Ossie Davis Congressional Gold Medal Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 379 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This resolution provides for a structured rule and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of Committee on Education and the Workforce, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the minority. This is a good and a fair rule. It allows the House to focus the debate and the vote upon two different approaches aimed at helping America's small businesses to offer health coverage to its employees, and to debate and examine the proper role of the Federal Government in the health care arena.

Amendments not made in order were offered and discussed by the committee, so it is appropriate, I think, not to duplicate that committee action here on the floor.

H.R. 525 is the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005, sponsored by the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and is virtually identical to legislation passed in the 108th Congress, then H.R. 660, which passed this House by a 90-vote margin of 252 to 162. So I commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson); the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for once again moving this bill through the committee process.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 525 is a modest bill. It does not seek to address every aspect of health care in America. It does not seek to mandate Federal control into every aspect of medical treatments. To the chagrin of some of my friends on both sides of the aisle, it does not move our country in the direction of government control and taxpayer-funded universal health care.

What it does do, and this is really the bottom line, is make health insurance more affordable to small business and thereby increase the total number of Americans and families that are insured.

H.R. 525, if enacted, will result in more Americans and more American families being covered by private health insurance, and that is a worthy goal that we should all be working to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that large corporations and unions already enjoy, many through ERISA, the same insurance-risk pooling features and already enjoy the cost efficiencies built into this health coverage package for their workers and their members. This bill, therefore, is about achieving a measure of fairness towards small business, an effort for the mom and pop businesses and industries to be treated the same way as giant corporations and union organizations.

The small guy will have nothing the large guy does not already have, with specific regulations placed in the bill to ensure against unfair pooling practices. It has bipartisan support from a wide range of groups, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of American Business, the American Farming Bureau, Associated Builders and Contractors, the Latino Coalition, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Women Business Owners and the National Restaurant Association, as well as many others.

In the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, there will be many who will be giving facts and figures. I do not wish to go into those right now. But I wish to make sure that this is part of a larger picture.

As politicians, we oftentimes talk about the Nation or issues being at a crossroads. We do that a lot because it is a very dramatic phrase, and it makes us seem more important because we are in the middle of it. But I do believe in the issue of health care and insurance we are as a Nation in the crossroads. We can take one direction which would be to have greater government control, especially on the Federal level which ultimately would lead to a single-payer Federal program where decisions, right or wrong, would be made here.

Indeed, I think the substitute that will be ordered is illustrative not in topic but in spirit of this, where there is greater government control, greater regulations being put in there so that one wonders if the issue is really health insurance or if the issue is control.

The other approach that we are in the crossroads of and could take would be an approach to try and add market forces into the system to try and move some type of reforms along the way. This bill is not a panacea for all of our health care issues; but it is a step for certain groups who are currently excluded, often by well-intended decisions of the government.

I clearly understand both sides of these particular issues. I was a State legislator who did both while I was down there. There were requirements in health care which I thought were good at the time, which I also knew were costly at the time; and I also realize in hindsight, in helping one group of very vulnerable people, we actually hurt a different group of very vulnerable people.

For example, in my State, family health care is covered for everyone until the age of 25. When I joined this august body, all of the sudden the limitation was now at age 22, not 25; and I immediately realized I had three sons who had no health insurance whatsoever. I still have two sons who are out there in that risky group with no health insurance whatsoever.

I clearly realized from personal experience that all the mandates of coverage of health care systems are useless to those who cannot get or cannot afford insurance in the first place.

My oldest son finally got a job with a large corporation. I was very relieved that now he has insurance until a couple of weeks ago when he came and talked to me about joining a friend in an entrepreneurial enterprise, in which case they would start their own business. I should have been excited about his attitude; but the first question out of my mouth was, Well, what about your insurance?

We make decisions here that have far-reaching effects in creating a society of limitations instead of visions as they should be. With all sorts of good intentions, government also has helped create people whose options are shut to them when all they want really is hope and the freedom to choose some kind of options. Sometimes it is a matter of control of those options, which is frightening for any government level to try and give up.

This bill does not try to create mandatory efforts. It tries to create options. It tries to create options from which people can choose. People who are not now covered have a chance to be covered in some way with insurance. Regardless of how one votes on this issue in the past or in the future, this is a fair rule. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the committee who has gone through this discussion many times.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I must admit that much of the opposition gloom-and-doom predictions are based on assumptions of what people and companies will choose to do and, therefore, the government should make those mandates. I am pleased that this particular piece of legislation is based on the assumption that people have the ability to make good choices for themselves without the assistance of the heavy hand of government.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate those who have spoken on the bill today. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the medical profession, who so eloquently talked about some of the realities of this particular bill and what we are looking at. And I appreciate the gentlewoman from California and her wonderful and kind way in which she handled the rule on the minority side.

