[House Report 105-812]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-812
_______________________________________________________________________


 
              FLATHEAD INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECT, MONTANA
                                _______
                                

October 12, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3056]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3056) to provide for the preservation and sustainability 
of the family farm through the transfer of responsibility for 
operation and maintenance of the Flathead Indian Irrigation 
Project, Montana, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF 
                    THE FLATHEAD INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECT, MONTANA.

  (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to preserve and protect the 
viability and sustainability of the family farms and ranches of the 
Jocko Valley, Camas Valley, and Mission Valley, Montana, through the 
transfer of responsibility for operation and maintenance of the 
Irrigation Division of the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project in 
Montana. This Act does not affect and is not intended to affect in any 
way the negotiation or adjudication of water rights, including those of 
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation.
  (b) Definitions.--In this Act:
          (1) Irrigation district.--The term ``irrigation district'' 
        means 1 or more irrigation districts organized in accordance 
        with the paragraph relating to the irrigation systems on the 
        Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana, under the subheading 
        ``irrigation and drainage'' under the heading ``BUREAU OF 
        INDIAN AFFAIRS'' in the Act of May 10, 1926 (44 Stat. 464; 
        chapter 277).
          (2) Project.--The term ``Project'' means Irrigation Division 
        of the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project constructed under 
        section 14 of the Act of April 23, 1904 (33 Stat. 305, chapter 
        1495) and section 14 of the Act of May 29, 1908 (35 Stat. 450, 
        chapter 216).
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' refers to the Confederated 
        Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, a federally 
        recognized tribe organized pursuant to the Indian 
        Reorganization Act of 1934.
  (c) Contract.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Interior (in this Act referred to as the 
``Secretary'') shall offer to enter into a contract with the irrigation 
district under which the irrigation district will operate and manage 
the Project, including all rights and powers exercised by the Secretary 
in the operation of the works, which include the right to use permanent 
easements purchased under the Act of May 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 269, 
chapter 340). Such contract shall contain each of the following 
provisions:
          (1) Provisions identifying the trust responsibilities of the 
        United States to the Tribe that are affected by the operation 
        and maintenance of the Irrigation Division and ensuring that 
        the United States is able to fulfill such responsibilities.
          (2) Provisions ensuring that in its operation and maintenance 
        of the Irrigation Division the irrigation district maintains 
        the interim instream flows established by the Bureau of Indian 
        Affairs to preserve fisheries pending adjudication of water 
        rights and, thereafter, as required by the rulings of said 
        adjudication or negotiation.
          (3) Provisions ensuring that existing obligations governing 
        the repayment of the construction costs of the Project are 
        continued unaffected by this enactment and the contract; except 
        that providing the irrigation districts shall make a payment of 
        $1,000,000 to the United States Treasury on the unmatured 
        installments of construction debt by December 31, 2001.
          (4) Provisions amending the existing repayment contracts 
        between the irrigation district and the United States to 
        provide that net revenues from the operation of the Power 
        Division shall not be used to pay operation and maintenance 
        costs of the Irrigation Division.
          (5) Provisions providing for revocation of the contract and 
        the irrigation district's right to operate and maintain the 
        Project if a court of the United States finds that the 
        irrigation district has operated and persists in operating the 
        Project in a manner willingly and knowingly damaging tribal 
        trust assets, but operation of the Project as it was operated 
        by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Plan of Operations in effect on 
        October 31, 1997, shall be presumed to provide adequate 
        protection of such assets, and any changes in operation 
        required as a result of new information and administrative 
        policies and decisions adopted pursuant to title 5, United 
        States Code, judicial decisions, or negotiations shall not be a 
        ground for revocation of the contract unless the irrigation 
        district refuses to adapt its operation and maintenance of the 
        Project to the requirements of such new information, judicial 
        decisions, or negotiations.
  (d) Timing.--The Secretary shall commence negotiations with the 
irrigation district as soon as practicable to enable the Secretary and 
the irrigation district to enter into the contract not later than 1 
year after the date of enactment of this Act.
  (e) Property Rights.--
          (1) In general.--Under the contract, the Secretary shall 
        transfer to the irrigation district ownership of all equipment, 
        machinery, office supplies, and other supplies and equipment 
        paid for with operation and maintenance funds related to the 
        project.
          (2) Inventory list.--The Secretary shall provide an inventory 
        list of all supplies and equipment at the Project as of the 
        date of enactment of this Act, that were purchased with 
        operation and maintenance funds.
          (3) Real property.--Under the contract, the Secretary shall 
        not transfer to the irrigation district ownership of any real 
        property right, whether to land, or an easement therein, nor 
        shall the Secretary transfer to the irrigation district the 
        ownership of any water right.
  (f) Water Rights.--This Act does not affect the negotiation of water 
rights between the State of Montana, the United States, and the 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

