John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, AHPs that would self-insure are exempted from State insurance mandates exactly like large company plans and union plans all over the country. We all know that health insurance mandates drive up the cost of health insurance. When the cost of health insurance goes up for small employers, it is their employees who lose coverage. The underlying bill attempts to help the 44 million Americans who do not have health insurance have a better chance of getting health insurance. And small employers, just because of their size, should not be denied the right to group together to get a better-quality product at a more competitive price for their employees. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit, the same motion to recommit this House rejected last year, and to support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my two committee colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and their thoughtful approach to bringing their substitute to the floor. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) pointed out, there are some similarities here. We both create large pools of small employers in order to increase their purchasing power so that they can go into the marketplace like a large company or union and get as good a quality plan at a competitive price. But once you get beyond the big picture, that we are creating large pools in both the substitute and the underlying bill, there are a few differences. The first difference I would say is that the underlying bill allows the private sector to create those large pools. Whether they be State associations, national associations, whatever, they will in fact create their own pools, while the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has the government creating this large pool. Now, we all know when the government gets involved, it is just a matter of time before the government begins to believe, well, we have this large pool, we have got employers signed up in it, maybe we ought to require them to do X or Y or Z. I do not think anyone wants to take that risk. Secondly, I would point out that the substitute pool will cost $50 billion of taxpayer funds in order to set up and to provide subsidies, while the underlying bill has no Federal taxpayer money involved in it in any way, shape, or form. I am a big believer that we need to do something to reach out to help the uninsured gain better access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. I think the underlying bill does it. It has passed on a broad bipartisan basis on a number of occasions here in the House. I urge my colleagues here today to reject the Kind-Andrews substitute and support the underlying bill.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe that the underlying bill does, in fact, address the needs of many of our uninsured, and I am concerned about the substitute that we have before us. And I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my good friends from the committee, have worked hard on this. But I have to take issue with the comment that was just said that this commits the Congress to spend money. It does not. There is a $50 billion price tag on the substitute that we have before us, and all we do here is authorize it. It still has to go through the entire appropriation process, no guarantee that it is going to be appropriated; but even more troubling is that the substitute that is being offered would allow the Secretary of Labor to set up this national risk pool, but they would still be subject to every state- mandated benefit in each of the States, over 1,500 state-mandated benefits from one coast to the next. And on top of that, even if the Congress were to appropriate the money and the Secretary were to set up the plan, employers would still have to pay 50 percent of the premium cost, and they would have to cover every employee who was there as little as 3 months. If we begin to look at how this plan would work, I think that the Members will find that it would actually be cheaper for those companies to get health insurance in their own States without this national bureaucracy. But even more disturbingly, when we look at this substitute, it will not cover any of the self-employed individuals across the country, and whether they be Realtors, whether they be salesmen of some sort, small business people who operate by themselves, the self-employed, no coverage under this plan. Unlike under the underlying plan where if these self-employed people belong to some association, some State association, national association, local association, they would, in fact, be able to work through their associations to get high-quality coverage at competitive prices. There has been a lot said about who is supporting the underlying bill and who is opposing the underlying bill. I have got pages and pages here of national associations and State associations that are supporting the underlying bipartisan bill. And I would remind my colleagues that this is the fourth time we have had this bill on the floor in the last 8 years, still waiting for the other body to deal with it. All three times previously that this bill has been on the floor, it has passed with broad bipartisan majorities, and I would suspect today we will see the same benefit. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the list of companies and associations that are supporting the underlying bill. groups supporting AHPs Adhesive and Sealant Council Air Conditioning Contractors of America American Alliance of Service Providers American Association of Advertising Agencies American Association of Engineering Societies American Association of Small Property Owners American Composites Manufacturers Association American Concrete Pumping Association American Council of Engineering Companies American Disc Jockey Association American Electronics Association American Furniture Manufacturers Association American Institute of Chemical Engineers American International Automobile Dealers Association American Hotel and Lodging Association American Lighting Association American Nursery and Landscape Association American Rental Association American Road and Transportation Builders Association American Small Businesses Association American Society of Association Executives American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Home Inspectors American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Board on Member Interests & Development American Textile Machinery Association American Veterinary Medical Association American Wholesale Marketers Association

