[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      WOMEN AND EMPLOYER MANDATES

  (Ms. MOLINARI asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, 72 percent of all part-time workers in the 
retail sales sector and 81 percent of all employees in the personal 
services sector are women.
  Thanks to the taxes in the Clinton health care plan, however, 300,000 
of those women in the retail industry will lose their jobs and 80,000 
women in the personal services sector will lose their jobs. Yes, 
everyone will have health care; most women, however, will not have a 
job. An employer mandate has the political appeal of seeming to finance 
health insurance for the vast majority of Americans without raising 
their taxes, but not surprisingly, virtually every credible analysis of 
the President's proposal estimates significant job loss and wage 
reductions as a result of the employer mandate.
  Even Laura Tyson estimates that as many as 600,000 Americans could 
lose their jobs, and women will lose because it will be the working 
women of this country who bear the burden of the employer mandate. Let 
us face it, employer mandates are not a free lunch, and more women 
workers in this country will be paying through lower wages, decreased 
benefits, and maybe even a lost job.
  Let us be honest with the working women in America: Who will pay for 
an employer mandate? some men may, most women will.

                          ____________________