                          purpose of the bill

    The purpose of H.R. 3056 is to provide for the preservation 
and sustainability of the family farm through the transfer of 
responsibility for operation and maintenance of the Flathead 
Indian Irrigation Project, Montana.

                  background and need for legislation

    The Flathead Irrigation Project was authorized in 1908, as 
an amendment to the Flathead Allotment Act of 1904. The Project 
is located on the Flathead Reservation, but the amendment 
required that water be delivered to all irrigable land, whether 
owned by tribal members or nonmembers. Of the 127,000 acres in 
the Flathead Irrigation Project, 116,000 acres are in private 
ownership, with the Irrigation Districts representing 113,000 
acres. Of the 22,000 people living on the Flathead Reservation 
in the 1990 census, only 3000 were tribal members. Moreover, 90 
percent of the land-delivered water is owned in fee by non-
tribal members.
    The operation and maintenance of the Project is now managed 
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the 
Interior (the tribes manage the Power Division of the Project). 
The Project landowners pay 100 percent of the operation and 
maintenance costs of the Project associated with their land. 
However, the operating costs are high, in some cases 50 to 100 
percent higher than similar irrigation projects in Montana.
    The bill would transfer only the authority to operate and 
maintain the Irrigation Division to the Districts. It does not 
transfer any property rights, including water rights.

