George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3055. This bill differs in form, but not in substance, from the bill that was reported by the Committee on Resources, and I believe the bill as amended reflects changes agreed to by both the Tribe and the Department. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has worked very long and hard on this legislation. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is not by accident that we are here today. It is intentional. The Republicans were so giddy and so excited about the Starr investigation and the prospect of impeaching the President of the United States that they decided that they would not have to do any work today. The other half of them decided that they could push a right-wing agenda and foist it off on the President of the United States, they could sweep aside his State of the Union address, they could sweep aside his agenda and do nothing and go home and gain seats because they were going to impeach the President of the United States. So what did they start doing? They started reducing the workweek. They extended the time from January to March before the Congress came back. They extended the August break. They extended the July break. As a matter of fact, in the last 3 years the Republican Congress has lost 2 months of productivity. If they keep it up, by the year 2002, Congress will not meet at all. They will not meet at all because the Republicans just keep giving away the days. They did it because they thought they had the President over a barrel. Well, the fact of the matter is, once again, their streak is perfect. Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership four out of four years have underestimated the President of the United States, because the President is back here, telling them that he wants his agenda considered in this Congress that refused to consider it for this entire year. He wants us to address education, the environment, HMO legislation, minimum wage and tobacco legislation. The Republicans thought they could get out of town without doing that. The fact of the matter is that now they are insisting that the President do in 2 days what they could not do in 2 years. So let us understand that this is not an accident. This was intended. But we are going to respond to the President's agenda, and the President is going to keep us here until we do. Because there is a very high correlation between the President's agenda and what the American public thinks this Congress ought to be doing, that this Congress ought to be dealing with the education of our children, we ought to be helping to rebuild crumbling schools, we ought to make sure that children have technology available to them. We ought to make sure that patients are protected in the Patients' Bill of Rights so that doctors and patients control the health care and not the insurance company bureaucrats. That is the agenda of this President. That is the agenda of the American people, and that is the agenda that the Republicans thought they could sneak out of town without addressing. It is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker. It is really not the Committee on Appropriations's fault because they get caught up in these crossfires that really their job has little or nothing to do with. They just get saddled with trying to solve this at the end of the year. But the fact of the matter is, the fact of the matter is that this Congress ought to go back to work, and we ought to go back to work and address the needs of the American people and the agenda of President Clinton. They put an awful lot of eggs in one basket that they would have a President that was so weakened today that they could do anything they wanted with respect to the American public. They got caught at it. Now go back to work.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of regret that I object to the passage of S. 2095 as amended by our counterparts on the other side of the aisle. Historically, the excellent programs of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation have had strong support of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle since the foundation's inception in 1984. I supported similar legislation to this as introduced and as reported by the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans last October. Unfortunately, the amendments adopted by the Committee on Resources that have now been attached to this Senate bill have transformed what would have been a straightforward reauthorization of a popular program into a partisan platform for objectives to undermine the Endangered Species Act. In particular, the amendment adopted by the committee which is now attached to this bill would prohibit the foundation from funding any activities related to the reintroduction of the wolves or the grizzly bears in Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming. While this may seem like a narrow exception, it seriously undermines the fundamental integrity of the foundation's ability to do its job. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an established, competitive grant-making organization with a long history of funding successful conservation programs throughout the United States. The amendment that has been established to this legislation really questions whether Congress should now be getting into the second- guessing of these programs. Let me say that the foundation has not funded any grizzly bear reintroduction efforts, though it has funded research and education programs on the prevention of human being/grizzly bear interactions. In addition, the foundation was awarded less than $100,000 worth of projects related to the reintroduction of wolves. For those reasons, I reluctantly oppose this legislation, because this has been an outstanding organization, with many, many people who have served on the board of directors, who have given an inordinate amount of time and money and have secured really significant amounts of private contributions to the ongoing efforts of both the programs sponsored by the Federal government, State governments, local governments and the private sector. I would hope that we would not now start trying to micromanage this agency with Congressional amendments, given their track record of success both in creating programs that are highly successful, with a great deal of local support, and also in creating the kind of private/ public partnership that we so often say we want. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman raised the point of student loans. The President just signed the higher, reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The tragedy of that bill is that the Republicans fought us for the last 2 years at every turn where we had the ability to make it less expensive for students who graduated from college to consolidate their loans, to save hundreds and hundreds of dollars in interest costs, to refinance those loans at lower rates. They fought that effort even when the administration tried to do it again this year, the Republicans came down on them like a ton of bricks. Then when we tried to lower the cost of student loans, the Republicans fought us the whole way, finally agreed to lower the cost of student loans just a little bit so that they could say they lowered the cost. The fact of the matter is, this whole year, I serve on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, this whole year they have fought on behalf of the banks to retain the ability of the banks to suck money out of the student loan program, to take it out in fees, to take it out in higher interest rates. And what does that do? That just means for more students they have to work more hours or they cannot go to college or they have to defer it or take fewer units, costing their families more and more money. So it is just incredible that they would spend 2 years, at a time when we had a chance to dramatically lower the cost of student loans, they fought us at every turn. They fought us at every effort we made either to consolidate loans or to reduce the interest rates on loans. They just fought for the banks. It is what they have spent their time doing in this session, as you pointed out. They have fought in this session for every special interest. But they missed a really very simple agenda for the American public. Take care of our health care. Make sure our doctor can prescribe what we need, provide a minimum wage so that families can support themselves, get rid of the teen smoking and recover the money that tobacco companies have taken from this country because of cancer and tobacco. Give our children a chance to get a world class education in a safe school by reducing class sizes, by repairing the buildings, by having high standards for our teachers, high standards for our students and accountability for the school districts back to the parents. I had a provision in one of the bills and they fought me on it. I said, parents ought to know the qualifications of the teachers that teach their students. Is this teacher qualified to teach your student history or mathematics or biology? They fought that effort. This is not a complicated agenda that the President brought to this Congress, that the Democrats have brought to this Congress, but more importantly, that the American people have brought to this Congress. Because the gentleman from Oregon points out, most of their time has been spent here on these efforts on behalf of special interests trying to protect little nuances and tax breaks and special deals that allow them to go around the public interest. I appreciate the gentleman raising those points.