Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9628-H9646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY AND SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN POLYTECHNIC
INSTITUTE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS ACT OF 1998

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 576 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 576

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4259) to allow Haskell Indian Nations
University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
each to conduct a demonstration project to test the
feasibility and desirability of new personnel management
policies and procedures, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each
section of the bill shall be considered as read. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The
chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of
the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and
(2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided that
the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any
series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington State (Mr.
Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)

[[Page H9629]]

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 576 is an
open rule which waives points of order against consideration of the
bill.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided between
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight.
The bill shall be considered by section and each section shall be
considered as read. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record.
The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to
5 minutes on a postponed question, if the vote follows a 15-minute
vote.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize a 5-year demonstration project
for Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas, and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
to exempt them from the majority of service civil law and allow them to
develop alternative personnel systems. Also, the bill allows current
employees who have at least 1 year of government service to maintain
their Federal retirement, life insurance and health benefits.
The Committee on Rules has reported an open rule for this bill, Mr.
Speaker, and I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 4259.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to date, the major accomplishment of the 105th Congress
has been to rename Washington National Airport for former President
Ronald Reagan. Now, 5 or 6 days away from adjournment, after this
trailblazing session, we have sent only 2 of the 13 necessary
appropriations acts to the President. Yet today, Mr. Speaker, we are
going to consider a bill which was not subjected to hearings and which
has virtually no chance of passing the entire Congress, much less
gaining the signature of the President. But, at the very least, Mr.
Speaker, we will be able to consider this bill under an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4259 was opposed by the Democratic members of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and deserves to be opposed
when it is considered by the full House. The bill mandates that the
only two federally-owned, federally-funded, and federally-operated
institutions of higher education in the country, Haskell and
Southwestern Indian Universities, establish demonstration projects to
develop new personnel procedures. The demonstration projects would be
entitled to exempt Haskell and Southwestern Universities from civil
service laws covering leave and benefits, and would reduce the role of
the Office of Personnel Management in the development of these
demonstration projects to that of a consultant.
Mr. Speaker, because there were no hearings on this legislation, the
proponents did not have the opportunity to establish a record to
support the need for these special authorities. Nor was there an
opportunity for the proponents to establish a record that might refute
claims that this legislation would severely weaken the rights and
protections currently available to the Federal employees of these two
universities. Given the late date in our session, Mr. Speaker, I think
the lack of a record on these points is reason enough to reject this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution
576 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 4259.

{time} 1429

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4259) to allow Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern
Polytechnic Institute each to conduct a demonstration project to test
the feasibility and desirability of new personnel management policies
and procedures, and for other purposes, with Mr. Quinn in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger).
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I introduced H.R. 4259, the Native American Higher
Education Improvement Act, in July.

{time} 1430

This legislation is the final product of over 2 years of work that
started with my predecessor, Congresswoman Jan Meyers, along with
Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Haskell Indian Nations University,
which is located in my district.
Haskell Indian Nations University, or Haskell, and Southwestern
Indian Polytechnic Institute, or SIPI, are owned and operated by the
Federal Government. Because of this, the institutions must currently
participate in the Federal civil service system. As Members know, the
civil service system is very rigid and does not allow the schools to
tailor their employee positions to more adequately serve the needs of
their students. Unfortunately, this rigidity has stifled the growth of
these two institutions. The Federal Government's position
classification system does not address job classifications unique to
colleges and universities, such as academic dean, professor and
associate or assistant professor.
Haskell and SIPI have already begun to feel the effects of the
confines of this civil service system. For example, highly qualified
faculty from other universities and colleges who have inquired about
vacancies at Haskell have refused to apply after learning that Haskell
has no teaching positions above the rank of instructor.
Efforts by SIPI to properly staff their recruitment office have been
stifled by these civil service classifications. Due to this, SIPI's
efforts to attract students to its new high-tech programs, such as
Environmental Science and Agricultural Technologies, have been
hindered. Unfortunately, students without ties to SIPI alumni never
learn of the opportunities available there.
Over the past few years, Haskell and SIPI have made great strides in
increasing the educational opportunities available to Native American
and Alaskan Indian students. In 1993, SIPI was granted community
college status and began offering associate degrees, in addition to
offering advanced technical training. Haskell conferred its first
baccalaureate degree in elementary education in the spring of 1996 and
has since received accreditation to offer degrees in environmental
education and Indian studies.
Congress saw the need for this type of fix several years ago. The
Improving America's School Act passed by the 103d Congress included a
provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to
evaluate the need for alternative institutional and administrative
systems at Haskell and to provide draft legislation. The Department of
Interior provided draft legislation, which was then revised by
Congresswoman Meyers and Senator Kassebaum and introduced in the 104th
Congress. At the beginning of this Congress, I introduced similar
legislation in the House with the late Congressman Steve Schiff.
Companion legislation was introduced by Senator Roberts of Kansas.
Additionally the Senate legislation was cosponsored by Senators
Brownback, Bingaman, Domenici and the chairman and ranking member of
the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senators Campbell and Inouye.
The product under consideration today is the culmination of over 8

[[Page H9630]]

years of planning, input and compromise between all of the parties
involved. In 1990, Haskell created a long-term planning task force to
specifically address their concerns about faculty recruitment. This
task force was succeeded by a Personnel Quality Improvement Team
appointed in 1993. Both of these task forces have included
representatives from the local union, the faculty and the student body.
At every single step in the process, employees from Haskell have been
involved in the creation of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, Haskell has been educating Native American students for
over a century. In 1884, Haskell was founded as the United States
Indian Industrial Training School to provide agricultural education for
Native American and Alaskan Indian students grades 1 through 5. From
this humble beginning, Haskell has grown throughout the 20th century
from an elementary school to a 4-year institution of higher learning.
Throughout this process, Haskell has struggled to ensure that they
provide an excellent education for their students while continuing to
be an integral part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This legislation
seeks to continue that fine tradition while assuring that Haskell and
SIPI have the necessary tools to increase the quality of the education
they provide for the more than 1,500 students who attend each year.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the Record letters of
support from the National Haskell Board of Regents, the Southwestern
Indian Polytechnic Board of Regents and the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium. In addition, I would like to submit resolutions
from more than 32 tribes and the Congress of American Indians
supporting legislation that would allow Haskell to successfully
complete its transition into a 4-year institution.
The documents referred to are as follows:

Haskell Indian Nations University,

Lawrence, KS, September 24, 1998.
RE: H. R. 4259: ``Haskell Indian Nations University and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative
Systems Act of 1998.''
Thank you for your support of Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations
University (Haskell). As the only two post-second schools
within the Department of Interior, these schools provide
baccalaureate and associate degree programs for all members
of federally recognized tribes.
The intent of H. R. 4259 is to give Haskell and SIPI
demonstration project authority to move the personnel
functions to campus and to design personnel systems that meet
the needs of institutions of higher education.

BACKGROUND OF H. R. 4259

In October of 1994, Congress mandated (section 365 of the
``Improving America's Schools Act'') that ``the Secretary of
the Interior shall conduct a study [of administrative
systems], in consultation with the Board of Regents of
Haskell . . . [And] if the study's conclusions require
legislation to be implemented, the study shall be accompanied
by appropriate draft legislation.'' The study found that
compliance with certain laws and regulations impedes
Haskell's ability to effectively manage its transition to a
high quality four-year institution. A report with draft
legislation was forwarded to the Secretary and to Congress.
By September 1996, Senator Nancy Kassebaum and
Representative Jan Meyers introduced the first legislation in
the 104th Congress, entitled ``Haskell Indian Nations
University Administrative Systems Act of 1996.''
By July 1998, the Act has been revised to include SIPI and
to be first conducted as a demonstration project. This Act is
currently known as H. R. 4259 ``Haskell Indian National
University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
Administrative Systems Act of 1998.''

DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN FOR HASKELL

The Development of an alternative personnel systems at
Haskell has always been seen as a ``Work in progress.'' In
1993 and 1995 two teams composed of faulty, staff and
students identified concerns with Haskell's current personnel
system and to make recommendations for improvement. These
recommendations were forwarded to the Board of Regents for
review. By October 1995, the Haskell Board of Regents passed
Resolution 96-03 directing the President of Haskell to work
with the Board Advisor and the Kansas Congressional
Delegation to develop and implement any regulatory processes
legislation necessary for the evolution of Haskell as a
University. Again, the first legislation was introduced to
Congress in September 1996.
In July 1997 a Haskell Implementation Team review previous
findings and recommended ``a personnel management system
appropriate for a university.'' These recommendations were
also forwarded to the board. By October 1997, the Board
incorporated the values established by this team into the
Institutional Values and Code now contained in Haskell's
Vision 2005.
Further development occurred in May 1998 when the Board
passed the enclosed Resolution 98-10 stating that the
alternative systems be developed in a spirit of cooperation
and input from administration, faculty, staff, and students.
Haskell is now ready to develop the plan for submission to
Congress as required in H. R. 4259. Haskell looks forward to
you continued support in providing high quality education to
the American Indian/Alaska Native peoples.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to call
me at 785-749-8495.
Respectfully yours,
Bob Martin,
President.
____

American Indian

Higher Education Consortium,

Alexandria, VA, August 10, 1998.
Hon. Vince Snowbarger,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Snowbarger: I am writing on behalf of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), to
express our support for the passage of H.R. 4259 the
``Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute Administrative Systems Act of 1998''.
The Civil Service personnel system is not designed to serve
the needs of institutions of higher education. Yet, Haskell
Indian Nations University and Southwest Indian Polytechnic
Institute are the only two BIA institutions, which are still
required to follow the current Civil Service Personnel
system. All of the other Bureau of Indian Affairs schools are
elementary and secondary schools, and are no longer required
to follow the Civil Service system. These schools have
already been authorized through legislation to establish
alternative personnel methods appropriate for educational
systems.
The ability to recruit and retain qualified university-
level faculty and staff is one of the more critical concerns
in higher education. This is of particular importance for
Haskell's continuing transition from junior college to
university status. This transition includes three new
baccalaureate degree programs to begin in the fall of this
year.
Again, thank you for all of your support of American Indian
education and reiterate our support for H.R. 4259.
Sincerely,
Veronica N. Gonzales,
Executive Director.
____

Southwestern Indian

Polytechnic Institute,

Albuquerque, NM, October 5, 1998.
Congressman Vincent Snowbarger,
Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Snowbarger: The Board of Regents of the
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute wishes to thank you
for introducing H.R. 4259: ``The Haskell Indian Nations
University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
Administrative Systems Act of 1998.''
As representatives of federally recognized tribes, we see
this bill as essential to improving educational programs for
the hundreds of American Indians/Alaska Natives that attend
SIPI each trimester. We have received similar indications of
support from members of New Mexico's Congressional
delegation.
We see H.R. 4259 as bringing to SIPI a personnel system
that truly meets the needs of a post-secondary educational
institution, while unburdening the college from the current
unwieldy and ineffective personnel routine that really was
not designed for college hiring. The end results of these
improvements will be better instructors and administrators
working to support quality education of American Indians/
Alaska Natives.
Your efforts to include SIPI for the 105th Congress'
consideration of these possible administrative changes under
Section 365 of the ``Improving America's Schools Act (10/20/
94) is appreciated.
Be sure of our continued support in behalf of your bill.
Sincerely,
Lorene Willis,
Chairwoman, SIPI Board of Regents.
____

Los Coyotes Reservation,Warner Springs, CA.

resolution supporting legislation granting administrative oversight to
haskell indian nations university to be known as ``haskell indian
nations university administrative systems act of 1996; resolution
number 1196-2

Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives, and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality education and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska native students attending Haskell,
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems, and
Whereas, the lack of control affect the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students, and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;

[[Page H9631]]

Now therefore be it resolved, that the Los Coyotes
Reservation supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to
gain legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy
for Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a
4 year university.

