mr. speaker , i rise today in support of the kind/andrews substitute and in strong opposition to h.r. 525 , the small business health fairness act of 2005 . 
we have the opportunity to give small business owners and employees meaningful access to affordable and comprehensive coverage by adopting the kind/andrews substitute . 
or , by passing h.r. 525 , we can give access to cheap , flimsy insurance policies that will not provide meaningful protection and leave those who need better coverage far worse off . 
all of us are concerned about the high cost of health insurance , particularly for small businesses . 
we all agree that we need to allow small businesses to band together to achieve economies of scale in purchasing coverage . 
the kind/andrews substitute would give small businesses the ability to pool together through a small employer health benefits plan . 
it would provide premium assistance to make coverage affordable for small business employers and employees . 
the kind/andrews substitute will guarantee that insurance policies are not worthless paper but provide meaningful access to benefits . 
what the kind/andrews substitute will not do is preempt state consumer protection laws -- laws that have been enacted by state legislatures on a bipartisan basis in response to real-life problems in the insurance market . 
the kind/andrews approach would benefit employers and consumers . 
the so-called small business health fairness act of 2005 would not . 
in fact , this ill-conceived bill would make the current situation worse -- adding to the ranks of the uninsured , reducing benefits , and leaving small business workers with insurance policies that do not provide the care that they and their families need . 
there are three fundamental problems with this bill -- all of which stem from the decision to preempt state laws and leave no other protections in their place . 
first , the bill will not significantly reduce the number of uninsured and may actually make this crisis worse . 
it would preempt state insurance regulation -- allowing association health plans to cherry pick healthy small businesses . 
small businesses with older workers , persons with disabilities or chronic conditions , and women of child-bearing age would face higher premiums . 
the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that only 620 , 000 uninsured workers would buy these new , barebones policies but that 75 percent of currently insured small business employees -- 20 million -- would see their premiums increase . 
national small business united -- a group whose reason for being is to promote the interests of small businesses -- opposes the bill because it would increase health `` insurance premiums for small employers by up to 23 percent and cause some to drop coverage altogether . 
a mercer consultants study in 2003 found that it would actually increase the number of uninsured by 1 million . 
the cbo says that up to 100 , 000 of the most medically needy workers -- those with chronic , ongoing conditions or disabilities -- would be among those losing coverage . 
second , the bill would take away protections from consumers victimized by fraud and abuse . 
all 50 states and the district of columbia have passed tough laws to stop abuses in the small group health insurance market . 
again , these laws would be preempted . 
the u.s. department of labor is not going to have the will or the resources to respond when consumers are injured by benefit denials , ahps go belly-up , or fraud is committed . 
ahp policy holders and health consumers would be left in a regulatory blackhole -- with no place to turn if they are defrauded , cheated , or denied benefits . 
that 's why the national association of insurance commissioners and 41 attorneys general oppose this bill . 
third , the bill would preempt basic benefit requirements and patient protections , allowing ahps to drop coverage for preventive services , screening , mental health and other critical services . 
cbo estimates that 8 million workers with health coverage today would lose benefits under h.r. 525 . 
in illinois , we have enacted benefits that include mammograms , pap tests , minimum mastectomy stays , colorectal screening , diabetes education and supplies , pre- and postnatal care , mental health parity that goes beyond inadequate federal requirements , and access to cancer drugs . 
we have a prudent layperson rule to ensure access to emergency services , direct access to ob-gyns , and a ban on hmos `` gagging '' doctors in their communications with patients . 
we have prompt payment rules for providers and fair marketing requirements . 
we require that insurance companies cover newborns . 
those protections would be preempted under h.r. 525 . 
many of us who previously served in state legislatures fought for those benefits because private insurance policies refused to cover items like mammograms , maternity care , diabetes education , prosthetics , or chemotherapy . 
we had constituents whose insurance companies refused to cover their babies , arguing that conditions developed in the mother 's womb were `` preexisting. '' dropping those critical benefits will not make health care more affordable ; it will simply shift costs to employees and their families . 
and , despite having so-called insurance , if workers can not afford to pay those costs on their own , they might as well be uninsured . 
that is why groups from consumers union to the american diabetes association , from the national mental health association to the naacp oppose this bill . 
i also want to point out that women have a tremendous stake in this debate . 
nearly all women-owned firms are small firms , most with fewer than five employees . 
women are half of all workers at very small firms . 
and women are the beneficiaries of many of the state benefits enacted because private insurers refused to cover critical services -- mammography , pap smears , reconstructive surgery following mastectomies , contraceptive services , breast and cervical cancer screening , direct access to ob-gyns and nurse-midwives , and osteoporosis screening . 
a bill that raises premiums to women-owned small businesses and cuts women 's health services is no solution . 
finally , i want to respond to the arguments of the proponents of h.r. 525 that something is better than nothing . 
as i have mentioned , for at least 8 million people , the something that would be provided under this bill would be a policy with lower benefits than they have today , for at least 20 million it would be a policy with higher premiums than they pay today . 
that is hardly a good deal . 
but there is a more important issue at stake here . 
h.r. 525 says that we owe small business owners and employees nothing better than barebones coverage , an insurance policy that may be affordable but that does n't provide access to needed medical services and is stripped of consumer protections . 
i believe that we can do better and that is why i support the kind/andrews substitute . 