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), one of the active members of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We often have debates here in Congress about public policy and how to change public policy. Many times the debates, once they get here, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. We do not claim that the underlying bill is going to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate that problem, but we do think it is a giant step forward in helping the uninsured get access to high-quality health insurance at affordable prices. Even the flawed study that my colleague has pointed to on a number of occasions, the CBO study which was flawed in a number of areas, says that 330,000 of the uninsured will in fact get health insurance. I think the number is far, far higher than that. I think we are talking about millions of Americans will have a chance at good health insurance. But let us say it is only 330,000, 330,000 families that would get coverage under this bill. I think that is a good step in the right direction. Let me take an example of how this would work. Let us take a Realtor. We all know Realtors work all over the country. They are independent contractors. They have their own business. In many cases they are not employees of the firm that they work for, but they have to go buy an individual policy or family policy in a State insurance pool, the most expensive way to buy health insurance in America. In the case of Realtors, you could take the Ohio Association of Realtors, New Jersey Association of Realtors, maybe the National Association of Realtors, could put together a plan of maybe 5 or 6 choices, maybe 10 choices for their members all over the country. I will guarantee that those Realtors would have much better health insurance policies than they have today and the cost of that policy will be far more competitive than what they are paying in these State insurance pools. This is a very good opportunity to help many small employers and their employees all across the country. We should not miss this opportunity.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With all due respect to my good friend from North Dakota who is one of the real experts on insurance and pension matters in the House, he is a former State insurance regulator, we have heard this claim that Governors, State insurance regulators and attorneys general are opposed to this bill. Of course they are. Every State, we know what they want to do. They want to regulate, regulate, regulate, regulate. Let us go back to the example. The Procter & Gambles, the GEs, the Teamsters, they are not regulating those plans. They have got some of the best benefits that they offer to their employees. Let us go back to your example of the dry cleaner. The dry cleaner does not have the actuary. He has got the regulator, the attorney general. What if all those dry cleaners in a State, the State of North Dakota, or all those dry cleaners from around the country in their national association came together and formed an association health care plan? Those employees at that local dry cleaner would have better benefits at more competitive prices than they could ever get in a State insurance risk pool. What do we have to fear from giving those small employers and, more importantly, their employees the chance to come together to have the same kind of a plan that big companies and unions have today? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I remind my colleagues one more time that we are talking about trying to assist 44 million Americans who have no health insurance. This may not be the perfect product, it may not be the perfect package, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why people do not want to come to the plate and try to do something to help these Americans who do not have access to affordable health insurance. Maybe the answer is what we just heard from my good friend and colleague, a member of the committee from the other end of the great State of Ohio who wants a single-payer national health plan. I think most Americans looked up in the mid-1990s when this idea was floating around and said, Oh, no. No, no, I like my health insurance. I like going to the doctor I choose. I do not need the government running my health insurance plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, those regulatory requirements are not on the GEs that we talked about, they are not on the Teamsters, they are not on other big employer or union plans. They are governed under a Federal statute called ERISA that has worked very well to insure and provide the basis for health insurance in America, and we ought to trust small businesses that would join these associations and give them the same rights that big companies and unions have. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me remind all of my colleagues that we are talking about 44 million Americans who have no health insurance. They get to the doctor, albeit very late, they get to the hospitals, albeit very late, they die sooner, and they have higher health care costs that we all who have health insurance pay for. It all ends up in the size of our bill. But the bigger disgrace is that there are 44 million Americans who have no health insurance, no preventive care; and we are attempting to do something about it. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) denigrated these interstate plans as scams that could go corrupt. Let me see. If I recall, we have companies like General Electric which have employees in virtually every State. They have a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. How about the Teamsters? I would say the Teamsters have plans that cover virtually every State. Why would we not allow small employers that belong to the NFIB, belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, belong to the Electrical Contractors Association, why would we not let them come together to form the same kinds of health insurance plans that large companies and unions offer from coast to coast? What do we have to fear? What do we have to fear in trying to help 44 million Americans have a chance at good health insurance?

