mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time . 
mr. speaker , i think there is wide agreement , bipartisan agreement that we have got a serious issue on our hands , a huge challenge that is facing our nation , that is , rising health care costs and the impact it is having on economic growth , the opportunities for businesses large and small to grow and hire additional workers . 
i think it is one of the main reasons why we have experienced such anemic job growth in this country in recent years , because of the hesitancy of so many businesses , especially small businesses to hire additional workers because of the associated rising health care costs . 
it is something that we must address in order to deal with an expanding economy at a rate that we would all like to see , but also to get a grip on the stagnant wages right now that are holding so many of our workers back . 
i think there is a direct cause and effect whereas the typical worker 's wages have been frozen in effect in recent years because of the additional costs coming out of their pockets to afford health care . 
that is why , again , we have had an important debate today , but it is one we should be working on in a bipartisan fashion to address the underlying causes . 
volumes have been written about the underlying associated health plan that is before us today . 
and , unfortunately , the verdict is in and that verdict is this is just bad public policy . 
that is why so many of the governors and so many of the attorneys general , and the commissioners of insurance , the association of state legislatures in a bipartisan fashion have roundly criticized and condemned the underlying associated health plan , because they feel as we do on this side that it will do more harm than good . 
i understand and appreciate the motivation on the other side to try to move forward on this issue . 
but we are stuck . 
the wheels are stuck in the mud , and it is just spinning because it is not getting any traction . 
and that is because the senate in their analysis of the underlying bill has found that it , too , is bad public policy . 
and i am afraid we are going to have this debate today , it is going to expire and it is going to get stuck with no progress being made . 
perhaps there may be some deficiencies in what we are offering in our substitute , just as we believe there are deficiencies in theirs . 
but now is the time for us to come together to try to find some common ground so we can make progress and deal with this issue that is affecting more and more americans every year . 
one of the issues that really has not received that much attention , and i would just like to close on and highlight it , is again the fact of the federal preemption and taking away from states the ability to conduct proper oversight and accountability with these insurance plans . 
both the gao in a study and a recent georgetown university study that came out this summer indicated that the underlying ahp bill , as it is written with the weak provisions that would go to the department of labor , would lead to an explosion of fraud and abuse with these types of plans throughout the country . 
and there is a history of fraud and abuse . 
currently , there are over 144 plans that are set up fraudulently that are not paying the claims that are affecting well over 200 , 000 workers . 
but for the effective oversight and the policing that is taking place at the state level , even these would probably go unnoticed . 
it would impact more and more americans . 
it is another reason why the underlying bill does not make sense , why the federal preemption over state jurisdiction , which has been the history of health care regulation in this country , is another bad idea . 
our substitute addresses that by not preempting state law by allowing the state jurisdiction and oversight to continue . 
it does build upon the concept of a purchasing pool modeled after the federal employee health plan which , as was stated earlier , has worked marvelously over the years . 
no one is recommending dismantling that . 
i would encourage a `` yes '' on the substitute and a `` no '' on the underlying bill . 
mr. speaker , i yield back the balance of my time . 