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for the points that she has made. It might seem unusual to our visitors in the gallery that, on a Sunday afternoon, they would see Members of Congress on the floor of the House, or to people who are watching C-SPAN, it would be unusual for live C-SPAN covering the House on a Sunday afternoon. But the fact of the matter is is that Congress is stuck in Washington, D.C. because the Republican Congress has failed to finish its work for the year. They have failed in the grossest fashion possible. They were supposed to have a budget on October 1. There is no budget. They were supposed to have finished the appropriations bills to run the government of the United States and conduct our obligations. Only six of the appropriations bills have been passed. The major ones have not. They have, so far, been unable to get them to the President of the United States. As the gentlewoman Connecticut has pointed out, this is a Congress that has only worked 108 days so far this year. The average American have worked somewhere around 250 days to this day. Many people in my district and others working, out of the 283 days, sometimes working almost the full 283 days as so many people work Saturdays and Sundays along with the 5-day week. But this Congress decided that it could come in on Tuesday at 5 o'clock most weeks, Monday at 5 o'clock, and it can leave on Thursday. It can leave on Wednesday. It would not come in at the end of the August break. It would stay out an extra week. The result is they simply have not done their work. They have not done their work for another reason also, and that is pointed out in the Washington post this morning in their lead editorial where they simply say that the Republicans had no agenda for this year. The Republicans were coming to town just to manage the Congress to try to keep the numbers that they have so that they can retain the power in the Congress, but they really had no agenda for the American public. The tragedy is that the American public had an agenda for this Congress. The American public had an agenda of improving public education, of asking the Congress to help local school districts rebuild crumbling schools to make them technologically competent, to deal with the education of our children, to make them safe for our children, to go and to repair the falling ceilings and repair the roofs, to try to help out the local communities. Local communities are doing this. But many communities need additional help. They are just simply too poor to do that. The American public had an agenda to try to help get HMO reform, to get a Patients' Bill of Rights so that patients and doctors would once again be in control of their health care so that, when the doctor says you need an MRI or the doctor says you need a prescription of a certain drug, you get that because your doctor who has been trained in medicine knows best for you. He knows your care. He has watched you as a patient. He understands your problems. What do we have today? We have doctors getting on the phone and calling bureaucracies, calling 800 numbers, pleading so that they can have their parents have an MRI so that they can diagnose whether or not they might have a tumor or not have a tumor or so that they can do surgery or not do surgery. They are constantly told by the HMO bureaucracies, wait 30 days, let us see if it cures itself. Rarely, ladies and gentlemen, do tumors cure themselves. Rarely do these kinds of things happen. But the HMO is trying to save money. So the American public was asking the Congress, help us put doctors and patients back in the control of health care. That was not done. Campaign finance reform. The American public was astonished 2 years ago at the campaign finance scandals, the amount of special interest money coming into our campaigns. The Congress refused to act on that agenda. Tobacco legislation to try to stop teenage smoking to try to recover health care costs that we spent with people who received cancer from smoking. The Republican Congress failed on that to protect the environment. Again, as the Washington Post said, that no serious problems were addressed, and no serious environmental problems either. In fact, they said the great success of this Congress was doing damage control against the Republican agenda to eviscerate the environmental laws of this country. So that is why my colleagues and myself are on the floor here on a Sunday afternoon, because the Congress, the Republican Congress, I should say, we have had this agenda. We have proposed legislation. The Democrats have proposed all this legislation. The Republicans have refused to enact it. They refuse to the work. So now we find ourselves here on a Sunday afternoon, we find ourselves with no budget the first time since 1974, and with many of the important appropriations bills not passed and an important agenda dealing with problems in this country not addressed by this Congress.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we can talk all we want here, or the Republicans can talk all they want, about what they are going to do in terms of education, because most of the legislation that was just read by the gentleman in the well is legislation that they have proposed, it is legislation that may have passed this House, it is legislation that they cannot get agreement with the Senate on, or it is legislation that has come out of the committee but their caucus is in disagreement on much of that legislation. I appreciate and I was at the signing with the bipartisan delegation of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. That is what Congress is supposed to do. Congress is supposed to reauthorize that act when it comes due and there is no Congress that has failed to do that. But this Congress has failed to do much more. It has failed to meet the needs of America's schoolchildren by failing to address the need to reduce class size for our younger students. It has refused to meet the need to improve our schools, the crumbling schools, some $12 billion worth of construction that is immediately necessary, not only to make schools safe, not only to make them healthy for our children, not only to modernize those that need it, but also to make them ready for the technology that is the key to much of the educational opportunity for the students. So this Congress has struck out on education. This Congress has struck out on managed care, where they decided they would go with the monied interest of the insurance companies and the HMO companies against the American people, against the American people and their desire to once again have a doctor-patient relationship, a doctor- patient relationship that deals with the health care problems of the patient, as opposed to the bottom line and the stock price of the HMO corporation or of the insurance company that keeps meddling with the decisions of doctors to prescribe medicine, to prescribe treatment, to prescribe tests or to prescribe surgery. Each and every time the doctor wants to do this, he has to pick up the phone, the doctor has to call an 800 number, get some bureaucrat on the phone and say can I have an MRI? I believe this person may have a tumor. Can I have surgery? We have discovered a tumor and now we would like to cut it out on a timely basis. They say no, you are going to have to wait 30 days. No, send them out for massage, send them to the whirlpool. Send them anywhere except to surgery, where they need it to try to stem the ravages of cancer or other malignancies. That is what the American people have asked us to do. This Congress could not do it. This Congress could not do it because they decided they would deal with the money interests, just as they decided they would deal with the monied interests and they would kill campaign finance reform, they would kill the ability of the American people to have a greater participation in the election process, to develop grassroots, to make sure the people in our districts are not overridden by all of the soft money that comes in in the last days of a campaign. This Congress struck out in that effort. This Congress struck out on the effort for tobacco legislation, to try to recover for the Federal taxpayer some of the billions of dollars that they have spent in the Medicare program taking care of the victims of tobacco, taking care of the victims of cancer that is related to tobacco. The states are recovering that, but somehow the Federal Government is unable do that. Why? Because they could not stop the flow of the tobacco contributions to the Republican party. They just could not get off that addiction that they have, not only to tobacco, but to tobacco campaign contributions. So this Congress struck out on that. Finally, as Americans are working harder and harder and more Americans are working more than ever, we thought they ought to at least get a wage to allow them to support their families. But this Congress could not see it that way. It decided that once again it would go with their campaign contributions from the Small Business Association, from the Restaurant Association, and they would deny America an increase in the minimum wage, so those people who are working at the minimum wage would be able to support themselves and their families. These are people that go to work all week long, all month long and all year long, but at the end of the year, they end up poor. So what do we do? We have the government subsidize them in food stamps, we have the government subsidize them in housing, we have the government subsidize them in medical care, because their wages do not allow them to procure these basic necessities of life for them or their family. Why? Because the minimum wage is not high enough. But this Congress, this do-nothing Congress, chose not to do anything about the minimum wage, not to do anything about managed care, not to do anything about campaign finance reform, not to do anything about the crucial bills dealing with the improvement of education and bills to protect the environment. So this Congress that has only worked 108 days this year, this Congress that has chosen to be out of town more days than it has been here, this Congress that has chosen to come to work Tuesday night at five o'clock and leave Thursday night at five o'clock, this Congress that chose to extend the August break an extra week, this Congress that chose not to work in January, February or March more than a couple of days, this Congress now cannot find time to deal with the basic necessities of our children's education, to get a budget and to pass the appropriations bills. That is why this Congress is being hailed by editorial boards and people all over the country as a do-nothing Congress. And I would just ask the same courtesies on time that you give the Republican Members on the other side of the aisle. The Chair belongs to the whole House, not to one party or the other.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is not a mystery why this has been one of the least productive congresses in history, why this is a do-nothing Congress, because this Congress has only worked 108 days this year. Most working people worked in excess of 225 days, 250 days this year. This Congress only worked 108 days. Now they find out after 108 days of working that they did not do their work, that they are not done. They say, ``Where is the President?'' The President has been waiting for the appropriations bills. The President has been waiting for the budget. This is the first Congress since 1974 that had no budget. This is a Congress that cannot pass seven of its appropriations bills. There is nothing for the President to sign because they cannot get the appropriations bills out of the House of Representatives. They cannot get agreement among the Republicans in the House or the Republicans in the House and in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, if most Americans worked as few days as this Republican Congress, they would be fired. Their employers would ask for their money back. Maybe that is what the public ought to do is fire the Republican Congress.