certification

At a duly called meeting of the Los Coyotes Reservation on
November 10, 1996 of the general membership this resolution
was passed with a vote of For, 25; Against, 0; Abstaining, 0.
Adult members present; 27.
Spokesman; Frank Taylor.
Committee: Ruth Cassell et al.
____

Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Governing Board, Hayward, WI

resolution no. 96-102

Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives, and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality education and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell,
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems, and
Whereas, the lack of control affect the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students, and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now therefore be it resolved, that the Lac Courte Oreilles
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa nation supports Haskell's
Board of Regents efforts to gain legislation that provides a
greater degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian Nations
University in its transition to a 4-year university.

certification

I, the undersigned, as Secretary/Treasurer of the Lac
Courte Oreilles Tribal Governing Board, hereby certify that
the Governing Board is composed of seven members, of whom 4
being present, constituted a quorum at a meeting duly called,
convened and held on this 20 day of November, 1996; that the
foregoing resolution was duly adopted at said meeting by an
affirmative vote of 3 members, 0 against, 0 abstaining and
that said resolution has not been rescinded or amended in any
way.
Don Carley,
Secretary/Treasurer.
____

Colorado River Indian Tribes,

Parker, AZ, November 20, 1996.
Bob G. Martin,
President, Haskell Indian Nations University,
Lawrence, KS.
Dear Mr. Martin: The Colorado River Indian Tribes' Tribal
Council recently addressed Haskell Indian Nations
University's request for support to increase its control over
its administrative system in an effort to undergo a smooth
transition to become a four-year university.
The Tribal Council took action to support this effort, in
the form of the attached resolution. The Colorado River
Indian Tribes would like to express gratitude to your
university as far as the educational studies that have been
provided to members of our Tribe; many of whom have graduated
from your university. The passage of this resolution,
therefore, enables our Tribe to assist in providing continued
education to our members as well as to students from other
Tribes.
We wish your University success in your endeavor.
Sincerely,
Russell Welsh,
Acting Tribal Chairman.
____

Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, Anadarko, OK

resolution number 97-01: a resolution of the Delaware tribe of western
Oklahoma supporting legislation granting administrative oversight to
haskell Indian nations university to be known as ``haskell Indian
nations university administrative system act of 1996''

Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now therefore be it resolved, that the Delaware Tribe of
Western Oklahoma supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts
to gain legislation that provides a greater degree of
autonomy for Haskell Indian Nations University in its
transition to a 4-year university.

certification

This is to certify that the foregoing resolution was
adopted at a meeting of the Delaware Executive Committee in a
meeting held on October 11, 1996 at Anadarko, Oklahoma by a
vote of 5 for 0 against, and 0 abstaining, a quorum of the
committee being present.
Attest: Linda Poolaw, Secretary.
Approve: Lawrence F. Snake, President.
____

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe,

Duckwater, NV, October 30, 1996.
Bob G. Martin, Ed.D.,
President, Haskell Indian Nations University Lawrence, KS.
Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed please find Resolution No. 96-D-
21 enacted by the Duckwater Shoshone Tribal Council during
their Regular Meeting duly held the 21st day of October 1996.
The Resolution is self explanatory.
If you should have any questions, please contact Jerry
Millett, Tribal Manager. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Lorinda Sam,

Executive Secretary,
Duckwater Shoshone Tribe.
____

Resolution No. 96-D-21

Whereas, the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe is organized under
the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18,
1934, as amended to exercise certain rights of homerule and
be responsible for the general welfare of its membership; and
Whereas, the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe is in support of the
Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas; and
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation; Now, therefore
be it
Resolved, That the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe supports
Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain legislation that
provides a greater degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian
Nations University in its transition to a 4-year university.
____

The Eastern Band

of Cherokee Indians,

Cherokee, NC, December 4, 1996.
Mr. Bob G. Martin,
President, Haskell Indian Nations University, Lawrence, KS.
Dear President Martin: As Principal Chief of the Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians, I am happy to lend the unanimous
support of our tribe to Haskell Indian Nations University.
Attached please find a copy of Resolution 440 which was
passed on November 21, 1996 with the full support of Tribal
Council.
We too believe that self determination begins at the local
level and in order to make improvements must be controlled by
those who are most affected.
Please call upon me if I can be of further assistance.
With regards, I am
Sincerely,
Joyce C. Dugan,
Principal Chief.
Attachment.

Resolution 440--``Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative
Systems Act of 1996''

Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation: Now, therefore,
be it resolved, That the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year university.

[[Page H9632]]

____
Fort Independence Reservation,

Independence, CA, November 7, 1998.

Resolution 96-026--Supporting Legislation Granting Administrative
Oversight to Haskell Indian Nations University To Be Known as ``Haskell
Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act of 1996''

Whereas: Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas: Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas: Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
form a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas: the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas: the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation: Now, therefore
be it
Resolved, That the Fort Independence Paiute Tribe supports
Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain legislation that
provides a greater degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian
Nations University in its transition to a 4-year university.
____

Grand Portage

Reservation Tribal Council,

Grand Portage, MN, October 24, 1998.

Resolution 49-96

The Grand Portage Reservation on behalf of the Grand
Portage Band of Chippewa enacts the following resolution:
Whereas, the Grand Portage Reservation Tribal Council,
under the terms of the Treaty of 1854 and P.L. 93-638, the
Indian Self-Determination Act, is the duly recognized
governing body of the Grand Portage Reservation, and
Whereas, the Grand Portage Reservation Tribal Council
supports legislation granting administrative oversight to
Haskell Indian Nations University to be known as Haskell
Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act of 1996.
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a National Center
for Indian Education, Research and Cultural Programs that
increase knowledge and support the Educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell,
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a Junior College to a University vision is being
compromised by not having control of their Administrative
Systems, and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of Higher
Education offered to American Indian students, and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the University
with the passage of appropriate legislation: Now, therefore
be it
Resolved, That the Grand Portage Reservation Tribal Council
supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year University.
Iowa Tribe of

Kansas and Nebraska,

White Cloud, KS, October 17, 1996.
Bob G. Martin,
President, Haskell Indian Nation School, Lawrence, KS.
Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed please find the Iowa Tribal
Resolution 96-R-16, supporting the University in its
transition to a 4-year University.
Sincerely,

Leon Campbell,

Chairman, Iowa Tribe
of Kansas and Nebraska.
____

Resolution 96-R-16

Whereas, the Iowa Executive Committee being duly organized
met in Regular Session this 16th day of October, 1996; and,
Whereas, the Iowa Executive Committee has authority to act
for the Iowa Tribe under the present Constitutional authority
as provided in Sec. 2, Article IV, Governing Bodies; and,
Whereas, the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska being
organized and empowered by their Constitution and Bylaws
(approved November 6, 1978); and,
Whereas, the Haskell Indian Nations Universities vision is
to become a national center for Indian education, research
and cultural programs that increase knowledge and support the
educational needs of American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas, The lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, The Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation; and,
Now therefore be it resolved, That the Iowa Tribe of Kansas
and Nebraska supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to
gain legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy
for Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a
4-year university.
Be it further resolved, That the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted this date.
____

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma,

Miami, OK.

Resolution 97-03

SUPPORTING LEGISLATION GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT TO HASKELL
INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY TO BE KNOWN AS ``HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS ACT OF 1996''

Whereas: the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is a federally
recognized Tribe, organized under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare
Act of 1936, with a Constitution and By-Laws approved by the
Secretary of the Interior on February 22, 1996; and,
Whereas: the Business Committee of the Miami Tribe of
Oklahoma is empowered to act on behalf of the Tribe, under
Article VI of the Constitution and By-Laws; and,
Whereas: Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas: Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas: Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas: the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas: the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation.
Now therefore be it resolved, That the Miami Tribe of
Oklahoma supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year university.
____

Peoria Tribe of

Indians of Oklahoma,

Miami, OK.

Resolution # R-11-05-96

supporting legislation granting administrative oversight to haskell
indian nations university to be known as ``haskell indian nations
university administrative systems act of 1996''

Whereas, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma is a
federally recognized Indian Tribe organized under the
Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of June 26, 1936, and is governed
by its Constitution approved by the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs on May 29, 1980; and
Whereas, the Business Committee of the Peoria Tribe of
Indians of Oklahoma is authorized to enact resolutions and
act on behalf of the Peoria Tribe under Article VIII, Section
I, of the Constitution; and
Whereas, Haskell Indian Nations University has a vision to
become a national center for Indian education, research and
cultural programs that increase knowledge and support the
educational needs of American Indian/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation.
Now therefore be it resolved, The Peoria Tribe of Indians
of Oklahoma supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to
gain legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy
for Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a
four-year university.
____

Pueblo of Isleta,

Isleta, NM, November 12, 1996.
Bob G. Martin, Ed.D.,
President, Haskell Indian Nations University, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Lawrence, KS.
Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed please find Pueblo of Isleta
Resolution 96-096 supporting your efforts for the transition
of Haskell to become a four-year university. I wish you much
success in your endeavors.
Sincerely,
Alvino Lucero,
Governor.

[[Page H9633]]

Resolution No. 96-096

supporting legislation granting administrative oversight to haskell
indian nations university to be known as ``haskell indian nations
university administrative systems act of 1996''

Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell's has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now therefore be it Resolved, That the Isleta Tribal
Council supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year university.
____

Resolution TLS-96-008

Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of
American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine
blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in
order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants rights
secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United
States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are
entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States
to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the
Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and
otherwise promote the welfare of the Indian people, do hereby
establish and submit the following resolution; and
Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
is the oldest and largest national organization established
in 1944 and comprised of representatives of and advocates for
national, regional, and local Tribal concerns; and
Whereas, the health, safety, welfare, education, economic
and employment opportunity and preservation of cultural and
natural resources are primary goals and objectives of NCAI;
and
Whereas, Haskell Indian Nations University's vision is to
become a national center for Indian education, research, and
cultural programs that increase knowledge and support the
educational needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Indian and Alaska Native students in
attendance; and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian and Alaska Native
students; and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with passage of appropriate legislation; now therefore be it
Resolved, That the National Congress of American Indians
does hereby support legislation granting Haskell's Board of
Regents the authority to administer the administration
services for Haskell Indian Nations University, providing a
greater degree of autonomy for Haskell in its transition to a
four-year university.

certification

The foregoing resolution was adopted at the 1996 Mid-Year
session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at
the Adam's Mark Hotel at Williams Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
on June 3-5, 1996 with a quorum present.
____

Prarie Band Potawatomi Nation,

Mayetta, KS, August 4, 1998.
Hon. Vince Snowbarger,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Snowbarger: I am writing to ask your
strong support of H.R. 4259--``Native American Higher
Education Improvement Act.''
A vote for this legislation is a vote for improving the
delivery of higher education to American Indians and Alaska
Natives.
This legislation provides the authority for Haskell Indian
Nations University (``Haskell'') and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute (``SIPI'') to initiate demonstration
projects for the development of personnel systems suitable
for each school. The main purpose of each demonstration
project is to develop classification and hiring systems that
are more appropriate and more effective in providing the
education programs that meet the needs of American Indians
and Alaska Natives.
At present, Haskell and SIPI are the only two Bureau of
Indian Affairs institutions which still are required to
follow the current Civil Service personnel system, a system
not designed to serve the needs of institutions of higher
education. The other twenty-eight members of the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) have established
personnel systems appropriate to college systems and thus are
not required to adhere to the Civil Service system. Likewise,
the other 200 other BIA schools (elementary and secondary
schools) are not required to follow the Civil Service system,
having already been authorized through legislation to
establish alternative personnel systems appropriate for
educational institutions.
National Haskell Board of Regents ``Resolution 98-10,''
approved unanimously on May 6th, 1998 reflects strong support
for this legislation developed through input from not only
from Board of Regents members, but also from faculty, staff,
NFFE local ^#45, and tribal members and leaders.
There is no provision within this legislation which would
alter employee rights. Please note this important fact in
responding to opposition from federal employee unions.
Your strong support is needed on behalf of H.R. 4259. This
legislation effectively addresses one of the most critical
concerns in higher education, namely, having a personnel
system that facilitates the recruitment and retention of
qualified university-level faculty and staff. This is a
particularly critical concern for Haskell's continuing
transition from junior college to university status and the
beginning of three new baccalaureate degree programs by fall,
1998.
Thank you for your support of American Indian and Alaska
Native higher education.
Sincerely,
Mamie Rupnicki,
Chairwoman.
____

