. it is like fire insurance. you want to have a few needed,

but you do not ever want to use it. is there if you need it. when people criticize congress, it is often that we do not listen enough. this is an example today that we've tried to do with the american people want. they think we should extend tax cuts for the broader middle- class and let them expire in four millionaires and billionaires, yet republicans, again, chose to side with the millionaires and billionaires against unemployed workers, low- income workers, the earned income tax credit, and every kind of benefit we wanted to give here. 10 years ago, in 2001-2003 it was the hallmark of the bush economic plan which was to give major tax cuts for the wealthiest people in 2001 and 2003. this is a 10 year experiment that ends on december 31st. that experience -- the experiment clearly has not

worked. there is a net increase of 1 million private sector jobs contrast it with during the eight years of bill clinton we have 22 million of job increases. the haleh daily trickle down economics, the whole series -- the whole idea of trickle-down economics the whole theory does not work. the whole tax cuts hostage. in essence, what the republicans want to do is bar $700 billion from china, put this on our children and grandchildren credit-card, and then hand that to millionaires and billionaires. it is bad for our country, it is bad economic policy, it is bad for our future. >> yesterday, i was home in rhode island and i went to the cranstons senior center annual

christmas party. it was at the west valley in which is a nice dinner hall. there were a couple of people there, one nice elderly lady, she signaled me aside to speak to me privately. she said her son has worked for 28 years. i raised seven children, i am proud of the mall, they are all working. the sun was not out of work who had worked for 20 years. for the first time he had taken a minimum wage job and was stocking shelves. people in rhode island and people across the country want to work. they will work. she said, "my son feels about this big, but he will take the job because people want to work." the theory that we have heard that you cannot extend unemployment insurance benefits

because it contributes to lazy people who do not want to pick up the jobs is just plain wrong. we of 65,000 people in rhode island without work. unemployment insurance is really an fortin to continue. as a senator reid said, we have never done this before. -- as senator reed said we have never done this before to cut off unemployment insurance benefits yet that is what they have done. if the but these two things side-by-side, what if a family through no fault of their own has lost their income and is now down to their last fumes which is about to be cut off and they go down to zero? that is ok with the republicans. what is not ok is that someone who is making well over $1 million not get $100,000 or so

in additional tax relief. it is economically wrong. it is nonsense. from a human perspective, it is unbelievably brutal theory. it is bad for america in two significant respects. one, it will cost $700 billion extra on to our debt and deficit which they claim to be concerned about. two, it drives even further the divide that we have between regular, working americans and the super-wealthy. we are now at a discrepancy between regular people and the super-wealthy that has not been matched in income disparity since the 1920's. we are heading in the wrong direction. their protection of these additional tax benefits for our wealthiest people even at the

expense of the deficit drives us even further in that direction. it is simply bad for america to have that continue. >> my two years have been very interesting. i did not come from the house, the governor's office, or state legislator. i came in as a mayor. i came as a small business person. i find it interesting and ironic when i hear the debate on the effective a have on small business from the other side, many of them who have never run a business, no experience struggling to make it through in the economy, gone to a bank and asked for loan to expand your business. we have done it. my wife runs four small retail stores. i want to tell you this because sometimes when the press looks at us they see us as senators in

our political lives, but there are many places we come from. i talked to my wife every day, as you can imagine. she owns four small businesses and here is what this debate is about. we started at $250,000 and we wanted to make sure that group of people enjoy continued tax relief but no, we could not get agreement. no, we want everybody. senator schirmer voted up to $1 million. everyone under $1 million will continue to have tax relief. let me put this in perspective. and is not about how long the extensions are. there are 160 million tax filers in this country. 315,000 or above $1 million. that is what the debate is about. 315,000 people over here.

it could be one year, two years, but the debate is who benefits from the policies that we set? that is what it is about. then they talk about small business this and that, well, let me tell you. i'm not sure they understand these phrases, but the use the phrases, "llc, partnerships." here is how it works. the many files down and your return. 96% of businesses in this country gross, and that means non-taxable, $1 million or less. we think of taxable income is less than $250,000. in fact, the compromise that we brought forward touched not only every american but almost every small business in this country. their arguments are false.

that boils down to fiscal responsibility. if there is one thing we heard in the election is to create benefits -- better fiscal responsibility in the senate, take care of the middle class, and small-business men. we are doing all three. small business people are taking care of with the compromise. the community at large is taken care of. and we will not give millionaires and billionaires another $700 billion in a bonus check for them to stuff into the $2 trillion they have in the banks. we are right but that to the deficit. the american people said to do something about the deficit, so we are doing three things at once. it is a wide approach. on the other side, it is business as usual. as you heard from my colleagues before, the economy crashed. we think it is the right approach to help small businesses. 96% of small businesses will benefit from the plan we have

put forward. 15.6 -- 159.6 million taxpayers will benefit. all the man said, it is -- when it is all done and said, 315,000 people is what it is about. $700 billion to make sure it goes toward the deficit. again, i find it ironic as a small-business person who lived and breathed that live who has been doing it since the age of 14, this is the reality. i have lived it, i have seen it. the policies we put forward are the right approach to deal with the deficit, the small business community, and all of the taxpayers in this country. questions? >> senator schumer, you said you guys will continue to fight for

tax breaks for the middle-class but not tax breaks for the wealthy. does that mean that as far as you are concerned a deal that would include a short-term extension for everyone is off of the table? >> the bottom line is our position has been enunciated clearly. the majority of democrats voted for both amendments. 53 votes on each. we will keep fighting for that. i cannot tell you what will happen in the next two or three weeks, but i can tell you this. we think this is right substantially, politically, and this will be one of the bigger issues going forward. we are not giving out. in three days, one way, two months, six months, this will be a major issue for the next two years in this congress. i'm not going to get into what will happen next. i did not know. we have a very strong vote, a very united vote and both wings

of our party for tax cuts for the middle-class menachem millionaires. >> we think pressure will continue to build on the republican senators who voted no on extending unemployment benefits, voted twice no on a whole host of very popular tax cuts for working families. when 42 republicans signed a letter saying, "we will not do start or any other issues until we can get tax cuts for the wealthy," the public recognizes that more and more as people hear it and understand more and more how we expect two, three, four, five, 10 republicans because they do not want to be on the wrong side of history. >> the president was going to announce a caribbean trade deal today. -- a career in the trade deal

today. >> i spoke with ron kirk yesterday. it is major progress on automobiles. it is not strong enough in terms of non-terrace verio if -- non- tarriff bariers. i'm still concerned about cars coming from china into korea that will take the back door into the u.s. market. the model of the trade agreement is not too different from the trilateral nafta on model. this is the largest bilateral nafta of -- trilateral nafta of deal. it does not work for america or middle-class policies. while our trade policy is significantly better under president obama, this does not move it forward for me.

>> the president has made clear that his dad -- he does not what the tax cuts to expire in a few weeks. are you saying today that democrats are willing to tell the white house that we are not going to do any kind of extension for the wealthiest? >> i will not get into what is going to happen over the next several days. we believe this is a fight worth making for a very long period of time. speaking for myself, i will keep that this. i believe this is correct substantially. it is the high ground politically. in the past, when we have had these types of cases, we have drawn up our hands. i cannot speak for every one of my colleagues. we did not know what kind of agreement the president will reach, if he reaches one at all. i will not speculate on that. the point we are making here today is that we think it is wrong for tax breaks to go to millionaires. we think it is correct that goes to the middle class. that will be one of our

watchwords and you'll see as continuing to work on this next year. >> do you or any of the other senators have the appetite to extend this into january? >> there are lots of people in our caucus who do have that appetite, some who did not. we will have to see what happens. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> said the democrats talking about the failure of the bacchus and schumer amendment. majority leader harry reid announced they will be taking up the impeachment of federal judge porteous of louisiana and will be taking further action on federal spending bills. unemployment rose to 9.8% adding just 39,000 jobs in november, far below the expected job

growth. the bureau of labor statistics gave the new unemployment numbers to the joint economic committee. this is about one hour. >> ok. today's hearing will mark the last that i will chair as the chairwoman of the joint economic committee. almost two years ago, shortly after the inauguration of president obama, my first hearing was also with

commissioner hall. the news he presented that day was rather grand. the previous month the u.s. economy had shed a staggering 654,000 jobs. today's news is a little better. we are trending in the right direction, but not as strongly as we wanted. today's employment report shows the economy added 50,000 private sector jobs last month making november the 11th straight month of the employment gains in the private sector. we can see that in the chart over there. since the beginning of the year, the economy has added 1.2 million jobs in the private sector. private payrolls grew by an average of 79,000 jobs per month in the first quarter of 2010. 180,000 jobs in the second quarter, 24,000 jobs in the third quarter. job creation has backed up, the unemployment rate remains

unacceptably high. this morning's unemployment report showed that the unemployment rate edged up to 9.8% in november. in addition, overall private- sector job gains, the gdp grew to 2.5% in the third quarter of 2010 due to stronger consumer spending. this is the fifth consecutive quarter of growth. retail sales have risen steadily for the past four months excluding more volatile sales of cars, gasoline, and retail sales have increased steadily since june. surveys of the manufacturing sector shows the growth is expected to continue. when i became share in january 2009, on the economy was still reeling under the shocks of the great recession. one of the people who testified was christina romer. she said our economy endured shocks during the recession that

were even greater than the economic shots of the great depression. this committee has closely monitored the employment situation and has attracted the rebound. over the past two years, a joint economic committee has held the key hearings and a shooter for 40 reports. in 2010, consistent with the mission to monitor the employment situation of the country, we focused on job creation holding hearings on problems in the labour market and solutions to spur job creation. job creation was the sole focus of the annual report. are mandated analysis of the economic reports that the president released earlier this year. the economic shocks of the great recession will take time to heal, our economy has made progress in the past year. the policies that democrats in congress quickly put into place over the last year are working.

