[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]

 
                  CLINTON HEALTH CARE PLAN TOO COSTLY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Kim] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KIM. Madam Speaker, 9 months ago, President Clinton presented us 
with his plan to radically change the American health care system. The 
details of this plan are, by now, familiar to all of us: The Clinton 
plan contains, as its centerpiece, an employer mandate that would force 
every employer to pay 80 percent of the health care costs for their 
employees and their families. Employer liability for these health care 
costs could be as high as 7.9 percent of payroll.
  From the beginning, I, along with most other Republicans, have 
strongly opposed the employer mandates proposed by the President. For 
months, I have been trying to convince the proponents of this plan that 
these new mandates would be destructive to business, especially small 
business, and would threaten the livelihood of ordinary American 
people.
  However, the proponents of the Clinton plan are not listening. They 
persist in trying to convince the American people that forcing 
employers to pay for their employees' health insurance will not put 
companies out of business, will not reduce employees' wages, and will 
not cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their jobs.
  Well, I am here to tell you that those who are trying to sell this 
line of reasoning are dead wrong. As a former small business owner, I 
know from firsthand experience that businesses simply cannot afford to 
absorb this enormous new payroll tax without cutting wages, laying off 
employees or, in some cases, going out of business entirely.
  But you do not have to take my word for this. Over the past few 
months, numerous studies have examine the potential impact that the 
Clinton plan will have on wages and jobs. Almost universally, these 
studies predict that the Clinton plan will have a devastating impact on 
jobs and wages. Let us take a closer look at one of these studies.
  I call to my colleagues' attention a study conducted by the CONSAD 
research corporation commissioned by the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses. This study is the result of the work of dozens 
of experts in the fields of health care, public policy, economics, 
business and labor, and is based on real-world data, not abstract 
economic models.
  Look at this. Over 850,000 jobs lost, and a potential 3.8 million 
jobs lost; 470,000 employees of small businesses will lose their jobs; 
540,000 employees in the retail and service industries will lose their 
jobs; and, 23 million employees will see their wages reduced by a total 
of $28 billion--or $1,200 per year per worker.

                              {time} 1050

  Madam Speaker, while these results are disturbing enough, I am even 
more disturbed by the conclusions that the report reaches about exactly 
who will be hurt the most by the proposed employer mandates. According 
to the study, of those who lose their jobs: 60 percent will be women; 
74 percent will be parents with children; 66 percent will be low-income 
people; and 88 percent will be part-time workers.
  In other words, not only will the employer mandates in the Clinton 
plan create massive job loss and wage decline, but the plan will also 
concentrate those losses among American people who are least able to 
afford such losses--the very people that the plan is supposed to help.
  I believe that the CONSAD study clearly demonstrates how bad an idea 
employer mandates actually are. While these kind of mandates may bring 
a few more people into this government-run health care system, they 
only do so at great cost to the wages and jobs of ordinary American 
people. Even worse, employer mandates hurt groups of people--people 
with families, the poor, women--that are most in need of our help.
  For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to explore 
alternatives to the Clinton plan that do not require employer mandates. 
Let us fix what is wrong with our health care system, but let us not 
risk the livelihoods of millions of Americans. We owe it to the hard 
working American people.

                          ____________________