                            committee action

    H.R. 3056 was introduced on November 13, 1997, by 
Congressman Rick Hill (R-MT). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Water and Power. The Subcommittee on Water and 
Power held a legislative hearing on the bill on April 30, 1998. 
On June 25, 1998, the Subcommittee on Water and Power met to 
consider H.R. 3056. No amendments were offered and the bill was 
favorably reported to the Full Committee by a rollcall vote of 
7-5, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Republicans               Yea       Nay     Present       Democrats         Yea       Nay     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doolittle......................        X   ........  .........  DeFazio..........  ........        X   .........
Calvert........................        X   ........  .........  Miller...........  ........        X   .........
Pombo..........................        X   ........  .........  Pickett..........  ........  ........  .........
Chenoweth......................        X   ........  .........  Dooley...........  ........        X   .........
Smith, Linda...................  ........  ........  .........  Farr.............  ........        X   .........
Radanovich.....................  ........  ........  .........  Smith, Adam......  ........  ........  .........
Thornberry.....................        X   ........  .........  Kind.............  ........  ........  .........
Shadegg........................  ........  ........  .........  Doggett..........  ........        X   .........
Ensign.........................  ........  ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
Smith, Bob.....................  ........  ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
Cannon.........................        X   ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
Crapo..........................        X   ........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........
                                -------------------------------                   ------------------------------
      Total Republicans........        7   ........  .........        Total        ........        5   .........
                                                                 Democrats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 1998, the Full Resources Committee met to 
consider H.R. 3056. Congressman Hill offered an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute which clarified the effects of the 
bill on tribal water rights; clarified the extent of the 
transfer; and delineated the parameters for the operation and 
maintenance contract between the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Irrigation Districts. The amendment was adopted by voice 
vote and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported 
to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan rollcall vote 
of 25-6, as follows:
    Roll No.: 1.
    Bill No.: H.R. 3056.
    Short title: Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, Montana.
    Amendment or matter voted on: Final Passage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                 Yea       Nay     Present         Member          Yea       Nay     Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young (Chairman)...........        X   ........  .........  Mr. Miller.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Tauzin.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Markey.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Hansen.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Rahall.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Saxton.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Vento........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Gallegly...................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Kildee.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Duncan.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. DeFazio......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Hefley.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Falemavaega..  ........        X   .........
Mr. Doolittle..................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Abercrombie..  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Gilchrest..................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Ortiz........        X   ........  .........
Mr. Calvert....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Pickett......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Pombo......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Pallone......  ........  ........  .........
Mrs. Cubin.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Dooley.......  ........  ........  .........
Mrs. Chenoweth.................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Romero-        ........  ........  .........
                                                                 Barcelo.
Mrs. Linda Smith...............        X   ........  .........  Mr. Hinchey......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Radanovich.................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Underwood....  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Jones......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Farr.........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Thornberry.................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Kennedy......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Shadegg....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Adam Smith...  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Ensign.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Delahunt.....  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Bob Smith..................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. John.........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Cannon.....................        X   ........  .........  Ms. Green........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Brady......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Kind.........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Peterson...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Doggett......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Hill.......................        X   ........  .........
Mr. Schaffer...................        X   ........  .........
Mr. Gibbons....................        X   ........  .........
Mr. Crapo......................        X   ........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 3056.

                        COST OF THE LEGISLATION

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 3056. However, clause 7(d) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
3056 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax 
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
enactment of this bill will affect offsetting revenues by 
reducing direct spending.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 3056.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
2108 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3056, a bill to 
provide for the preservation and sustain ability of the family 
farm through the transfer of responsibility for operation and 
maintenance of the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, Montana.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kristen 
Layman (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for state, 
local, and tribal costs).
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (for June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3056--A bill to provide for the preservation and sustainability of 
        the family farm through the transfer of responsibility of the 
        Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, Montana