policies do matter. we passed the hire act which provides a tax benefit for hiring unemployed workers. we passed legislation to provide additional tax incentives to small businesses including the $30 billion access to credit loan program. . businesses, the engines of job growth in our economy, providing additional tax incentives to small businesses, inserting a $30 billion access to credit loan program, and raised the cap on sba 7a loans from $2 million to $5 million. we provided additional funding for teachers. the department of education estimated at 140,000 teachers jobs were saved because the increase and funding. we passed legislation to help domestic manufacturers by reducing tariffs. the extended unemployment benefits to unemployed workers who have been hard hit during

this recession. it did not raise the number of weeks that the unemployed workers could receive benefits, but it did reauthorize the program so that unemployed workers could continue receiving those critical benefits. however, we are all aware that the latest extension of unemployment insurance benefits ran out this week. for most of the unemployed, the expiration of these benefits will mean that unemployed benefits will stop as soon as they enter the 27th week of unemployment at a time when more than 40% of the unemployed have been out of work, at least 57 weeks.

if congress does not act quickly to renew the benefits, nearly 2 million and put workers will lose benefits during the holiday season -- nearly 2 million unemployed workers will lose benefits during the holiday season. all the preliminary -- although preliminary reports show an increase in consumer spending from electronic -- from black friday, prematurely ending the unemployment insurance benefits program will drain the economy of $80 billion of purchasing power and cost the economy up to 1 million jobs over the next year. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, unemployment benefits are one of the most effective tools of boosting economic growth and employment, allowing the federal unemployment insurance program to expire when the unemployment rate is well over 9% would be absolutely unprecedented. for every recession that is called for congress to provide emergency unemployment benefits over the last six decades, congress has never left those benefits expire with an unemployment rate above the 7.4%. this is a tragic time to break from president -- precedent, and 40 millio -- i unfair to millions of them is counting on these benefits. -- unfair to millions of families counting on the benefits.

i go back to -- i yield back the balance of my time and recognize my good friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, congressman brady. >> like all americans hoping for an economic turnaround, it has been a difficult two years with members of the joint economic committee, with reports month after month showing americans out of work with exceptionally high rates of unemployment. for folks on this committee, the employment situation is a critical part and no other part of the economic well-being is more important than the ability of our citizens to find

productive work. dr. hall has said the difficult task of presenting reports on the bleak employment conditions to us, and has done so in a professional and insightful matter. i want to thank him and his staff at the bureau of labor statistics. i will come -- i welcome dr. hall again this morning. chairman maloney has held hearings on many aspects of the market. i want to thank the chairman for compassion and dedication in the committee's agenda. we appreciate her leadership in many ways, and i again thank you for your many months and many hours of hard work. senator brownback will be

leaving the u.s. senate next year to pursue new duties as the governor of the state of kansas. i sincerely thank him for his services as a member of this committee, and congratulate him on his new leadership position. i thank him and wish him best in the state of texas -- kansas. it is in the front of my mind. [laughter] the unemployment picture unfortunately remains bleak. the unemployment rate increased 9.8%, mainly due to an increase in the number of jobs lost, not an increase in new jobs figures. this month, 39,000 added in peril employment, was a great -- added in payroll employment, was very disappointing in terms of expectations. nearly $5 trillion of fiscal and monetary stimulus, 101,000 fewer jobs in america that when the recession officially ended. if we were to compare today's 9.8% of unemployment rate to what the white house promised when we passed a major stimulus, they projected that the unemployment would be 7% this month, instead of 9.8%.

this economy is held back by we hear now response from senate republicans. >> it's either an affliction or an affection. i'm not sure which. where were we. let me just say we didn't need the show boats today to make any progress on trying to resolve this very, very significant issue of whether or not we're going to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. as you notice from the two votes that we had downstairs, 100% of republicans and either four or five, i forget exactly which, democrats, also agree that this is not the time to be raising taxes on anybody.

in the meantime, discussions continue. i'm hopeful that we'll be able to resolve this. i'm relatively confident that the end of this process will lead us to i think a very sensible decision not to raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. and we'll still discuss the length, still discussing the length of that decision to not raise taxes. and i think that is the wait. i'm not admonishing all of you, but it does, i find it a little tiresome that everybody keeps talking about tax cuts. the tax cuts decisions were made a decade ago. we're not giving people anything they don't already have. this is a debate about tax increases. about whether it's a good idea to raise taxes on anybody during a recession.

100% of republicans think it's a bad idea. a reasonable number of democrats think it's a bad idea. i want to call on my colleague and then we'll throw it open. >> the recent news is that the unemployment rate is up from 9.6 to 9.8%. at times like this we need the job-creating sector of our country and our economy to have the proper incentives to go out and create jobs and make investments. and what they need is certainty. and the certainty is that we should not raise taxes on anyone during economic times like this. there is bipartisan agreement we should not raise taxes on anyone during these sort of economic times. >> senator, democrats are increasingly talking about tying an extension of the unemployment benefits to any deal to continue the tax cuts. what's your reaction to it? >> well, as you know there are discussions under way.

i've designated senator kyl to represent senate republican discussions under way about how that package all of this. i don't think that no action on collection of related issues is a likely outcome. but i couldn't tell you today what's going to be in or out of the package. >> do you have a problem fundamentally with tax in the long-term extension to ui tax cuts? >> i have many faults but lack of discipline is not one of them. i'm not going to negotiate this deal with you guys this morning. >> senator mcconnell, the newest democratic message on this issue is that republicans are holding hostage tax cuts for the middle class notwithstanding an extension to protect millionaires. what i'm asking is this new message of theirs. is it going to have any effect or should they think that they can get anywhere by actually

driving this thing to expire? >> i would remind our friends sides of the aisle that the election was about a month ago and we're past the spinning stage. the american people would actually like us to do the thing that is need to be done. and as we indicated this week in the letter signed by all 42 senate republicans, what needs to be done, what must be done is decide the tax question and decide how we're going to fund the government. and our view is once you get that out of the way, if there's any time left, senator reid the majority leader makes a decision as to whatever else we'll deal with and he indicated he is going to file cloture on a bunch of other matters presumably to be voted on midweek. but i think it's time for the games to stop and progress to be made. today's december 4, christmas is just around the corner. it's time to wrap up the thing

that is really must be done, should be done for the american people. >> would you expect all [inaudible] those measures? >> we'll have the votes on wednesday and i'm optimistic that we'll stay on the thing that is we ought to be doing, which is the point of the letter that we put out earlier this week. >> senator, is it possible that unemployment benefits will not be reauthorized at all? >> i don't mean to be rude. but next question? >> you said senator mcconnell. were you saying you were still negotiating the length of that decision? were you referring to the talks going on between the members versus the twalks between you and the white house? >> there are lots of talks going on. i think there's healthy sign that there's probably been more conversations between the white house and the senate and house republicans in the last two weeks than the last two years. and so i think there's a growing awareness on both sides

that the powers and the process are shifting, and that we have to communicate with each other and deal with each other more often. so there are lots of other discussions going on. >> when do you feel that a deal has to be reached? you can't -- >> i don't think we ought to go into the beginning of the year with americans scratching their heads wondering whether their taxes are going up. i think this is a decision the american people expect us to sit down together as adults and resolve. i expect that to happen. >> we've heard from a number of democrats a new theme that we tried to pass it for ten years, it was a ten-year experiment that failed. that they really didn't bring any benefits, the trickle-down theories didn't come through. we heard the senator say we're stit waiting for the trickle-down. were they effective? >> all i can say to that, trish, is that 100% of senate republicans and four or five

