Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, those who teach our children often say that we must teach to their strengths, and I am so glad that when our next speaker heard about this young man's efforts she realized that he had a strong conviction to do something and to make sure that he righted a wrong, as I said a little bit earlier. I am so glad that the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) from Indianapolis took his situation, working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) working with the Speaker, working with many, many others, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) who will speak later, and took that cause and saw that this young man had a strength, they did not turn their faces away from him, they looked into his eyes and said: ``We will help you.'' Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), my distinguished colleague. (Ms. CARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of our subcommittee the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for this legislation. Madam Speaker, just Thursday I had the pleasure of managing a resolution that recognized KidsPeace, an organization that established National KidsDay and National Family Month. KidsPeace established these celebrations to focus our attention on the importance of children and the role we should play in nurturing and encouraging them. The parents of Hunter Scott have done just that, and look at the outcome. Hunter brought to the attention of this body and the American people a tragedy that occurred decades before his birth. The 13-year- old boy researched and uncovered evidence that suggested Charles B. McVay, III, the captain of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, was wrongly convicted of negligence for the loss of the U.S.S. Indianapolis near the end of World War II. McVay was the first officer in the history of the United States Navy to be court-martialed for losing his ship to enemy fire in time of war. After conducting interviews with survivors of the U.S.S. Indianapolis and uncovering other information, Hunter felt that McVay was wrongly accused and brought his case to this body, the House of Representatives. Hunter has been lobbying the Congress to, quote, erase all mention of a court-martial and conviction from Captain McVay's records and get a Presidential Unit Citation for the U.S.S. Indianapolis and her crew. Hunter found that Navy officials knew enemy submarines were in the vicinity of the U.S.S. Indianapolis and did not give Captain McVay that information. He found that the Navy rejected McVay's request for an escort from Guam to the Leyte Gulf in the Philippines where the ship was attacked and sunk by a torpedo with hundreds of lives lost. Hunter began his sixth grade research project by placing an ad in the local newspaper which led to his obtaining a list of the ship's survivors. He contacted the survivors who shared stories, photos and mementos of their ordeal on the Indianapolis. Though the Navy stands by the court-martialing of Mr. McVay, Hunter has been interviewed by network and local television programs, lobbied Members of Congress, and won first place for his research in his county's school history fair. Hunter is an example to his classmates and children everywhere. But more important than all of that, Hunter is a young man who decided that something was wrong. He saw the wrong, and he had the courage to do everything in his power to right it. In the words of a great author, Stephen Carter, in his book Integrity, he says that there are three parts of integrity. He says first you must recognize the difference between right and wrong; number two, you must act upon it even at your own peril; and, number three, you must tell someone about it. This 13-year-old young man from the gentleman from Florida's district has done something that I wish more people would do. He has adhered to Stephen Carter's definition of integrity. He realized that Captain McVay was wrongly accused and court-martialed, and he realized that that was wrong. Number two, he went further than that to say not only to his classmates and to his county and to the country but to the world that this was wrong and he wanted to right it. Just as important, he has let all of us know, and he has been a lesson not only to children everywhere but to us grownups of what should be done when one finds a wrong and knows that they should right it and then takes the steps to do it. And so it is so interesting, and I say this to the gentleman from Florida, when I saw him on the news program, little did I know that I would be standing here today, I was so moved by that story, little did I know that I would be standing here today to salute this great, great American for his hard work and his perseverance. I can say to Hunter, I hope that he is looking upon us today, that we salute you with all of the power and all the respect that we have in our bodies. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I certainly hope that, and I am sure someone is doing it, will videotape what is going on here today so that Hunter Scott will have an opportunity to see the honor which has been paid to him by all of us, and to him I want to make sure he understands that we take his cause very, very seriously, that we honor him because he is right. We honor him because he has stood up for what he knew to be right. We honor him because he has brought Republicans and Democrats together to right a wrong. And we want to make sure that as he goes throughout his life, and he continues on this wonderful journey called life, that he is strengthened and encouraged by us. We have not given up just as he has not given up. And I leave these simple words from the Bible with him, and I hope that they will be ingrained in the DNA of every cell of his body until he dies, and they are simply these: They what wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall rise up with wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint. To Hunter I say: Thank you so much for giving so much. Thank you so much for bringing us together around a cause. Thank you so much for being sensitive to a family, a family that still grieves for they know that their loved one has been wronged. Thank you so much for coming to the Congress of the United States of America and presenting that research to us. We promise, we promise that we will go forward with all of the same kind of strength, the same kind of power and the same kind of convictions that you have. With that, Madam Speaker, I encourage all of our Members to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation because I think it is extremely important, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) has stated, that we take time to