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1677, a package of bills which have already passed the House with broad bipartisan support. In particular, it reauthorizes the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act. This program has protected more than 10 million acres of wetlands in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The bill before the House also reauthorizes the program of grants for the conservation of rhinoceros and tigers, and prohibits trade in products labeled as containing rhino or tiger products. Although trade in rhino and tiger products is banned under United States and international law, many products claiming to contain rhino and tiger continue to be available in the United States. Because of the increasing rarity of these magnificent animals, many products labeled as containing rhino and tiger do not actually contain them, but nevertheless they help perpetuate the illegal market in rhino and tiger parts. I do not support the provisions of this bill that relax the standard under which hunters may be cited for shooting birds over bait. However, this bill contains changes to the House-passed bill which substantially increase the penalty for baiting violations and require a study of the impacts of this policy change on game bird populations and law enforcement. These changes substantially mitigate any harm done by the underlying policy change. Overall, Mr. Speaker, this is a good package and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial measure that was originally passed out of the House last year. The bill resolves the competing claims of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe and the lineal descendants to the 1968 Judgment Fund award to the tribe for the lands taken in violation of their treaty rights. The 1968 amount was approximately $5.8 million, but was never distributed because of a dispute over the allocation of the award. The House-passed legislation, H.R. 976, redistributed the remaining $15 million by awarding the lineal descendants the principal, $1.5 million, but giving the tribe the accumulated interest of $13.5 million. The Senate amends that plan by giving the lineal descendants the greater share of the award. Basically, the Senate plan gives the lineal descendants $10.5 million and the tribes get $4.5 million. The Senate would also require that lineal descendants verify that they are, in fact, descended from a Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux ancestor. Finally, the Senate bill allows for a legal challenge by lineal descendants of the distribution plan to the tribes, but gives the tribes the right to intervene. I am concerned that there is such a vast difference in the amounts going to the tribes between the House and the Senate bills, and I want to express my reservations about whether or not this is fair to the tribes. I wish we had a chance to more fully review the Senate changes, but I understand that the tribes are willing to take this amount. I also understand that the administration now support this proposal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that we are here today to consider and pass H.R. 4483, the Rosie the Riveter National Park Service Affiliated Site Study Act of 1998. The role of women in the U.S. workforce was forever changed during World War II when women throughout the country took over jobs previously held by men who went off to war. Millions of women who had never expected to find themselves working outside the home did just that in order to support their families and keep the nation's economy running through the war years. The now infamous slogan of ``We can do it'' and nicknames such as ``Rosie the Riveter'' and ``Wendy the Welder'' came to represent these women and the work they did. This legislation directs the National Park Service to study the feasibility of giving federal designation to the site of the old Kaiser shipyards in Richmond, California. Thousands of ``Rosies'' and ``Wendys'' built some 747 Liberty and Victory ships which were immediately commissioned into the U.S. Navy and sent to fight in the war from shipyards located in my district. I have had the honor of meeting and talking with many of the former shipbuilders and hearing their stories. Their connection with the men fighting on the ships and their support for the war effort led the workers to strive for perfection in each task, and gained them the respect of their employers and all Americans. Realizing the value of the women workers, many shipyards conducted around the clock day care centers and schools on site so the mothers could know their children were well cared for nearby. The stories of these women is an important part of the history of the nation, and their sacrifice and effort deserved to be recognized by our country and preserved for generations to come. The city of Richmond, California, has established the Rosie the Riveter Park on the site of the Kaiser shipyards during World War II where so many of the Liberty ships were constructed. By passing this legislation, Congress honors these women who did so much to help us win World War II. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important bill.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I just want to take this time to thank the chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) the chairman of the subcommittee for all of their effort and all of their work to bring these matters to the full House and for their consideration, a number of which will be sent directly to the President for his signature. I would like to thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle for all of their work over the last 48 hours to get this into shape so that we could proceed in this manner. I shall not object. Again I want to thank them very much for all of their hard work.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. It is supported by the administration, and I want to thank Senator Kempthorne and Senator Craig and the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for their work. I am aware of no controversy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have sponsored this bill, the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 1998, which I believe will mark yet another milestone in the history of Indian self- determination. This major legislation is the product of more than two years of hard work and consultation with Indian tribes and the Administration. We have worked diligently with the tribes and the Department of Health and Human Services to make this bill as fair as possible. I would like to extend my appreciation to the tribal leaders, their representatives, and the Departmental staff who have made passage of this bill possible. It is important to note that subsequent to the full committee mark up that occurred this spring, the tribes and the Department were able to work out additional differences. Thus there are several changes that I want to highlight. We were able to come to agreement on issues regarding reassumption, regulation waiver, trial de novo, rejection of final offer, and the creation of a new title VI to carry out the non- IHS demonstration project study. Let me briefly explain what this bill does. H.R. 1833, the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments Act of 1998, would create two new titles in the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The 1975 Act allows Indian tribes to contract for or take over the administration and operation of certain federal programs which provide services to Indian tribes. Subsequent amendments to the 1975 Act created Title III of the Act which provided for a Self-Governance Demonstration Project that allows for large-scale tribal Self- Governance compacts and funding agreements on a ``demonstration'' basis. The new title V created by H.R. 1833 would make this contracting by tribes permanent for programs contracted for within the Indian Health Service (IHS). Thus, Indian and Alaska Native tribes would be able to contract for the operation, control, and redesign of various IHS activities on a permanent basis. In short, what was a demonstration project would become a permanent IHS Self-Governance program. Pursuant to H.R. 1833, tribes which have already contracted for IHS activities would continue under the provisions of their contracts while an additional 50 new tribes would be selected each year to enter into contracts. The 1998 amendments require that Indian tribes must meet certain criteria--they have to have experience in government contracting, have clean audits, and demonstrate management capability--in order to exercise the right to take over the operation of IHS functions, including the funds necessary to run them. H.R. 1833 also adds a new title VI which authorizes a feasibility study regarding the execution of tribal Self-Governance compacts and funding agreements of Indian-related programs outside the IHS but within the Department of Health and Human Services on a demonstration project basis. Although this issue was not addressed in this legislation, I want to express my continued concern about the poor labor relations at various Indian Health Service facilities throughout the West, but particularly the IHS facilities at Sacaton, Arizona and Owyhee, Nevada. Contrary to both the law and agency decisions, the IHS has refused to complete its obligation to meet and negotiate with the Laborers' International Union which represents workers at these facilities. I also understand that the IHS continues to commit unfair labor practices. I want to send a strong message to the IHS that I will continue to monitor labor relations at IHS facilities and that continued indifference to the law and agency decisions will not be ignored by Congress. I understand that the Administration is aware of my concerns and has agreed to correct these issues in the very near future. I firmly believe that this bill advances the principle focus of the Self-Governance program--to remove needless and sometimes harmful layers of federal bureaucracy that dictate Indian affairs. By giving tribes direct control over federal programs run for their benefit and making them directly accountable to their members, we are enabling Indian tribes to run programs more efficiently and more innovatively than federal officials have in the past. And, allowing tribes to run these programs furthers the Congressional policy of strengthening and promoting tribal governments. The Self-Governance program recognizes that Indian tribes care for the health, safety, and welfare of their own members as well as that of non-Indians who either live on their reservations or conduct business with the tribes and are thus committed to safe and fair working conditions and practices. A comprehensive description of the substitute follows. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Section-by-Section Description of Substitute Section 1. Short Title. This provision sets forth the short title, ``The Tribal Self-Governance Act Amendments of 1998.'' Section 2. Findings This provision sets forth the findings of Congress which reaffirm the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes and the unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. The findings make clear that while progress has been made, the federal bureaucracy has eroded tribal self-governance. The findings state that the Federal Government has failed to fully meet its trust responsibility and to satisfy its obligations under treaties and other laws. The findings explain that Congress has reviewed the tribal self-governance demonstration project and concluded that self-governance is an effective mechanism to implement and strengthen the federal policy of government-to- government relations with Indian tribes by transferring Indian tribes full control and funding for federal programs, functions, services, or activities, or portions thereof. Section 3. Declaration of Policy This section provides that it is Congress' policy to permanently establish and implement tribal self-governance within the Department of Health and Human Services with the full cooperation of its agencies. Among the key policy objectives Congress seeks to achieve through the self- governance program are to (1) maintain and continue the United States' unique relationship with Indian tribes; (2) allow Indian tribes the flexibility to choose whether they wish to participate in self-governance; (3) ensure the continuation and fulfillment of the United States' trust responsibility and other responsibilities towards Indian Tribes that are contained in treaties and other laws; (4) permit a transition to tribal control and authority over programs, functions, services, or activities (or portions thereof); and (5) provide a corresponding parallel reduction in the Federal bureaucracy. Section 4. Tribal Self Governance This section sets out the substantive provisions of the Self-Governance program within the Indian Health Service and authorizes a feasibility study of the applicability of Self- Governance to other Departmental agencies by adding Titles V and VI to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Section 501. Establishment This provision directs the Secretary of HHS to establish a permanent Tribal Self-Governance Program in the Indian Health Service. Section 502. Definitions Subsection (a)(1) defines the term ``construction project''. The Committee does not intend this legislation to preclude agreements between self- governance tribes and the Indian Health Service for carrying out sanitary facilities construction projects pursuant to a ``Project Funding Agreement'' or ``Memorandum of Agreement'' executed as an addendum to a Title V Annual Funding Agreement as authorized by Section 7(a)(3) of Pub. L. 86-121, 73 Stat. 267 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2004(a)). Subsection (a)(2) provides that a ``construction project agreement'' is one between the Secretary and the Indian tribe that, at a minimum, establishes start and completion dates, scope of work and standards, identifies party responsibilities, addresses environmental considerations, identifies the owner and maintenance entity of the proposed work, provides a budget, provides a payment process, and establishes a duration of the construction project agreement. Subsection (a)(3) defines ``inherent federal functions'' as those functions which cannot be legally delegated to Indian tribes. This definition states the obvious. Inherent federal functions are functions which the Executive Branch cannot by law delegate to other branches of governments, or non- governmental entities. The Committee's definition is consistent with the Department of the Interior Solicitor's Memorandum of May 17, 1996 entitled ``Inherently Federal Functions under the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994.'' The Committee's definition is expressly intended to provide flexibility so as to allow the Secretary and the tribes to come to agreement on which functions are inherently federal on a case-by-case basis. It is important to note that, in the tribal procurement context, there is another factor the Committee has considered--when the federal government is returning tribal governmental powers and functions that are inherent in tribes governmental status such as those possessed by tribes before the establishment of the federal Indian bureaurcracy, the scope of allowable transfers is broader than in the transfer of federal government powers to private or other governmental entities. Subsection (a)(4) defines ``inter-tribal consortium''. The Committee notes that during the Title III Demonstration Project the IHS authorized intertribal consortia, such as the co-signers to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact, to participate in the Project and that participation has had great success. The definition of ``inter-tribal consortium'' is intended to include ``tribal organizations'' as that term is defined in Section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination Act, Pub. L. No. 93-638. This would include consortia such as those involved in the Alaska Tribal Health Consortium. It is the Committee's intent that inter-tribal consortia and tribal organizations shall count as one tribe for purposes of the 50 tribe per year limitation contained in section 503(a). Subsection (a)(5) defines ``gross mismanagement''. The inclusion of this term is to govern one of the criteria that the Secretary is to consider in the reassumption of a tribally-operated program. The Secretary will be given the authority to reassume programs that imminently endanger the public health where the danger arises out of a compact or funding agreement violation. The Committee believes that the inclusion of a performance standard, in this case gross mismanagement, is also an appropriate grounds for reassumption. Gross mismanagement is defined as a significant, clear, and convincing violation of compact, funding agreement, regulatory or statutory requirements related to the transfer of Self-Governance funds to the tribe that results in a significant reduction of funds to the tribe's Self-Governance program. The Committee's definition of gross mismanagement is narrowly tailored and will require a high degree of proof by the Secretary. The Committee is well aware of tribal concerns and agrees that the inclusion of this performance standard must not be utilized by the Secretary in such a manner as to needlessly impose monitoring and auditing requirements that hinder the efficient operation of tribal programs. Intrusive and overburdensome monitoring and auditing activities are antithetical to the goals of Self-Governance. Subsection (a)(6) defines ``tribal shares''. This definition is consistent with the Title IV Rule-making Committee's determination that residual funds are those ``necessary to carry out the inherently federal functions that must be performed by federal officials if all tribes assume responsibilities for all BIA programs.'' Fed. Reg. Vol. 63, No. 29, 7235, (Feb. 12, 1998) (Proposed Rule, 25 CFR Sec. 1000.91). All funds appropriated under the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act are either tribal shares or Agency residual. Subsection (a)(7) defines ``Secretary'' as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Subsection (a)(8) defines ``Self-Governance'' as the program established under this title. Section (b) defines ``Indian Tribe''. This definition enables an Indian tribe to authorize another Indian tribe, inter-tribal consortium or tribal organization to participate in self-governance of its behalf. The authorized Indian Tribe, inter-tribal consortium or tribal organization may exercise the authorizing Indian tribe's rights as specified by Tribal resolution. section 503. selection of participating tribes This section describes the eligibility criteria that must be satisfied by any Indian tribe interested in participating. (a) Continuing Participation. All tribes presently participating in the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project under Title III of the Indian Self-Determination Act may elect to participate in the permanent Self-Governance program. Tribes must do so through tribal resolution. (b) Additional Participants. (1) This section allows an additional 50 tribes a year to participate in self- governance. (2) This section allows an Indian tribe that chooses to withdraw from an inter-tribal consortium or tribal organization to participate in self-governance provided it independently meets the eligibility criteria in Title V. Tribes and tribal organizations that withdraw from tribal organizations and inter-tribal consortia under this section shall be entitled to participate in the permanent program under section 503(b)(2) and such participation shall not be counted against the 50 tribe a year limitation contained in section 503(a). (c) Applicant Pool. The eligibility criteria for self- governance tribes are the same as those that apply under Title IV. To participate, an Indian tribe must successfully complete a planning phase, must request participation in the program through a resolution or official action of the governing body, and must have demonstrated financial stability and financial management capability for the past three years. Proof of no material audit exceptions in the tribe's self determination contracts or Self Governance funding agreements is conclusive proof of such qualification. The Committee notes that the financial examination addressed in subsection 503(c)(3) refers solely to funds managed by the tribe under Title I and Title IV of the Indian Self- Determination Act. The bill has been deliberately crafted to make clear that a tribe's activities in other economic endeavors are not subject of the Section 503(c) examination. Similarly, the ``budgetary research'' referred to in section 503(d)(1) of the bill requires a tribe to research only budgetary issues related to the administration of the programs the tribe anticipates transferring to tribal operation under Self-Governance. (d) Planning Phase. Every Indian tribe interested in participating in self-governance shall complete a planning phase prior to participating in the program. The