John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3784) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam 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.R. 3784, as amended.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, each year millions of Americans, young and old, participate in higher education programs at this Nation's colleges and universities. Higher education has become more important than ever with a changing marketplace and increasing international competition; and that is why the Federal investment in higher education is so important. For more than 2 years, my colleagues and I have been working to strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so that we can better serve the millions of low- and middle-income students aspiring for a college education. And while we have made great progress this year, the reauthorization process is still not complete. Today, I stand in support of the Higher Education Extension Act so that we ensure these vital programs continue to serve American students. The measure extends critical programs for a brief time frame, 3 months, to give Congress the additional time it needs to complete this process in the best interests of students and taxpayers. In February, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I introduced the College Access and Opportunity Act to complete the Higher Education Act reauthorization. That bill, similar to legislation of the same name we offered last year, was the culmination of a comprehensive effort to expand college access by focusing on fairness, accountability, affordability, and quality. That bill contained a number of reforms that I had hoped would be enacted by today. The College Access and Opportunity Act would have realigned our student aid programs to place first priority back where it belongs, on the millions of low- and middle-income students who have not yet received a higher education. The bill would have strengthened Pell grants, college access programs, and campus-based student aid. It would have broken down barriers and eliminated outdated regulations that are preventing nontraditional students from achieving their higher education goals. It would have significantly realigned the multibillion-dollar student loan programs to expand access for current and future students and restore fairness so that all student borrowers would be treated equally. Consumer protection for borrowers would have been strengthened, red tape would have been reduced, and because accountability is the cornerstone of American education reform, colleges and universities would have been held more accountable to students, parents, and taxpayers, the people they serve, through increased sunshine and transparency. Now I remain committed to a comprehensive reauthorization and hope to complete that process this year. In the meantime, the bill before us is critically important. We cannot allow programs under the Higher Education Act to expire. Too many students depend on this assistance as they strive for a higher education. Yet it is equally important that we remain committed to comprehensive reforms that will build upon these programs in strengthening them in order to expand college access. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the extension of the Higher Education Act. Millions of American students depend on these programs, and we must not let our commitment to higher education lapse. But it is equally important that we remain focused on the ultimate goal of enacting comprehensive reforms that will strengthen and renew the Higher Education Act so it can meet the needs of current and future students. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and work with us in the coming weeks and months to complete this comprehensive reform package so we can better serve American students who are pursuing a college education. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support of the bill today to extend the Higher Education Act; but I find myself in a position of having to rise and respond to some of the criticisms of H.R. 609, the reauthorization bill for the Higher Education Act that is in process. The gentleman is right, we do over the next 5 years save $9 billion in taxpayer funds while at the same time we reduce origination fees for students, we expand loan limits for students, and better equalize the campus-based aid programs around the country. Now, my colleague and his friends on the other side of the aisle came up with proposals to save money as well. The only difference here is that we decided that net of $9 billion ought to be saved for the taxpayers because, after all, it is their money. My friends on the other side of the aisle decided to spend it. Well meaning, well intentioned, but at some point we in Congress have a responsibility to enact public policy that is fair for all. Some people do not go to college. As my friend knows, I am the only one of my 11 brothers and sisters to go to college. To the extent we are providing loans, they are being paid for by taxpayers, some of whom do not get a higher education. So what is fair? I think the underlying bill, providing college loans, providing Pell grants for underserved students, is a very good thing for our country. But how much is enough? We are going to spend about $75 billion this year in Pell grants and student loans to help low- to middle-income students achieve the dream of a higher education. I think that it is an important part of our responsibility to help improve our society. But at the same time, we also have a responsibility to people who pay taxes, and people who pay taxes watching money flowing out of this institution like water over a dam. At some point I am not going to stand here and be embarrassed because we help improve access to higher education, we help improve the ability of students to pay for their loan programs, and at the same time save $9 billion over 5 years for the taxpayers. I think it is a pretty good deal for all. