[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1100
 
              HEALTH CARE REFORM WITHOUT EMPLOYER MANDATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Cantwell). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] is recognized during morning business for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss one of the 
most disturbing aspects of the Clinton health care plan: employer 
mandates.
  There is almost universal agreement that a mandate will cost 
thousands of American jobs. Even Laura Diandria Tyson who is President 
Clinton's Chief Economic Adviser admits that some 600,000 jobs will be 
lost under the Clinton plan as presently drafted. In fact, some studies 
show that as many as 3.8 million jobs could be lost.
  The fact of the matter is that in this time of increasing regulatory 
burden for small businesses, mandates could very well be the ``straw 
that broke the camel's back'' and sends the U.S. economy into 
recession.
  In a publication from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Moffit, I 
think, captures the essence of an employer mandate,

       Any mandate on employers to provide health insurance 
     necessarily adds to the labor costs of firms that do not now 
     offer health insurance or that offer a package less generous 
     than the mandatory plan. Increased labor costs necessarily 
     translate into higher prices for consumers for goods and 
     services in the general economy or reduced compensation for 
     employees in the form of wages or other benefits.
       Depending on the size and the resources of the firm, the 
     increased labor costs will translate directly into lower 
     wages or job loss.

  What is interesting about universal coverage is that in areas where 
it has already been implemented it still only covers 91 or 92 percent 
of the population. In my State of Michigan, we have already covered 91 
percent of the population. Therefore, the employer mandate would do 
nothing for my constituency but cost jobs.
  There is also a question of subsidies to small businesses. Where is 
this money going to come from? How much will these subsidies cost 10 
years from now? And, how much time and effort will entrepreneurs will 
have to devote to obtain these subsidies?
  Above all that, there is something inherently unsettling about the 
thought of employers having to go to the Government to beg for money.
  I think that everyone in Congress who favors a mandate needs to visit 
the businessowners in their districts--and see how many of them 
struggle daily with the burden that the Government places on them. Then 
they should ask themselves, ``do we really need to put the Government 
into another facet of the American business sector?''
  Maybe we can just enact reform to our system of insurance on which 
there is wide bipartisan agreement and give it a couple of years and 
reevaluate them.
  Let us do it--but let us do it right.
  I believe that this is a prudent course and I urge my colleagues to 
consider it. The American people want health care reform, but they want 
it done right.

                          ____________________