planning phase is to include legal and budgetary research and internal tribal government planning and organizational preparation. The planning phase is to be completed to the satisfaction of the tribe. (e) Grants. Subject to available appropriations, any Indian tribe interested in participating in self-governance is eligible to receive a grant to plan for participation in the Program or to negotiate the terms of a Compact and funding agreement. (f) Receipt of Grant not Required. This section provides that receipt of a grant from HHS is not required to participate in the permanent program. Section 504. Compacts This section authorizes Indian tribes to negotiate Compacts with the Secretary and identifies generally the contents of Compacts. While the Compact process was not specifically part of prior legislative enactment, the Committee understands that Compacts have developed as an integral part of Self Governance. The Committee believes that Compacts serve an important and necessary function in establishing government- to-government relations, which as noted earlier, is the keystone of modern federal Indian policy. (a) Compact Required. The Secretary is required to negotiate and enter into a written Compact consistent with the trust responsibility, treaty obligations and the government-to-government relationship between the United States and each participating tribe. (b) Contents. This section requires that Compacts state the terms of the government-to-government relationship between the Indian Tribe and the United States. Compacts may only be amended by agreement of both parties. (c) Existing Compacts. Upon enactment of Title V, Indian tribes have the option of retaining their existing Compacts, or any portion of the Compacts that do not contradict the provisions of Title V. (d) Term and Effective Date. The date of approval and execution by the Indian Tribe is generally the effective date of a Compact, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. A Compact will remain in effect as long as permitted by federal law or until terminated by written agreement of the parties, or by retrocession or reassumption. Section 505. Funding Agreements This section authorizes Indian tribes to negotiate funding agreements with the Secretary and identifies generally the contents of those agreements. (a) Funding Agreement Required. The Secretary is required to negotiate and enter into a written funding agreement consistent with the trust responsibility, treaty obligations and the government-to-government relationship between the United States and each participating tribe. (b) Contents. An Indian tribe may include in an funding agreement all programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof) that it is authorized to carry out under Title I of the Act. Funding agreements may, at the option of the Indian tribe, authorize the Tribe to plan and carry-out all programs, functions, services, or activities (or portion thereof) administered by the IHS that are carried out for the benefit of Indians because of their status as Indians or where Indian tribes or Indian beneficiaries are the primary or significant beneficiaries, as set forth in status. For each program, function, service, or activity (or portion thereof) included in a funding agreement, an Indian tribe is entitled to receive its full tribal share of funding, including funding for all local, field, service unit, area, regional, and central/ headquarters or national office locations. Available funding includes the Indian tribe's share of discretionary IHS competitive grants but not statutorily mandated competitive grants. The Committee is concerned with the reluctance of the Indian Health Service to include all available federal health funding in self governance funding agreements. We note, as an example, the refusal of the IHS to so include the Diabetes Prevention Initiative funding. As a result, funding was delayed and undue administrative requirements diverted resources from direct services. This section is intended to directly remedy this situation. The Committee has received ample testimony showing the benefits of self governance. In 1998, the National Indian Health Board recently released its' ``National Study on Self- Determination and Self-Governance,'' providing empirical evidence that self-governance leads to more efficient management of tribal health service delivery, especially preventive services. This study consistently observed an overall improvement in quality of care when tribes operate their own Health Care systems. Less than full funding agreements will result in less than maximum use of federal resources to address the health care in Indian country. Accordingly, this section is to be interpreted broadly by affording a presumption in favor of including in a tribe's self-governance funding agreement any federal funding administered by that Agency. (c) Inclusion in Compact or Funding Agreement. Indians do not need to be specifically identified in authorizing legislation for a program to be eligible for inclusion in a Compact or funding agreement. (d) Funding Agreement Terms. Each funding agreement should generally set out the programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof) to be performed by the Indian tribe, the general budget category assigned to each program, function, service, or activity (or portion thereof), the funds to be transferred, the time and method of payment and other provisions that the parties agree to. (e) Subsequent Funding Agreements. Each funding agreement remains in full force and effect unless the Secretary receives notice from the Indian tribe that it will no longer operate one or more of the programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof) included in the funding agreement or until a new funding agreement is executed by the parties. The Committee is concerned with reports that the IHS has been able to use the annual negotiations provisions of Section 303(a) of the Act to obtain an unfair bargaining advantage during negotiations by threatening to suspend application of the Act to a tribe if it does not sign an Annual Funding Agreement. This subsection is meant to facilitate negotiation between the tribes and the Indian Health Service on a true government-to-government basis. The Committee believes the retroactive provision is fair because this assures that no act or omission of the federal government endangers the health and welfare of tribal members. (f) Existing Funding Agreements. Upon enactment of Title V, Tribes may either retain their existing annual funding agreements, or any portion thereof, that do not conflict with provisions of title V, or negotiate new funding agreements that conform to Title V. (g) Stable Base Funding. An Indian tribe may include a stable base budget in its funding agreement. A stable base budget contains the tribe's recurring funding amounts and provides for transfer of the funds in a predictable and consistent manner over a specific period of time. Adjustments are made annually only if there are changes in the level of funds appropriated by Congress. Non-recurring funds are not included and must be negotiated on an annual basis. The Committee intends this section to codify the existing Agency policy guidance on stable base funding. Section 506. General Provisions (a) Applicability. The provisions in this section may, at the tribe's option, be included in a Compact or funding agreement negotiated under Title V. (b) Conflicts of Interest. Indian tribes are to assure that internal measures are in place to address conflicts of interest in the administration of programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof). (c) Audits. The Single Agency Audit Act applies to Title V funding agreements. Indian tribes are required to apply cost principles set out in applicable OMB Circulars, as modified by section 106 of Title I or by any exemptions that may be applicable to future OMB Circulars. No other audit or accounting standards are required. Claims against Indian tribes by the Federal Government based on any audit of funds received under a Title V funding agreement are subject to the provisions of section 106(f) of Title I. (d) Records. An Indian tribe's records are not considered federal records for purposes of the Federal Privacy Act, unless otherwise stated in the Compact or funding agreement. Indian tribes are required to maintain a record keeping system and, upon reasonable advance request, provide the Secretary with reasonable access to records to enable HHS to meet its minimum legal record keeping requirements under the Federal Records Act. (e) Redesign and Consolidation. An Indian tribe may redesign or consolidate programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof) and reallocate or redirect funds in any way the Indian tribe considers to be in the best interest of the Indian community. Any redesign or consolidation, however, must not have the effect of unfairly denying eligibility to people otherwise eligible to be served under federal law. (f) Retrocession. An Indian tribe may retrocede fully or partially back to the Secretary any program, function, service, or activity (or portion thereof) included in a Compact or funding agreement. A 1retrocession request becomes effective within the time frame specified in the Compact or funding agreement, one year from the date the request was made, the date the funding agreement expires, or any date mutually agreed to by the parties, whichever occurs first. (g) Withdrawal. An Indian tribe that participates in self- governance through an inter-tribal consortium or tribal organization can withdraw from the consortium or organization. The withdrawal becomes effective within the time frame set out in the tribe's authorizing resolution. If a time frame is not specified, withdrawal becomes effective one year from the submission of the request or on the date the funding agreement expires, whichever occurs first. An alternative date can be agreed to by the parties, including the Secretary. When an Indian tribe withdraws from an inter-tribal consortium or tribal organization and wishes to enter into a Title I contract or Title V agreement on its own, it is entitled to receive its share of funds supporting the program, function, service, or activity, (or portion thereof) that it will carry out under its new status. The funds must be removed from the funding agreement of the participating organization or inter-tribal consortium and included in the withdrawing tribe's agreement or contract. If the withdrawing tribe is to receive services directly from the Secretary, the tribe's share of funds must be removed from the funding agreement of the participating organization or inter-tribal consortium and retained by the