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the United States Constitution's 218th anniversary. On September 17, 1787, 39 delegates from 12 states convened in Philadelphia to outline the powers of a new government--a government that for the first time in world history would exercise its authority from powers loaned to it by its citizens, not the other way around. It represented a sea change from centuries of belief that every person's right to his property was somehow the state's to grant or to confiscate. John Adams once said, ``The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.'' I believe that every American that swears to defend the Constitution is obliged to defend that sacred right. Unfortunately, there exists a depressing trend, highlighted by the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London, where those who think ``government knows best'' gain and property rights yield. With the death of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, America is once again presented with a test of her character. A new Chief Justice must be appointed. He or she will bear the responsibility for defending a document that has generally succeeded in securing individual liberty for 218 years. From what I have learned about Judge Roberts, I am optimistic that he will rise to the occasion. I can only hope that the Senate will too. The Constitution is far too valuable for politics.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which would provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina whose employment and training have been disrupted as a result of this tragedy. The level of devastation we are witnessing in the Gulf Coast region is truly staggering. Our prayers are with the residents of the region, as well as all those working on the relief and recovery effort. All of our colleagues from the region--including two of my own on the Education & the Workforce Committee, Mr. Jindal and Mr. Boustany, as well as Mr. McCrery, the author of the legislation we are considering today--should know our thoughts are with them and their communities as well. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana, Representative McCrery, for crafting this important legislation in short order. It will make a world of difference for many families in the region as they struggle to retain some sense of financial stability. In order to deliver the quickest possible economic assistance to families in need across the country, the measure before us provides all States immediate access to their next quarter's Temporary Aid to Needy Families (or TANF) funds. That means $4.2 billion in flexible funds would be distributed to all States right away, rather than waiting precious weeks until the start of the next quarter. This legislation also would provide welcome relief for affected states in the form of a 20 percent TANF increase for the coming fiscal year. This bill also takes the prudent step of waiving work requirements and time limits for residents in need of short-term TANF benefits as a result of the hurricane. Or primary concern right now is ensuring that families in that region can focus on putting their lives back together, as well as allowing States to focus on providing immediate assistance to those in need. Scores of families in the Gulf Coast region have endured enough pain and worry already, and this measure will provide them the peace of mind that these important benefits will be available when they need it most--and without added burdens when they need them least. Mr. Speaker, we have made substantial progress over the past week, both in the recovery efforts in the South and in our own legislative efforts here in Washington. This bill marks another step in the long process that this Congress will undertake over the coming weeks and months to address the needs of all those impacted by the tragedy. Once again, I thank Mr. McCrery for his work and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for yielding me time. I rise in strong support of this bill to provide additional relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina who have been forced to withdraw from institutions of higher education as they work to rebuild their homes and their community. The tragedy that has befallen the Gulf Coast region in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the level of devastation and its impact on American families is truly staggering; and our prayers remain with the residents of that region as well as those who are working on relief and this recovery effort. We are working closely with the Department of Education to determine how we can best meet the needs of the children, families, teachers, and schools that have been impacted by this tragedy. We have identified an immediate need for action to assist students pursuing higher education who are forced to withdraw because of the devastation caused by the hurricane, and that is why we are taking action today. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) for introducing this bill to provide additional flexibility for students struggling to cope with this unprecedented natural disaster. The bill complements the measure offered yesterday by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) to protect students forced to withdraw from higher education as a result of a natural disaster. This bill will give the Secretary of Education a new flexibility to waive burdensome requirements on students impacted by this or other natural disasters. The bill would ensure students forced to withdraw from higher education because of natural disaster would not be forced to repay their Federal student grant aid, alleviating what could be a major burden for students already coping with this disaster. This type of waiver authority that we granted yesterday and then again today already exists for the student loan programs and is being provided yesterday by the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Keller) bill for Pell grants and then today by the gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Jindal) bill that would allow the Secretary waiver authority for those who may receive grant programs and scholarship programs such as GEAR UP, TRIO, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. As we assess the damage in the weeks and months ahead, we will be working with our leadership and our colleagues across the aisle to provide additional resources and additional flexibility to the communities impacted by this tragedy to make sure that all the resources of the Federal Government are available to help each and every American that has been affected. So, once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal), the bill's sponsor, for his work and urge my colleagues to support the bill today.