senate democrats thought we ought to continue with the current tax rates. so there's bipartisan opposition to raising taxes. i think that pretty well speaks for itself. i would also remind you that they chose not to have this debate back in september. you all remember when they thought this was going to have a terrific debate to have in september right before the election? whatever happened to that debate? i think there's a bipartisan feeling that the current tax rates are appropriate for the foreseeable future and particularly with the kind of economic times that we have now. >> is there enough time doinching this year to get start treaty done through the senate? >> i would love to be the majority leader some day, but i don't get to set the schedule. all we advised the majority is we think we ought to do the tax question, decide how we're going to fund the government. and then, whatever time is left, that the majority leader

wants to keep us here, he has an array of things he would like to do and he is going to have to decide what to do next and we'll see how much time is left. >> would you characterize what the holdup is right now on the tax deal? what are the moving parts? >> well, reaching agreement is -- requires a lot of communication and a lot of communication has gone on. >> on friday, the government [inaudible] long-term continuing resolution? >> it will be up to the majority. the house we hear is going to send over a continuing resolution. one of the things we're going to want to do is to actually look at it. is it riddled with anomalies? is it riddled with executive branch earmarks? is it clean? so we're going to want to look at that. and then the majority leader

has indicated he is going to try to substitute for that a, an omnibus, which i intend to oppose. but either way, it's going to be a really large bill and needs to be scrutinized thoroughly what comes over from the house and what may be offered as an alternative. thanks a lot, everybody. >> senate republicans there with minority leader mitch mcconnell talking about some of the next steps with the tax extension bill. we heard earlier from senate democrats who talked about the failure of two amendments on the tax extension bill, the baucus amendment to extend tax breaks for people making less than $200,000 and households making up to $250,000. and then there was the shumer amendment that would have extended tax breaks to anyone making up to $1 million.

both of those failed today in the senate. during voting today majority leader reid did announce that they will be taking up the impeachment of the federal judge of louisiana judge and looking at further action on federal spending bills. we were taking a look at the november jobs report before the republicans' announcement. unemployment rose to 8% -- 9.8% in nober. they gave new numbers to the economic committee and we rejoin that announcement now. this is about 45 minutes. month, instead of 9.8%. this economy is held back by consumers doubtful of the

president's ability to manage this economy and businesses discouraged by washington democrats and job-blocking regulations. yesterday's actions to raise taxes on the very consumers and businesses most likely to pull us out of the economy is more of the same economic policies that have hindered america's recovery. economic indications would tell us that we're just making a painfully slow recovery.

payroll employment is not significantly different from 17 months ago. but it is to weaken private sector growth is too slow -- it is too weak and private sector growth is too slow. in the ronald reagan recovery, after the severe 1981-1982 recession, total payroll employment increased by 5 million and the unemployment rate had fallen by 3.1 percentage points. why is the current recovery so weak? one of the timeless explanation is this -- with less than a month ago before the tax bomb goes off, americans are facing dire uncertainty. we cannot expect businesses to take on large numbers of additional employees when the government is raising costs for employing them gainfully. yesterday's house bill was dead on arrival in the senate. not to be to blunt, but i think it was a dumb economic move. to make matters worse, within a few days, the federal government will run out of money. congressional democrats and the administration is not tending to their responsibilities. the frantic rush to band-aid

fixes is no way to fix the economy. anti-growth tax rates, out of control federal spending, and the enormous national debt buildup have -- health care policies and the failed stimulus -- the burdens and the uncertainty they created contribute to why this economy is not recovering faster economic growth and more rapid job creation -- if we are to see faster economic growth and more rapid job creation, the government cannot take up positions against business, investment, oil and gas and coal production, and free trade and expect the economy to grow. based on minimum wage increases, extension of unemployment benefits, subsidies -- the u.s. economy does not work this way and i doubt that there are any that do.

the administration has been hearing much from national leaders are on the world i am hopeful they will listen. i look forward to hearing the testimony. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments, i must feel that i must respond to some inaccuracies. we have made progress during the past year of the obama administration by adding almost 1.2 million private sector jobs. when you compare that to the eight years of former president bush, this country it lost 663,000 private-sector jobs. although president bush inherited over 8 $5 trillion surplus, he left with a huge deficit and debt. indeed, the last month he was in office, this country lost over 750,000 jobs. the bush tax cuts did not help

the bush administration create jobs. in fact, they overall lost jobs and his administration. but with the focus on the economy, we're moving in the right direction under president obama, and just yesterday we passed a tax cut to all americans, and it's got to the senate and we have moved the process forward. we look forward to the response of the senate and moving in a balanced direction to create jobs and grow the economy. i recognize the distinguished senator, the great senator klobuchar. >> thank you, ms. chairman. i want to thank you for your service on this committee. it has been an honor, and i also commend you and congressman ready for the way you have run these meetings.

congressman brady, thank you for your leadership and the court to serving with you on the committee next year. -- i look forward to serving with you on the committee next year. there's a lot of work we need to do odd jobs on the economy, and i guess we start here today. no one is pleased when we have this u

i didn't agree to it then for a very good reason. the deal wasn't good enough. it wasn't good enough for the american economy and it wasn't good enough for american workers. as i said in seoul i'm not interested in signing trade agreements for the sake of signing trade agreements. i'm interested in agreements that help jobs for the american people and also help our partners grow their economies so i told ron and our team to get this right and get the best deal for america and that is what they have done. the agreement we're announcing today includes several

important improvements and acheeves what i believe trade deals must do. it's a win-win for both our countries. this deal is a win for american workers. for our farmers and ranchers. it will increase exports of american agricultural products. from arrow space to electronics. it will increase our manufacturing exports to korea which already supports some 200,000 american jobs and many small businesses. in particular, manufacturers of american cars and trucks will have much more access to the korean market. will encourage the development of electric cars and green technology in the united states. and will continue to ensure a level playing field for american auto makors here at home. in short, the tariff reductions in this agreement alone are expected to boost annual exports of american goods by up to $11 billion.

in all told, this agreement, including the opening of the korean services market, will support at least 70,000 american jobs. it will contribute significantly to achieving my goal of doubling u.s. exports over the next five years. in fact, it is estimated that today's deal alone will increase american economic output by more than our last nine free trade agreements combined. this deal is also a win for our ally and friends south korea. they will gain greater access to our markets and make american products more affordable for korean households and businesses. resulting in more choices for korean consumers and more jobs for americans. i would add that today is also a win for the strong alliance between the united states and south korea which for decades has ensured that the security that has maintain stability on

the peninsula continues. it also has allowed south korea its extraordinary rise from poverty to prosperity. in a time in which there are increasing tensions on the korean peninsula following the north's unprovoked attack on the south korean people, today we are showing that the defense alliance and partnership of the united states and south korea is stronger than ever. i'm especially pleased that this agreement includes ground-breaking protections for workers rights and for the environment. in this sense it is an example of the kind of fair trade agreement that i will continue to work for as president. in asia, and around the world. this agreement also shows that the united states of america is determined to lead and compete in our global economy. we're going to stand up for american companies and american workers who are among the most productive and innovative in the world and we're going to compete aggressively for the jobs and markets of the 21st century.

now, reaching this agreement was not easy but i want to give special thanks to my partner, south korean president lee for his commitment to a successful outcome. and, again, i want to thank ron and mike for their outstanding work and their entire team for their tireless efforts. they were up late a lot of nights over the last several months. we're going to continue to work with our korean partners to fully implement this agreement and build on our progress in other areas such as ensuring full access for u.s. beef to the korean market. and i look forward to working with congress and leaders in both parties to approve this pact because if there is one thing democrats and republicans should be able to agree on, it should be creating jobs and opportunity for our people. which brings me to the other issue i want to address. earlier today, the senate voted on two provisions to extend tax cuts for the middle class. and i will admit i am very disappointed that the senate

did not pass legislation that had already passed the house of representatives to make middle-class tax cuts permanent. those provisions should have passed. i continue to believe that it makes no sense to hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 12% of americans especially when -- 2% of americans especially when those would cost an additional $700 billion that we don't have and would add to our deficit. but with so much at stake, today's votes cannot be the end of the discussion. it is absolutely essential to our hard-working middle class families and to our economy to make sure that their taxes don't go up on january 1. i have spoken with the democratic leadership in congress and i look forward to speaking with the republican leadership as well. and my message to them is going to be the same. we need to redouble our efforts to resolve this impass in the

next few days to give the american people the peace of mind that their taxes will not go up on january 1st. it will require some compromise but i'm confident that we can get it done and the american people should expect no less. as we work our way through this issue, we must not forget that last week some 2 million americans who had lost their jobs also saw their unemployment insurance expire right in the middle of the holiday season. and that's not how we should do business here in america. i believe it is simply wrong to even consider giving permanent tax breaks to the wealthiest americans while deanything relief to so many americans who desperately need it and have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. so we will continue to work on this issue through the weekend, into early next week, and i am going to be rolling up my sleeves with the leaders of

both parties in congress. we need to get this resolved. and i'm confident we can do it. thank you very much, everybody. >> would you accept a temporary extension of all the tax cuts? >> president obama talking about tax extensions and the new trade deal with south korea expecting to boost exports by $121 until. after president obama and the south korean president review and approve their negotiations the deal will go to their respective legislatures for their vote and could see final approval next year. now, a senate hearing looking at so-called mini health policies pay for expenses. one of the people at this hearing includes the chief officer of mcdonald's which covers these plans. this is about two hours.

