Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 15, 2004)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire). 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 could not agree with the chairman more. This amendment provides us with an interesting twist on the norm. Usually, when we talk about Federal employees' health benefits, we hear arguments that other people deserve the benefits that Federal employees enjoy. Is it that you do not want the employees to enjoy the benefits that we are trying to get for the general public?
In today's debate, the landscape is different. I am astounded that the gentleman from Virginia is keeping something that the public enjoys out of the Federal system. He is telling us that HSAs are good enough for the American public, but not good enough for Federal employees.
I do not buy that. Let us take a look at the facts. HSAs put consumers back in the driver's seat. And Federal employees deserve that choice as well. A high-deductible plan means lower premiums, and lower premiums mean more cash to put away in an account to save for medical expenses as they arise. And contrary to critics' claims that HSAs are untested, HSAs have seen astonishing success since their enactment in the Medicare bill. Tens of thousands of people have opened accounts. A host of insurers are offering plans, including Aetna, Cigna, and Assurant. HSAs have reduced the number of uninsured Americans, are working for people and their families from all backgrounds and ages. And, quite frankly, they belong in the Federal employee health benefit plan.
I think that we need to make all America equal; and, therefore, we should reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT