[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
EMPLOYER MANDATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Small Business Committee
spoke for the first time on the issue of employer mandates.
At the markup of the Small Business Administration reauthorization
bill, I offered an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that
employer mandates would be destructive to small business and that
employer mandates should not be included in any health care reform
legislation.
Unfortunately, this amendment was narrowly defeated by a vote of 21
to 24, with all Republicans and only 3 Democrats voting to eliminate
these job-killing employer mandates in national health care reform.
I am deeply disturbed that the Small Business Committee voted to
support employer mandates, especially when all of the evidence
demonstrates that mandates will be extremely destructive to small
businesses.
A recent study by the CONSAD corporation, for example, predicted that
nearly a million jobs could be lost due to employer mandates, with
almost half--470,000 to be exact--coming from small businesses. Even
more disturbingly, most of those losses will come at the expense of
lower income women, minorities and families. Another study predicts
that employer mandates would cost small businesses an extra $29 billion
a year.
But we don't have to rely on academic studies to understand the
economic carnage that would be caused by employer mandates--all we have
to do is listen to the small business owners we are supposed to be
representing.
Several months ago I held a health care town hall meeting for small
business owners and employees in my district. At that meeting, which
was attended by about 100 business people, small business owner after
small business owner told me that employer mandates, as proposed by the
President, would pose a serious threat to the survival of their
businesses.
One owner, who runs several restaurants in my district, testified
that ``If the Clinton plan were enacted as it stands now, my problems
as a small business owner would go away because we simply would not
survive. We would have to close * * *'' If that small restaurant chain
closes, hundreds of employees will lose their jobs. Most small
businesses across this country are operating on razor thin margins as
it is and they simply can not afford the additional burden of health
insurance * * * not at a time when they are finding it difficult just
to keep their doors open. to put it simply * * * too many of these
small companies would be forced to close their doors. That is the
tragic end result of employer mandates--the loss of precious American
jobs!
But it is not just small business owners in my district who are
worried about employer mandates. Over the last 2 months, the White
House has sponsored seven different small business conferences,
attended by the owners and employees of small businesses, in seven
different States. In 6 out of 7 of those State conferences, held in
Delaware, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Montana, and Idaho, small
business owners voted unanimously to reject employer mandates.
The overwhelming opposition of the small business community to
employer mandates is easy to understand: Most small businesses simply
cannot afford to pay for their employees' health insurance and still
stay in business. The fact is that you cannot increase the payroll
costs of small businesses by 3.5 to 7.9 percent and expect to continue
to provide jobs and fuel economic growth.
My point is simple: Employer mandates are a bad idea and millions of
the owners and employees of small businesses are frightened!
However, the Small Business Committee, by voting to support employer
mandates, chose to ignore the views of the small businesses it is
supposed to represent. It seems that many members on the Committee are
more interested in ``toeing the party line'' than in doing what is
right for America's small businesses.
I want to assure the small business owners of this country, that I
will not be discouraged by this temporary defeat and will continue to
fight to defeat this job-killing proposal.
I am submitting the record from today's Small Business Committee vote
into the Record.
Small Business Committee voted 19-24 on Kim amendment to
Title I of the Small Business Administration Reauthorization
which would prohibit the use of funds by the Small Business
Administration to promote employer mandates in health care
reform legislation:
Ayes: Meyers, Combest, Baker, Hefley, Machtley, Ramstad,
Sam Johnson, Zeliff, Collins (GA), McInnis, Huffington,
Talent, Knollenberg, Dickey, Kim, Manzullo, Torkildsen,
Portman, and Sarpalius
Noes: LaFalce, Smith (IA), Skelton, Mazzoli, Wyden,
Sisisky, Bilbray, Mfume, Flake, Poshard, Clayton, Meehan,
Danner, Strickland, Velazquez, Fields, Margolies-Mezvinsky,
Tucker, Klink, Roybal-Allard, Hilliard, Lancaster, and
Andrews
Not voting: Conyers, Waters, Thompson
Small Business Committee voted 21-24 on Kim amendment to
Title VII of the Small Business Administration
Reauthorization which would express the Sense of Congress
that employer mandates would be destructive to small
businesses and that employer mandates should not be included
in any health care reform legislation:
Ayes: Meyers, Combest, Baker, Hefley, Machtley, Ramstad,
Sam Johnson, Zeliff, Collins (GA), McInnis, Huffington,
Talent, Knollenberg, Dickey, Kim, Manzullo, Torkildsen,
Portman, Skelton, Sarpalius, and Lancaster
Noes: LaFalce, Smith (IA), Mazzoli, Wyden, Sisisky,
Bilbray, Mfume, Flake, Poshard, Clayton, Conyers, Meehan,
Danner, Strickland, Velazquez, Fields, Margolies-Mezvinsky,
Tucker, Klink, Roybal-Allard, Hilliard, Andrews, Waters, and
Thompson
____________________