so some will be coming in. the problem basically is that most committees aren't having hearings during the lame duck session and senator hutchinson and i don't see the reason for that. we think it's good time for hearings. and but if people are sitting in a caucus until 3:30 or 4:00, that makes it harder.

so apologize to you and i apologize for keeping you waiting. let me make my opening statement and then senator hutchinson and then if others, there not be many wanted to say a brief word, that would be fine. they don't have the kind of comprehensive health insurance that most people in this hearing room most certainly do have. they have something called limited benefit or mini medical insurance. now, this is an insurance product that has been around for a couple of decades but didn't get going until two of the largest insurance companies started marketing them and those were signature na and aetna. they started selling it and then it became much more

popular. wendle potter, who sort of made his name when he came before this committee and told us about how aetna gets rid of people they don't want to have to insure because their risk might be too high and he's a formidable person and he testified before our committee last year about these plans and he called them fake insurance. his words. designed to earn big profits for the insurers but provide little value to customers. now, this is how many meds work. most people here don't have much experience with mini meds but if you work at a restaurant or retail chain in this country or if you're a young adult working a part-time or temporary job while you're looking for a permanent one, mini med insurers might be the only option that you have. employers who offer this health

insurance to this employees make a nice pitch. they hand out a nice glossy happy people abound everywhere, and but the statistics aren't quite as good. so here it is. that's what mcdonald's hands out to its hourly restaurant employees. and part of what underlines this hearing, my point of view, what are human beings and how are they to be treated? and if you're a corporate person or you're an hourly person, is that, does that make a difference in terms of how you should be insured? are you less valuable because you're not a corporate person? are you more valuable because you are a corporate person or is everybody equally valuable? well, they will be in 2014 when the when we get our state exchanges going. but we have to get from here to there. so this little booklet i hold

up tells new employees how to get insurance plans that will quote pay for the medical care you need when you are sick, injured or have an ongoing medical condition. comprehensive statement. and all those great benefits only cost mcdonald's employees as little as $14 a week deducted out of their paycheck. but buried in the fine print of this policy in confusing industry jargen which we become very familiar with on this committee not just on health insurance but a lot of other ways that people manage to take money out of other people's pockets and put it in theirs is the very different story. the true story is that mcdonald's mini med policy will not pay for your bills if you have a serious health problem. mcdonald's employee named catrina fulton from kentucky learned this lesson the hard way.

she thought she had health insurance through her mcdonald's job until she needed her treatment for her coal united states. now, she has -- coallitis now she has more than $10,000 in medical bills. but noy it says pay for the medical care you need when you are sick, injured or have an ongoing medical condition. the mini med insurance policy most commonly sold to mcdonald's hourly employees like mrs. fulton has an annual limit of $2,000. so if you're in the hospital, you use up your $2,000 just for the room you have, the bed you sleep in. it doesn't get yeah iv, it doesn't get you an x-ray, a cat scan, anything medication, doesn't get you any gaws, any bandages, ni anything. and so that's the thing they

say $ 20,000 but it's $2000. the policy most commonly sold has that $2,000 limit. anything more than $2,000 mcdonald's workers pay that out of their own pockets. the, so what will that cover cover in our health care system? not much. it won't cover the cost of having a baby. that's about $9,000. it won't cover one year of health care for a person with diabetes. that's about $7,000 on average. and as we're going to hear from our witnesses today, the cost of treating a health problem like cancer, which is dramatic but something that many, many many millions of people have or have suffered or will suffer in this country, can easily exceed $50,000 or even $100,000 on an annual basis and it can get a lot more if you have to get

into brain surgery. so today we're going to learn more about mini med insurance policies. some people are going to say that even though these policies have skimpy coverage, they are quote better than nothing for consumers. i want to destroy that phrase before this hearing is over but i won't do it in my opening statement. they say that mcdonald's employees and other workers should be grateful that they have this coverage even though it won't protect them against the cost of a serious illness or zebt. but we're going to hear people argue that it's worse than nothing. i will argue that, too. because of the sense of security and expectations and leading people down beautiful roads that end up with large brick walls. it gives people a false sense of security, lets them think they have health insurance when they really don't. by the time they realize they don't have real health insurance it's already too late they have already received a huge hospital bill or have had their testing or surgery

canceled because the so-called health insurance is worthless, will not cover those things. i'm very pleased to say that the days of these plans are numbered. the new health care reform law not loved by all but by this person is slowly putting an end to health plans that place caps on essential services. that will happen with the state exchanges. annual limits will no longer be legal. lifetime limits will no longer be legal. if you make money on some, you lose on others. and mr. potter talked to us about the five largest health insurance companies not involved in mini med particularly but he said that in 2009 they made $14.6 billion worth of profit while at the same time using the power of recission, that is the power to cut people off even though they

have a policy, they cut people off. they cut off 3 million people, those five companies in that year while they were making this kind of money. that is disturbing. well, i'm very glad that you came. i have overtalked and i will probably continue to do that. senator hutchinson will keep me under control. but my point is it's not 2014 yet. all of this will disappear then. mcdonald's won't be able to do that then. there are more than 1 million americans today covered by these policies and don't know that the plans are doing more harm than good. no reason why they should. so i thank you all for coming and i turn now to my very distinguished cochair, senator hutchinson from texas.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad that you have called this hearing on mini meds because of course they have had a lot of attention recently and especially since the passage of the health care reform act. much attention has been paid to the related decision by the department of health and human services to grant waivers and create harfouts from the health care laws requirements from mini meds in order to avoid the swelling ranks of the unirshurd. these policies are not a new phenomenon. they've been around since the 1980s and for the better part of the last decade there has been a public debate about whether such limited but affordable policies are on balance a reasonable option for employers and their employees. now we are addressing the question under the shadow of a law that appears to presuppose the answer. to answer this question, we have several very important witnesses including one from

texas i'm very pleased that dr. develop harke is here from the national center for policy analysis. they've been very much leaders in the area of alternatives for better health care coverage, and i'm glad you are here. i do think, mr. chairman, however, that someone from the department of health and human services also should be required before we make any decisions about how we feel about mini meds. this past summer, the health and human services department has acknowledged a need for theware of the health care law's ban on annual benefit limits so that individuals covered by mini meds would not be denied access to needed service os or experience more than a minimal impact on premiums. to date, 111 employers and insurers covering more than 1 million people have received such waivers from the department of of health and human services.

while these include chain restaurants like mcdonald's represented at today's hearing, the biggestware was for the united federation of teachers welfare fund, a new york union providing coverage for city teachers. just last week, the department of health and human services announced it would also give mini meds a special one-year reprieve from the law's provisions. they'll be proprosided to multiply by a factor of two to meet the law's requirement of 80 to 85% of premium revenues to be spent on the delivery of health care and in announcing this special conversation for mini meds the department of health and human services expressed concern about the possibility of over 1 million individuals who have coverage through these plans losing all coverage completely. so i recognize this is not a

hearing on the health and human services waivers, but it does give attention to the question of whether mini meds are an option that would create no option if they were eliminated. so i think that your point mr. chairman about a $2,000 limit seems very unrealistic if that is in fact the case. that's not a good limit. however, a $750,000 requirement for a limit, which is in the health care reform bill also is going to be excessive for a number of people to be able to afford including some small businesses. surelies there something in between here that would create a more reasonable alternative. i think the health care reform bill could very much keep employees from having any coverage whatsoever which would at least give them the ability

to have checkups and their children to have shots, and that sort of thing. so i think we need to be very careful in treading on this ground and look at yet another piece of the health care reform bill that may have gone so far overboard as to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. thank you very much. >> thank you. i have talked at length -- did you want to make a statement? let me make this statement then and go to you. the i have talked with kathleen seebluss. these waivers are entirely temporary as you indicated in some cases they're just a year and in all cases they don't go beyond the beginning of the state exchanges in 2014. so it's a very temporary business and i think they did it for whatever reason. i also agree with you it would be better to have somebody