memorialize those who have played significant roles in our lives. As a fellow resident of Maryland, along with the gentleman and, of course, the man who we honor with this legislation, J.J. Chestnut, I think what we send out to the world is a memorial which will be there for a very, very long time that says to the world that he was one who gave his life so that others might live, bringing a hope and a sense of dedication to the area in Maryland where this post office is. Also, I want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). Throughout this entire unfortunate situation, the gentleman was there with the family. He constantly made it clear that he would do everything, and did do everything that he could to uplift the family. I think that one of the most fitting things that could possibly be done is this way of memorializing this great man. So, when people come into that post office and see that name there and know that he is one who stood up for us, and for many when they could not stand up for themselves, and even the children who will come in and say who is that man? Who was he? For some person to be able to say that was J.J. Chestnut. He was an officer with the Capitol Police and he gave his life so that others might live, I think that that will be a very, very fitting memorial. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the entire House support this wonderful, wonderful resolution and ask that all of my colleagues vote for it.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 506, my vote on agreeing to the conference report on H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act, I inadvertently voted ``no,'' when I should have voted ``aye.'' An ``aye'' vote would have been consistent with my prior vote on June 10, 1990 when the bill passed the House.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2675 is designed to improve the structure and administration of the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program provided by the Federal Government for its civilian employees and retirees. FEGLI was established in 1952 and is managed by the Office of Personnel Management. Since 1954 it has been administered by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company through a contract with OPM. FEGLI provides low cost life insurance coverage to Federal employees and retirees. Enrollees have a choice of basic life insurance, six levels of additional life insurance, family insurance, three options with respect to post-retirement basic insurance and accelerated payments options for the terminally ill. Nearly 90 percent of the eligible Federal work force participates in the program. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) and I, along with all of the members of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, were able to work together to develop legislation that would have implemented some excellent recommendations we receive from the witnesses at an oversight hearing we held on FEGLI last year. However, some of the provisions implementing these recommendations were dropped when the Senate considered the bill. The House bill directed the Office of Personnel Management to submit draft legislative proposals for group universal life, group variable life, and accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverage within 6 months of passage of this legislation. The Senate version requires OPM to merely conduct a study on these additional forms of insurance, rather than submit legislative proposals. While we can accept the Senate language on this issue, we strongly urge OPM to include in their study recommendations for legislative changes that may provide new life insurance options for Federal employees. Included in the bill is a provision that will give enrollees the opportunity to continue the full extent of their life insurance coverage after they reach 65. By doing this, we will be providing a measure of comfort and convenience to many who would still have a desire to provide for the security of their loved ones. They will no longer have to seek out a new insurance company from which to purchase life insurance, something often difficult and expensive to do at that late stage in life. I offered an amendment to H.R. 2675 during our subcommittee's markup of the bill, which added a provision that would enable enrollees to purchase an increased amount of insurance coverage for their spouse and dependent children. Clearly the present levels of coverage available, $5,000 for one's spouse and $2,500 for each child are inadequate. They neither compensate for the loss nor cover average burial expenses. My amendment would make it possible for enrollees to obtain coverage for their spouse and dependent children up to five times the current levels. I am pleased to see that this important provision is still in the bill. Additional provisions added to the bill by the Senate were to eliminate Basic insurance maximum limitation, make erroneous FEGLI coverage incontestible if discovered after 2 years of withholding, allow direct payment option for any enrollee whose pay or annuity will not cover withholdings, implements a 3-year demonstration program that would allow employees who separate before retirement to continue Option B coverage for 5 years, by paying usual group rates, covers a foster child in the Family Optional insurance, and provides for open enrollment period following enactment of the bill. Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that we still have a very good bipartisan bill. I strongly urge all Members to give their support, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, when she talked about insomnia. I am sure, hopefully, we will be able to wake some people up with all this good news we are imparting here tonight. But with that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to again reiterate this is another piece of legislation that would not have been possible without the bipartisanship efforts on the part of our subcommittee. This is a very important piece of legislation because it once again sheds light on the fact that we care about our Federal employees who make it possible for us to do our jobs the way we do them and certainly to support our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time, and urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for just one brief statement. On the stationery for KidsPeace there is a quote by George McDonald, and I think that it pretty much summarizes the life of our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale), and the things that he talked about just a moment ago, and certainly I salute him. But the quote is very simple. It says: ``A man must learn to love his children not because they are his but because they are simply children.''