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

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With all due respect to my good friend from Michigan, I think what we see here at the central issue of this debate is a basic distrust of the private sector. Now, two-thirds of the American people get their health insurance through their employer. We have an employer-based system in America, and it has worked very well; and some of the best coverage and the most high-quality health plans are offered by employers to their employees. Today, both employers, and increasingly employees, are paying for the cost of those plans. What we are attempting to do here is to give small businesses who do not have big purchasing power in the marketplace the ability to join together and to offer the same kinds of plans that large companies and unions offer to their employees and members, give those small employers and their employees the same opportunity. Plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hickory, North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a senior member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.

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 benefits. It is a problem that can be illustrated by just a few numbers, so let us look at the facts. The number of uninsured Americans today stands at 43.6 million. This problem is not going to go away, and I think we have a responsibility to confront it. With health care costs continuing to rise sharply across the country, more and more employers and workers are sharing the burden of increased health care premiums. Employer-based health insurance premiums jumped by 15 percent on average in 2003, the largest increase in a decade; and, for many small employers, those increases were far larger. The second number is 60, which represents the percentage of these uninsured working Americans who 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. Notably, the Census Bureau statistics show that employer-sponsored health coverage has declined because small businesses with less than 25 workers have been forced to drop coverage because of the rising cost of health insurance. The next number is $130 billion. Yes, that is right, $130 billion which represents the annual cost to the citizens of our country of the poor health and premature deaths of individuals without health insurance, according to a study released last year by the Institute of Medicine. The implications of these numbers I think are tragic. Clearly, we need to focus on providing affordable health care to the uninsured, as well as to 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 which we bring to the floor today responds to this problem and can help reduce the high cost of health insurance for small businesses and uninsured workers. By creating association health plans, which would strictly be regulated by the Labor Department, small businesses could pool their resources and increase their bargaining power with benefit providers, which would allow them to negotiate better rates and purchase quality health care for their employees at a lower cost. President Bush addressed this point directly last year during a speech at the Women's Entrepreneurship Summit, and he said, ``Small businesses will be able to pool together and spread their risk across a large employee base. It makes no sense in America to isolate small businesses as little health care islands unto themselves. We must have association health plans.'' Well, the President is right, and we should help level this playing field so that small businesses can offer high-quality coverage to their employees. Americans overwhelmingly agree with President Bush that AHPs are the right approach to helping the uninsured. A recent poll conducted in March reveals that 93 percent of Americans support association health plans as a way of providing access to affordable care for American workers who lack coverage. Media reports from the last few days reveal how large corporations are now starting to band together to provide health care insurance to their part-time workers. Do not small businesses and their workers deserve this same opportunity? Importantly, the bill gives AHPs 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 type of an exemption. Clearly, these mandates are useless to families who have no health coverage in the first place. And if you do not have health coverage, State mandates requiring health mandates and specific benefits do you and your family no good at all. This measure includes, I believe, strong safeguards to protect workers. Despite the bipartisan nature of this bill, some misinformation has been spread and I would like to correct it. This 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 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, based on where the employer is located. The bill also contains strict requirements under which only bona fide professional and trade organizations 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 and they have to be in business for at least 3 years. Now, some may ask why we need to pass this bill again, especially after it passed with significant bipartisan support last year. We are here today because we want to remind the American people and uninsured working families that we are here working on their behalf. We have a bipartisan solution to help address the problem of the uninsured, and passing this bill again demonstrates our commitment to helping Americans without health insurance. The next step is for the other body across the Capitol to begin to deal with this bill in a serious way. On Tuesday of this week, the Senate Task Force