All Indian Pueblo Council,

Albuquerque, NM, July 29, 1998.
Hon. Vince Snowbarger,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Snowbarger: I am writing to ask for your
strong support of HR 4259--``Native American Higher Education
Improvement Act.'' A vote for this legislation is a vote for
improving the delivery of higher education to American
Indians and Alaska Natives.
This legislation provides the authority for Haskell Indian
Nations University (Haskell) and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) to initiate demonstration
projects for the development of personnel systems suitable
for each school. The main purpose of each demonstration
project is to develop classification and hiring systems that
are more appropriate and more efficient in providing the
education programs that meet the needs of American Indians
and Alaska Natives.
At present, Haskell and SIPI are the only two Bureau of
Indian Affairs institutions which still are required to
follow the current Civil Service personnel system, a system
not designed to serve the needs of institutions of higher
education. The other twenty-eight members of the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) have established
personnel systems appropriate to college systems and thus are
not required to adhere to the Civil Service system. Likewise,
the over 200 other BIA schools (elementary and secondary
schools) are not required to follow the Civil Service
systems, having already been authorized through legislation
to establish alternative personnel systems appropriated for
educational institutions.
National Haskell Board of Regents ``Resolution 98-10,''
approved unanimously on May 6, 1998, reflects strong support
for this legislation developed through input from not only
the members of the Board of Regents, but also from faculty,
staff, NFFE local #45, and tribal members and leaders. There
is no provision within this legislation which would alter
employee rights. Please note this important fact in
responding to opposition from federal employee unions.
Your strong support is needed on behalf of HR 4259. This
legislation effectively addresses one of the most critical
concerns in higher education, namely having a personnel
system that facilitates the recruitment and retention of
qualified university-level faculty and staff. This is a
particularly critical concern for Haskell's continuing
transition from junior college to university status and the
beginning of three new baccalaureate degree programs by fall,
1998.
Thank you for your support of American Indian/Alaska Native
higher education.
Sincerely,
Roy W. Bernal,
Chairman.
____

Resolution 98-10

[[Page H9634]]

development of legislation to increase local control
necessary for Haskell to evolve as a university; and,
Whereas, Legislation has been drafted and is ready for
introduction in the United States Congress that would allow
Haskell Indian Nations University to provide culturally
sensitive curricula for higher education to members of Indian
tribes and improve education for American Indian/Alaska
Native students as Haskell continues to make the transition
to a four-year university; not therefore be it
Resolved, That the Haskell Indian Nations Board of Regents
supports the efforts of the Kansas Congressional delegation
in introducing and pursuing passage of legislation presently
titled at the ``Haskell Indian Nations University and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative
Systems Act of 1998''; and be it further
Resolved, That Haskell develop its alternative
administrative systems in a spirit of cooperation and input
from administration, faculty, staff, and students, that its
newly developed pay, leave and benefit packages emphasize
comparable support for current employees, and that
implementation of these alternative systems will not
eliminate the right of federal employees to engage in
collective bargaining.
We hereby certify that Resolution No. 98-10 was duly
considered, voted upon, and passed unanimously on this 6th
day of May, 1998, during the annual spring meeting of the
National Haskell Board of Regents, held on the campus of
Haskell Indian Nations University at which a quorum was
present.
____

Seneca Nation of Indians, Community Planning and
Development Department,
Irving, NY and Salamanca, NY, July 24, 1998.
Hon. Vince Snowbarger,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Snowbarger: I am writing to ask for your
strong support of H.R. 4259--``Native American Higher
Education Improvement Act.''
A vote for this legislation is a vote for improving the
delivery of higher education to American Indians and Alaska
Natives.
This legislation provides the authority for Haskell Indian
Nations University (``Haskell'') and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute (``SIPI'') to initiate demonstration
projects for the development of personnel systems suitable
for each school. The main purpose of each demonstration
project is to develop classification and hiring systems that
are more appropriate and more efficient in providing the
education programs that meet the needs of American Indians
and Alaska Natives.
At present, Haskell and SIPI are the only two Bureau of
Indian Affairs institutions which are still required to
follow the current Civil Service personnel system, a system
not designed to serve the needs of institutions of higher
education. The other twenty-eight members of the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) have established
personnel systems appropriate to college systems and thus are
not required to adhere to the Civil Service system. Likewise,
the over 200 other BIA schools (elementary and secondary
schools) are not required to follow the Civil Service system,
having already been authorized through legislation to
establish alternative personnel systems appropriate for
education institutions.
National Haskell Board of Regents ``Resolution 98-10,''
approved unanimously on May 6th, 1998, reflects strong
support for this legislation developed through input from not
only the Board of Regents members, but also from faculty,
staff, NFFE local #45, and tribal members and leaders. There
is no provision within this legislation which would alter
employee rights. Please note this important fact in
responding to opposition from federal employee unions.
Your strong support is needed on behalf of H.R. 4259. This
legislation effectively addresses one of the most critical
concerns in higher education, namely, having a personnel
system that facilitates the recruitment and retention of
qualified university-level faculty and staff. This is a
particularly critical concern for Haskell's continuing
transition from junior college to university status and the
beginning of three new baccalaureate degree by fall, 1998.
The Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nation University is
comprised of 15 Indian people who represent all of the Bureau
of Indian Affair's Services Areas, as well as the Student
Senate President of Haskell and the President of the National
Haskell Alumni Association.
Attached please find resolution #98-10 which the Haskell
Board of Regents approved on May 6, 1998. This resolution
gives full support to H.R. 4259: National American Higher
Education Improvement Act.
Thank you for your support of American Indian/Alaska Native
higher education.
Sincerely,

Lana Redeye,

Member, Haskell Board of Regents, United
Southern and Eastern Tribes Representative.
____

National Haskell Board of Regents,

Lawrence, KS, October 2, 1998.
Dear Congressman Snowbarger: Thank you for introducing H.
R. 4259, the ``Haskell Indian Nations University and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative
Systems Act of 1998.''
The effort to secure congressional action to further
Haskell's transition to a 4-year university has had long-
standing support from the Kansas Congressional delegation,
the National Haskell Board of Regents, the federally
recognized tribes, and the employees of Haskell.
Section 365 of the ``Improving America's Schools Act'' (10/
20/94) mandated that ``the Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a study [of administrative systems], in consultation
with the Board of Regents of Haskell . . . [And] if the
study's conclusions require legislation to be implemented,
the study shall be accompanied by appropriate draft
legislation.'' That legislation was first introduced in the
104th Congress. Your continued support is appreciated.
I understand that the intent of H. R. 4259 is to give
Haskell the authority to have the personnel function moved on
campus and to design the personnel system in a way that meets
the needs of an institution of higher education. These
improvements will be a great support to the quality of
education being provided to the American Indian/Alaska Native
people.
Respectfully yours,

Jean Wagner,

Student Senate President and Member,
National Haskell Board of Regents.
____

Table Bluff Reservation Wiyot Tribe

resolution #66

Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative System Act
of 1996
Whereas Haskell's vision is to become a national center for
Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
of the passage of appropriate legislation: Now therefore be
it
Resolved, That the Table Bluff Wiyot Nation supports
Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain legislation that
provides a greater degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian
Nations University in its transition to a 4-year university.

certification

I, the undersigned, as the Tribal Chairperson of the Table
Bluff Wiyot Nation, hereby certify this resolution on this
12th day of November, 1996.
Cheryl A. Seidner,
Tribal Chairperson.
____

Pinoleville Indian Reservation

Resolution #10-15-96-01

Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act
of 1996
Whereas Haskell's vision is to become a national center for
Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indians/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian/Alaska Native students attending Haskell; and
Whereas Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation: Now therefore be
it
Resolved, That the Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians of the
Pinoleville Indian Reservation supports Haskell's Board of
Regents efforts to gain legislation that provides a greater
degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian Nations University in
its transition to a 4-year university.

certification

The Tribal Council of the Pinoleville Indian Reservation
does hereby certify at a meeting duly called, noticed, and
convened on the 15th day of October, 1996 where a quorum was
present, this action was duly adopted by a vote of 4 for, 0
against, and 1 abstaining.
Leona L. William,
Tribal Chairperson.
Lenora Brown,
Secretary.
____

Elk Valley Rancheria

resolution 96-14

Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act
of 1996
Whereas: the Elk Valley Rancheria is a Federally recognized
Indian Tribe, pursuant to Tillie Hardwick et al vs United
States, Civil No. C-79-171-SW, as having Tribal sovereignty
status: and

[[Page H9635]]

Whereas: the Elk Valley Rancheris has been fully authorized
to exercise full governmental powers and responsibilities
through the Elk Valley Rancheria Tribal Council: and
Whereas: Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives: and
Whereas: Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas: Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas: the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas: the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation; then
Therefore Be It Resolved: that the Tribal Council of Elk
Valley Rancheria supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts
to gain legislation that provides a greater degree of
autonomy for Haskell Indian Nations University in its
transition to a 4-year university.

certification

We the unresigned officers of the Elk Valley Rancheria
Tribal Council do hereby certify that the Elk Valley
Rancheria Tribal Council adopted this Resolution Number 96-14
on November 20, 1996. This Resolution has not been amended in
anyway nor rescinded.

John D. Green,

Tribal Chairman, Elk Valley
Rancheria Tribal Council.
Attested: Brenda Green,
Council Secretary.
____

Resolution No. 58-96

Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act
of 1996
Whereas, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (the
``Tribe'') is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe governing
itself according to a Constitution and By-laws and exercising
sovereign authority over the lands of the Agua Caliente
Indian Reservation; and
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation.
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Tribal Council of
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians supports Haskell's
Board of Regents efforts to gain legislation that provides a
greater degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian Nations
University in this transition to a 4-Year university.
Richard M. Milanovich,
Chairman.

certification

I, the undersigned, the Secretary of the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians, hereby certify that the Tribal Council
is composed of five members of whom 5, constituting a quorum,
were present at a meeting whereof, duly called, and noticed,
convened and held this 5th day of November 1996; that the
foregoing resolution was duly adopted at such meeting by the
affirmative vote of 4-0-0 members and that said Resolution
has not been rescinded or amended in any way.
Marcus J. Pete,
Secretary/Treasurer.
____

Akutan Traditional Council

resolution 96-21

Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act
of 1996
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Haskell's has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Akutan Traditional
Council supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year university

certification

I, the undersigned, as President of the Akutan Traditional
Council hereby certify this resolution on this 29th day of
October, 1996.
------ ------,
President.
____

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,

84-245 Indio Springs Drive,

Indio, CA, October 22, 1996.
Bob G. Martin,
President, Haskell Indian Nations University, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Lawrence, KS.
Dear Dr. Martin: The tribal business committee has reviewed
your letter regarding transition to a four year university,
and we believe this is an effort worth tribal support. We
have enclosed a tribal resolution to that effect.
Sincerely,
Mark Nichols,
Chief Executive Officer.

resolution no. 10-9-96-3

Re: Legislation to Support Granting Administrative
Oversight to Haskell Indian Nations University
Whereas, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians is a federally
recognized Indian Tribe with powers of self-government
pursuant to its articles of association; and
Whereas, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Business Committee
is fully aware of its options relative to role, functions,
authorities and responsibilities, and
Whereas, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians General Council
understands that Haskell's vision is to become a national
center for Indian education, research and cultural programs
that increase knowledge and support the education needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians recognizes that
Haskell's ability to make a successful transition from a
junior college to a university vision is being compromised by
not having control of their administrative systems; and,
Whereas, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians has determined
that this lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, The Board of Regents of Haskell Indians Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation; now Therefore Be
It
Resolved that the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians supports
Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain legislation that
provides a greater degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian
Nations University in its transition to a 4-year university.

certification

This is to certify that the above resolution was adopted by
the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Business Committee by a
vote of 5 for, 0 against 0 abstaining at a duly called
meeting on October 9, 1996.
John James.
Charles Welmas.
Elisa Welmas.
Brenda Soulliere.
Virginia Nichols.
John Welmas.
____

Soboba Band of Mission Indians

RES. NO. CR96-HIC-55

Re: Supporting legislation granting administrative
oversight to Haskell Indian Nations University
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Soboba Band of
Mission Indians supports Haskell's Board of Regents effort to
gain legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy
for Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a
4-year university.