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill to provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina whose higher education aspirations have been disrupted as a result of the tragic events of the last 10 days. This bill represents a first small step in our efforts in the weeks and months to come that we hope will make a critical difference for students and families as they work to rebuild their homes and their lives, and hopefully are able to return to higher education. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for developing this bill and for recognizing the forgotten struggles of students forced to withdraw from college as a result of a natural disaster. The premise behind this bill is very simple. It says that if a student is forced to withdraw from higher education because of a natural disaster, that student will not have to repay their Pell grant that has already been awarded and perhaps already spent. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) has been developing this legislation for months, in large part because of what he saw in last year's hurricane in Florida and how it impacted his constituents enrolled in higher education and those that had Pell grants. The Higher Education Act already allows waiver authority for the Secretary of Education to exercise in case of a natural disaster declared by the President. However, that authority exists for student loans and not for Pell grants, a discrepancy that can have a significant impact on disadvantaged college students. Pell grants serve some of the most disadvantaged students enrolled in higher education. In fiscal year 1999, an estimated nearly 45 percent of dependent Pell grant recipients had total parental income of below $20,000, and more than 90 percent had total income of less than $40,000. Pell grants are a need-based aid that students do not have to pay back. However, when students withdraw from higher education, they may have to return a portion of their Pell grant aid. Unfortunately, in the case of a natural disaster, there is no mechanism for the Secretary to waive that requirement, which may force students who have already lost their homes and communities to actually pay back the Pell grant funds that they had been awarded. I am pleased that my committee included this provision in a comprehensive Higher Education Act reform package approved in July. Today, however, we have an opportunity to act quickly to ensure that students in the gulf coast region get the relief they need and they get it soon. This proposal was adopted with bipartisan support in the committee, by a voice vote, during subcommittee markup of our higher education reform package; and I expect similar support today as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join together to provide relief to college students impacted by this unprecedented natural disaster. Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the bill's sponsor, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of the bill.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia and I have had a disagreement over this particular provision for several years. It is very clear in the bill, as I read it, not the way the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) reads it, and this is where the source of the disagreement comes in terms of how plans can choose groups of employees. Under current ERISA law, you are allowed to have different rates for different groups of employees as long as there is a reason other than the health status of that group to have a separate group. Maybe you have a plant located in one part of the State, another plant in another part of the State. You could have two different rates at those two different plants, just like you can under most State laws and what you can under ERISA. So I look forward to continuing to work with my friend from Georgia to resolve our misunderstanding of this issue.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, small employers today have a difficult problem. They are trying to keep their business alive. They are trying to make enough money to hire and grow their business and at the same time trying to provide affordable health insurance. About 60 percent of the 45 million people who have no health insurance work for small businesses of some sort. But what happens to those small employers in most of these State risk pools? They are in the small group coverage area, and guess what happens? There may be a provider or two that will offer them insurance. They are stuck in a small pool, and they pay the highest rates of any group that is out there, unless, unless, one happens to be self- employed. Let us say that they were a realtor, and as a realtor they are self- employed, they are not an employee of a company, and they try to buy health insurance for themselves out in the open market again in these small State risk pools. Here it comes, $1,500 a month, $2,000 a month. And, my goodness, if they are sick, they will not get it at all. So what we have been proposing now for some 10 years, and the House has passed this on a bipartisan basis at least five times, is to allow businesses and self-employed individuals who belong to bona fide organizations to group together for the purposes of health insurance. Why should a realtor who belongs to the National Association of Realtors not have an opportunity, whether their State association or the national association wants to put together a package of plans and allow them to choose one of those plans that might fit the kind of coverage that they want, why would we not want to do this? We have heard all this shtick about all these plans are lousy, they are low-cost coverage. No. These plans would look exactly like the plans that big companies and unions offer today. Everybody in America wants to work for a big company or a union. Why? Because they have got great health benefits. And why do they have great health benefits? Because that is what their employees and that is that their members want. People do not want to go out and buy low-cost coverage that does not cover anything. That does not accomplish anything. So when we look