Transportation Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 21, 2004)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 770 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5025.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment by the Representative from Vermont.
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and I are working on legislation to reform the pension system, and this ill-timed amendment will undermine our efforts. I ask my colleagues to refrain from using the appropriations process to undermine our comprehensive reform efforts in the committee of jurisdiction.
The various sponsors of this amendment have had a problem with the conversion of the IBM pension plan 5 years ago. Despite the fact that IBM gave its employees everything they were asking for, the sponsors of this amendment now want to continue pushing this issue past its logical conclusion.
They now want to enshrine in law a flawed court case. The court case essentially found that the time value of money is age discriminatory.
An example might explain this crazy logic. Let us say a 25-year-old and a 52-year-old were hired on the same day to do the same job at the same pay. Their company would make an equal contribution to each employee's pension account.
The Cooper case found that the equal pension contribution is age discriminatory. Why? Because the 52 year old has less time to accumulate interest before retiring.
Yes, the logic of the case is that interest or the time value of money is age discriminatory. It is flawed logic, and it has been found to be flawed in every other court that has reviewed this issue.
Thousands of cash balance pension plans cover millions of Americans.
To the extent that the flawed logic of this amendment is given any support in Congress, it will undermine pension plans. Given the growing reluctance of businesses to sponsor traditional defined benefit pension plans, this amendment is just one more reason for companies to walk away from this type of pension and our constituents who need them.
We need to oppose this flawed amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about freedom.
Participants in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program are armed with the ability to leave any given plan at the end of the year if they aren't satisfied with the care, customer service or cost of their coverage.
And that choice is what creates the incentive for health plans to offer good plans.
Ms. NORTON's amendment would bind employees who choose high-deductible plans to a three-year commitment, for fear of something called "adverse selection."
And you know what, that's a valid concern.
But it is a concern that has already been addressed by the Office of Personnel and Management-the folks who run our F.E.H.B.P.
The O.P.M. has vowed to keep premiums for standard plans and high-deductible plans very close to each other-maybe the difference of a dollar or two.
So employees will not be choosing HSA's because of their lower premium.
And as long as that's the case, there is no need to lock them into a three-year contract.
That completely undermines the foundation of the program: Choice!!
Last week we debated whether Federal employees deserve the option of HSA's and the House vote said that they do-let's give them that option without any strings attached-I urge a no vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT