[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

       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 and 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 Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations 
     University has by prior Resolutions No. 96-03 and No. 96-09 
     authorized the

[[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.




                          ____________________