at the opportunity for small businesses to go out and to be able to purchase health insurance for their employees, just like a big company or just like a union under the same set of rules, the same set of rules for small companies that big companies have today, we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This will not solve the problem of all 45 million of the uninsured, but it will help millions of Americans who work for small businesses have a better opportunity at getting good health coverage at competitive prices. We have heard an awful lot of talk about it does not have this mandate, that mandate, that mandate. And why do big companies who do not have to have any mandated coverages under ERISA, why do they provide those? Why do they have breast cancer screening? Why? Because it makes sense to screen for this to detect it early and to deal with it. Why do they have these benefits that are not mandated? Why? Because they make sense to find out early in the illness. These small companies are going to have the same types of high- quality plans that big companies have today without State mandates, because what happens is every State has a mandate. Some of them have as many as 30 mandated benefits that drive up the cost of health insurance and drive the number of uninsured up as well. But companies that offer a lot of these benefits, they do so with, as an example, a breast cancer benefit that covers the whole country, one size, not 50 different States done in 50 different ways that they have to find out exactly how it is going to be covered in each of those 50 States. I have no doubt that the policies that will be offered by these association health plans will, in fact, be high-quality policies at very competitive prices. As I said before, this bill has passed the House on a number of occasions with broad bipartisan support, and I expect that will occur again today. So I would ask my colleagues to stand up and vote. We hope that the other body will eventually take this bill up and move it and to help reduce the number of uninsured Americans that we have.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak on the substitute that has been offered. Now, if we think that having States regulate insurance in a small group market is a problem with state-mandated benefits, this is the mother of all complicated programs to offer health insurance, because what are we going to do? We are going to have the Federal Government do it. Now, none of us really believes that the Federal Government ought to be in the business of running big-risk pools and offering plans to small businesses. Secondly, the bill is estimated, and it has changed from last year; last year there was a $50 billion authorization, but it is still going to cost an awful lot of money to do this bill. One of the most damaging parts, though, is that each employer who would take part in this plan that is being offered would still be subjected to the State mandates on health insurance in their particular State. There are 1,500 State-mandated health benefits around the country. It also requires that the employer must pay at least 50 percent of the premium. In most cases, I would imagine the employer would pay far more than that of the premium; but maybe it is a small company, maybe it is five or six employees, and maybe together they decide, we want to qualify for this, but we will each pick up our own share of the cost. Why would we want to prohibit them from including themselves in this by this type of a requirement? It also says that every employer must offer this to every employee who has worked at the company for 3 months. That seems like a very short period of time, especially in some industries where you have an awful lot of turnover where they would typically require that you wait 6 months before you would qualify. All this would do would be to drive up the cost. But one of the most amazing parts of this substitute, we would subsidize this from the Federal Government and, for employers with 25 or fewer employees, we would give them a subsidy to help entice them into this program. And, if you qualified, you qualify for a 10-year period. Now, some small company with less than 25 employees may qualify, may get the subsidy and may, over a course of several years, become highly successful. But under this particular substitute, they would still qualify for the subsidy. I do not think any of us believe that the Federal Government ought to be operating a health insurance company. There are a lot of mechanisms in the private market for this association health plan program to work. And, again, why do we want to make the perfect the enemy of the good? The underlying bill that we have will, in fact, work. It will allow millions of Americans to get better-quality coverage at much more competitive prices than what they get today. So let us allow the underlying bill to go forward. Let us defeat the substitute.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a physician.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 379, I call up the bill (H.R. 525) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their employees, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 525.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the most pressing crisis we face in health care today is the number of Americans who lack basic health insurance. The number of uninsured Americans today stands at 45 million Americans; 27 million are fully employed. And 63 percent of these working uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business with fewer than 100 employees. It is tragic that so many employers cannot afford to purchase high-quality health insurance benefits for their workers. The problem is not going away, and we have a responsibility to confront it. With health care costs continuing to rise sharply across the country, more and more employers and their employees are sharing the burden of increased insurance premiums. Employer-based health insurance premiums jumped by 11 percent last year following a 15 percent increase in 2003. Clearly, we need to focus on providing affordable health care to the uninsured as well as ensure employers who provide health benefits to their employees are not forced to drop their coverage because of rising premiums and high administrative costs. The Small Business Health Fairness Act responds to this problem and can help reduce the high cost of health insurance for small businesses and uninsured working families. By creating association health plans which would be strictly regulated by the Department of Labor, small businesses could pool their resources and increase their bargaining power with benefit providers which will allow them to negotiate better rates and purchase quality health care at a lower cost. President Bush addressed this point directly last year during his speech at the United States Chamber of Commerce where he said, ``AHPs would provide small businesses the same opportunity that big businesses get, and that is the economies of scale, the economies of purchase, the abilities to share risk in larger pools which drives down the costs of health care for small businesses.'' The President is right, and we should help level the playing field so small businesses can offer quality coverage to their workers. Americans overwhelmingly agree with President Bush that association health plans are the right plan to help the uninsured. A poll conducted last year showed that 93 percent of Americans support association health plans as a way of providing access to affordable care for American workers who lack coverage. Over the last year, we have seen how large corporations are now starting to band together to provide health care to their part-time workers. Do small businesses and their workers not deserve the same opportunity? Importantly, the bill gives AHPs the freedom from costly State mandates because small businesses deserve to be treated in the same fashion as large corporations and unions who receive the same exemptions today. Clearly, these mandates are useless to families who have no health coverage in the first place. If you do not have health care coverage, State mandates requiring health plans to offer specific benefits do you and your family no good at all. This measure includes strong safeguards to protect American workers. Despite the bipartisan nature of this bill, I would like to correct some of the misinformation that I have heard. The measure protects against cherry-picking because we make clear that AHPs must comply with the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which prohibits group health plans from excluding or charging a higher rate to high-risk individuals with a high claims experience. Under our bill, sick or high-risk groups or individuals cannot be denied coverage. In addition, AHPs cannot charge higher rates for employers with sicker individuals within the plan except to the extent already allowed by State law where the employer is located. The bill also includes strict requirements under which only bona fide professional and trade associations can sponsor an association health plan, and, therefore, does not allow sham association plans set up by health insurance companies. These organizations must be established for purposes other than providing health insurance for at least 3 years. We in Congress have a responsibility to deal with a problem of small businesses who cannot afford to provide health insurance because of skyrocketing health care costs. The U.S. economy is getting stronger by the day, and more and more employers are hiring workers each month. Earlier this month the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level since September of 2001 and the Labor Department reported that 3.7 million new jobs have been created since March of 2003. That is 25 consecutive months of sustained job creation. We want to make sure that these workers have the opportunity to receive quality health insurance through their employer, and this bill can help make that happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the most coveted health insurance available to Americans is offered by big companies and unions. All we are trying to do in the underlying bill is to give small employers the same opportunity to provide high-quality health insurance to their employees at competitive prices. The motion to recommit would require every AHP to cover every mandate known to man, driving up the cost of those policies and making sure that no new employees would ever be covered by an AHP. There are 45 million Americans with no health insurance. While this will not cover all 45 million Americans, it will help some Americans who have no access to health insurance today have access to high-quality, competitively priced health insurance. You can have all the mandates in the world; but if you do not have health insurance, you get no coverage at all. No doctors' visits. No nothing. It is a bad motion. Support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time. Let me stand today and thank those who have put together this postal reform bill. It is not an issue that I work on. I deal with Education and Workforce issues. But I have watched this issue over the last 10 years be hit from one side of the ballpark to the other, kicked from one end of the field to the other, and yet we never could quite get it over the line. Mr. Speaker, I really want to stand today and thank the gentleman (Chairman Davis), the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the other members of the committee who were involved in this, for bringing together all of these different moving pieces in order to create a successful legislative package. The real reason I rise is to thank our colleague and my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for over 10 years has put in time, effort, blood, tears, to try to hold these pieces together, bring the necessary agreements to bring other parties together, and I think that he has done a fabulous job and deserves a lot of recognition from all of the Members for bringing this package along, staying with it. He could have walked away countless times because it was too hard, it was too difficult, and too many people just never wanted to come to the table, but because of his efforts and the efforts of many others, we are here today with a bipartisan package that deserves the support of all of our colleagues. I support the bill and certainly support the rule that will bring it to the floor.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. 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.