Just as a means of criteria of what we are going through as far as the rule itself, every amendment that was proposed for this particular rule was discussed thoroughly and voted upon in the committee, with the exception of obviously the motion to recommit. With the debate we have had in previous years, every element of this bill has been thoroughly debated both on the floor and in committee, this year as well as in years past.

I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, my favorite Senator, even though I am not supposed to have one, is the junior Senator from Kentucky who is the only one to have won 100 games in both the American and the National League. Because of that, I have his baseball cards. I hope he does very well over there because if they continue to rise in value, that may be the only way I pay for my health care in the future.

I was reading on the airplane coming back yesterday of a story of Senator Bunning when he was a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers and he was facing the Yankees. The Yankees sent out Bob Turley to be the first base coach because he was great at picking off signals. Sure enough, he knew what the signals were. His signal would be every time a fastball was coming, he would whistle at the batter. Hank Bauer is the first batter up there. Fastball, he whistled, Bauer hit a screamer into left field. The second batter is Tony Kubek. Fastball, whistle, he hit what would have been extra bases into right field except the second baseman caught the ball in self-defense.

The third hitter up is Mickey Mantle. By this time the pitcher is upset with what is going on and takes a couple of steps to Turley and says, ``Next time you whistle, I'm going to drill the batter.'' He takes a couple of steps to the batter and tells him the same thing. Sure enough, a fastball, the whistle, Mantle does not swing. The next pitch is a slider which hits Mantle right in the legs. He is upset, takes a couple of steps towards the mound, but the catcher and the umpire direct him to first base.

The next batter up is Yogi Berra. Once again, fastball, the whistle comes, Yogi does not take it, but then remembering what happened, he steps out of the batter's box, cups his hands and yells back at Senator Bunning who is the pitcher at this time and says, ``He may be whistling, but I ain't listening.''

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who have been whistling at us on this particular issue. Every time I go to a town hall meeting, I face people who want some kind of relief in the ability of getting insurance. I get letters from them all the time. When small businesspeople come to my office, they are talking repeatedly about this particular issue. They are all whistling, asking for some kind of relief.

I realize I talked about my three sons who did not have insurance. My two that still do not will not have it under this bill because the provisions do not allow them to participate. But my next-door neighbor who is trying to make a living in a shop down on Main Street that does not have insurance could under the provisions of this bill. Those are real-life people who need this kind of assistance and help, and they cannot get it any other way. The status quo does not offer this kind of assistance. This is one of those few rays of hope that they will have. These people are truly whistling at us. Our job as Congress is to finally listen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule on the underlying bill, H.R. 525.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying measure of H.R. 525. This country leads in medicine and technology. When combined with increased education and awareness, we have made diseases more preventable and treatable. We have made huge strides, for example, diagnosing and treating breast cancer. Women are now going in for annual mammograms. In and of itself, mammograms do not prevent breast cancer, but they can save lives by finding breast cancer as early as possible.

For example, mammograms have been shown to lower the chance of dying from breast cancer by 35 percent in women over the age of 50. And studies suggest for women between 40 and 50, they may lower the chance of dying of breast cancer by 25 to 35 percent.

Having worked on educational campaigns for over a decade, I know that it has not been easy to convince women that they should be asking their doctor for a mammogram, nor, I might add, has it been easy to ensure that health insurance companies cover the cost of these mammograms. But through the tireless efforts of doctors, survivors, and advocates, the insurance companies relented.

Today we are increasingly catching and treating breast cancer in the early stages, yet the legislation we are debating here on the floor today would effectively roll back these advances, and, even worse, doctors would now have to tell the 28-year-old woman who thinks she has found a lump in her breast that her health care insurance does not cover a mammogram to better see the abnormality; that her health care coverage is no longer subject to minimum standards established by her State because she is covered by an associated health plan, an AHP, which is located in a different State with far more relaxed laws on health care coverage.

Too many Americans are already without sufficient health care coverage. They are being forced to accept health care that does not provide what they need when they fall ill, whether it is breast cancer exams, diabetes medication, or childhood vaccinations. Why would we increase the number of these individuals without adequate health care coverage?

