mr. speaker , i want to commend my friend and colleague , the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. andrews )  , for the leadership he has shown on this issue .  here we are again , mr. speaker .  year after year after year it seems we continue to rise in this chamber to debate the same issue .  one of the reasons we have to do this year after year is because bad policy is tough to sell , and especially tough to sell in the senate right now , which has refused to take this up and move it forward because it has been bad policy .  the chairman of the full committee , the gentleman from ohio ( mr. boehner )  , had a chart showing us a 93 percent approval of ahps .  that is not surprising , mr. speaker .  there is such a craving throughout america for any type of legislative proposal that would bring price relief to the rising cost of health care , that i am afraid people will chase any proposal and even jump off a cliff without looking where they are going to land .  that is why , mr. speaker , especially under these conditions , it is more incumbent upon us here in this chamber to be extra careful in regard to the policy proposals that we are proposing so we do not violate the hippocratic oath , and that is : first do no harm to the current health care system .  there is plenty of places where this legislation that is being offered today would do substantial harm .  we have had studies outside and inside this body that have come back explaining the true deficiencies of this legislation , but none probably summarize it better than the national small business association that recently sent us a letter expressing their concerns .  now , this is an organization of some of the largest chambers of commerce and some of the biggest local and national organizations throughout the country , all of which see this ahp proposal for what it really is : an empty promise .  mr. speaker , i quote from this letter from the national small business association in which they state , `` the biggest loser from the passage of ahps would be small businesses .  ahps are not an answer to rising health care costs and would significantly worsen the state of health care for all businesses .  more and more small businesses are realizing that despite the bumper sticker pitch in its favor , ahps are , simply put , bad public policy. '' they go on to cite the mercer study , saying that `` premiums for those outside the ahp market would increase an additional 23 percent , and an additional 1 million people would become uninsured as this policy plays out. '' they go on to state that `` the minimal price savings realized by some businesses through ahps would come from attracting healthier participants and depleting benefits that are currently required by states .  ahps could create plans that manipulate benefits and are extremely unattractive to sicker , less healthy participants .  `` furthermore , the cbo found most of the enrollment in ahps would come from businesses switching coverage .  only 1 in 14 would be newly insured .  ahps do nothing to solve the problem in rising health care costs to small businesses and their employees. '' and they conclude by saying , `` they simply shift the cost from the overall market to a more concentrated group of people .  this is hardly a long-term solution. '' there is a better proposal , one that we will talk about in more detail when our substitute is offered .  there is a way for us , i believe , to come together in a bipartisan fashion to address one of the most pressing issues of the day , and that is affordability and access to quality health care .  businesses large and small , family farmers , individual employees are all suffering alike , and that is why it is important for us to come together and do something meaningful to relieve the health care pressures in this economy .  