mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the rule even though it has made in order a substitute that the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. andrews ) xz4000080 and i will be offering . 
the reason i rise in opposition is because this is such an important issue that we really should have an open and fair and reasonable debate on the floor of the house of representatives . 
eight of the democratic amendments offered last night were effectively blocked . 
instead , we have a closed rule that will allow some time for general debate on the ahp underlying bill , an hour on the substitute , and that is it . 
i think we can all stipulate that when we go home , this is clearly the overriding issue we hear from our constituents : the rising cost of health care and the inability , especially in small businesses , to be able to afford and access quality health care which is crucial to a growing and vibrant economy . 
there is a reason why we are here year after year debating the same issue , and that is because the underlying bill is bad policy . 
it is recognized as bad policy by over 1 , 400 organizations nationwide that have come out and publicly opposed it , including the national governors association , both the democratic and the republican governors associations ; including 41 of the states attorneys general ; the national association of insurance commissioners ; the national conference of state legislatures , all of whom recognize this does not make sense , it is bad policy and we should offer something more than just a broken promise or false hope to small businesses and their employees hoping to obtain coverage . 
there should be an unwritten rule when we are debating any type of health care policy changes , and that is following the hippocratic oath that our doctors and health care providers follow : first , do no harm . 
unfortunately , the ahp bill before us today does plenty of harm . 
and , again , it has been recognized by independent studies both within the congressional body and outside . 
in fact , a recent mercer study indicates that adoption of this ahp legislation could raise the ranks of the uninsured by over 1 million people . 
you would think that alone would be enough for a `` no '' vote on this underlying bill . 
any policy that is going to increase the number of uninsured , which is roughly between 45 and 48 million today , is something that we should resist . 
it also shows that those who do not join ahps and are not part of an association , who have health coverage for their employees , the premiums are going to increase for those people by 23 percent . 
this is consistent with what the congressional budget office has shown in their study that shows that adoption of this bill would leave 20 million of the workers with higher premium payments overall . 
also , recently there was a study out of georgetown university that shows that adoption of this bill , and again it is consistent with past gao studies , would increase the likelihood of greater fraud and abuse within the associated health plan system . 
the gao in a study showed that there are 144 illegal ahps operating affecting every state in the union with unpaid claims affecting over 200 , 000 workers today . 
the underlying bill is going to take oversight and accountability away from the states where it has traditionally resided with oversight powers and audit responsibilities , put it in the department of labor with insufficient resources and no accountability and no oversight at all . 
because of that , the state attorneys general in a letter stated : `` the elimination of the state role and replacement with weak federal oversight is a bad deal for small businesses and consumers. '' finally , as the gentlewoman from new york ( mrs. mccarthy ) xz4002570 has indicated , it does preempt consumer protection which has been traditionally guaranteed by the states if they found that necessary . 
so there are a lot of reasons why the underlying bill before us today is bad policy . 
that is one of the reasons it has had a difficult time moving through the senate . 
we are going to have a substitute offered that the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. andrews ) xz4000080 and i and others who support think is a viable and reasonable approach to deal with the growing health care crisis that so many of our small businesses and their employees are facing . 
it is a bill that does allow the purchasing pool concept to go forward , but it is modeled after what federal employees currently have under their health care plan . 
and it also does not preempt state law . 
mr. speaker , i ask my colleagues to defeat the rule so we have an honest debate and support the substitute and vote `` no '' on the underlying bill . 