Some may claim that these standards for health care treatments, like those that require insurance companies to cover mammograms, are nothing but burdensome regulations, but these safeguards go to the heart of what responsible health care is all about: providing necessary care to those in need. And AHPs would not even reduce the cost of the premiums. Under the legislation we debate today, AHPs could skim off a small minority of small businesses, those with younger and healthier workforces. As a direct result, 80 percent of small businesses would see an increase in their health care premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I truly question what we are doing today. Why would we create a situation that increases the already skyrocketing health care costs for four out of five small businesses? Sadly, this is what we are doing. We are putting our small businesses in the awkward position of not being able to offer health care coverage to that young woman facing the possibility of breast cancer, or offering access to a health care plan that will not cover her diagnosis and certainly not a treatment.

We could do better by that young woman and our Nation's small business owners. Congress could pass the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), which would allow small business employees to access the same quality health care coverage which Federal employees enjoy. The substitute's Federal partnership would allow this plan to be offered at an affordable price. This alternative would truly have a positive impact, ensuring that Americans have access to affordable and quality health care. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Unfortunately, the legislation we debate on the floor, H.R. 525, which would create AHPs will most likely worsen health care situations. Mr. Speaker, if we, Members of Congress, would not accept a health plan that does not include minimum coverage, why then should the American people?

We have an opportunity today. We can support the Democratic alternative and pass legislation that actually addresses the critical health care problems facing small business owners, or we can pass the legislation in front of us that does the opposite. It should not be a difficult decision. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to votes against the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that only 1 out of every 14 people enrolled in an AHP will be newly insured. Overwhelmingly, this is a bill that shifts the already insured into plans with lower coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that I think cuts to the heart of this discussion. It is the story of a husband and wife living in Southern California. After successfully battling bone cancer 7 years earlier, Doug did what so many Americans would like to do. He started a small business making boat parts. Soon, he was approached by an AHP offering a $400-a-month health insurance policy which even included special cancer coverage.

Tragically, a few months after he purchased the policy, his cancer returned and it became quite clear that the quality of that association plan was not what Doug or his wife, Dana, expected. It turned out that this particular plan covered less than 18 percent of Doug's $550,000 treatment cost. Doug and Dana rapidly found themselves buried under hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. And as his wife recounted to the Los Angeles Times, at several points before the cancer ultimately claimed his life, Doug begged her to divorce him so that she would not be responsible for his debt.

I cannot believe this is the solution we are offering to small business owners like Doug and Dana. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, this bill offers no health care solutions for small business owners. It raises premiums on 80 percent of small businesses; will increase the number of uninsured by 1 million people; and reduce coverage for another 7 million individuals who are most in need of care. My friends on the other side might find these facts inconvenient, but that does not make them less true. And it will accomplish all of this by loosening or removing consumer protections and by walking away from State mandates that guarantee treatment for diabetes and screenings for breast cancer.

We can do much, much better than this for America, Mr. Speaker. I urge Members to oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bill, and support the Kind-Andrews substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 660) supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 660.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in honor of National Mentoring Month, which actually was celebrated in January, but we were not here in January, so we are doing it a month late. I would like to honor the contributions of the thousands of mentors and mentoring programs across the country that work so hard to provide young people with support and assistance.

And I would like to make a personal reference here, Mr. Speaker, in that I spent most of my previous career, 36 years, working with young people, and I saw many changes during that period of time, certainly great changes in the family. The out-of-wedlock birth rate was 5 percent in 1960; today it is about 35 percent. So a huge increase.

And at the time that I first started my coaching career, the number of children living with both biological parents was 90 percent. Today it is roughly 50 percent. And we currently

have 22 million fatherless children in the United States today. And I worked with many young people who were without fathers, and I saw the devastation that this lack of a father caused in their lives.

I also witnessed many cultural changes during that 36-year period. We have become the most violent Nation in the developed countries for young people, currently lead the world among developed nations in suicide and homicide rates. Certainly drug and alcohol abuse has increased dramatically. And, of course, gang activity, many people are aware of the increase there.

And also some of the influences of the media have not all been that positive. Some of the television, some of the movies, some of the Internet activities, some video games certainly have been somewhat pernicious and not been helpful to our young people.

So if we look at history, we realize that most great civilizations decline and fall due to internal factors, not external consequences. And so if we look at Rome, to some degree the British Empire, Soviet Union, we see some of those things occurring. And I think it is important that we not be caught off guard here in the United States.

It is difficult to legislate or mandate solutions to some of the problems that I have outlined briefly here, but I would like to remind the fact that mentoring does work. An adult who has no vested interest in a young person, who is not a parent, not a grandparent not a teacher, no one who is paid to come and spend time with that child, makes a tremendous impact on that child's life if they simply care enough to show up and spend time, because it indicates to that young person that they are worth something, that they are worthwhile. And so we see some dramatic changes.