Secretary to provide services. Finally, an Indian tribe that chooses to terminate its participation in the self-governance program may, at its option, carry out programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof) in a Title I contract of Self-Governance funding agreement and retain its mature contractor status. (h) Nonduplication. This section provides that a tribe operating programs under a Self-Governance compact may not contract under Title I (a ``638 contract'') for the same programs. Section 507. Provisions Relating to the Secretary This section sets out mandatory and non-mandatory provisions relating to the Secretary's obligations. (a) Mandatory Provisions. (1) Health Status Reports. To the extent that the data is not otherwise available to the Secretary, Compacts and funding agreements must include a provision requiring the Indian tribe to report data on health status and service delivery. The Secretary is to use this data in her annual reports to Congress. The Secretary is required to provide funding to the Indian tribe to compile such data. Reporting requirements can only impose minimal burdens on the Indian tribe and may only be imposed if they are contained in regulations developed under negotiated rulemaking. (2) Reassumption. Compacts or funding agreements must include a provision authorizing the Secretary to reassume a program, function, service, or activity, (or portion thereof) if she makes a finding of imminent endangerment of the public health caused by the Indian tribe's failure to carry out the Compact or funding agreement or gross mismanagement that causes a significant reduction in available funding. The Secretary is required to provide the Indian tribe with notice of a finding. The Indian tribe may take action to correct the problem identified in the notice. The Secretary has the burden at the hearing of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence the validity of the grounds for reassumption. In cases where the Secretary finds imminent substantial and irreparable endangerment of the public health caused by the tribe's failure to carry out the Compact or funding agreement, the Secretary may immediately reassume the program but is required to provide the tribe with a hearing on the record within ten days after reassumption. (b) Final Offer. If the parties cannot agree on the terms of a Compact or funding agreement, the Indian tribe may submit a final offer to the Secretary. The Secretary has 45 days to determine if the offer will be accepted or rejected. The 45 days can be extended by the Indian tribe. If the Secretary takes no action the offer is deemed accepted by the Secretary. (c) Rejection of Final Offers. This provision describes the only circumstances under which the Secretary may reject an Indian tribe's final offer. A rejection requires written notice to the Indian tribe within 45 days of receipt with specific findings that clearly demonstrate or are supported by controlling legal authority that: (1) the amount of funds proposed exceeds the funding level that the Indian tribe is entitled to; (2) the program, function, service, or activity (or portion thereof) that is the subject of the offer is an inherent federal function that only can be carried out by the Secretary; (3) the applicant is not eligible to participate in self-governance; or (4) the Indian tribe cannot carry out the program, function, service or activity, (or portion thereof) without a significant danger or risk to the public health. The Committee believes the fourth provision appropriately balances the Secretary's trust responsibility to assure the delivery of health care services to Indian beneficiaries, with the equally important goal of fostering maximum tribal self-determination in the administration of health care programs transferred under Title V. The Committee has included the requirement of a ``specific finding'' is included to avoid rejections which merely state conclusory statements that offer no analysis and determination of facts supporting the rejection. The Secretary must also offer assistance to the Indian tribe to overcome the stated objections, and must provide the Indian tribe with an opportunity to appeal the rejection and have a hearing on the record. In any hearing the Indian tribe has the right to engage in full discovery. The Indian tribe also has the option to proceed directly to federal district court under section 110 of Title I of the Act in lieu of an administrative hearing. The Secretary may only reject those portions of a ``final offer'' which do not justify a rejection. By entering into a partial Compact or funding agreement the Indian tribe does not waive its right to appeal the Secretary's decision for the rejected portions of the offer. (d) Burden of Proof. The Secretary has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence the validity of a rejection of a final offer in any hearing, appeal or civil action. A decision relating to an appeal within the Department is considered a final agency action if it was made by an administrative judge or by an official of the Department whose position is at a higher level than the level of the departmental agency in which the decision that is the subject of the appeal was made. (e) Good Faith. The Secretary is required to negotiate in good faith and carry out his discretion under Title V in a manner that maximizes the implementation of self-governance. (f) Reduction of Secretarial Responsibilities. Any savings in the Department's administrative costs that result from the transfer of programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof) to Indian tribes in self-governance agreements that are not otherwise transferred to Indian tribes under Title V must be made available to Indian tribes for inclusion in their Compacts or funding agreements. We have consistently indicated that Self Governance should achieve reductions in federal bureaucracy and create resultant cost savings. This subsection makes clear that such savings are for the benefit of the Indian tribes. Savings are not to be utilized for other agency purposes, but rather are to be provided as additional funds or services to all tribes, inter-tribal consortia, and tribal organizations in a fair and equitable manner. (g) Trust Responsibility. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving, modifying or diminishing the trust responsibilities or other responsibilities as reflected in treaties, executive orders or other laws and court decisions of the United States to Indian tribes and individual Indians. The Committee reaffirms that the protection of the federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes and individuals is a key element of Self Governance. The ultimate and legal responsibility for the management and preservation of trust resources resides with the United States as Trustee. The Committee believes that health care is a trust resource consistent with federal court decisions. This subsection continues the practice of permitting substantial tribal management of its trust resources provided that tribal activities do not replace the trustee's specific legal responsibilities. Section 507(a)(2) (reassumption) with its concept of imminent endangerment of the public health provides guidance in defining the Secretary's trust obligation in the health context. (h) Decisionmaker. Final agency action is a decision by either an official from the Department at any higher organizational level than the initial decision maker or an administrative law judge. Subparagraph (h)(2) is included to assure that the persons deciding an administrative appeal are not the same individuals who made the initial decision to reject a tribe's ``final offer.'' Section 508. Transfer of Funds (a) In General. The Secretary is required to transfer all funds provided for in a funding agreement, pursuant to Section 509(c) below. Funds are also required to be provided for periods covered by continuing resolutions adopted by Congress, to the extent permitted by such resolutions. When a funding agreement requires that funds be transferred at the beginning of the fiscal year, the transfer are to be made within 10 days after the Office of Management and Budget apportions the funds, unless the funding agreement states otherwise. (b) Multi-Year Funding. The Secretary is authorized to negotiate multi-year funding agreements. (c) Amount of Funding. The Secretary is required to provide an Indian tribe the same funding for a program, function, service, or activity, (or portion thereof) under self- governance that the tribe would have received under Title I. This includes all Secretarial resources that support the transferred program, and all contract support costs (including indirect costs) that are not available from the Secretary but are reasonably necessary to operate the program. The bill requires that the transfer of funds occur along with the transfer of the program. Thus the bill states that ``the Secretary shall provide'' the funds specified, and the Secretary is not authorized to phase-in funds in any manner that is not voluntarily agreed to by Self-Governance tribe. (d) Prohibitions. The Secretary is specifically prohibited from withholding, refusing to transfer or reducing any portion of an Indian tribe's full share of funds during a Compact or funding agreement year, or for a period of years. The Committee is aware that for the first twenty-one years of administration of the Indian Self-Determination Act, the Department had never taken the position that it has the discretion to delay funding for any program transferred under the Act absent tribal consent. However, a 1996 IHS circular purported to do just that. Since this circular was issued, several Area offices have refused to turn over substantial program funds to tribal operation. In one instance both an Area office and Headquarters refused to transfer portions of programs for several years, and with respect to several Headquarters functions the IHS refused to transfer the functions altogether. A recent Oregon Federal district court decision declared Indian Health Service's actions in these instances illegal and the Committee agrees. Additionally, funds that an Indian tribe is entitled to receive may not be reduced to make funds available to the Secretary for monitoring or administration; may not be used to pay for federal functions (such as pay costs or retirement benefits); and, may not be used to pay costs associated with federal personnel displaced by self-governance or Title I contracting. In subsequent years, funds may only be reduced in very limited circumstances: if Congress reduces the amount available from the prior year's appropriation; if there is a directive in the statement of managers which