mr. speaker , i rise today to urge a `` no '' vote on h.r. 525 and a `` yes '' vote on the kind-andrews substitute . 
this debate is , frankly , misdirected . 
the question is not who recognizes that there is a health care crisis in this country and who does not . 
this is not a contest to see who among us truly understands that small businesses are finding themselves in an increasingly difficult predicament when it comes to providing health care insurance for their employees . 
we all care about this issue , and we all have constituents who need help affording health care insurance . 
small businesses , which do face unique challenges across the board compared to large corporations , are the backbone of our economy ; and we should be doing more to help them . 
and providing better and more health care coverage is one of the biggest problems they face today . 
so i ask our friends on the other side of the aisle , why do we have before us a bill that does nothing to really address the problem for small businesses and very well may end up hurting the people who we say we are trying to help ? 
there is a reason why the national governors association and 41 attorneys general are against this bill . 
there is a reason why numerous advocacy associations , consumer groups , and others oppose this misguided legislation . 
this bill has been hailed as the answer to covering many of the 45 million americans who are currently uninsured ; but in truth , a very small percentage of the population would be helped in any way . 
this is because association health plans would help a relatively small number of the youngest and healthiest among us who will gain access to cheap minimalist plans . 
but that would come at the expense of the vast majority of workers whose premiums would actually increase . 
it would also make it nearly impossible for those with previous health challenges or chronic diseases to obtain any coverage at all . 
let me give an example . 
i am the cochair of the bipartisan diabetes caucus in congress . 
forty-six states have mandated that insurance plans must cover diabetic supplies ? 
why ? 
one little vial of strips , test strips costs $ 50 , and insurance companies simply were not giving that benefit in the past . 
that is why 46 of the 50 states said , you have to pay for this . 
now , if diabetics test their blood , long-term complications like heart disease , kidney failure , end-stage renal disease , all of those are eliminated ; but they have to have insurance coverage for these supplies . 
this legislation wipes out that requirement . 
it says , you do not have to pay for that ; you do not have to follow that state law . 
that is not only wrong for those beneficiaries who are diabetic ; it is shortsighted in the long run for the cost of our health care system . 
we need to address the real access and affordability issues that affect employees of small businesses , and the only way we can do that is by passing the kind-andrews substitute . 
this substitute will give small employers the ability to provide the same access to health benefits as federal employees . 
it will also allow states to establish small employer health pools . 
it would also minimize adverse selection and use state-licensed insurers without preempting state laws . 
sounds like a good substitute to me . 
if we pass the substitute , we can make a true impact on the status of millions of uninsured workers across this country ; and for that reason , i urge a `` no '' vote on h.r. 525 and a `` yes '' vote on the substitute . 