My wife and I have been involved with a mentoring program which currently mentors 2,900 young people, mostly in the State of Nebraska. We have done some research through Gallup, the polling company, and they have found that absenteeism, in a good mentoring program, is reduced by 80 percent, absenteeism from school. We find that discipline referrals go down by about 70 percent, grades improve by 40 percent, and also pregnancy rates go down significantly. Substance abuse is decreased by 40 to 50 percent. Gang activity is reduced substantially.

And some things improve and increase. Graduation rates go up. And personal hygiene and personal relationships with parents and peers also tends to improve.

So a mentor is someone who cares. And we have so many young people in our country today who simply do not have an adult in their life that they can count on, somebody that cares about them unequivocally and will always be there for them.

A mentor is also someone who affirms, who says, I believe in you, I see some talent, I see some possibility. A mentor is someone who provides a vision of what might be possible. So mentoring is critical. Mentoring does work.

And Congress has responded. We had an amendment to No Child Left Behind called Mentoring For Success, which I was able to introduce. In the last 5 years we have provided $184 million of support for mentoring programs around the country. This is supported, of course, by Chairman Boehner.

Another mentoring program was funded to the tune of $168 million, and this is for children of prisoners. It was through HHS and supported by the President. And currently it costs about $500 per mentoring match, and so we reach undoubtedly 600,000, 700,000 children through these programs.

Mentoring is cost-effective. It costs $500 to mentor a child. It costs $25,000 to $30,000 to lock someone up in prison. And the average meth addict will cost the State that it resides in roughly $47,500 if they are addicted to meth because of crimes committed and other abuses.

So at the present time, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that we need roughly 18 million mentors in the United States, children who badly need somebody in their life. We currently are able to supply roughly 3 million, so we are 15 million short. And what we have done in Congress is helped; certainly been a step in the right direction.

So I am pleased that we can at least acknowledge what has been done, and National Mentoring Month has certainly increased awareness and shown the importance of mentoring and the need for more mentors across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H. Res. 660. I want to thank Mr. Davis of Illinois for his support.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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) 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) 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) 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.

Mr. Speaker, uninsured working families are looking to

Congress for answers to help give them access to quality health care, and before us today is a bipartisan bill that should give them hope.

The economic picture remains bright, and more Americans are finding work every day. Earlier this month, the Department of Labor reported that 3.7 million new jobs have been created since May of 2003, marking 25 consecutive months of positive job growth for the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, there are still millions of working families without health insurance. They need access to quality health care, and they are asking for our help. The bill we will consider on the floor later today responds directly to their needs.

It is simply unacceptable that more than 45 million Americans lack health insurance today. Studies indicate that 60 percent of these uninsured Americans either work for a small business or are dependent upon someone who does. Many of these Americans work for small employers who cannot afford to purchase quality health insurance benefits for their workers. That is the crux of the problem. More Americans are finding new jobs, but many small businesses cannot afford to offer health insurance because of rising premium costs.

Our primary goal here in Congress, Mr. Speaker, should be creating affordable options to help the uninsured. With health care costs continuing to rise sharply across the country, more and more employers and their employees are sharing the burden of increased premiums. Employer-based health insurance premiums rose by 11 percent last year, following a 15 percent increase in 2003. As costs escalate, the ranks of the uninsured could continue to increase as well.

The Small Business Health Fairness Act before us represents a bipartisan solution to this problem. By creating association health plans, the bill gives small businesses the opportunity to band together through bona fide trade associations and purchase quality health insurance for their workers at a lower cost. In the last year, we have seen how large corporations are now starting to band together to provide health care to their part-time workers. Small businesses and their workers deserve the same opportunities.

This bipartisan bill would increase small businesses' bargaining power with health care providers, giving them freedom from costly State-mandated benefit packages and lowering their overhead costs by as much as 30 percent, which are benefits many large corporations and unions already enjoy. By pooling their resources and increasing their bargaining power, association health plans will reduce the cost of health insurance for employers and allow more small businesses to provide health care to their workers.

Last year, the House passed this measure on a bipartisan basis with the support of 37 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, the other body has yet to act on this bill. But there remains hope. Senator Enzi, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, has expressed a strong interest in working on this proposal, and I am more optimistic than ever that the Senate will address this problem.

This measure is supported by President Bush, the Labor Department, Republicans and Democrats, and, moreover, a poll conducted last year reveals that 93 percent of Americans support AHPs as an option for providing affordable health care for American workers. Small businesses deserve the chance to obtain high-quality health insurance at an affordable price for their workers, and AHPs are a prescription for helping the uninsured.

Mr. Speaker, I think the rule before us today is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it.