accompanies an appropriation; if the Indian tribe agrees; if there is a change in the amount of pass-through funds; or, if the project contained in the funding agreement has been completed. (e) Other Resources. If an Indian tribe elects to carry out a Compact or funding agreement using federal personnel, supplies, supply sources or other resources that the Secretary has available under procurement contracts, the Secretary is required to acquire and transfer the personnel, supplies or resources to the Indian tribe. (f) Reimbursement to Indian Health Service. The Indian Health Service is authorized on a reimbursable basis to provide goods and services to tribes. Reimbursements are to be credited to the same or subsequent appropriation account which provided the initial funding. The Secretary is authorized to receive and retain the reimbursed amounts until expended without remitting them to the Treasury. (g) Prompt Payment Act. This subsection makes the Prompt Payment Act (31 U.S.C. Chapter 39) applicable to the transfer of all funds due to a tribe under a Compact or funding agreement. The first annual or semi-annual transfer due under a funding agreement must be made within 10 calendar days of the date the Office of Management and Budget apportions the appropriations for that fiscal year. Under this section, the Secretary is obligated to pay to a Self-Governance tribe interest, as calculated under the Prompt Payment Act, for any late payment under a funding agreement. (h) Interest or Other Income on Transfers. An Indian tribe may retain interest earned or other income on funds transferred under a Compact or funding agreement. Interest earned must not reduce the amount of funds the tribe is entitled to receive during the year the interest was earned or in subsequent years. An Indian tribe may invest funds received in a funding agreement as it wishes, provided it follows the ``prudent investment standard'', a commonly utilized fiduciary standard, that the Committee believes is strict enough to ensure that funds are invested wisely and safely yet provide a reasonable yield on investment. Eligible investments under the prudent investment standard may include the following: (1) cash and cash equivalents (including bank checking accounts, savings accounts, and brokerage account free cash balances that carry a quality rating A1 P1, or AA or higher) (2) money market accounts with an A rating or higher, (3) certificates of deposit where the amounts qualify for insurance ($100,000 or less) or where the issuing bank has delivered a specific assignment, (4) bank repossession certificates where the amounts qualify for insurance ($100,000 or less) or where the issuing bank has delivered a specific assignment, (5) U.S. Government or Agency Securities, (6) commercial paper rated A1 P1 at time of purchase and which cannot exceed 10% of portfolio at time of purchase with any one issuer (short term paper--under 90 days--may be treated as a cash equivalent), (7) auction rate preferred instruments that are issued by substantial issuers, are rated AA or better, and may be utilized with auction maturities of 28 to 90 days, (8) corporate bonds of U.S. Corporations that have Moody's, Standard and Poor's, or Fitch's rating of A or equivalent and where no more than 10% of portfolio at time of purchase is invested in the securities of any one issuer, (9) dollar denominated short term bonds of the G7 Nations or World Bank only if the yields exceed those of U.S. instruments of equivalent maturity and quality, and where no more than 25% of portfolio at time of purchase is invested in this asset category, (10) properly registered short term no- load government or corporate bond mutual funds with a safety rating and average fund quality of A or higher, which demonstrate low volatility, and where no more than 25% of portfolio at time of purchase is invested in any one fund. Carryover of Funds. All funds paid to an Indian tribe under a Compact or funding agreement are ``no year'' funds and may be spent in the year they are received or in any future fiscal year. Carryover funds are not to reduce the amount of funds that the tribe may receive in subsequent years. (j) Program Income. All program income (including Medicare/ Medicaid) earned by an Indian tribe is supplemental to the funding that is included in its funding agreement. The Secretary may not reduce the amount of funds that the Indian tribe may receive under its funding agreement for future fiscal years. The Indian tribe may retain such income and spend it either in the current or future years. (k) Limitation of Costs. An Indian tribe is not required to continue performance of a Program, function, service, or activity (or portion thereof) included in a funding agreement if doing so requires more funds than were provided under the funding agreement. If an Indian tribe believes that the amount of funds transferred is not enough to carry out a program, function, service, or activity, (or portion thereof) for the full year, the Indian tribe may so notify the Secretary. If the Secretary does not supply additional funds the tribe may suspend performance of the program, function, service, or activity (or portion thereof) until additional funds are provided. Section 509. Construction Projects (a) In General. Indian tribes are authorized to conduct construction projects authorized under this Section. The tribes are to assume full responsibility for the projects, including responsibility for enforcement and compliance with all relevant federal laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. A tribe undertaking a construction project must designate a certifying officer to represent the tribe and accept federal court jurisdiction for purposes of the enforcement of federal environmental laws. (b) Negotiations. This subsection provides that negotiation of construction projects are negotiated pursuant to Section 105(m) of the Act and construction project agreements included in the funding agreement as an addendum. (c) Codes and Standards. The tribes and the IHS must agree to standards and codes for the construction project. The agreement will be in conformity with nationally accepted standards for comparable projects. (d) Responsibility for Completion. This subsection provides that the Indian tribe must assume responsibility for the successful completion of the project according to the terms of the construction project agreement. (e) Funding. This subsection provides that funding of construction projects will be through advance payments, on either an annual or semi-annual basis. Payment amounts will be determined by project schedules, work already completed, and the amount of funds already expended. Flexibility in payment schedules will be maintained by the IHS through contingency funds to take account of exigent circumstances such as weather and supply. (f) Approval. This subsection allows the Secretary to have at least one opportunity to approve tribal project planning and design documents or significant amendments to the original scope of work before construction. The tribe is to provide at least semiannual progress and financial reports. The Secretary is allowed to conduct semiannual site visits or on another basis if agreed to by the tribe. (g) Wages. This subsection mirrors section 7(a) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act which incorporates Davis-Bacon wage protections for workers. (h) Application of Other Laws. This subsection provides that provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and other federal procurement laws and regulations do not apply to construction projects, unless agreed to by the participating tribe. Section 510. Federal Procurement Laws and Program Regulations This section provides that unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, Compacts and funding agreements are not subject to federal contracting or cooperative agreement laws and regulations (including executive orders) unless those laws expressly apply to Indian tribes. Compacts and funding agreements are also not subject to program regulations that apply to the Secretary's operations. Section 511. Civil Actions (a) Contract Defined. The Committee intends that Section 110 of Title I of the Act, which grants tribes access to Federal District Court to challenge a decision by the Secretary, shall apply to this Title. (b) Applicability of Certain Laws. This subsection provides that Department of Interior approval of tribal contracts (25 U.S.C. 81) and section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 476) shall not apply to attorney and other professional contracts with Self-Governance tribes. Section 512. Facilitation (a) Secretarial Interpretation. This section requires the Secretary to interpret all executive orders, regulations and federal laws in a manner that will facilitate the inclusion of programs, functions, services, or activities, (or portions thereof) and funds associated therewith under Title V, implementation of Title V Compacts and funding agreements, and the achievement of Tribal health goals and objectives where they are not inconsistent with Federal law. This section reinforces the Secretary's obligation not merely to provide health care services to Native American tribes, but to facilitate the efforts of tribes to manage those programs for the maximum benefit of their communities. (b) Regulation Waiver. An Indian tribe participating in Self-Governance under Title V may seek a waiver of an applicable Indian Self-Determination Act regulation by submitting a written waiver request to the Secretary. The Secretary has 90 days to respond and a failure to act within that period is deemed an approval of the request by operation of law. Action on a waiver request is final for the Department. Denials may be made upon a specific finding that the waiver is prohibited by federal law. Failure to act within the 90 day period by the Secretary is deemed an approval. (c) Access to Federal Property. This subsection addresses tribal use of federal buildings, hospitals and other facilities, as well as the transfer to tribes of title to excess personal or real property. At the request of an Indian tribe the Secretary is required to permit the Indian tribe to use government-owned real or personal property under the Secretary's jurisdiction under such terms as the parties may agree to. The Secretary is required to donate title to personal or real property that is excess to the needs of any agency or the General Services Administration as long as the Secretary has determined that the property is appropriate for any purpose for which a compact is authorized, irrespective of whether a tribe is in fact administering a particular program that matches that purpose. For