    H.R. 3056 would transfer responsibility for operating and 
maintaining the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project from the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to local irrigation districts in 
Montana. The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior 
to enter into a contract with the irrigation districts to 
transfer this responsibility within one year of the bill's 
enactment. In addition, the bill would require the districts to 
make a payment of $1 million to the U.S. Treasury by December 
31, 2001. Finally, H.R. 3056 would transfer all irrigation 
equipment, machinery, and office supplies to the districts and 
would grant them access to use permanent easements purchased by 
the federal government for operating the irrigation project.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3056 would result in 
new discretionary spending of less than $1 million over fiscal 
years 1999 and 2000, assuming the availability of appropriated 
funds. This spending would be for the costs of negotiating a 
contract with the irrigation districts and paying severance to 
BIA employees whose jobs would be eliminated by the transfer.
    In addition, enacting H.R. 3056 would affect direct 
spending, primarily by changing offsetting receipts collected 
by the federal government; and thus, pay-as-you-go procedures 
would apply to the bill. In total, CBO estimates that enacting 
H.R. 3056 would reduce direct spending by about $1 million 
either in fiscal year 2001 or the first quarter of fiscal year 
2002, and that the net imipact on direct spending would be less 
than $500,000 in other years over the 1999-2003 period.
    First, CBO estimates the bill would increase offsetting 
receipts by $1 million in either fiscal year 2001 or 2002 by 
requiring that the irrigation districts make such a payment as 
a condition for the transfer. Second, because the federal 
government would no longer operate and maintain the Flathead 
Project, enacting the bill would eliminate both the collections 
of fees charged for operating the project and the direct 
spending that results from using such fee income. The loss of 
fees and the reduction in spending of such fees would offset 
each other. Finally, by transferring irrigation equipment and 
machinery to the districts, the bill would likely decrease 
offsetting receipts from the sale of surplus federal property, 
but CBO estimates that any forgone receipts would probably be 
less than $500,000.
    H.R. 3056 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Local 
governments might incur some costs as a result of the bill's 
enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Kristen Layman 
(for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for state, local, and 
tribal costs). This estimate was approved by Paul N. Van de 
Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    H.R. 3056 contains no unfunded mandates.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, H.R. 3056 would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We are strongly opposed to H.R. 3056, legislation proposing 
to shift operations and management of the Flathead Indian 
Irrigation Project (FIIP) away from control by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA)--and thus away from the Flathead Tribes--
by transferring such authority to the Flathead Reservation's 
non-Indian irrigation districts (known as the Joint Board of 
Control or JBC).
    FIIP is the largest irrigation project in the state of 
Montana and includes 17 dams and over 1,300 miles of canals and 
laterals. Most of the water stored or diverted by the project 
arises on an flows westwardly from the 10,000 foot Mission 
Mountain range. This project was built and paid for by the BIA. 
The original 1904 congressional authorization makes it quite 
clear that the project was to benefit the Reservation's Indian 
population. To this day, these are Tribal lands held in trust 
by the United States. Nearly all of the project's reservoirs 
are in this area and are on Tribal or Indian owned lands. 
Transferring these facilities to non-Indian control would 
violate our trust obligation to the Tribes and the commitments 
made in Treaty and in the statutory authorizations of the FIIP.
    The early part of this century was a time in Federal /
Indian relations generally known as the Allotment Era. During 
that period, the Federal government pursued an ill-conceived 
policy intended to break up the communal nature of the Indian 
reservations, contravening the commitments the nation had made 
to tribes just 50 years earlier during the Treaty Era. In the 
Treat of Hellgate, the Federal government gave assurances to 
the Salish and Kootenai Tribes that it would protect the 
Reservation and its resources and preserve them for the 
exclusive use of the Tribes. The later concept of allotting the 
reservations by granting each Tribal member 80 or 160 acres was 
an attempt to transform the Indian people into a European model 
of a farming society. On the Flathead Reservation, transforming 
the Indians into farmers required water for crops, so the 
Congress authorized the construction of FIIP as part of the 
Flathead Allotment Act. In addition, those lands that remained 
after the Reservation was allotted were declared ``surplus'' 
and opened to non-Indian homesteading in direct violation of 
the 1855 Treaty. The authorization for FIIP was amended in 
1908, allowing irrigation canals to be extended to also serve 
homesteaders. The legislative history reflects the 
understanding of Congress ``that in all probability three-
fourths of the irrigable lands would be allotted to Indians.'' 
(H.R. Rep. No. 1189, 60th Cong., 1st Sess, 2 (1908)).
    The 1904 Flathead Allotment Act (FAA) authorized proceeds 