here. it would be a crowded table but it would be better. >> thank you mr. chairman. just very briefly. i wish that not obble somebody from hfs was here but also from the congressional budget office simply because did the cbo take into account these mini med plans and potential for people dropping their health insurance in these mini med plans and then dumping those into the exchanges and were those costs figured into whether or not this thing was actually going to hurt the deficit or not. and i think that that's the significant issue that needs to be answered when the scoring from cbo, because this thing was said to have reduced the deficit and we're seeing all kinds of unintended consequences with this new health care law, the mini med problem is just one of many. mr. chairman, you said in your opening statement that these things do more harm than good,

and my question kind of a rhetorical question but my question would be, if they do more harm than good, why did hhs grant waivers? if they're doing more harm than good, shouldn't hhs just have said, sorry, that's the way the law is, and these things, we're not going to grant any waivers if in fact they were doing more harm than good? but what hhs i think recognized is that it is better to have at least some insurance than no insurance. and that's why they're granting these waivers. at least hhs should be here to answer that question. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. and if there's no other statements to be made, let's go to our panel and we'll start with mr. steven finen. senior director of policy of the american cancer society. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. >> all your statements are already in the record. so you don't have to leaf through the whole pages if you

don't want to. >> thank you. good afternoon, mr. chairman, ranking member hutchinson and distinguished members of the committee. my name is steven finen senior director of policy at the american cancer society cancer action network. we are the advocacy affiliate of the mesh cancer society a nationwide voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by bre venting cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering through cancer. we are grateful for the company's interest in the mini med plan. today i would like to share about what our organization has learned and paint a picture all too common in america of how cancer patients and survivors with inadequate insurance face barriers of financial burdens in getting the quality health care they need to fight their disease. as defined by the american cancer society, adequate health insurance ensures timely access to the full range of

evidence-based health care services including prevention and primary care, disease treatment, and survivorship. coverage should be comprehensive and protect the individual from occurring catastrophic expenditures. so what does being underinsured really mean? cancer is approximately 200 separate diseases and not surprisingly the cost of treatment can vary enormously. in 2009, we commissioned a study to examine the adequacy of four serious medical knsings, stage four breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attack, and type one diabetes. it compared coverage features to simulated sclames scenarios to else strait potential care needs of patients with serious and chronic conditions. for the stage two breast cancer case, estimated charges billed totalled approximately $111

,3000. for cancer case the $252,000. for the heart disease patients, the estimated charges totalled about $77,800. for diabetes allowed treatments totalled over $7,100 for one year. clearly such expenses are not financially viable for a mini med policy that has low limit or other restrictions. earlier this year, we commissioned a nationwide call among households with the cancer age 18 and older. half the families under 65 with cancer had difficulty affording health care costs such as premium co-pays and prescription drugs. nearly one third have had trouble paying for basic necessity or other bills and nearly a quart ver been contacted by a collection agency. additional findings from this poll are providing the statement i submitted for the record. the american cancer society

offers the program called the high ast through its call center in austin, texas. high as is a free resource that connects callers with sferblists who work to address their needs. at age 25, brian was recently diagnosed with test particular cancer. he is a full time college student and works part time at a retail store the plan his employer offers has a $10,000 limit. he now has to pay for his treatment out of pocket but continues to pay his premiums. the mini meds are a perfect example of why reform is so crucial. it has long been unattainable for many americans and the

problem has grown worse rmt. if we want all americans to have meaningful access we need to change the insurance market roles, provide subsidies to lower, middle income families, streamline administrative processes and greatly increase transparency and accountability. the affordable care act provides a solid framework for achieving these goals. we acknowledge that to maintain stability, all plans may not t be able to immediately conform to the laws requirements and the requisite amount of time. immediate compliance could result in termination of coverage for people who would have no coverage at all. that's why the law gives the administration to temporarily waive certain requirements. but at the same time we cannot allow cancer patients to fall into financial ruin because they unknowingly purchased inadequate coverage. hfs must take steps to -- between now and 2014 and to make plan participants fully aware of the exception. a waiver this year should not

be a free ride until 2014. to make reform meaningful we must find ways to work together, to ensure implementation for cancer patients and other significant medical needs. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. mr. eugene melville. >> good afternoon, chairman rock feller. >> where are you from? >> i'm living in riverside california. i grew up in boston, massachusetts. >> but you flew from california? >> yes. i came in from california. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, chairman -- [inaudible] >> good afternoon chairman, ranking member hutchison, and distinguished members of the committee. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to share my story with you. my name is eugene melville. i am from riverside, california. and i was recently diagnosed with oral cancer. i was asked to attend today's hearings to discuss the

difficulties i am having with getting the treatment i need because of the limitations of my current health insurance coverage. the american cancer society, cancer action network acs can was able to make the committee aware of my story because i called the american cancer society's help information service for help trying to get access to the medical services i need to fight this disease. i'm hopeful that my story will demonstrate why the adequacy of health insurance coverage is so important. the last thing anyone wants to be told when they are diagnosed with cancer is that their health insurance provides inadequate coverage to fully address the treatment that they need. however, that's what's happened to me and that's the reason why i traveled here today. i have worked for a big box retail chain for several years. i do not plan to identify my employer during this testimony today.

as i am not here to drag their name through the mud. the problem is that bad health insurance is offered in the marketplace. health insurance that i currently have is a policy my company offers to part time employees through aetna. when i purchased the insurance, my understanding at the time was that the policy had a $20,000 annual limit on benefits. i knew my policy had limitations. however, i thought the policy would at least provide some financial buffer if something catastrophic happened to me. well, i went to the doctor and for what i thought was an injury from a car accident in july of this year. however, during his examination my doctor became concerned about a lump in my neck. the doctor referred me for diagnostic screening and a biopsy. the biopsy showed that i had cancer. the doctor referred me, i went to an oncologist.

he recommended that i have laser surgery to remove a lesion on my tongue and surgery on my swollen limb of nodes in my neck. five days before the surgery the administrative staff at the hospital informed me that they had canceled all my appointments and procedures. they explained to me that my insurance company had told them i had reached the annual benefits maximum in my policy for 2010 calendar year. of course i was confused. i knew i had a $120,000 annual cap, but i also knew that i had not been to the doctor for any medical care procedures that cost anywhere near $20,000. so i understood how the insurance policy, it seemed like i understood how the policy worked. i pay bi weekly premiums out of my pay check and it wasn't

going to cover any of the treatments recommended. i had just been diagnosed with cancer. i was trying to come to grips with this news and no one ever wants to hear the dreaded words from their doctor, you have cancer. and i thought i was going to get surgery and start treatment but instead i was told that the hospital couldn't help me. i immediately called the company to find out why they told the hospital they would not cover the surgery. that's when i found out that instead of a policy with a $20,000 annual limit for all services, the $20,000 limit was divided into benefit categories. my policy actually has a $2,000 annual limit on physician visits and outpatient treatments, and a $20,000 annual limit on hospitalizations. further, the hospitalization coverage does not cover payments for more than $2,000

in services for lab tests, surgical supplies, medications. as i learned, cancer treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery done in doctors' offices or at an outpatient treatment center. so my treatments would not be cover by my plan. as an individual, recently diagnosed with cancer, the $2,000 that my policy provides me annually for doctors visits and outpatient treatment doesn't even begin to cover the cost of the life-saving treatments that i need for my oral cancer. instead of receiving my doctors' -- instead of receiving the treatments my doctors prescribed and beginning my recovery, i have spent the last few months

struggling to piece together coverage to treat my cancer. recently i was able to enroll in the medically indjent services program at riverside county regional medical center in marineo valley, california. even though i finally had access to treatment, i do not feel that i am receiving the same treatment that i would if i had health insurance. just last week the doctors at the program informed me that they are now only planning to treat my cancer with chemotherapy and radiation. despite the earlier recommendations for a laser procedure. it has now been months since my diagnosis and i continue to experience significant discomfort on my tongue and neck due to the cancer, swollen lism nodes in my neck. the insurance i have has fallen far short of what i need to fight this chronic disease.

i hope my testimony today will make a difference. i don't want anyone else to have to go through what i'm going through. i hope that you will continue to support the full implementation of the affordable care act so that employees like me can have access to comprehensive health care coverage that is transparent and presented to the people in terms that they understand. thank you. . .

affects millions of young americans. we have continued that work. we recently submitted two briefs in support of the law in virginia and in florida and this fall, we courted a campaign that will allow over 2 million adults to get covered on their parents planned up to age 26. about 21 million young adults are currently uninsured, the largest group in the country .oung adult young adults want insurance but numerous factors act as barriers such as low wages and low benefits. the problem is compounded by an

extremely high youth unemployment rate. many --we make up a large percef these plans. almost 40% are under the age of 30. why are they a problem for young workers? something is better than nothing. but many medical plans are a problem for young adults. a 24-year-old man lives in michigan. he has autism. he was fortunate to have a job with a retail chain store making $8 an hour and working 20 to 30 hours per week. he was told about a health care insurance option for employees that would cost one. dollars a month he and his parents knew that having

insurance was important. and they assumed it would cover his basic needs. last year, the young man had a seizure. they expected the insurance to cover him. his parents were wrong. the insurance did not cover the ambulance ride, the emergency visit, so his family was forced to pay over $2,000 out of pocket for this one incident. the young man and his mother now say if they knew about this, they would have at least try to buy private insurance. fortunately, this young man was able to get back onto his father's plan this year. while he will struggle with his condition for the rest of his life, at least he and his family can worry less about his medical needs being covered. with benefit caps as low as $5,000, young adults often face thousands of dollars in medical

bills should they get sick or injured. a young adults have significant medical needs. nearly one in 10 at between $5,000 and $50,000 in medical bills every year. they go to the emergency room more than any under -- more than any other age group below the ages of 75 british many of these costs are paid out of pocket. it can mean poughkeepsie for a young adult making $8 an hour with no savings -- it can mean unemployment for a young adult making $8 an hour with no savings. this can be particularly problematic. a recent survey found that only 29% understood the meaning of the premium, and only 30% knew what a lifetime coverage plan meant.

they are complicated enough for even experienced consumers. for young people, distinguishing types and quality of insurance is that much more difficult. as a result, they are more susceptible to mini meds and their apparent affordability. if employers want to offer workers and inexpensive preventive care package or discounted access, we would welcome that. but that has not happened here. many employers advertise in these plans as real insurance because they attract workers who desperately want to be covered. they are simply not adequate coverage. young in dunstable's will be playing -- will be paying close attention. our goal is to move as quickly and smoothly as possible for quickly -- for a quick implementation by 2014. by that point, mini medical

plans should be a thing of the past. it is in all of our best interest to bring young workers into the health-care system to pay their fair share of affordable medical care that will keep them ready for the future. surely that is a goal that we can all get behind. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. smith. now, mr. richard floersch. >> thank you. my name is rick floersch. more than 3100 franchisees' own and operate nearly 12,500 mcdonald's restaurants throughout the united states. mcdonald owns and operates approximately 1500 additional restaurants. for many of our employees,

mcdonald's is their first job. our goal is to provide competitive companies -- is to provide competitive pay and benefits. we have sought to match the health care options we make available to the needs, desires, and capabilities to all employees. it is important to understand a little bit about our employees. at restaurants are owned by the company, over three-quarters of our crew work part-time, averaging slightly less than 18 hours per week. there is considerable turnover. most often, by 18 months, the employee has either left mcdonald's to return to school or would have been promoted to a more senior position. at mcdonald's, we are proud of

our long position of promoting within. 70% of our restaurant managers, 50% of our corporate staff, and 40% of our top 50 executives are remarkable individuals who started their careers in an entry-level position at a mcdonald's restaurant. for the crew and company-owned restaurants, we offer four tauruses for health insurance. free or low-cost benefit plans, and one is a higher cost medical option. if the employee elects any one of these plans come at mcdonald's contributes $10 a month during their first year of employment and $20 for each year thereafter until the individual

is promoted to a more senior level position. the three plans have different benefit limits. $2,000, $5,000, or $10,000 with correspondingly higher premiums. mcdonald's works hard to make sure its employees understand the limitations as well as the benefits provided by these plans. all the documentation provided to employees details the limited nature of the coverage. whether or not an employee has reached their paid benefit limit, and very few do, they continue to benefit from their participation. they receive significantly reduced prices for prescription drugs and health-care services through negotiated discounts. given the increasing cost of health care, those annual insurer paid benefit limits may appear low, yet it is important

to note that even though the lowest benefit plan is the most popular choice among our hourly employees, approximately 90% of covered employees do not reach the annual limit of these benefits. although we do not have the ability to direct franchisees', we did insist that our insurance carrier make available the same plans to our franchisees' it. we are pleased that over the past five years, participation in these health plans has increased over threefold, and . for those employees making mcdonald's a career, including all restaurant managers, assistant managers, certified swink managers, primary maintenance employees, and corporate staff, which offered several comprehensive plans. they are designed so that higher

compensated employees are required to pay significantly more in premiums than lower compensated employees. with respect to our limited benefit plans, the the loss ratio for these plans apparently has ranged from a low of 78% to a high of 91% in the past five years. in closing, earlier this fall, the department of health and human services granted over 100 temporary laborers from certain targets. the extent and plans made available to employees by many businesses and unions it. at that time, there were press reports speculating on what mcdonald's would do if our carrier stopped offering limited benefit plans. the removal of these options only weeks before our next open

enrollment period would have been highly disruptive to the company and our employees it. we wouldn't enforce to go back into the marketplace and obtain the best available affordable options to offer our employees. we fear those options would not measure up to those that we currently offer. we would have taken action to make sure our employees were provided the best options available. at mcdonald's, we are proud of the benefits that we offer our employees. we cannot control the rising cost of health care. but what we can do and what we are committed to continuing to do is to strive to make available to our employees and those participating benefit options that meet their needs. thank you. >> thank you. mr. timothy jost.

>> sent you, senator. good afternoon, senator rockefeller and senator hutchison, and members of the committee. once fully implemented, the affordable care act will reduce the number of uninsured americans it. equally important, the assistance that the legislation will provide. it is estimated that 25 million americans under the age of 65 are under insured. over half of them report problems gaining access to care. 62 percent of bankruptcies in 2007 had in medical costs, and over 70% of them were injured. -- were insured.

under insurance is a serious problem for american consumers and for american health care providers. of between one and 2 million americans have limited benefit lower mini med policies. these people are usually not aware of how inadequate their coverage is. once the affordable care act, which i would like to mention, was held unconstitutional in federal court yesterday, once it is fully implemented, on their insurance will be largely eliminated. all health plans will be required to cover federally- defined essential benefits.

in you will dollar limits on the essential health coverage will disappear. most importantly, premium tax credits and medicaid expansions will make it possible for americans poorly paid jobs to get access to real, comprehensive insurance. in the interim, however, significant protections are being put in place for planned years beginning in 2010. lifetime limits on coverage are banned and in it will coverage limits go to $750,000. beginning next year, insurers anin the individual market will need to disclose their benefits on coverage in a standard

easily readable format. unfortunately, it to of the most important september 23 reforms will not be applied immediately to a limited benefit plans as has been mentioned several times today. hhf has waived the requirement .or one year arabi they have announced that health plans with annual limits of 2 to $50,000 or less will be allowed to lower their loss ratios to 40%. i would like to point out that both of them are in compliance with the law. they are authorized to waive the annual limit requirement. it allows them to adjust the minimum level loss ratio. hhf's actions are legal and

understandable. believe all,on't but for some and release in mini meds, they are better than nothing. it the benefits in the plan for which it is allowed waivers and very significantly. they are all under $750,000 a year, but some of them are much higher than other plans. hhf plans to post on it would say the actual amount of benefits so that can be seen. the 1 requirements thathhs -- the one requirement that hhhs has imposed is a requirement of disclosure. in some instances, a limited benefit plans are not significantly different than those of comprehensive plans.

alternative coverage may be available to some people who are on mini meds through a state program for their children. those that receive limited benefit plans to their employers may be able to demand better coverage or find an employer that offers better coverage if they fully understand how limited their benefits are. there is no requirement in the hhs limited loss ratio rule but there should be proud of limited benefit plans leave americans exposed to far too great a level of financial and health risk. it is essential that these plans comply with requirements of the lot and consumers be fully informed of any adjustments granted to their plans, and also consumers truly understand how limited their coverage is. thank you. >> thank you very much.

finally, a doctor devon herrick -- dr. devon herrick. >> mr. chairman, ranking member hutcheson, and members of the committee, i am devon herrick. i welcome the opportunity to share my views, and i look forward to your questions. between 1,000,002 million americans currently have a health plan with limited benefits -- between 1 million a and 2 million americans currently have a health plan with limited benefits. a typical design of this planned include coverage for physician visits, and ancillary tests, hospital days, and prescription drugs.