on the Uninsured included association health plans amongst its proposals to address the needs of uninsured working Americans, so we remain hopeful. We in Congress, I think, have a responsibility to deal with the problems of small businesses who cannot afford to provide health insurance because of skyrocketing health care costs and being stuck in small State insurance pools. The United States economy is improving, and more and more employers are hiring workers each month. Last Friday, the Labor Department reported that 1.1 million new jobs have been created over the last 8 months, including 625,000 new net jobs over the last 2 months alone. We want to make sure that those new workers have opportunity to receive quality health insurance through their employer, and we believe that this bill can help make that happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 4281.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 638, I call up the bill (H.R. 4281) 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 in the House.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision and to draw a parallel from this historic ruling to the landmark No Child Left Behind education reform law. The words penned by Chief Justice Earl Warren on May 17, 1954 still ring true today and provide a clear roadmap for improving America's public education system in the future. Fifty years ago, Mr. Warren wrote: In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. By striking down the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' as unconstitutional, the Brown decision flung open wide the doors of public education for all children, regardless of their color or back ground. It ensured every child a seat in an integrated classroom. It guaranteed access to an equal education for everyone. No longer could students be refused an opportunity to receive a quality education simply because the color of their skin. Two years ago, Congress--in a bipartisan vote--enacted that No Child Left Behind Act as the logical step to improving education for all students. We promised to increase federal education funding while demanding high standards and accountability for all students. As a result of the law, parents are receiving more information than ever before about the quality of their local schools and are realizing new opportunities to improve their children's education. What was once an unattainable dream for so many parents stuck on the wrong side of the tracks has now become a reality. Parents with children trapped in underperforming schools may now transfer them to better performing schools. A report released yesterday by the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights found that the No Child Left Behind Act is already creating new educational opportunities for minority students. According to the Commission's report, at least 70,000 students in 47 states are benefiting for the law's school choice provision. The Commission understands--just as Congress did--the importance of providing parents new options to improve their children's education. They also understand how added school choice options will help the whole education system get better, not worse. The Commission's findings are fortified by a recent Chicago Sun-Times analysis showing that of the students who were allowed to transfer to a better performing school under NCLB made greater strides on state- designed reading and math tests than students in their former school. The paper also determined that other students' scores did not drop as a result of the incoming students, as many education reform opponents predicted would happen. However, these are not the only signs of No Child Left Behind's early success. Students are showing considerable improvement in the nation's largest urban schools. A recent report by the Council of Great City Schools attributed much of this improvement to the No Child Left Behind Act. Earlier this week, Florida and Michigan reported decreases in the achievement gap between African-American students and their Caucasian peers. There is still much work to do before America fully realizes the dream of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, but we are on the right track. By holding the line against education reform opponents and allowing states and school districts to implement the full scope of No Child Left Behind's reforms, we will ensure a higher level of student academic performance than we have ever achieved.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, in 1965, Higher Education Act was established to assist low and middle income students striving for a higher education. It was as simple as that; the law was put into place to ensure college access for those who might not otherwise be able to afford it. In the last two years, I and other members of the Committee on Education & the Workforce have worked tirelessly to craft higher education legislation that will live up to that original mission. Our number one priority is, and must be, expanding college access for current and future students. Today's introduction of the College Access & Opportunity Act represents the culmination of those efforts. We are pleased to be offering a bill that ensures students are priority number one, and are proud to have worked closely with the stakeholders of America's higher education system to have produced legislation that meets our principles of access, affordability, accountability, and quality; abiding by these principles has produced a measure that will ultimately ensure fairness for low and middle income students. The College Access & Opportunity Act includes comprehensive reforms that will strengthen Pell