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend KidsPeace for its work over the past century helping children overcome all sorts of crises. National KidsDay and National Family Month, both established by KidsPeace, compel all Americans to focus on parent, child, and family relationships. These celebrations encourage parents and grandparents and caregivers to be involved in the lives of their children. I believe we should all spend time every day nurturing and encouraging the children that we encounter in our lives. This Member of Congress can certainly appreciate the work of KidsPeace. Every child, which is not always the case, has four fundamental needs that must be fulfilled to lead a peaceful and healthy life: Safety to feel safe and protected; trust to be confident, hopeful and assured; love to be valued and unconditionally accepted; and power to be a child and pursue a purpose, skill, or challenge. This resolution recognizes KidsPeace, an organization that works hard to meet those needs. Through its good work, KidsPeace helps restore the health and happiness of children who are suffering through crises and traumas. The demand for organizations such as KidsPeace is apparent. From 1991 to 1992, the organization saw a 150 percent increase in the number of kids coming to it for help. That is when KidsPeace stepped forward on a national level with public initiatives to help prevent and overcome crises that can strike any child. This extra push to alert Americans to the needs of our children could not come at a better time. Between 1990 and 1996, the number of children rose by more than 5 million to 69.4 million. The United States Census Bureau projects that the number of children will continue to rise over the next several decades reaching 77.6 million by the year 2000. This resolution is worthy of our support and I urge the Members of this body to do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) for the development of this bipartisan resolution. House concurrent resolution 302 will help to address challenges children a generation ago did not have to face: Drugs, violence, separation from parents, failing schools, peer group demands, and much, much more. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) for a further explanation of this bipartisan resolution.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1021, the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act. I would first like to congratulate the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for his leadership and his spirit of bipartisanship in an effort to expand and strengthen veterans' preference. I also want to thank the chairman of the committee the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and our ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their cooperation in making this moment possible as we present this legislation tonight. The spirit of cooperation on both sides of the aisle has been critical in bringing forward this important legislation. S. 1021 improves the ability of veterans to compete during the Federal hiring process, extends veterans' preference to all branches of the Federal Government, and instructs the Secretary of Labor to maintain a database of contractors who have filed reports on the number of veterans they have hired. The bill also makes knowing violations of veterans' preference laws a prohibited personnel practice. Finally, it makes improvements in the system for investigating and redressing violations of veterans preference whenever they occur. The Federal Government is the Nation's leader in veterans' employment, with 27 percent of the Federal workforce made up of veterans. 506,939 veterans were employed by the government as of September 30, 1996. Compared to the private sector, the Federal Government employs two times the percentage of veterans. Yet testimony in previous Civil Service Subcommittee hearings has revealed that veterans' preference in the Federal workforce is sometimes ignored or circumvented and that its continued viability in the workplace is threatened on several fronts. For example, a 1992 General Accounting Office study of veterans' preference revealed that certificates, that is the list of candidates from which agencies may hire, headed by a veteran entitled to preference were returned unused at almost 1.4 times the return rate of certificates headed by nonveterans. According to another GAO study, one-quarter of selecting officials who returned a certificate unused to their personnel office in 1992 did so when they could not hire the candidate they wanted because a preference-eligible veteran was ranked higher. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has repeatedly declared that our veterans deserve special consideration in Federal employment decisions because of their vital contributions to our Nation's security. This bill continues that tradition. Mr. Speaker, S. 1021 is a good bipartisan bill that strengthens veterans' preference in the Federal Government. It will give our veterans the help they deserve in obtaining and retaining civilian employment within the Federal Government. Our veterans have given so much to allow us to live the wonderful lives that we live. They have given so much of their lives to make it possible for us to have the freedom that we have. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say we have no speakers, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to pause to again express my appreciation to our entire subcommittee and our committee for all that has been done for our veterans. They are very, very important people, and I know in my State of Maryland when I visit with veterans and they come to visit me, I am constantly reminded of the role that they play in making our lives the best that they can be. So, Mr. Speaker, since we have no further speakers, again I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) him for his cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 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.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.