Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, I want to make clear that a unanimous consent has been propounded, which I think is a fair one, and what that does, it gives one Democrat a proponent of the Goss amendment and one Democrat who is an opponent 3 minutes apiece; and on the other side, one Republican who is a proponent gets 3 minutes and one Republican who is an opponent gets 3 minutes. I am not going to seek any time. I am for the proposed unanimous consent irrespective of who closes or not. The proponent of the amendment, I presume, under the rules, would have the right to close.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I want to clarify, because it is not fair for me to claim all 6 minutes in opposition, A, because I am not in opposition. Madam Chairman, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was concerned under the unanimous consent that he might not get the time to speak, and he is not a member of the Committee on Appropriations, in fairness, my understanding with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and I think everybody's understanding, was that the proponents would have 6 minutes and the opponents would have 6 minutes, so that my only intent, Madam Chairman, is to ensure that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) get his 3 minutes. I also want to ensure that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) gets his 3 minutes. So I am not claiming the time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is my presumption that, as the ranking member, I would be recognized, and I would tell the gentleman that I will yield him the 3 minutes.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman's happiness at the present position he finds himself in. But the point I want to make is, this is clearly not a partisan issue. This is an issue of judgment as to clearly we want to keep the Blues in the program. Some years ago we lost Aetna. We do not want to lose competitors in the program that will adversely affect Federal employees and adversely affect taxpayers who participate, as you know, in 70 percent of the average cost of the FEHBP. So clearly I think we all want to get to the same place, but I think there is some question here, and I tried to contact OPM today to follow up on this without success after I found out that the administration was for essentially the Kucinich amendment. They did not mention that amendment. They simply mentioned that they were in favor of this provision being dropped. But clearly I want to assure the gentleman from Florida, and I know that having talked to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of our committee, about this, whatever happens on this amendment, we are going to look very carefully at it; and we are not going to allow anything to happen which will adversely affect the Federal employees and which will unfairly affect Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I want to say, as I said before, and I think the gentleman raises obviously the problem that Blue Cross raises. On the other hand, it is interesting that OPM, I guess, through the administration, the administration opposes this provision. So the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) essentially is offering the position of the administration on this amendment if you read the statement of administration policy.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. The ranking member of our committee indicated, and I agree with him, that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) raised some very legitimate and good points. The good news is that we have time to, I think, develop this issue further between now and the time of conference. I am pretty confident that the Senate will include similar language in their bill, so this will be a conferenceable item if it is not in the bill. Clearly what the gentleman from Ohio seeks to do is to raise the issue of whether or not there ought to be a consistency in reporting costs so that OPM on behalf of Federal employees and Federal employees, generally, can make an assessment as to the costs that are being incurred by the insurers and, determining the cost, then what ought to be the appropriate level of premiums for the insurance that is gotten. I think this is particularly cogent in a time when health care costs and premiums in particular for Federal employees and for all employees are starting to rise very, very substantially. So I understand what the gentleman from Ohio is saying. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), who chairs the relevant subcommittee, makes some very good points; but I think either way what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is saying, we need to look at this very carefully, and I am convinced that the gentleman from Oklahoma and I and the subcommittee, whatever happens on this amendment, are going to look very carefully at this between now and the markup.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in very strong support of this amendment sponsored by the gentlewoman from California, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus and has been an outstanding leader on behalf of the recognition of the contributions of African Americans to the history of this country. This amendment will provide $600,000 to be spent on records administration for the Freedmen's Bureau. She has well outlined the contributions of the Freedmen's Bureau and the historical importance of maintaining the records of the Freedmen's Bureau. This was arguably one of the most significant times in the history of African Americans; and as a result, the retaining of those records, the ensuring that those records are not only preserved but are available for researchers, for academics, and for the general public, is very, very important. So I commend her on her leadership on this. The records of the Freedmen's Bureau are quite extensive, Mr. Chairman, according to the NARA. The inventory of the records of the bureau headquarters includes about 240 record ``series'' and much more voluminous records, more than 4,400 ``series'' of the field offices of the State assistant commissioners and their subordinate officers. Many of the latter series contain unique data about the freedmen. And I might add that freedmen, of course, also means freed women. In fiscal year 2002, the committee provided $600,000 for preservation and access activities associated with the records of the Freedmen's Bureau. This was an increase, I might add, of $450,000 over the President's request. The amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) will ensure that that same $600,000 will be spent this year to ensure that this effort is continued and enhanced. These funds will be used to help microfilm the records, assist researchers in using related documents, provide better access to record inventories, and create partnerships for developing indexes. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is a very, very important amendment and will, as I say, help NARA in pursuing this project. I might add, on behalf of the leadership of NARA, they are very enthusiastic about pursuing this, and this will help them do that; and it will certainly justify the fact that they spend the resources necessary to effect the ends that the gentlewoman from California seeks and that we all seek in making sure that we know this history, which was so critically important as this country moved from a country that articulated a premise that all men and women were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Unfortunately, as Martin Luther King so dramatically and powerfully intoned, we were not living up to that promise, and the Emancipation Proclamation started us on that road. We are still not at the end of that road, and perhaps we will never get to the end of that road; but we can learn from this period of our history, and we can expand upon the promise that it made.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). I know that the gentleman from Michigan has worked very hard on this, other Members in Michigan, and we will have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from northern New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), my friend and colleague.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both gentlemen from Florida, (Mr. Shaw) and (Mr. Wexler), who have worked tirelessly on this issue. I know the chairman and I have spent literally hours with each gentleman because of their deep concern over the public health challenge that this causes the people of South Florida. I want to assure both of them that I know the chairman and I will spend a lot of time on this and try to bring this matter to a successful resolution, and I thank the gentlemen for their work.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I also want to continue to lend my support to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and (Mr. Wexler) and the others that have been mentioned. I, like the chairman, will continue to work with the gentleman on this issue so that we can find a timely and meaningful solution that satisfies the concerns of the gentleman and the concerns of the local officials in Boca Raton. I do believe this is a public health problem. I do believe the Federal Government has a responsibility, and I want to see us help solve this problem this year.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a very distinguished member of our subcommittee. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is the next ranking Democrat on our committee and does a great job, and I appreciate her help and assistance.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have every intention of working with the gentleman. It is a significant and real problem that he brings up, and we want to work with him on that.