Certification

We the elected members of the Tribal Council of the Soboba
Band of Mission Indians do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was adopted by the Soboba Tribal Council at a duly
held meeting convened on the Soboba Indian Reservation on
October 15, 1996 by a vote 5 ``FOR'', 0 ``Against'', and 0
``ABSTAINING'' and such Resolution has not been rescinded or
amended in any way.
Carl Lopez,
Chairman.

[[Page H9636]]

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

resolution #10-96-02

Haskell Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act
of 1996
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Torres Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians nation supports Haskell's Board of
Regents efforts to gain legislation that provides a greater
degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian Nations University in
its transition to a 4-year university

certification

We the undersigned, as the elected tribal council of the
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Nation, hereby
certify this resolution on this 12th day of October, 1996,
and was ratified by our General Council on 12th day of
October, 1996.
Mary E. Belardo,
Chairperson.
Pauline Duro,
Vice Chairperson.
Helen L. Jose,
Treasurer.
Cindy Sibole,
Secretary.
Mary L. Resvaloso,
Council Member.
____

Upper Sioux Community

Board of Trustees,

Granite Falls, MN, October 17, 1996.
Mr. Bob Martin,
President, Haskell Indian Junior College,
Lawrence, KS.
Dear Mr. Martin: On behalf of the Upper Sioux Board of
Trustees, I am pleased to enclose our Resolution of support
for Haskell to become a 4-year University.
We wish your organization well in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Brad Lerschen,
Executive Secretary.

Upper Sioux Community Board of Trustees, USC Resolution No. 50-96

Whereas, the Upper Sioux Community of Granite Falls, MN is
a federally recognized Indian Community possessing the powers
of self-government and self-determination, and is governed by
the Constitution of the Upper Sioux Community; and
Whereas, the Upper Sioux Community has an elected governing
body called the Upper Sioux Board of Trustees which is
empowered by the Tribal constitution to act on behalf of the
members of the Upper Sioux Community; and
Whereas, Haskell Indian Nations University's vision is to
become a national center for Indian education, research and
cultural programs that increase knowledge and support the
educational needs of American Indian/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
comprised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation.
Therefore be it resolved, That the Upper Sioux Indian
Community of Granite Falls, Minnesota supports Haskell's
Board of Regents efforts to gain legislation that provides a
greater degree of autonomy for Haskell Indian Nations
University in its transition to a 4-year university.
____

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Resolution 6-12-96-B

Whereas, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is a
federally recognized Indian government and a treaty tribe
recognized by the laws of the United States, and
Whereas, the Oneida General Tribal Council is the governing
body of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, and
Whereas, the Oneida Business Committee has been delegate
the authority of Article IV, Section 1 of the Oneida Tribal
Constitution by the Oneida General Tribal Council, and
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives, and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; and
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now therefore be it resolved, That the Oneida Nation
supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year university.
Be it Further Resolved this nation encourages
Congressperson Toby Roth to vote approval of this
legislation.

certification

I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Oneida Business
Committee, hereby certify that the Oneida Business Committee
is composed of 9 members of whom 5 members constitute a
quorum. 9 members were present at a meeting duly called,
noticed and held on the 12th day of June, 1996; that the
foregoing resolution was duly adopted at such a meeting by a
vote of 8 members for; 0 members against; and 0 members not
voting; and that said resolution has not been rescinded or
amended in any way.
Julie Barton,
Secretary, Oneida Business Committee.
____

Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Resolution No. 087-96

Whereas, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Band of Mohican
Indians, is a federally recognized Indian Tribe, exercising
its sovereign duties and responsibilities under a
Constitution approved November 18, 1937; and
Whereas, the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians has
always given education a high priority among its people, and
several tribal members have attended Haskell Institute over
the years; and
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaskan Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems, which control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and
Whereas, The Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation; now
Therefore Be It Resolved, That the Stockbridge-Munsee Band
of Mohicans supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to
gain legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy
for Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a
4-year university.

certification

I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Stockbridge-Munsee
Tribal Council, do hereby certify that the Tribal Council is
comprised of seven members of whom 7, constituting a quorum
were present at a meeting duly called, noticed, and convened
on the 17th day of October, 1996, and that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at such meeting by a vote of 6 members
for, 0 members against, and 0 members abstaining, and that
said resolution was not rescinded or amended in any way.
Virgil Murphy,
President.
Carol Goss,
Council Secretary.
____

Quileute Tribal Council, Resolution Number 96-A-87

Whereas, the Quileute Indian Tribe is an organized Indian
Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act; and the Quileute
Tribal Council is the duly constituted governing body of the
Quileute Indian Tribe; by authority of Article III of the
Constitution and By-Laws of the Quileute Indian Tribe
approved by the Secretary of the Interior on November 11,
1936; and,
Whereas, the Quileute Indian Tribe enjoys rights reserved
to it by the Treaty of Olympia of 1855 and the Quileute Tribe
Council has the responsibility under the Constitution to
``promulgate and enforce ordinances. . . .''; and,
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and
Whereas, Haskell's has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a

[[Page H9637]]

university vision is being compromised by not having control
of their administrative systems; and,
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, That the Quileute Nation
supports Haskell's Board of Regents' efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year university.
Douglas Woodruff,
Chairman, Quileute Tribal Council.

certification

I certify that Resolution Number ______ was adopted at the
regular meeting of the Quileute Tribal Council at LaPush,
Washington, on the 31st day of October, 1996 at a time a
quorum was present and the Resolution was adopted by a vote
of 3 for and 0 against on the 31st day of October, 1996.
____

Puyallup Tribal Council Resolution No. 221096

Supporting legislation granting administrative oversight to
Haskell Indian Nations University to be known as: ``Haskell
Indian Nations University Administrative Systems Act of
1996''
Whereas, the Puyallup Tribe has existed since creation as
the aboriginal people who are the owners and guardians of
their lands and waters; and
Whereas, the Puyallup Tribe is an independent sovereign
nation, having historically negotiated with several foreign
nations, including the United States in the Medicine Creek
Treaty; and
Whereas; the Puyallup Tribal Council is the governing body
of the Puyallup Tribe in accordance with the authority of its
sovereign rights as the aboriginal owners and guardians of
their lands and waters, reaffirmed in the Medicine Creek
Treaty, and their Constitution and By-Laws, as amended; and
Whereas, Haskell's vision is to become a national center
for Indian education, research and cultural programs that
increase knowledge and support the educational needs of
American Indian/Alaska Natives; and,
Whereas, Haskell has identified the need to properly
administer a quality educational and student life program for
American Indian and Alaska Native students attending Haskell;
and,
Whereas, Haskell's ability to make a successful transition
from a junior college to a university vision is being
compromised by now having control of their administrative
systems; and,
Whereas, the lack of control affects the quality of higher
education offered to American Indian students; and,
Whereas, the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations
University seeks to increase local control of the university
with the passage of appropriate legislation;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, That the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians supports Haskell's Board of Regents efforts to gain
legislation that provides a greater degree of autonomy for
Haskell Indian Nations University in its transition to a 4-
year university.

certification

I, Michelle Hamilton, Secretary of the Puyallup Tribal
Council of the Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation, in
Tacoma, Washington, do hereby certify that the proceeding
resolution was duly adopted by the Puyallup Tribal Council,
at a meeting held on the 22nd day of OCTOBER, 1996, a quorum
being present and approving the resolution by a vote of 4
FOR, 0 AGAINST, 0 ABSTAINING, 1 NOT VOTING ITS ADOPTION.
Michelle Hamilton,
Secretary, Puyallup Tribal Council.
Bill Sterud,
Chairman, Puyallup Tribal Council.

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that passage of this
legislation is critical to provide Haskell Indian Nations University
and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute the opportunity to
provide the best possible education for our Native American and Alaskan
Indian students.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 4259, because the bill would
allow Haskell and Southwestern Indian Universities to undertake
personnel demonstration projects that would exempt them from civil
service laws covering labor-management relations. That is a very, very
important exemption. Employee organizations would as a result no longer
have any input into the development of personnel policies and
procedures.
I do believe that the gentleman's intentions are good, but at the
same time we have a bill which would eliminate the Office of Personnel
Management's authority to oversee this demonstration project. OPM would
be reduced to the role of a consultant. We simply cannot have that. It
would not be able to exercise the scrutiny and ensure the
accountability as it is required to do under current law.
During full committee consideration of H.R. 4259, I offered an
amendment that would have allowed these institutions to participate in
a personnel demonstration project under current law which would have
allowed OPM to maintain control and oversight over the process which
they are mandated to do and maintain the right of the employees and
their unions to negotiate over the terms of the project. No hearings on
the issue were held by the Subcommittee on Civil Service, and there is
nothing in the record that supports the proponents' view that these
universities need special authority to explore new personnel practices.
In May of 1998, the National Haskell Board of Regents resolved that
an alternative personnel system be developed, but that, and I quote,
implementation not eliminate the right of Federal employees to engage
in collective bargaining. Haskell Indian University's Faculty Senate
expressed strong support for the resolution in a letter to the Board
dated June 30, 1998.
Despite passage of the Board's resolution and attempts by the
National Federation of Federal Employees Local 45 to negotiate an
agreement providing for the demonstration projects with the
universities, the author of this bill included language that would
grant sole authority, and I emphasize that, sole authority, to the
universities' presidents to determine the methods of involving
employees, labor organizations and employee organizations in personnel
decisions. This provision eliminates the rights and protections
currently available to the employees and their union. It is
unwarranted, unfair and a terminal flaw in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill as introduced, and I will offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute at the appropriate time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, just real briefly, the Board of Regents
is the entity that is instructed to work with the president in
consultation, and also the Secretary of Interior has veto authority
over any plan. He can shut it down at any point in time.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Kansas for
introducing this resolution, and I rise in strong support of the
legislation. I would like to also thank my friend from Maryland for
whom I have a great deal of personal respect for offering his
perspective on this issue and on this debate.
Mr. Chairman, it is a fairly simple question we are here to decide
today, and I appreciate the intellectual candor of my colleague from
Maryland, because in essence what he is asking us to do is to make a
choice. Are we in favor of educating the first Americans, and do we owe
our first allegiance to the education of the first Americans, or do we
instead owe our allegiance to the unions? That is the question here.
I represent more Native Americans than anyone else in the contiguous
United States. The Sixth District of Arizona in square mileage is
roughly the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Within the Sixth
District of Arizona are several schools under the control of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Mr. Chairman, we should make this point: When it
comes to education, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in controlling
schools grades K through 12, has already been authorized through
legislation to establish these alternative personnel methods
appropriate for educational systems. That has happened for grades K
through 12. But now we have a situation where we come to two
institutions of higher learning and the status quo is saying, ``No,
whatever you do, don't change the personnel methods. Make sure that
civil service rules and, more importantly, that unions control the
educational process.''
I noticed with interest the criticism came because the university
presidents would be given control of personnel decisions pertaining to
education. Horrors. The school presidents in charge of personnel and
curricula at the schools? To me, far from being a foreboding step, that
is a commonsense approach.

