mr. speaker , i rise today in strong opposition to the small business health fairness act , h.r. 525 . 
this bill would not only fail to expand health coverage for the uninsured , but would actually reduce health care benefits and coverage for 8 million individuals who would be switched to lower benefit ahp health plans . 
only 1 percent -- 600 , 000 people -- of the 45 million uninsured americans would be provided new coverage by ahps . 
instead of providing broader access to comprehensive health insurance for the millions of uninsured americans , h.r. 525 will undermine access to quality , affordable health insurance and may actually increase the ranks of the uninsured . 
under current law , the majority of health insurance plans are regulated at the state level . 
states have enacted a number of protections to ensure the fairness of health insurance coverage for patients . 
most states now require insurers to allow direct access to emergency services , independent external appeal of health care claims denials , and access to an adequate range of health professionals . 
ahps would be exempt from these requirements , leaving those with ahp coverage with inadequate protection . 
insurers naturally have incentives to select the healthiest individuals or groups that are seeking coverage . 
state regulations counter this incentive by mandating that certain benefits be covered , and by limiting and defining how policies are to be priced . 
by exempting ahps from these state regulations , ahps would offer less-generous policies that would be attractive to healthier individuals and groups . 
by permitting ahps to offer coverage to specific types of employers , the bill allows them to hand pick populations that are better risks and therefore less costly to insure . 
under h.r. 525 , ahps would offer different premiums to each member employer , charging lower rates for lower risk persons and charging much higher rates for higher risk persons . 
the only restriction on premiums is that differences could not be based on health status . 
this provision is essentially meaningless because it permits ahps to accomplish the same goal by varying premiums based on age , sex , race , national origin , or any other factor in the employers ' workforce , including claims experience . 
as a nation , we have recognized and are committed to eliminating health disparities based on race , ethnicity , and national origin . 
why then would we create laws that perpetuate and encourage further health disparities ? 
small businesses comprise nearly one-third of the private sector workforce , and are much less likely than large firms to provide health coverage for their employees . 
although this is a serious concern , ahps are not the answer . 
the kind/andrews substitute offers provisions that would address the real health insurance needs of small employers . 
it would provide small employers the same access to health benefits as federal employees by establishing a small employer health benefits plan , sehb , similar to the federal employees health benefits plan . 
it offers coverage to all small employers and their employees to apply for coverage under sehb . 
those working less than full-time would be eligible for pro rata coverage . 
it would also minimize adverse selection , use state-licenses insurers without preempting state laws , provide a minimum benefit package similar to federal employees , and provide premium assistance to make employee and employer premiums affordable . 
i urge my colleagues to support the kind/andrews substitute and oppose the republican leadership 's flawed approach to ahps . 
