try it erisa. try the language. there really complex. but often you can find purposes, more often than not by along shattuc-- by 8 long shot. the reason the purpose is not manipulable, and i see ralph lancaster here, there is a good joke that explains it. why is this funny? y'all know this joke. there are a couple of people flying in a balloon in maine, and they are lost. they come down and see a former and one shouts of " where are we?" and the farmer shouts, "you are in a balloon." why is that funny? because it ignores the context. when my wife says there is no butter, she does not mean there is no butter at the corner store. she means there is no butter in the fridge. i know that because of context. the context of the case and the context of the statute or the context of the constitutional provision tells us more often than not have to use it. the i think not much of a problem, at least not as tough as the history is sometimes when you try to explain that and deal with it in very complex matters, but anyway, sometimes tough. but even

erisa remains intact. there will still be the option for large employers to operate under that uniform scheme to have relied on since it was enacted in 1974. that was terribly important. there is no public plan option in this overall scheme. that is important for large employers who are very much concerned that it could have a disruptive effect on cost shifting and adversely impact on their plans. another important feature is that for large employers, they retain the ability to do their own plan designed in terms of the coverage they provide to their employees. we will talk about that more than a minute. the coverage requirements for the small group market and the individual markets will largely be determined by regulation that will come from hhs and other agencies. the larger group market will be determined by what employers provide, although they will have to meet new minimum standards for affordability. i will talk about what those look like. i totally agreed there is a big disappointment on major initi

erisa remains intact. there will still be the option for large employers to operate under that uniform scheme to have relied on since it was enacted in 1974. that was terribly important. there is no public plan option in this overall scheme. that is important for large employers who are very much concerned that it could have a disruptive effect on cost shifting and adversely impact on their plans. another important feature is that for large employers, they retain the ability to do their own plan designed in terms of the coverage they provide to their employees. we will talk about that more than a minute. the coverage requirements for the small group market and the individual markets will largely be determined by regulation that will come from hhs and other agencies. the larger group market will be determined by what employers provide, although they will have to meet new minimum standards for affordability. i will talk about what those look like. i totally agreed there is a big disappointment on major initi

so i think what's happened is our diet has become like edpa, erisa, and that's because if we go back 10 years, those are the laws you passed. and now i gather have passed a law with 2,400 pages. and if you have passed a law with 2,400 pages, they probably has a lot of words. and i would predict as a test of the theory, that three or four years today, no one is ever going to ask us again why we have so few cases. >> that was a good answer. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i always begin my statement, when the chairman brings up the subject, i just want to begin by saying go sox. that limits my time. >> is that white sox or red sox? >> red sox. >> red sox. you have three minutes. [laughter] >> you got to stick by your principles. and it's worth it. i have a couple questions. in looking at the request in terms of salaries and expenses, it says the sum reflects an increase of 5% over the appropriation for 2010. what does that represent in terms of percentage increase of salary? for staff? i didn't know whether the 5% meant a 5% increase was 5% was including salary and benefits and the increas

so i think what's happened is our diet has become like edpa, erisa, and that's because if we go back 10 years, those are the laws you passed. and now i gather have passed a law with 2,400 pages. and if you have passed a law with 2,400 pages, they probably has a lot of words. and i would predict as a test of the theory, that three or four years today, no one is ever going to ask us again why we have so few cases. >> that was a good answer. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i always begin my statement, when the chairman brings up the subject, i just want to begin by saying go sox. that limits my time. >> is that white sox or red sox? >> red sox. >> red sox. you have three minutes. [laughter] >> you got to stick by your principles. and it's worth it. i have a couple questions. in looking at the request in terms of salaries and expenses, it says the sum reflects an increase of 5% over the appropriation for 2010. what does that represent in terms of percentage increase of salary? for staff? i didn't know whether the 5% meant a 5% increase was 5% was including salary and benefits and the increas