[[Page H9638]]

An elder on the Navajo Nation, Mr. Chairman, put it quite succinctly
and clearly to me during a town hall meeting there when he said to me,
``Congressman, as far as I'm concerned, BIA, those letters stand for
three things: Bossing Indians around.''
Now, I know there are a lot of dedicated workers in the BIA, and I
appreciate the BIA's foresight in elementary schools and other
controlled schools to say education is more important than union
bargaining. I would simply say that we should follow the example not to
have anyone outside the educational institution presume to boss around
or dictate or somehow dilute the primary mission of the institution, to
educate the first Americans, the first Americans who are too often the
forgotten Americans.
As my colleague from Kansas pointed out, during the period of time
this legislation was being worked on, union representatives were
involved. They have a place at the table. But the question becomes, who
should control institutions of higher learning, educators or union
bosses?
This is not a very difficult question to answer. Educators should
control this. It should follow the blueprint offered for other schools
within the BIA framework as these two institutions have that unique
status as institutions of higher learning overseen by the BIA. I call
for those better instincts and those efforts of many dedicated
employees by the BIA not to boss Indians around, but to preserve
education.
I gladly and strongly support the legislation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In response to what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) just
said, there are two points that I would like to make. At any
university, Mr. Chairman, a very important part of that university, of
course, are your students. But it is also the faculty that plays a very
significant role, too, and those people that make the university work;
that is, the employees of the school. Back on June 30, 1998, a memo was
sent to the members of the Board of Regents from the Faculty Senate,
and they expressly stated, and I quote, that they did not want to,
quote, eliminate the right of Federal employees to engage in collective
bargaining.

{time} 1445

Another thing that was stated by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) with regard to employees saying that they had an opportunity
to be at the table, whatever. In a letter dated July 23, 1998, a letter
from Michael Tossi, President of Local 45, the National Federation of
Federal Employees, addressed to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Snowbarger), and I quote part of it because it is quite a long letter,
it says:
The employees, the majority of whom are American Indians, feel we
have not been given sufficient time or given reasonable opportunity to
be involved in the development of this concept. That is the
demonstration project. It is our desire to be involved.
They go on to say:
You persist in pushing without asking the people at Haskell Indian
Nations University what their views are and what we feel about this
legislation.
Again, keep in mind this legislation was never presented before the
Subcommittee on Civil Service. We could have had all of these views, we
could have had an opportunity to flesh all of this out and come up with
a reasonable solution to my colleague's concerns, but we did not do
that, and so we are here today.
And let me just go on to just quote just a bit more from that letter
from Michael Tossi, the President of the Local 45 union there at the
university. He said, and I quote:
We resent what you are doing and the manner you are doing it. It is
unscrupulous, unprincipled and discriminatory.
That is what he said, and a university is not just students. A
university is the faculty, the university is students, and the
university is employees.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas
and also have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland who he and
I sit on the subcommittee together, and I will tell my colleagues, Mr.
Chairman, that the bottom line is that what this is all about is
whether we are going to help two schools in Kansas, the Haskell Indian
Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, be
able to compete in the marketplace to be able to get the kinds of
teachers and professors that the marketplace regularly has, but that
they will be unable to attract directly related to rules of the Federal
Government.
This is a marketplace issue. It is an issue about the things, the way
to hire employees and the way to keep employees.
One of the bottom line employment problems is always the portability
of a retirement plan. The wisdom of this plan that my colleague from
Kansas presents today is one that would allow these two universities
the opportunity to have a portability of a retirement plan. The way the
law exists today is that someone would have to stay employed in a job
literally for the rest of their working career before they were able to
get back that retirement that they had saved all these years.
The bottom line is the marketplace in academics does not work that
way. Professors come and go. Professors have new callings that perhaps
they want to leave and have a sabbatical or write a book or teach at
another university.
I believe what we have got to do is to recognize that the work that
is being done today through this bill would allow these two
universities to attract and keep through their recruitment
opportunities that they have the chance for a marketplace answer, and
that is why I am in full support of this bill that is before us today,
and I hope that Members of the Congress are able to recognize that this
would be good for these two Indian Nation universities to have.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
To the point that was just made by my distinguished colleague from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), I am concerned because what we have in the United
States is uniformity with regard to retirement plans. Different
retirement and insurance programs could create undesirable inequities
in the compensation programs when Federal employees move in and out of
the system. That is a major problem, and that does concern me, and that
is one of the very reasons why the matter should have come before the
committee, so that OPM could have an opportunity to give their side of
this to figure out how this matter could be worked out as opposed to us
trying to push it through without the proper deliberation. And I
emphasize that.
I want to go on and just emphasize some other things.
What we are trying to do, what the bill, the intent of the bill, as I
understand it, is to, one of the intentions is to have certain
demonstration projects. Well, demonstration projects under current law
will allow the institutions to request that the professors' jobs be
reclassified at a higher grade. There are other ways to provide for
increased pay for instructors which does not violate civil service
rules and could have been discussed if a hearing was held. OPM has
expressed a willingness to work with the institutions to facilitate an
alternative personnel system, and OPM is very serious about this
because they want to make sure that they have the uniformity that I
talked about a little bit earlier.
These institutions are funded entirely, and I emphasize that,
entirely with Federal dollars and should be subject to the same civil
service laws as other Federal agencies. Local employees do not support
Mr. Snowbarger's proposal, as I stated a little bit earlier. The
National Federation of Federal Employees objects to going forward with
this bill as currently written and has submitted a letter documenting
their objections.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank my
colleague for bringing this important issue to the floor because our
Nation's education is

[[Page H9639]]

at a crossroads. Because other countries are sending their students to
our shores, we must provide our children with the best possible quality
education. That is why I rise in support of H.R. 4259.
This bill does resolve some of the problems facing both of our two
Indian or Native American colleges. Haskell Indian Nations University
in Lawrence, Kansas, has some of the brightest students in the land,
but for years Congress has required this institution to operate as a
Federal bureaucracy instead of a center for learning. This is wrong.
This bill will change that, and we need to be able to make sure we give
the students at Haskell every opportunity and advantage they should
have. And instead of making learning more difficult, we should pursue
ways to help Native American Indians to achieve success in education.
Every Native American tribe in Kansas, and I want to emphasize that,
every Native American tribe in Kansas, supports this legislation. Over
50 tribes across this country also support it. In fact, there is not
any opposition from a single tribe with this legislation.
This legislation is not about union membership, as some of the
Members from the opposite side of the aisle would like to suggest. This
is about the rights of Native Americans and their rights to a quality
education.
Supporting this legislation supports improved education for Native
American Indians. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to support this educational measure and vote yes on this bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just quote from an internal memo from OPM
with regard to this legislation because I think it is very important
that the very institution, the Office of Personnel Management, whose
job it is to oversee this process, we need to know what they say about
all this because I think that is very, very important, and that is what
basically this debate is all about.
OPM, and I quote, OPM was given authority to oversee personnel
management demonstration projects by the Civil Service Reform Act.
OPM's years of experience and expertise in the development, evaluation
and oversight of such projects would not be used sufficiently if OPM
were limited to a consulting role at the discretion of the
institution's presidents.
It would be inappropriate to establish a demonstration project, and
these are the people who have expertise in this. These are the folks,
it is their job to do this. This is what they are saying. It would be
inappropriate to establish a demonstration project which could be made
permanent as provided in Section 8 of the bill without the
accountability provided by independent oversight, evaluation and
scrutiny under the normal section 4703 procedures. The limited role
provided to OPM by this bill would be insufficient to assure adequate
accountability through independent oversight, and I emphasize that,
independent oversight of these demonstration projects, particularly
since Section 4(h)(2)(B)(ii) would allow continuation of any
alternative system of employee benefits even if the demonstration
project were terminated. That is a major problem. The legislation does
not require a serious evaluation of results of an alternative system
prior to that system being made permanent.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I tell my colleagues I understand the intent of
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) and those who support this
bill, but at the same time we have to keep some very important things
in mind. Whether we like it or not, the institutions are supported
solely with Federal funds, and that is very, very significant, and it
is not about a question, as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) said a
few minutes ago, about just having union involvement.
Again, we are talking about a community. A university is a community:
employees, faculty and students, and the arguments are being made as if
the faculty and the employees are not American Indians. Well, they are,
and what they wanted was to merely have an opportunity to participate
in the process.
So I, for the life of me I understand what is being said, but at the
same time I think that if we are going to fight for the rights of these
presidents to make these decisions to have these demonstration projects
and then allow those demonstration projects to become permanent without
any kind of oversight, I am very, very concerned about that, and I
think we all should be concerned about that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, if I can make some quick response here to the comments
my colleague made? OPM is not an expert in running colleges and
universities. The regents and presidents of Haskell and SIPI are. OPM
has experience in working with large Federal bureaucracies. The regents
and presidents of Haskell/SIPI work day to day in the world of higher
education. There is no reason to give OPM a larger role. Where OPM has
expertise to offer, both Haskell and SIPI can and will ask for its
help. However, it is important to remember that it is OPM's rules and
regulations that have made hiring and college recruiting, just to name
two examples, very difficult for these institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 4259, the
Native American Higher Education Improvement Act. This legislation
provides much needed flexibility for these two Indian colleges, Haskell
Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute. Both are run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and because
these institutions are run by the Federal Government and their
regulations, they must operate within the confines of the civil service
system, and this has created a problem in attracting and employing
qualified instructors.
Now, Haskell Indian Nations University, as my colleagues know, is
located in my home State of Kansas, and over 900 students attend
Haskell each year from 36 States, but the majority of those students
come from Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana and Kansas. Over the
past few years Haskell has transformed from a junior college into a 4-
year institution, and in the spring of 1996, Haskell conferred its
first baccalaureate degrees in elementary education. The university is
now accredited to confer degrees in environmental education and Indian
studies, and they are working hard to progress the educational
opportunities for Native Americans.
What we are considering today in this bill gives the Native American
colleges the tools they much need to compete.

{time} 1500

Because without these tools, recruitment and retention of qualified
faculty and staff is too difficult.
Mr. Chairman, I have taught at the college level at two institutions
of higher education. The last institution I have taught at is Newman
University located in Wichita, Kansas. Of the greatest challenges that
face Newman right now is the challenge of attracting qualified
personnel because of limitations on salary. If they are set too low,
they can not acquire the qualified personnel or compete with larger
schools, larger institutions.
Haskell is facing the same problem that Newman faces because their
hands are tied by these government regulations. Their efforts are
restricted because the civil service system is not structured for a
university system. It is not structured in a way that they can compete
with salaries.
This bill simply allows these two institutions the flexibility they
need to compete with the university system. That, Mr. Chairman, is why
I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are in a situation where we are arguing this bill,
but I do not think this bill is going to go but so far anyway.
I just got a memo from the Executive Office of the President,
statement of administration policy. I will read it. I think it makes
the very points that I have been making.

[[Page H9640]]

It says,

Although the administration believes that additional
personnel management flexibility is appropriate for the
Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute, the administration opposes H.R. 4259.
The bill would provide these Federally owned and operated
universities with special authority to implement 5-year
personnel management demonstration projects.
In particular, the administration objects to the
demonstration projects authorized under H.R. 4259 because
they would do the following: exempt these universities from
laws covering Federal employees' leave and benefits, which
could have a very real adverse impact on the university's
employees and would set a bad precedent for the development
of similar initiatives for other Federal entities.
Two, would reduce the Office of Personnel Management's
important role in the development, management, and oversight
of demonstration projects to that of a consultant.
The administration will work with Congress to find a
suitable means of addressing the concerns that prompted this
legislation.

I think that what has been stated here is what I have been saying
before. I do believe that there are ways to address the issues which
are the intent of this legislation. But we must find a way to make sure
that OPM keeps its oversight with regard to these issues.
Uniformity becomes very significant. We can make the arguments from
now until forever more about how universities are unique, and they are
unique. But there are departments that are unique, too, that have
special needs and special concerns.
But when we begin to carve out a piece here and carve out a piece
there, taking away from the agency which has spent years honing in the
expertise; and someone said a few moments ago, one of my colleagues,
said, no, they are not experts in universities. Well, the issues that
we are talking about here, they are experts in. The fact is is that
this is what they do.
So I would submit that the statement from the Executive Office of the
President is very clear. They see it as clear as day that this thing
can be worked out. The problems can be worked out. They should be
worked out, not through the method that we are trying to do here, but
other methods.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
is a school nestled on the banks of the Rio Grande River in my
district. It is a small school, much like Haskell. It has 600 students
and over 100 different tribes represented there each semester, which
really gets to the problem with the criticisms of this bill.
These are two small universities operated directly by the Federal
Government by the BIA that are anomalies in a system overseen by the
Office of Personnel Management, which is not designed for universities.
There are already special rules within the BIA for how they operate
elementary schools.
But those rules do not apply to SIPI and to Haskell. As a result,
they have to operate under a system which is rigid, which does not
apply to them, where they have to try to make cumbersome rules fit a
situation that they just do not find themselves in.
I commend my colleague the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) for
bringing this legislation forward to try to give these institutions the
flexibility they need to better do their job and to educate our
children.
I have been to SIPI and talked to the faculty there. I have talked to
the President of SIPI, President Elgin, and they are supportive of this
legislation. It takes them too long to hire professors. They cannot set
out the requirements as they want to do for teachers. They need the
flexibility to do this.
There is independent oversight of these two schools. It is called a
board of regents. It is something that Federal Government agencies do
not have, and OPM is probably not familiar with it.
Uniformity is probably, to paraphrase, the hobgoblin of small minds.
We have two small institutions here that need flexibility to do their
job better in a pilot program.
It is disappointing to me that the Executive Office of the President
is paying more attention to its own bureaucracy and the Office of
Personnel Management and not attention to the presidents, the faculty,
and the students whom I represent.
I stand in support of this legislation, and I commend my colleague
from Kansas for bringing it to the House.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment and read from the current
law, in regard to employees' involvement. This is section 40-703. I
quote, it says,

Employees within a unit with respect to which a labor
organization is accorded exclusive recognition under chapter
71 of this title shall not be included within any project
under subsection A of this section, one, if the project would
violate a collective bargaining agreement as defined in
Section 71-038 of this title between the agency and the labor
organization, unless there is another written agreement with
respect to the project between the agency and the
organization permitting the inclusion or, if the project is
not covered by such a collective bargaining agreement, until
there has been consultation or negotiation, as appropriate,
by the agency with the labor organization.

It goes on to say, under letter H,

The office shall provide for an evaluation of the results
of each demonstration project and its impact on improving
public management.

I would just challenge the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) to
tell us exactly what role union personnel, those people who clean up
the school, the faculty, the organizations, the labor organizations,
what part will they have, because, they, too, are American Indians.
They will be there when the students have graduated.
They, too, have a right to see and be a part of how their institution
goes forward. They, too, have an interest in making sure that many of
the students, who may very well be their children or grandchildren, are
treated fair, and they, too, have an interest in making sure that these
universities remain the great universities that they are.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say this, that first of all, I think that
we all are concerned about our young people. We are concerned that they
rise to the highest levels that they possibly can. We are concerned
that our universities, wherever they may be, be the best that they can
be. I believe that, with all my heart, and I believe that all Members
of this Congress believe the same.
At the same time, we have to look at the factors with regard to this
legislation. I think the first thing we have to start off with is that
members of our committee, our subcommittee, who are very, very
interested in the life and the lives of our civil servants, those
people who day out and day in make it possible for all of us to do our
jobs and make it possible for these two universities to exist, every
member of that subcommittee, every one of them is concerned about them;
in addition to the very institutions that those Federal employees
support and make possible.
We also are concerned about the Office of Personnel Management. That
is an office which is duty bound, by legislation coming from this
Congress, the Congress of the United States, saying that there are
certain things that they have the authority to do and certain things
that they have the responsibility to do. So we also are concerned that
going back to that Subcommittee on Civil Service that we never had an
opportunity to go through this legislation, to sit down and listen to
the faculty of these wonderful institutions. We never had an
opportunity to hear from the presidents to see what they were going to
say with all of this proposed new authority that the presidents of
these universities will be given; never even had the opportunity to
hear from even some students that may have had some concerns or parents
of students who are paying tuition; never had the opportunity. So that
the committee, a very distinguished committee, never had the
opportunity to hear any of that.
We find ourselves today going through this legislation. As the
administration said, it is bad legislation but we have an
administration which is willing to work with the Congress to resolve
the issues. So we end up in a situation where on the one hand, we are
told that these wonderful institutions should have certain
opportunities to do certain things but at the same time, while we are
giving them the opportunity to create the various retirement programs
and the various personnel rules and things of that nature, at the same
time this legislation would leave out another very important

[[Page H9641]]

group of American Indians, and those are the members that so happen to
be a part of the union, again, the people who support the institution.
Mr. Chairman, I just take this moment to say that I vehemently oppose
this legislation. I will have an amendment in the nature of a
substitute a little bit later in these proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1515

Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my
time.
First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton),
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who is the subcommittee chairman who
dealt with this issue; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling),
the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the
subcommittee, for bringing this legislation to the floor.
I would also like to acknowledge the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon) and the Committee on Rules and thank them for this open rule
that allows us to debate this fully, and I thank all of those who have
help bring this to the floor and speak to it.
I want to address some of the concerns that were raised by my
colleague from Maryland, and I think the first one I want to raise is
the fact that he is very concerned that we have reduced the Office of
Personnel Management to the role of consultants. I would show my
colleague this brochure put out by the Office of Personnel Management
touting their services, and what do they call themselves? Consultants,
setting the standard for excellence. They consider themselves
consultants, this bill allows them to act as consultants, and I think
that SIPI and Haskell will take advantage of their expertise when it is
actually helpful.
Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about another criticism
that has been made, and that is about employee involvement. We somehow
think that the employees at the school are not going to be a part of
this plan, even though for the last 8 years they have been a part of
this planning. Employee participation has been an integral part of the
process since day one. Beginning in 1990, when Haskell established a
long-range planning task force to improve the recruitment and selection
process for personnel, members of the local employee union have served
on every single task force, planning group and quality improvement
team. In most cases, the local union president or vice president has
represented the union. Furthermore, employee representatives have been
involved in the development of the guiding principles for the
demonstration project that the university has been preparing in
anticipation of passage of this legislation.
In fact, the following employees have represented the NFFE Local 45
on these boards: 1990 Long Range Planning Task Force, Dan Wildcat and
Lee Pahcoddy. 1993 Personnel Quality Improvement Team, Sally Halvorson.
1995 Personnel Quality Improvement Team that developed the legislation
recommendations, Sally Halvorson. Additionally, in April of 1996, all
employees at Haskell received a copy of the study commissioned by the
1995 team and a copy of the draft legislation. Finally, in the spring
of 1997, Sally Halvorson was appointed by the union to represent them
on the implementation team for the alternative personnel system.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the concern about the
collective bargaining process. I am not sure which bill the gentleman
from Maryland has read, but H.R. 4259 does not have any effect on
current collective bargaining rights, and in addition, the legislation
states that the current collective bargaining agreement will remain in
effect until its completion, and I would refer the gentleman to pages 7
and 14 of the legislation.
There is also concern that this demonstration project is going to
become permanent without independent scrutiny and accountability. That
simply is not true. The demonstration projects can only become
permanent if Congress passes legislation making them permanent.
Under section 4(D) of the bill, the demonstration projects can only
last 5 years. They may be continued without congressional action only
to the extent necessary to validate the results of the project. To
protect employees, the bill also allows alternative benefit systems to
continue for those employees covered by them.
Not only will Congress independently evaluate any proposals to make
alternative personnel systems permanent, but the Secretary of the
Interior will also evaluate the performance of the projects. Section 3
of the bill requires that. In addition, the Secretary or the president
of the institution can also terminate any project if either determines
that the project is not in the best interest of the institution, and
that is in section 3(E) of the bill.
In short, there will be independent oversight of these demonstration
projects, and only Congress can make the project permanent.
Mr. Chairman, I might mention again, as one of my colleagues pointed
out, the K through 12 education that is governed by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs has been out from under these personnel management
policies since the early 1970s, and they have operated and performed
very well, and we do not have complaints coming in from those employees
in those institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention that there is plenty of support
for this bill outside the two institutions that we are talking about.
There are 55 nations that have indicated their support to us. We will
have letters of support to place in the Record from 32 of those
nations.
Mr. Chairman, to understand why this bill is vital to Haskell Indian
Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, let
us examine what will happen if this legislation does not pass. Without
this legislation, the confines of the civil service system will prevent
the schools from properly developing their academic programs, and it
puts their academic accreditation into jeopardy. Resolution 98-10 from
the Haskell Board of Regents says, ``Whereas, Haskell's ability to make
a successful transition from a junior college to a university vision is
being compromised by not having control of their administrative
systems; if this legislation does not pass, we compromise the quality
of education for our Native American and Alaskan Indian students.''
Very often we deal with extremely complex issues and lengthy bills in
this body. This legislation is different. It is a short bill, only 16
pages long, and it is very straightforward. Simply, it allows two
colleges with less than 400 employees to develop appropriate personnel
systems. It allows Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern
Indian Polytechnic Institute to develop portable benefits packages so
that they can recruit qualified academic staff.
The bill was introduced and drafted at the behest of one group, the
National Haskell Board of Regents. This Board, comprised of 15 members
who are elected to represent more than 500 tribes across this Nation,
asked me to help them make their institutions great.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is important for the students of
Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute, and I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute
rule by section, and each section shall be considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page H9642]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Haskell Indian Nations
University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
Administrative Systems Act of 1998''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Cummings of
Maryland

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Cummings of Maryland:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Haskell Indian Nations University in
Lawrence, Kansas, and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are authorized to
conduct, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 47 of title 5,
United States Code, demonstration projects for the purpose of
testing the feasibility and desirability of implementing
alternative personnel policies and procedures.
(b) Limitation Inapplicable.--Any demonstration projects
conducted under subsection (a) shall be conducted without
regard to, and shall not be taken into account for purposes
of, the limitation under section 4703(d)(2) of title 5,
United States Code.
(c) Commencement and Termination Dates.--Each demonstration
project under this Act--
(1) shall commence within 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(2) shall terminate by the end of the 5-year period
beginning on the date on which such project commences, except
that the project may continue beyond the end of such 5-year
period to the extent necessary to validate the results of the
project.

Mr. CUMMINGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered
as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, Haskell Indian University and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute would establish their own
alternative personnel systems which would make radical changes in
employee benefits, leave programs and labor-management relations.
However, they have given no satisfactory explanation as to why they
need to do so with specialized demonstration project authority, loaded
with exceptions to current law.
My amendment to H.R. 4259 will allow the institutions to participate
in a demonstration project under current law. It retains OPM's control
and oversight over the process. It would also retain the right of the
employees' union to collectively bargain over the terms of the
demonstration project.
Mr. Chairman, I might add that the Haskell Indian Nations University
Board of Regents, when approving this legislation, said something that
was very, very significant that to date has not been read. It simply
says,

Be it further resolved that Haskell develop its alternative
administrative systems in a spirit of cooperation and input
from administration, faculty, staff, and students; that its
newly developed pay, leave and benefit packages emphasize
comparable support for current employees, and that
implementation of these alternative systems will not
eliminate the right of Federal employees to engage in
collective bargaining.

Mr. Chairman, one of my major concerns is that when I look at the
legislation, and I refer to section 4(D), it says, and I quote,

Collective bargaining agreements. Any collective bargaining
agreement in effect on the day before a demonstration project
under this act commences shall continue to be recognized by
the institution involved until the earlier of, one, the date
occurring 3 years after the commencement date of the project;
2, the date as of which the agreement is scheduled to expire;
3, such date as may be determined by mutual agreement of the
parties.

Basically what that means is that we have a possibility and
probability that the very Board of Regents, the very Board of Regents
whose job it is and whose duty it is to uplift this great institution
has said one thing, and that is that they said that they wanted the
administration, faculty, staff and students to have a role in all that
goes on here, and they wanted to make sure that collective bargaining
went forward, but the bill itself says that it is quite possible that
as soon as the agreement runs out, if the agreement runs out, and of
course it is calling for, the legislation calls for a 5-year
demonstration project, which means that one could literally have a
situation where the very intent of the very institution, that is, the
Board of Regents, their very intent is actually destroyed by this very
legislation.
So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, goes to making sure that OPM maintains
the type of authority that it is mandated to have over a federally
funded institution.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to vote in favor of my amendment.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I found the portion of the resolution that the
gentleman from Maryland just read, and it is pretty fantastic when one
considers the claims he has been making over the last hour or so that
employees are not going to be involved. Here we have a commitment on
behalf of the Board of Haskell Indian Nations University to maintain
the involvement of employees just as they have been involved in this
process over the last 10, 8 to 10 years, since 1990.
The fact of the matter is this amendment is an amendment that tries
to say, Washington knows best. It does not matter what one says on the
local level about a spirit of cooperation and wanting to work with the
employees, we know better how to make sure that happens, and that is we
maintain control here in Washington.
Mr. Chairman, the college's ability to offer portable retirement
benefits, which would be taken out under the amendment of the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), that opportunity, that portable
retirement benefit is vital to recruiting experienced teachers from
other institutions.
I taught for a couple of years at the college level, and I can tell
my colleagues that most college professors participate in a retirement
system called TIAA/CREF which allows them to build up pension benefits
as they move from school to school in the course of their careers. But
if I am an instructor who moves to Haskell or to SIPI, I cannot keep
contributing to my TIAA/CREF Creft plan. I also have to enroll in FERS
instead, the Federal system. If I stay less than 5 years, and that is a
common occurrence for instructors of other colleges, I do not get my
benefits, and I make no progress toward providing for my retirement.
This inability to offer the same portable retirement benefits as any
other civilian institution of higher education in the country is an
enormous handicap in trying to recruit any new teachers and attracting
additional professors. This directly impacts the ability to improve the
quality of education that the students of Haskell and SIPI receive.

{time} 1530

If Members want to improve the quality of Native American education,
then reject the substitute and support H.R. 4259. The bill is necessary
to permit Haskell and SIPI to compete for top quality educators. We
found that candidates for those positions that were initially attracted
and wanted to teach at Haskell and SIPI would lose interest when they
were told they could not bring their own retirement programs with them
or they would be unable to take their retirement benefits earned at
Haskell to another university.
The Federal Employee's Retirement System, which would cover new
faculty members, is not fully portable. It consists of three parts:
Social Security, the Thrift Savings Plan and the FERS basic annuity.
And while Social Security and the Thrift Savings benefits are portable,
the basic annuity is not. Under FERS, an employee must stay with the
government for 5 years to qualify for any retirement benefit. And
employees who spend less time are only entitled to a refund of their
contributions.
The Civil Service Retirement System is not portable at all. Moreover,
testimony before the Subcommittee on Civil Service shows FERS and CSRS
are skewed in favor of long-term employees.
The purpose of a retirement system is to attract and retain high-
quality employees. A retirement system that discourages high-quality
applicants is a hindrance, not a help. It would be a disservice to the
students of Haskell and SIPI to force these institutions to stay in the
Federal Government's general retirement systems for no other

[[Page H9643]]

reason than bureaucratic inconvenience. One size does not fit all.
In the past, Congress has recognized this. Many Federal entities such
as the TVA, the State Department, the Federal Reserve Board, have been
allowed to develop their own retirement systems to meet their
particular needs. It is important to note too that anyone with 1 year's
Federal service who is employed at Haskell or SIPI, let me emphasize
this, any current employees who have been there for 1 year when this
demonstration project begins cannot be required to leave the Federal
benefits system. In other words, they can choose between the benefits
system that they are under or they can choose a new alternative system
if that is what the plan provides for.
Mr. Chairman, to truly help these institutions provide an excellent
education for their Native American students, Members should defeat the
Cummings amendment, and I ask for their vote on H.R. 4259 as it is
written.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cummings substitute amendment.
This bill, as much as any I have seen on the floor in recent weeks,
shows how little comity we have in this body, for this is a matter that
could have been worked out.
Instead, this is a bill going for a veto, apparently
enthusiastically. The Cummings substitute is a good faith substitute.
For example, it contains an exception to the cap on demonstration
projects indicating that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is
not against such demonstration projects on their face.
I have to say for the record that there are parts of this bill that I
am personally sympathetic with. First of all, I detest bureaucracy. Do
not forget, I am from the District of Columbia where I have had to live
with insane rules. I am always going after my own people to break
through to where the meat is.
Moreover, I am myself an academic, a tenured professor of law who
teaches a seminar every other Monday at Georgetown University Law
Center. So, I am sympathetic with the flexibility that I think an
academic institution needs.
But I have to ask, Mr. Chairman, why would anybody want to do a
demonstration project without monitoring it to see what has been
demonstrated so that one could spread it or correct it?
Now, the Cummings substitute has the expert government agency
monitoring and evaluating this demonstration project, the OPM. Whereas
the bill itself has the Secretary of Interior who knows nothing, of
course, about personnel and other issues involved in this bill.
I can just see it now, Mr. Chairman. At some point if this bill were
ever passed and signed, somebody in this body would ask for the GAO to
do an evaluation of this matter because an expert group had not, in
fact, evaluated it.
If we want it to have any integrity, if we want it to have any
credibility, why not have OPM, which has not an iron in that fire, look
at it, evaluate. If we do not like what they say, we can always look at
it ourselves in committee.
Moreover, leaving employee organizations out of the development of
such a project is a recipe for disaster. Modern American business
understands how these things have to work these days. Bring everybody
in under the umbrella and make it go. Otherwise, we leave the
dissenters on the outside, leave those who represent the employees on
the outside, leaving dissension.
We need employee cooperation if we are serious about success. We do
not have to get union cooperation on everything that we do, but sitting
down and talking with them is a whole lot better way to assure success
than leaving them out to throw stones. The fact is, if we had had
hearings on this bill, we probably could have worked out many of these
issues. I, for one, would have sought a compromise because so many
parts of this bill I am sympathetic with.
Instead, we thought this bill was not going to come forward. It leaps
over all of the rules of this body and appears, voila, on the floor.
Mr. Chairman, what I ask that this body do is take this piece of
legislation, do not go for a veto, instead go for a bill. Send this
bill back or, in the alternative, support the Cummings substitute.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, all that we have been asking to do under this bill was
to allow Haskell and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute some
flexibility to compete in the open market within the university system
so that they can attract additional qualified personnel to come to
these two institutions and help Native Americans expand the
opportunities that they have for higher education.
That is what was progressing fine, and now we are hearing the
potential veto threat that this is not going to be accepted by the
administration, that they want to continue to keep these two
institutions with their hands tied.
If Members have read the ``Trail of Tears,'' they know that this
government for far too long has manipulated Native Americans. I think
it is time that we allow them some flexibility in order to enable them
to move into a competitive market.
In Wichita, Kansas, we have Wichita State University. It is a fine
institution under the Kansas Board of Regents and they have a
retirement system that is competitive, so that they are competitive
with other institutions across the Nation, so they can bring in
qualified instructors to teach at such a fine institution. And I have
no idea why someone would want to leave such a fine institute as
Wichita State University, but if they were to decide to leave and go to
Haskell or go to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic, then they would be
risking, I think they would be risking the retirement benefits that
they have been building up. This would make it very unattractive for
them to move to this institution to help try to raise the level of
education for Native Americans.
What this bill says that is being proposed by the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) is that we allow this flexibility. Instead, now
we have a substitute that we are facing offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and essentially what he is doing is gutting
the bill, eliminating the possibility of any alternate systems of
retirement or any alternate benefits. What does that do? It again
limits the opportunities that these two institutions have in going out
and finding a solution to their problems of bringing in new faculty.
What is the issue behind this? Why are we facing this? It seems to be
a conflict between giving just two schools, Haskell University and the
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
the opportunity to go out and compete. Or do we keep them restricted by
civil service guidelines and by limited retirement benefits? Do we free
them up to go compete or do we bind them up?
There are millions of employees under the civil service system. The
government has control over all of their benefits. Here we are just
asking for a little flexibility to improve these two institutions. And
we did not do it in the dark. It was not done in the dark. They
involved the schools. They involved the employees. They involved the
unions.
The solution was: Give us a little flexibility to come up with a
system so that we can attract new personnel in. Do not bind our hands.
Give us the flexibility to bring in new talent so that we can raise the
level of education at these two institutions.
Well, now we have this substitute that is not supported by the Indian
tribes. I have a list here of the 32 tribes that are going to submit a
letter in support of H.R. 4259. And rather than read those, knowing
that they are part of the Record, I just would want to say that this
has strong support by both these institutions, by the people that are
at these institutions, even the unions that are involved, and certainly
these 32 tribes who have gone out so far as to write a letter in
support of this legislation.
So, I would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and vote for H.R. 4259.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.

[[Page H9644]]

Cummings) thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. And I share
the same concerns that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) expressed
so eloquently.
As a Member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, there are a lot of things that we have
done this year that people have complained about that the full
committee has done. And I would say that a lot of things that the
subcommittee has done under the leadership of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) that
we have been applauded for.
Some of the problems that have been expressed and raised by both of
my dear friends probably could have been addressed and rectified and
their concerns could have been assuaged at a minimum, if not altogether
eliminated, had we on this committee had an opportunity to address some
of those concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reemphasize three points that have been
raised. Current law already provides sufficient authority for an agency
to conduct a demonstration project. And the different retirement and
insurance programs could create undesirable inequities in the
compensation programs if Federal employees moved in and out of the
system. I am certain that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
could understand that concern that not only we on this side of the
aisle have, but workers would have as well.
And finally, employee organization will not have any input in the
development of the demonstration project. Again, it is my hope that my
colleagues will oppose H.R. 4259 and support the substitute offered by
the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for
yielding me this time. I think that the points that the gentleman made
are very significant. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) is a very
hard-working member of our subcommittee and as he said clearly, I mean,
we just want an opportunity to see this legislation come before the
subcommittee so that we could effectively address it.
One thing I might also say is that we are very fortunate to have
probably one of the most closely knit subcommittees in the Congress in
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Civil
Service. We have done a lot of things in a bipartisan manner. I think
that this is something that we could have worked out.
But be that as it may, let me just go on to say that one of the
things I think we are losing focus on here is that these universities,
100 percent of their budget is coming from the Federal Government. I
think that is very, very significant.
I understand and all of us, as I said a little bit earlier,
understand and want our young people to rise up to be the best that
they can be. We want our universities to be the best that they can be.
But we also know that this is a community effort; employees, faculty,
and students coming together.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will vote against this bill.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I come at this problem with a little bit of background.
Former university president for 18 years, having worked with the
various schools in terms of improving the quality of their instruction.
And I am sure this amendment means well. But I know from experience
that it should not be applied in this situation, or any situation in
which we want to attract first-rate professionals.