Grants, student aid, college access, and Minority Serving Institutions. The bill will reduce loan costs and fees for students, and eliminate red tape for students and graduates. The College Access & Opportunity Act also includes steps to remove barriers for non-traditional students, and importantly, will empower consumers through increased sunshine and transparency in college costs and accreditation. The bill will benefit students in numerous ways; in fact, there are far too many student benefits for me to list individually today. However, I'd like to describe some of the highlights of the bill that will show just a few of the many ways the College Access & Opportunity Act will expand college access for current and future students aspiring for the dream of a college education. The College Access & Opportunity Act strengthens college access programs, particularly those serving students who may struggle to enter higher education. The bill enhances TRIO and GEAR UP programs targeted to first-generation, non-traditional and minority students, and ensures low-income working adults can also receive the valuable services provided through these access programs. In Pell Grants, which are the cornerstone of federal need-based student aid, the bill includes an initiative we call ``Pell Grants Plus'' to provide additional Pell Grant aid to needy students who have completed a rigorous high school curriculum through the State Scholars program. The proposal, similar to one offered by President Bush in his FY 2005 budget request, would not only provide up to $1000 of additional Pell Grant assistance to Pell-eligible students, but would also serve as an incentive for more states to participate in the State Scholars program and prepare more students to excel in higher education. The bill also repeals the unfair limit on Pell Grants called ``tuition sensitivity,'' which punishes very low cost schools and the students who attend those schools by reducing their Pell Grant aid they can receive. In addition, the College Access & Opportunity Act would permit year-round Pell Grants to allow students to accelerate their studies and graduate sooner. Because Minority Serving Institutions play an important role for expanding college access, the bill makes a number of reforms designed to strengthen these institutions and allow them to better serve their students. For instance, the bill would make it easier for these schools to use technology to improve education, and would reduce red tape that creates unnecessary burdens as they apply for grants. Importantly, the bill would make the student aid funding provided through the campus-based aid programs more fair and equitable. By phasing out unfair advantages given to older, more well-established schools, the College Access & Opportunity Act would ensure these funds are targeted to the students who need them the most. Chief among our principles for reforming higher education was the need to increase accountability, and the College Access & Opportunity Act includes a number of steps that will accomplish that goal. By empowering the consumers of higher education--students and parents-- with information, we will ensure they can fully exercise their power in the marketplace of higher education. Be it adding transparency to college costs or adding sunshine to the accreditation process, the bill will give consumers access to significant new information to help them make their own best decisions about higher education. The College Access & Opportunity Act also includes a number of significant reforms to the multi-billion dollar federal student loan programs, with major steps to realign resources in order to better serve low and middle income students striving for a higher education. Federal student loans provide access to low-cost funding that many students need to finance their higher education. The College Access & Opportunity Act will expand access to this important resource in a responsible manner that will not allow students to be burdened by unmanageable debt levels. The bill will update loan limits for first and second year students, ensuring more money is available at the beginning of students' studies when loan limits are significantly lower and students may struggle with college costs. However, the bill will not increase the aggregate borrowing limits, ensuring students are not saddled with higher overall debt levels. The bill also reduces origination fees for students, an important step that will ensure students have access to more of the money they borrow. In order to make these positive reforms that provide students with greater access to student loan resources, the bill includes significant realignment of federal resources within the loan program. The bill would limit excess subsidy payments made to lenders, changing provisions in current law and requiring lenders to return excess income that can be better used to expand student access. The bill will eliminate the anti-consumer ``single-holder'' rule, which needlessly limits consumers' ability to shop around for the best deal on a consolidation loan by requiring borrowers to consolidate with their current lender if that lender holds all their loans. The bill will also ensure consolidation loans are provided under the current variable interest rate structure provided for other federal student loans, eliminating unfair treatment of borrowers based simply on the date the loans are consolidated. The variable interest rates for consolidation loans will ensure all consolidation borrowers have access to low rates while being protected from interest rates that rise too high through an interest rate cap. In addition to ensuring