[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 53 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1140
 
           EMPLOYER MANDATES RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT JOB LOSSES

  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues to 
express my opposition to an employer mandate in any health care reform 
plan, particularly because of its impact on small businesses. This is 
the very sector of the economy that is the engine of economic growth 
and job creation in my district and across America. Studies have 
concluded that an employer mandate would not just stunt this growth, 
but result in significant job losses. For example, NFIB's recently 
released study projected that 850,000 jobs will be lost as a result of 
the Clinton plan, 410,000 of which will occur in firms with less than 
100 employees. The American Legislative Exchange Council estimate that 
more than 45,000 jobs would be lost in Ohio alone.
  This is not the time to burden small businesses with national 
policies that discourage job creation. In the Cincinnati area I 
represent, many of the larger companies have laid off workers in the 
last few years. It's the smaller firms that have been adding jobs and 
keeping our local economy growing. Following a national trend, our 
local small businesses added about 12,000 jobs from June 1992 to June 
1993. We should be doing all we can to further this job creation, not 
destroy it.
  I support the goal of providing universal access to affordable health 
care. But there are better ways to get at health care security than 
risking people's job security.

                          ____________________