{time} 1545

I think we need flexibility, and Indians deserve better in education
than simply overregulation.
The reason I speak very strongly on this is, when what became the
California State University was first authorized by the California
legislature in 1961, and now one of the major series of universities in
America, with probably the best deal, they made one mistake: they
brought two high officials of the civil service system in Washington to
California. It took us two decades to work our way out of that.
We cannot attract the best people for either faculty or support staff
if we do not have freedom to reward people based on their
accomplishments. And the Indians deserve no less.
When I was vice chairman of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, I spent a week on the Navajo reservation looking at the type of
Indian schools that were there and what happened to these young people.
As president of my own university, I built the Indian ratio up,
starting with my first year. Nineteen had been there in a University of
26,000, and all had gone. We raised that to 1 percent, 2 percent of the
student body of 35,000. So we had hundreds of Indian students on
campus. And we brought in young high school students to give them
aspirations that they too could go to college and not be treated as
second-class citizens.
This is not a 2-year college. We are talking about a 4-year college.
If we are to have the faculty that we should have if we have a 4-year
college, or a 4-year institute, or a 4-year university, then we need
flexibility, we need reward systems, we need to provide them with the
kind of environment that they can hold their head up high with other
faculty members throughout the United States. And we need to be able to
retain faculty members. We need to have a decent salary and benefits.
We cannot just be thrown into the batch of regulations that the civil
service once had, and still too much of it hangs over many operations
that ought to be much more professional.
The whole purpose of this legislation, and I commend its author, is
to upgrade the schools and to see that they serve their communities,
and that makes a lot of sense to me. But if we want to wreck it and
just be so-so and say, well, Indians are not good enough to go to a
university, then that is what this amendment says, and I would vote
against it.
They are good enough, and they need people there that will work with
them, understand them, be their faculty and support staff. I think
Haskell Indian University and the Southwestern Polytechnic Institute
will be a real breakthrough for Indian students in the United States.
So if we vote down the amendment and vote for the bill, we will have
done the right thing.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 244, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 485]

AYES--181

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo

[[Page H9645]]

Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--244

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Boucher
Kennelly
Matsui
Parker
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Rush
Stark

{time} 1609

Messrs. BILBRAY, FRANKS of New Jersey, McHUGH and EHRLICH changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HEFNER, Ms. DANNER and Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Without objection, the bill
through section 8 will be considered read.
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) the provision of culturally sensitive curricula for
higher education programs at Haskell Indian Nations
University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
is consistent with the commitment of the Federal Government
to the fulfillment of treaty obligations to Indian tribes
through the principle of self-determination and the use of
Federal resources; and
(2) giving a greater degree of autonomy to those
institutions, while maintaining them as an integral part of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, will facilitate--
(A) the transition of Haskell Indian Nations University to
a 4-year university; and
(B) the administration and improvement of the academic
program of the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS; APPLICABILITY.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Employee.--The term ``employee'', with respect to an
institution named in subsection (b), means an individual
employed in or under such institution.
(3) Eligible.--The term ``eligible'' means an individual
who has qualified for appointment in the institution involved
and whose name has been entered on the appropriate register
or list of eligibles.
(4) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration
project'' means a project conducted by or under the
supervision of an institution named in subsection (b) to
determine whether specified changes in personnel management
policies or procedures would result in improved personnel
management.
(b) Applicability.--This Act applies to--
(1) Haskell Indian Nations University, located in Lawrence,
Kansas; and
(2) Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, located in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Each institution named in section 3(b) may
conduct a demonstration project in accordance with the
provisions of this Act. The conducting of any such
demonstration project shall not be limited by any lack of
specific authority under title 5, United States Code, to take
the action contemplated, or by any provision of such title or
any rule or regulation prescribed under such title which is
inconsistent with the action, including any provision of law,
rule, or regulation relating to--
(1) the methods of establishing qualification requirements
for, recruitment for, and appointment to positions;
(2) the methods of classifying positions and compensating
employees;
(3) the methods of assigning, reassigning, or promoting
employees;
(4) the methods of disciplining employees;
(5) the methods of providing incentives to employees,
including the provision of group or individual incentive
bonuses or pay;
(6) the hours of work per day or per week;
(7) the methods of involving employees, labor
organizations, and employee organizations in personnel
decisions; and
(8) the methods of reducing overall staff and grade levels.
(b) Consultation and Other Requirements.--Before commencing
a demonstration project under this Act, the president of the
institution involved shall--
(1) in consultation with the board of regents of the
institution and such other persons or representative bodies
as the president considers appropriate, develop a plan for
such project which identifies--
(A) the purposes of the project;
(B) the types of employees or eligibles to be included
(categorized by occupational series, grade, or organizational
unit);
(C) the number of employees or eligibles to be included (in
the aggregate and by category);
(D) the methodology;
(E) the duration;
(F) the training to be provided;
(G) the anticipated costs;
(H) the methodology and criteria for evaluation, consistent
with subsection (f);
(I) a specific description of any aspect of the project for
which there is a lack of specific authority; and
(J) a specific citation to any provision of law, rule, or
regulation which, if not waived, would prohibit the
conducting of the project, or any part of the project as
proposed;
(2) publish the plan in the Federal Register;
(3) submit the plan so published to public hearing;
(4) at least 180 days before the date on which the proposed
project is to commence, provide notification of such project
to--
(A) employees likely to be affected by the project; and
(B) each House of Congress;
(5) at least 90 days before the date on which the proposed
project is to commence, provide each House of Congress with a
report setting forth the final version of the plan; and
(6) at least 60 days before the date on which the proposed
project is to commence, inform all employees as to the final
version of the plan, including all information relevant to
the making of an election under subsection (h)(2)(A).
(c) Limitations.--No demonstration project under this Act
may--
(1) provide for a waiver of--
(A) any provision of law, rule, or regulation providing
for--
(i) equal employment opportunity;
(ii) Indian preference; or
(iii) veterans' preference;
(B) any provision of chapter 23 of title 5, United States
Code, or any other provision of such title relating to merit
system principles or prohibited personnel practices, or any
rule or regulation prescribed under authority of any such
provision; or
(C) any provision of subchapter II or III of chapter 73 of
title 5, United States Code, or any rule or regulation
prescribed under authority of any such provision;
(2) impose any duty to engage in collective bargaining with
respect to--
(A) classification of positions; or
(B) pay, benefits, or any other form of compensation; or
(3) provide that any employee be required to pay dues or
fees of any kind to a labor organization as a condition of
employment.

[[Page H9646]]

(d) Commencement and Termination Dates.--Each demonstration
project under this Act--
(1) shall commence within 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(2) shall terminate by the end of the 5-year period
beginning on the date on which such project commences, except
that the project may continue beyond the end of such 5-year
period--
(A) to the extent necessary to validate the results of the
project; and
(B) to the extent provided for under subsection (h)(2)(B).
(e) Discretionary Authority To Terminate.--A demonstration
project under this Act may be terminated by the Secretary or
the president of the institution involved if either
determines that the project creates a substantial hardship
on, or is not in the best interests of, the institution and
its educational goals.
(f) Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for an
evaluation of the results of each demonstration project under
this Act and its impact on improving public management.
(2) Information.--Upon request of the Secretary, an
institution named in section 3(b) shall cooperate with and
assist the Secretary, to the extent practicable, in any
evaluation undertaken under this subsection and provide the
Secretary with requested information and reports relating to
the conducting of its demonstration project.
(g) Role of the Office of Personnel Management.--Upon
request of the Secretary or the president of an institution
named in section 3(b), the Office of Personnel Management
shall furnish information or technical advice on the design,
operation, or evaluation, or any other aspect of a
demonstration project under this Act.
(h) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, all applicants for employment with, all eligibles
and employees of, and all positions in or under an
institution named in section 3(b) shall be subject to
inclusion in a demonstration project under this Act.
(2) Provisions relating to certain benefits.--
(A) Option for certain individuals to remain under current
law governing certain benefits.--
(i) Eligible individuals.--This subparagraph applies in the
case of any individual who, as of the day before the date on
which a demonstration project under this Act is to commence
at an institution--

(I) is an employee of such institution; and
(II) if benefits under subchapter III of chapter 83 or
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, are to be
affected, has completed at least 1 year of Government service
(whether with such institution or otherwise), but taking into
account only civilian service creditable under subchapter III
of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of such title.

(ii) Option.--If a demonstration project is to include
changes to any benefits under subpart G of part III of title
5, United States Code, an employee described in clause (i)
shall be afforded an election not to become subject to such
demonstration project, to the extent those benefits are
involved (and to instead remain subject to the provisions of
such subpart G as if this Act had not been enacted).
(B) Continuation of certain alternative benefit systems
after demonstration project terminates for persons becoming
subject thereto under the project.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the termination of a demonstration
project shall not, in the case of an employee who becomes
subject to a system of alternative benefits under this Act
(in lieu of benefits that would otherwise be determined under
subpart G of part III of title 5, United States Code), have
the effect of terminating--
(i) any rights accrued by that individual under the system
of alternative benefits involved; or
(ii) the system under which those alternative benefits are
afforded, to the extent continuation of such system beyond
the termination date is provided for under the terms of the
demonstration project (as in effect on the termination date).
(3) Transition provisions.--
(A) Retention of annual and sick leave accrued before
becoming subject to demonstration project.--Any individual
becoming subject to a demonstration project under this Act
shall, in a manner consistent with the requirements of
section 6308 of title 5, United States Code, be credited with
any annual leave and any sick leave standing to such
individual's credit immediately before becoming subject to
the project.
(B) Provisions relating to credit for leave upon separating
while the demonstration project is still ongoing.--Any
demonstration project under this Act shall include provisions
consistent with the following:
(i) Lump-sum credit for annual leave.--In the case of any
individual who, at the time of becoming subject to the
demonstration project, has any leave for which a lump-sum
payment might be paid under subchapter VI of chapter 55 of
title 5, United States Code, such individual shall, if such
individual separates from service (in the circumstances
described in section 5551 or 5552 of such title 5, as
applicable) while the demonstration project is still ongoing,
be entitled to a lump-sum payment under such section 5551 or
5552 (as applicable) based on the amount of leave standing to
such individual's credit at the time such individual became
subject to the demonstration project or the amount of leave
standing to such individual's credit at the time of
separation, whichever is less.
(ii) Retirement credit for sick leave.--In the case of any
individual who, at the time of becoming subject to the
demonstration project, has any sick leave which would be
creditable under section 8339(m) of title 5, United States
Code (had such individual then separated from service), any
sick leave standing to such individual's credit at the time
of separation shall, if separation occurs while the
demonstration project is still ongoing, be so creditable, but
only to the extent that it does not exceed the amount of
creditable sick leave that stood to such individual's credit
at the time such individual became subject to the
demonstration project.
(C) Transfer of leave remaining upon transfer to another
agency.--In the case of any employee who becomes subject to
the demonstration project and is subsequently transferred or
otherwise appointed (without a break in service of 3 days or
longer) to another position in the Federal Government or the
government of the District of Columbia under a different
leave system (whether while the project is still ongoing or
otherwise), any leave remaining to the credit of that
individual which was earned or credited under the
demonstration project shall be transferred to such
individual's credit in the new employing agency on an
adjusted basis under regulations prescribed under section
6308 of title 5, United States Code. Any such regulations
shall be prescribed taking into account the provisions of
subparagraph (B).
(D) Collective-bargaining agreements.--Any collective-
bargaining agreement in effect on the day before a
demonstration project under this Act commences shall continue
to be recognized by the institution involved until the
earlier of--
(i) the date occurring 3 years after the commencement date
of the project;
(ii) the date as of which the agreement is scheduled to
expire (disregarding any option to renew); or
(iii) such date as may be determined by mutual agreement of
the parties.

SEC. 5. DELEGATION OF PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY.

The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations therefor, delegate to the presidents of the
respective institutions named in section 3(b) procurement and
contracting authority with respect to the conduct of the
administrative functions of such institution.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated, for fiscal year
1999, and each fiscal year thereafter, to each of the
respective institutions named in section 3(b)--
(1) the amount of funds made available by appropriations as
operations funding for the administration of such institution
for fiscal year 1998; and
(2) such additional sums as may be necessary for the
operation of such institution pursuant to this Act.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

The president of each institution named in section 3(b)
may, in consultation with the appropriate entities (referred
to in section 4(b)(1)), prescribe any regulations necessary
to carry out this Act.

SEC. 8. LEGISLATION TO MAKE CHANGES PERMANENT.

Not later than 6 months before the date on which a
demonstration project under this Act is scheduled to expire,
the institution conducting such demonstration project shall
submit to each House of Congress--
(1) recommendations as to whether or not the changes under
such project should be continued or made permanent; and
(2) proposed legislation for any changes in law necessary
to carry out any such recommendations.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Stearns, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4259) to allow Haskell Indian Nations University and the Southwestern
Indian Polytechnic Institute each to conduct a demonstration project to
test the feasibility and desirability of new personnel management
policies and procedures, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 576, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

____________________