their deductibles and co- payments can be pretty low, and the maximum amount of benefits that can be claimed is capped anywhere from a few thousand dollars to 50 tons and dollars in newly. these plans are affordable. premiums for single coverage can start out as low as $250 a year, or for family coverage, as low as $1,000 a year. one reason why they are affordable is because of the amount of risk that the company is underwriting is lower than a comprehensive plan and is capped at a predetermined level. however, the affordable care act prevent insurers from capping annual limits for less than $750,000 this year. that phases out completely in 2014. by design, a limited benefit plan cannot meet these

requirements and remain affordable critic without waivers, they would simply be banned from the marketplace. another threat is the medical loss ratios, requiring insurers -- the the nature of these plans is such that the marketing and the administrative costs of these plans have a higher worker turnover is hard to meet these regulations. public health advocates often derive these plans as inadequate. i think this is a misguided. most people who are covered by health insurance experience a very low claims. per capita medical expenditure does not surpass $3,000 a year until you approach age 50 on average. about half of the population spends less than $1,000 a year

on medical care. about 80% of the population will have annual expenditures of less than $4,000 in any given year. high medical spending tends to be concentrated among older individuals. some critics of these plans assumes that they are the result of this stingy employers, but this is not the case. economists all agree that it is workers themselves who bear the cost of employer health coverage through reduced wages, in direct contributions. health benefits are just a form of non-cash compensation. to deprive workers of these low- cost limited benefit plans means many workers will lose coverage

in a long run. many could lose their jobs. by 2014, we estimate that the minimum benefit level required for workers in medium to large firms will approach $5,000 per individual. we are at a little over $1,200 -- we are at a little over $12,000 per family. after that, the required federal minimum wage of $7.25 in 2014, and you are getting up to the cost around $13 per hour, or $27,000 per year. workers who cannot produce that much at value are at risk for finding themselves out of work. it would be a hardship to expect workers to contribute money equivalent to half of their wages it. the affordable care act provides

no new subsidies for workers at large firms. a better way would be to have a uniform tax credit. let me conclude by saying plans that featured limited benefits and return for a lower premium are not for everyone. these plans cap benefits at a level that were never intended to provide coverage in the event of a catastrophic medical illnesses. during the health care reform campaign debate, the president told the american people "if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. no one will be able to take that away from you." these plans to fund the level of benefits that many americans have come to rely on, and the loss of this coverage will make them worse off. thank you. >> all right. i think you. -- thank you.

dr. herrick, when you say most people do not reach that 90%, beyond the $2,000, -- what is health insurance? health insurance assumes all risk. most people are not going to have to use a lot of health insurance particularly when they are young. the largest users of emergency medical services are in fact people between the ages of 17 and 29. mental-health, all kinds of other things -- they have these things but because they are young they believe they don't need to take care of themselves, but then they run into a crisis and need health insurance. it is a matter of risk. no one implies that 80% of all americans are going to come up with the requirements that their

plan might be. the comparison i would make, if you are serious about health insurance, you would probably be comfortable with the fact that the car you are driving, the work 90% of the time. a 10% they don't. that describes health insurance. there arejust say lots of people using it up to $2,000. you have to also be able to look at those who don't because that is what health insurance isabel. you make money on some, you lose money on others, but it has to be there. for those who it has to be there, the answer that it is better than nothing, i would say

it is worse than nothing because of the false expectations and false hope that it raises. that little brochure i held up -- how many people are going to read that? . tried to last night' it was half in spanish and half in english. it was a work of art. the 10% that need it, need it. if you are a corporation providing health insurance, you cannot treat the 90% -- the 10% at different from the 90%. your breaks have to work all the time or you are not going to drive your car. we went through this sudden speed and acceleration with vehicles here. most of the time, it does not. i went through this myself with

two american cars. when it does speed up, you run into things. in this case, it would be the car in front of you. you can't control the speed at all. i really want to put the rest the idea that he does not count because he is a part of the 10% and not the 90%. it would be useful if hhs were here, but i have talked to them at length about this. what they are waiting for is the state exchanges, which are not federally run, but our state-run and state-regulated. there is a little. a couple of years -- there is a

little time of a couple of years with hhs kicking the can down the road. it is going to be a full concentration. when they do come up, there will be no more mini medical plans. they will not exist. they will not be allowed to exist. i think that is a very important aspect. i have 30 seconds more. it.n't use i will wait until the next question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. floersch, mcdonald's is one of the businesses that has received waivers. according to your testimony, in response to company's service, only 3% have said they would be

willing to pay more than $35 a week for health insurance. the chairman said you have a cap on your mini meds of $2,000 in benefits per year. do you believe that mcdonald's -- if that is true, i would like to ask. and if so, do you believe mcdonald's has found the best plans possible for this $35 per week health coverage for your employees? >> [inaudible] we did survey our employees to find out what it would be willing to pay, for our hourly employees. the majority said they would be willing to pay $5 to $20 per week for insurance. we factor that in when we went out to the marketplace to find insurance. we worked with outside experts.

we came up with a group of companies. we had a strong internal team that looked at these proposals. we actually have a more customized plan with the insurance carrier we have than what exists elsewhere in the marketplace, that meets our needs. the fact that we have seen a tripling of our enrollment over the last three to four years in terms of hourly employees in rolling in the program and more franchisees' offering it, we stay very close to what other companies are offering. >> but it is in fact a $2,000 a year limit. what is the amount that an employee would pay per week for a policy with that kind of annual limit? >> $11 for $2,000.

we do offer two other options for our hourly employees. >> for the $5,000 limit, what with the weekly feet before the employee? >> more like around $15. we have tried to stay within this range of what we consider to be affordable for them. >> so a $15 a week on mount by the employee could provide a $5,000 coverage. >> yes. >> i understand you start at a low-level and the premium goes up to very much higher premiums with higher maximum -- you have a range of options, apparently, for your employees. >> that is correct. >> according to what i

understood your testimony to be, 90% of your covered employees even at the lowest maximal level do not reached the annual limit. is that correct? >> if you take all three options, the majority of people who are in the $2,000 option. >> let me go to dr. herrick. you mentioned in your testimony is that tennessee has a program called cover 10 for families with incomes in between medicaid and private coverage as a gap. it provides a low-cost health care option with benefits capped at $25,000. in that, you said that 98% of those employees do not reach that cap.

do you think that that is an affordable option? would he meet the requirements of the new federal reform law -- would if it meets the requirements of the new federal reform law? >> no, that would not need the new requirements of the affordable care act. there was a maximum benefit of $25,000, where no more than $15,000 could be used toward hospital care. at the time, in 2007, it was widely reported that probably 98% of them would not reach those health carecaps. by and large, most of it do not experience anything of a

catastrophic nature in any given year. and i am not sure any health care plans affordably cover all risks. >> the chairman mentioned that the state plans or the state options, when they come into effect, are going to be run by the state and regulated by the state predicte. but they do have the federal requirements which means they will have to meet certain standards. even companies that provide a 35% of the premiums are not going to make the federal standard. does that not cut off a lot of plants that now give a level of coverage, maybe a $25,000 limit coverage, but they will be out of range of people who are now on these policies? >> absolutely, especially if you work for a medium-sized firm

with more than 450 people. they get no additional subsidies from the affordable care act. economists agree that workers themselves do a cost of coverage -- bear the cost of coverage. >> thank you. my time is up. >> i just want to make one correction. you are aware, are you not, dr. herrick, that in the health-care plan starting this year, or next year, that 35% of health-care premiums will be subsidized for small businesses? 2014, up to 50% will be

subsidized by federal premiums in. >> yes, i am aware of that. it is for very small firms. it is phased out as the average number of employees reaches 25. i cannot recall the statistics. a relatively small number of firms will qualify for the program progressed i think you are wrong in that but i am speaking out of turn. everybody has left. barbara boxer critic. >> mr. melvvile, thank you for coming to share your story. what hat -- what you have done by your presence is put your human face on the health-care system that is in desperate need of reform. i don't think dr. herrick gets it totally either.

tax credits will kick in. i will say this to you. , nor do any ofe us, the time you are going to get sick. a lot of the things we did it will not be corrected until 2014. they are starting to come in slowly. i want you to know. i apologize to you that you have not been protected from what has happened to you. i want to explore this with you because from what i understand, you believe you had a $25,000 cap on your policy every year. is that correct? >> i felt there was a buffer it pretty quick who led you to believe there was a $25,000 cap on your policy as opposed to a $2,000 cap?

you don't have to give me a name. was it an insurance company not disclosing it in a proper way? was it an employer who did not disclose it in a proper way? how did you come to the conclusion that you had a $2,000 cap and called the cancer society? was it sold as a $20,000 cap? was that your understanding? >> i believe the company is at fault for lack of disclosure. i was under a false impression. and then when i got diagnosed for cancer, i said ok, i have a little buffer. i would be willing to get three jobs to pay for whatever that came up that i would have to owe. unfortunately, i owe pretty much

everything. >> you will be joining a lot of folks. if you look at all of the bankruptcies, more than 60% of them are related to a health care crisis. hey, youn't get sick, are fine. but i can say, just with my own limited experience with the health system, $2,000 is a blink of the i and a few pills at the hospital. let's get real. the average person at mcdonald's is paying hundreds of dollars a year, $700 or $800 for that minimum policy. maybe they would do better off saying that money. in some cases, i am not so sure that it is better than nothing. but i could be wrong on that. let me just get to you, sir. i believe that the insurance

company and your company should make things right for you. because i believe you were misled. i don't know who did it, but you are a smart man. i don't know what your work is. i just know that you are smart. i can hear it pretty >> thank you. >> i have to tell you. you were fooled into thinking that this policy covered $20,000 worth and it did not. i would call on insurance and your company to make it up to you. why should you be subjected to less than top tier treatment? you are a hard-working person who has played by the rules. you said you would be willing to get three jobs, and i believe you. >> i think the senator said it in a nutshell. the insurance company has all the variables, and they know what all the variables are

according to statistics. insurance companies -- insurance is a gamble. they are betting that you are not going to get sick. however, nondisclosure, of being naive, whatever it is, not being informed -- i could not make an intelligent and informed decision because this is what my company offered me and i assumed it had a little umph. unfortunately, it to my dismay, it had nothing. >> when you buy a policy with a $20,000 cap and it turns out that is divided into different categories, to me, that is a sham. >> there is $18,000 sitting there in my suppose it account that i cannot touch. >> i am just trying to make the point.