from the forced sale of Reservation lands an Tribal timber to 
be used to pay for most of the construction costs of FIIP. The 
1908 amendments required the homesteaders to repay the United 
States for their pro rata share of the debt of construction for 
those portions of the project that were serving homesteaded or 
unallotted lands. The amendments further specified that when 
the debt had been repaid on those portions of the project 
serving unallotted lands, ``such irrigation works'' would pass 
to the owners of those lands. The non-Indian irrigators have 
argued repeatedly that this provision mandates ``turnover'' of 
all project works to their control, but this argument has been 
rejected by the courts and various Solicitors of the Department 
of the Interior. In 1987, President Reagan's Interior and 
Justice Department Solicitors informed the U.S. District Court 
for Montana that, relative to the turnover provision, ``The 
Secretary submits that the plaintiff (JBC) asks the court to 
read a statute Congress never wrote * * * The plaintiff's 
interpretation of the law is inaccurate.''
    It is with this important historical background that we 
find ourselves addressing H.R. 3056. The basic premise for H.R. 
3056 is the JBC's contention that it can quite simply operate 
the FIIP more efficiently than can the BIA and that the BIA has 
mismanaged the project so this Indian irrigation project should 
be turned over to the non-Indian irrigation districts. No 
evidence has been presented to the Committee regarding the 
alleged efficiency that would be gained through the JBC's 
operation. No alternative annual operating plans or budgets 
were provided to the Committee, just the unadorned claim that 
they can do it cheaper and that the BIA's annual operations and 
maintenance (O&M) charges are to high.
    As indicated above, FIIP is one of the largest irrigation 
projects in the country and most of the reservoirs and many of 
the canals are on Tribal lands, not fee lands owned by non-
Indians. The reservoirs have a major impact on Treaty rights, 
including hunting, fishing and other types of outdoor 
activities such as camping. The canals intersect most rivers 
and streams crossing the Reservation and can quite readily be 
managed to dry up those streams. Since the project has a major 
impact on the Reservation's Treaty guaranteed fishery 
population and habitat, costs of operating the project have 
included fish screens and access to biological experts for 
questions of stream flows that are needed to protect the 
fishery.
    The Committee has received no evidence that the non-Indian 
irrigators could better manage these impacts of the project, 
and in fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. In 1987, 1989, 
1990, 1991 and 1992 the JBC went to the Interior Board of 
Indian Appeals to challenge the project's recommended instream 
flow regime. The JBC also objected to, and for a period of time 
refused to pay for, the installation of fish screens to prevent 
fish from being sucked out of the Reservation's streams and 
into irrigation canals. The BIA has access not only to fishery 
biologists, but to hydrologists and many other professionals. 
Under a contract with the BIA, the Flathead Tribes have 
undertaken a multi-million dollar Safety of Dams project to 
repair a number of the dams on the Reservation that are aging 
and in need of repair. The Committee received no evidence 
indicating that the farmers who constitute the JBC would be 
willing and capable to take over these obligations. Ironically, 
if the Flathead Tribes themselves were to propose to take over 
management and operation of the FIIP under the Indian Self-
Determination Act (P.L. 93-638 as amended) they would have to 
demonstrate capability. Nothing in this bill imposes the same 
requirement on the non-Indian irrigators.
    While the proponents of H.R. 3056 claim that the BIA O&M 
charges are too high, the Committee did receive evidence that 
the immediately adjacent Missoula Irrigation Project, an off-
reservation, non-federal project, has O&M fees of $22 per 
acre--more than $2 per acre higher than the O&M fees at FIIP. 
Without specific evidence that the non-Indian irrigators could 
produce significant savings, these figures suggest that the BIA 
O&M costs are not out of line. In addition, the Tribes have 
expressed concern that Indian employees of the FIIP might lose 
their jobs with the change in management, contributing to high 
Reservation unemployment rates.
    In closing, we point out the strong distate we have not 
just for taking this important piece of Reservation 
infrastructure away from the people for whom the Reservation 
was established, but in weighing in after the courts have 
repeatedly--at the federal, state, tribal and administrative 
level--and overwhelmingly rejected the position of the JBC on 
turnover and other aspects of project operation. The courts 
have had far more opportunity to examine the nuances of this 
matter than has the Committee and they have not found any 
justification for the transfer of the project. Similar opinions 
have been given by Interior Department Solicitors in two 
Republican and one Democratic Administration that have examined 
the manner.
    Not only is there no justification for this bill, but it 
establishes a precedent that will be of concern to every other 
Indian reservation with an infrastructure that also benefits 
local non-Indians. H.R. 3056 should be rejected.

                                   George Miller.
                                   Peter DeFazio.
                                   Dale E. Kildee.
                                   Eni Faleomavaega.
                                   Donna Christian-Green.
                                   Bruce Vento.