consolidation loans are provided under the current successful variable rate structure, the bill will also prevent other student loans from moving to a fixed rate as they would in 2006 unless we take action to prevent that change. Without preserving the current variable rate structure for these loans, borrowers would be forced to pay 6.8 percent interest rates on all loans. With borrowers today paying 2.82 percent in school and 3.42 percent in repayment, it would be shameful to impose an arbitrary fixed interest rate that would double the rate available to borrowers today. While strengthening the loan programs to better serve borrowers, the College Access & Opportunity Act will also protect the credit history borrowers earn while repaying these loans. The bill will require lenders to report federal student loan information to all national credit bureaus, ensuring borrowers are given the positive credit history they earn by repaying their student loans. Recognizing that the face of America's higher education system has changed significantly in recent years--both the students and the institutions that serve them--the bill will ensure all colleges and universities are treated fairly as they seek to better serve students. The bill will repeal the unfair 90-10 rule, a requirement imposed only on proprietary schools. The 90-10 rule was implemented as a safeguard, yet there is no evidence it reduces fraud and abuse and significant evidence that it may reduce access for the neediest students by forcing schools to raise tuition or move out of inner cities where many students are receiving full federal funding. The bill also recognizes the importance of distance education at the forefront of technological advancements that can give students new opportunities to learn. By eliminating the 50 percent rule, which restricts the number of students that can be enrolled in distance education and the number of courses an institution may offer via distance education, the College Access & Opportunity Act will increase access to quality higher education through alternate channels. The bill would maintain and even enhance safeguards to ensure the integrity of these programs, while removing restrictions that prevent innovation and expanded use of new technology for student learning. Finally the bill will no longer include separate definitions of institution of higher education, placing all eligible schools on an even playing field as they work to provide higher education to their students. The College Access & Opportunity Act is important legislation that will help fulfill the original mission of the Higher Education Act-- expanding college access. By placing students as our first priority, we are bringing forward a bill that I am proud to say will significantly improve higher education in America. I am pleased to be offering this legislation with my good friend Rep. McKeon, and am eager to move forward with these important reforms to ensure access, affordability, accountability, and quality.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Sam Johnson, in introducing the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004.'' I have long felt that the most pressing crisis we face in health care today is the number of uninsured Americans, which currently stands at more than 41 million. And the problem is not going away. With health care costs continuing to rise sharply across the country, more and more employers and workers are sharing the burden of increased premiums. Health care costs rose by 14 percent in 2003, and surveys project another increase of 13 percent this year. As costs escalate, the ranks of the uninsured will increase as well. Today we introduce the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004,'' which represents a bipartisan solution to this problem. The bill gives small businesses the opportunity to band together through bona fide trade associations and purchase quality health care for their workers at a lower cost. The bipartisan bill would increase small businesses' bargaining power with health care providers, give them freedom from costly state- mandated benefit packages, and lower their overhead costs by as much as 30 percent--benefits that many large corporations like GM and UPS and many unions already enjoy because of their larger economies of scale. President Bush addressed this point directly last year during a speech at the Women's Entrepreneurship Summit, where he said, ``Small businesses will be able to pool together and spread their risk across a large employee base. It makes no sense in America to isolate small businesses as little health care islands unto themselves. We must have association health plans.'' The President is right, and we should help level this playing field so that small businesses can offer quality coverage to their workers. Importantly, the bill addresses both the access and cost issues at the heart of the health care reform debate, giving uninsured working families new hope for a solution that can give them access to quality health care. Small businesses in most states are stuck with disproportionately high costs because they have to choose from fewer than five providers, so AHPs offer them a new option for them to choose from. By pooling their resources and increasing their bargaining power, AHPs will help small businesses reduce their health insurance costs. Most importantly, AHPs will expand access to quality health care for the people for whom it is currently out of reach: uninsured working families. I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Velazquez, Mr. Dooley, Mr. Burns and I in this effort, and to cosponsor this important legislation.