i am going to work with aetna. i don't know who your company is. i am going to start with aetna. i want to take a look at the way this policy was sold. right now, you are not getting the treatment that you were told was the most effective treatment at the beginning of this battle that you are facing. >> that is correct. it wanted to do laser surgery -- and they wanted to do laser surgery. when the 2000 other limit can about, i got a call from the hospital saying i could not go there anymore. >> now you have to go to a place for indigent care, which is not a pleasant experience. i would like to get a second round after more questions. i have some more questions but i will hold until a second round.

is that ok? >> ok. mr. melville? >> yes, sir. >> now, again, we have this somehow -- i think senator barbara boxer and other panelists disagree strongly with this -- a few of the panelists. we have settled -- oh, it's ok. 90% to not require more than $2,000, but tempers and signd -- but 10% do. what is the obligation for the 10%? people to get sick. say it think is enough to am really happy and it really applaud mcdonald's or others for having 90%, if that where it

stays or is, that don't have to use more than $2,000. the more basic question is -- a car, its brakes only work 90% of the time but did not work 10% of the time. would that get to the market? the answer is no. if we ran into problems, they would be defined and penalized, all kinds of things. to me, it is outrageous. but you did your best to try to figure out what you were going to get. we looked very carefully at your policy. the policies limit on all doctor's office visits and outpatient test is only $2,000. not of the $20,000 to which you

understandably gravitated because it was a higher number. you could get quite a lot done. you gravitated toward that. but, no, it was not. it was only $2,000. emergency room visits, $6,000. so if something happens, you can go to the emergency room. here is the really tricky thing about this policy. the hospital coverage. your policy covers up to $20,000 of room and board costs at a hospital. >> it is not in the outpatient services. you need to be admitted into the hospital.

>> it is nice to have a room in a bed. >> i concur wholeheartedly. >> but it only covers up to $2,000 of most other goods and services that you received and tests at a hospital. for example, under this $2,000 limit, medical surgical supplies -- syringes, bandages, catheters, blood tests, x-rays, cat scans, and r i a's, all operating room and recovery room expenditures, you are probably not going to be able to afford that. you have a nice bed, a nice room, but you got snookered. they were banking that you would not get sick. the insurance company certainly was because that is what they do. we had -- we had to outlaw recisions. it is when you have an insurance

policy but the insurance policy -- company decides they do not want to cover you because you may be at risk. you may be at risk of a pre- existing condition. it includes having a see section. it can include having acne. it can include all kinds of things. because nobody is watching any of this. nobody understands this. it is not been reported on. that when you get sick, you have to get help. there is no way around that. so, mcdonald's and other companies, to the contrary, it seems to me you cannot be happy about the 90%. you have to take full responsibility for the 10%, or else you are saying they do not matter. >> there is your gamble with the

insurance company. i just want to add so that i got a letter in the mail from my insurance company. i had just been diagnosed with cancer it. i had a letter in the mail saying i needed to fill this form because they felt it was a pre-existing condition. i felt pretty terrible. i am just going to write whatever i want because it really did not matter. it was not pre-existing, i know that. it was a diagnosis. if it was a pre-existing, i did not know. >> i understand you. let me ask mr. floersch. are the 90% who do not come up to $2,000, or the more important to you in your policy making

about health insurance then the 10% who have major medical or at least more than $2,000 of medical requirements? how do you separate in your mind the human being factor of the 90% that the insurance company gets away with so therefore you can apply their coverage? brakes thateis the don't work. you would not drive the car at all. why can you let the 10% ago, let them suffer, led then suddenly go into bankruptcy or whatever, because 90% is not a challenge to you? how do you make that distinction? >> mr. chairman, we do not look at the 90% differently. >> but you do. >> because we do offer a

comprehensive option for our employees. they have the option of seeing three limited benefit plan options and a comprehensive option. so we do offer that comprehensive option for our hourly employees. the other thing i would say is we are very clear in our materials. i know you talked about the brochure here. within the first two pages, we have eight references to the fact that these have limited benefits. we have a clear definition of what our -- of what our outpatient services, inpatient services. there is a video that we show our employees of this is broken down. we need to be very transparent about this, and we take this very seriously. >> but what you are saying is if we are transparent, and if you

get sick, cancer being the most extreme example of that, the most scary example of that, we understand that. but we have something that will handle that. in fact, we don't because the premiums will not cover the kind of health care that mr. melville is going to need. you can say that we are going to take care of you, but you don't pretend you do take care of yourself. the corporate health-care plan is absolutely magnificent. that is, again, why it confuses me how you can so comfortably do that and then just because somebody shows that they are particularly good and all of a sudden their insurance covers almost everything, but in the meantime, the 10% -- why is it wrong for me to be worried more

about the 10% who get snookered than the 90%, by good fortune, don't get sick? >> the fact that we do offer the comprehensive option for the same group of employees and the fact that we are clear in our communication about what the plans are, that is how i feel comfortable with what we have done. >> i would say to my staff -- can we pass this around? do you have this? this is what he is talking about. you don't have it? my time is way over, so i go to senator hutchison. >> mr. chairman, i have asked my

questions. let senator boxer go. >> thank you so much. what percentage of these low income people health care plans do you pick up? what percentage do you pay? >> $10 per month for first tier -- >> no, the range. what do you pay your employees on average? what percentage do you pick up? >> what percentage of the subsidy? >> of the health care premium do you pick out? do you pick up $20? $10? what is the percentage you pick up for your employees? >> anywhere from 10% to 20%. >> what do you pick up for your corporate people? >> we picked up 80% for our

corporate people, 80% for our restaurant managers, 80% for our certified swings, 70% for our execs pretty >> so the people who earn the least, you pick up the least of their premiums? >> i am saying that when we have comprehensive options -- the first promotion a person gets at mcdonald's is a former supervisor. you get a 70% subsidy -- >> i get a pretty you are telling me with a straight face that an hourly employee could afford the same level of coverage that you get? no. and what you do is pick up hardly anything for the lowest income people.

starbucks pays 75% for its workers. i am saying to you, just as a human being, i think you posted a $4.5 billion profit in 2009. i want everyone to be very successful. i am telling to you, as a moral issue, i cannot legislate morality. i am saying to you that the fact that essentially you pick up 70% or 80% of your full-time workers, and 10% of your lowest workers, i think you should take a look at that. that makes my heart beat fast, and not in a good way. i don't really get it. what steps do you plan to take, if any, to offer more comprehensive health-care then these mini med plans?

do you have anything in mind? >> we have a comprehensive option -- >> but they cannot afford it. are you thinking about paying for more of the premiums for your hourly workers? >> a couple of years ago, we moved to the $10 subsidies and the $20 subsidies. >> can i suggest to do -- it might be a really wonderful thing. if you paid the same percentage of those peoples costs that you do the higher and people, i think it would be really important. now, i want to ask mr. jost. in 2009, consumer reports ran a story about suzanne in california who fought she bought a health-insurance plan, only to find out it covered

almost nothing when she got breast cancer and needed help. to what extent plans that cover half of services, so-called hospital-only plans -- i think senator rockefeller pointed it out when he said to mr. melville it covered hospital but on the room and not any of the treatment. by 2014, we have taken steps to cure a lot of the problems. i hope we will be able to hold it off because stories like this help us make our case. do you see those hospital-only plans presented similar hazards for consumers as teh mini med plans and do you recommend a way to address them in the interim before 2014? >> i think that there are a

number of plans out there. there are also disease-only plants and. there are catastrophic health plans that offer very little coverage. and there are quite a few plans out there -- the problem between now and then is how to pay for those plans because if you have very low income but not low enough to qualify for medicaid, which means if you are still alive and obviously not enough in time -- not enough income to qualify, how do you pay for that? that is why it is so important -- >> let me just say this and i will stop. i think what chairman rockefeller was getting to in