instance, if a tribe is not administering a mental health program under its IHS compact or funding agreement, the Secretary may nonetheless acquire excess or surplus property and donate such property to the tribe so long as the Secretary determines that the tribe will be using the property to administer mental health services. Title to property furnished by the government or purchased with funds received under a Compact or funding agreement vests in the Indian tribe if it so chooses. Such property also remains eligible for replacement, maintenance or improvement on the same terms as if the United States had title to it. Any property that is worth $5,000 or more at the time of a retrocession, withdrawal or reassumption may revert back to the United States at the option of the Secretary. (d) Matching or Cost-Participation Requirement. Funds transferred under Compacts and funding agreements are to be considered non-federal funds for purposes of meeting matching or cost participation requirements under federal or non- federal programs. (e) State Facilitation. This section encourages and authorizes States to enter agreements with tribes supplementing and facilitating Title V and other federal laws that benefit Indians and Indian tribes, for example, welfare reform. It is designed to provide federal authority so as to remove equal protection objections where states enter into special arrangements with tribes. The Committee wants to foster enlightened and productive partnerships between state and local governments, on the one hand, and Indian tribes on the other; and, the Committee wants to be sure that states are authorized by the Federal Government to undertake such initiatives, as part of the Federal Government's constitutional authority to deal with Indian tribes as political entities, irrespective of any limitations which have from time to time been argued might otherwise exist with respect to state action under either state constitutional provisions or other provisions of the Constitution. Many state and tribal governments have undertaken positive initiatives both in health care issues and in natural resource management, and it is the Committee's strong desire to fully support, authorize and encourage such cooperative efforts. (f) Rules of Construction. Provisions in this Title and in Compacts and funding agreements shall be liberally construed and ambiguities decided for the benefit of the Indian tribe participating in the program. Section 513. Budget Request (a) The President is required to annually identify in his/ her budget all funds needed to fully fund all Title V Compacts and funding agreements. These funds are to be apportioned to the Indian Health Service which will then be transferred to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance. The IHS may not thereafter reduce the funds a tribe is otherwise entitled to receive whether or not such funds have been apportioned to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance. The Committee has been made aware that the current system for payment and approval of funding and amendments for Annual Funding Agreements for Self-Governance Demonstration tribes is inefficient and time consuming. In addition, by leaving authority and responsibility for distributions to Area Offices, there have been reported instances of excessive and unwarranted assertion of authority by Area Offices over self governance tribes. This includes Area Offices retaining shares of funds not authorized to be retained by the tribe's Annual Funding Agreement. The Committee concludes that by requiring a report on Self Governance expenditures, and by moving all Self-Governance funding onto a single line, the Congress will be able to achieve the following ends: more accurately gauge the amount of funding flowing directly to Tribes through participation in Self governance; generate savings through decreasing the bureaucratic burden on the payment and approval process in the Indian Health Service; expedite the transferal of funding to tribal operating units; and, aid in the implementation of true government to government relations and tribal self determination. (b) The budget must identify the present level of need and any shortfalls in funding for every Indian tribe in the United States that receives services directly from the Secretary, through a Title I contract or in a Title V Compact and funding agreement. section 514. reports (a) Annual Report. The Secretary is required to submit to Congress on January 1 of every year a written report on the Self-Governance program. The report is to include the level of need presently funded or unfunded for every Indian tribe in the United States that receives services directly from the Secretary, through a Title I contract or in a Title V Compact and funding agreement. The Secretary may not impose reporting requirements on Indian tribes unless specified in Title V. (b) Contents. The Secretary's report must identify: (1) the costs and benefits of self-governance; (2) all funds related to the Secretary's provision of services and benefits to self-governance tribes and their members; (3) all funds transferred to self-governance tribes and the corresponding reduction in the federal bureaucracy; (4) the funding formula for individual tribal shares; (5) the amount expended by the Secretary during the preceding fiscal year to carry out inherent federal functions; and (6) contain a description of the method used to determine tribal shares. The Secretary's report must be distributed to Indian tribes for comment no less than 30 days prior to its submission to Congress and include the separate views of Indian tribes. (c) Report on IHS Funds. This section requires the Secretary to consult with Indian tribes and report, within 180 days after Title V is enacted, on funding formulae used to determine tribal shares of funds controlled by IHS. The formulae are to become a part of the annual report to Congress discussed above in Section 514(d). This provision is not intended to relieve HHS from its obligation under Title V to make all funds controlled by the central office, national, headquarters or regional offices available to Indian tribes. This provision is also not intended to require reopening funding formulae that are already being used by HHS to distribute funds to Indian tribes. Any new formulae or revision of existing formulae should be determined only after significant regional and national tribal consultation. Section 515. Disclaimers (a) No Funding Reduction. This provision states that nothing in Title V shall be interpreted to limit or reduce the funding for any program, project or activity that any other Indian tribe may receive under Title I or other applicable federal laws. A tribe that alleges that a Compact or funding agreement violates this section may rely on Section 110 of the Act to seek judicial review of the allegation. (b) Federal Trust and Treaty Responsibilities. This section clarifies that the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian tribes and individual Indians which exists under treaties, Executive Orders, laws and court decisions shall not be reduced by any provision of Title V. (c) Tribal Employment. This provision excludes Indian tribes carrying out responsibilities under a Compact or funding agreement from falling under the definition of ``employer'' as that term is used in the National Labor Regulations Act. (d) Obligations of the United States. The IHS is prohibited from billing, or requiring Indian tribes from billing, individual Indians who have the economic means to pay for services. For many years the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills included language that prohibited the Indian Health Service, without explicit direction from Congress, from billing or charging Indians who have the economic means to pay. In 1997 the language was removed from the Appropriation bills and it has not been included since. This section reflects the Committee's intent that the IHS is prohibited from billing Indians for services, and is further prohibited from requiring any Indian tribe to do so. Section 516. Application of Other Sections of the Act (a) This section expressly incorporates a number of provisions from other areas of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act into Title V. These sections include: 5(b) (access for three years to tribal records), 6 (setting our penalties that apply if an individual embezzles or otherwise misappropriates funds under Title V); 7 (Davis- Bacon wage and labor standards and Indian preference requirements); 102(c) and (d) (relating to Federal Tort Claims Act coverage); 104 (relating to the right to use federal personnel to carry out responsibilities in a Compact or funding agreement); 105(k) (access to federal supplies); 111 (clarifying that Title V shall have no impact on existing sovereign immunity and the United States' trust responsibility); and section 314 Public Law No. 101-512 (coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act). (b) At the request of an Indian tribe, other provisions of Title I of the Indian Self-Determination Act which do not conflict with provisions in Title V may be incorporated into a Compact or funding agreement. If incorporation is requested during negotiations it will be considered effective immediately. Section 517. Regulations This section gives the Secretary limited authority to promulgate regulations implementing Title V. (a) In general. The Secretary is required to initiate procedures to negotiate and promulgate regulations necessary to carry out Title V within 90 days of enactment of Title V. The procedures must be developed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Secretary is required to publish proposed regulations no later than one year after the date of enactment of Title V. The authority to promulgate final regulations under Title V expires 21 months after enactment. The Committee is aware of the success of the Title I negotiated rulemaking and believes that one reason for its success is a similar limitation of rulemaking authority contained in section 107(a) of the Indian Self-Determination Act, which this section is modeled after. (b) Committee. This provision requires that a negotiated rulemaking committee made up of federal and tribal government members be formed in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. A majority of the tribal committee members must be representatives of and must have been nominated by Indian tribes with Title V Compacts and funding agreements. The committee will confer with and allow representatives of Indian tribes, inter-tribal consortiums, tribal organizations and individual tribal members to actively participate in the rulemaking process. (c) Adaptation of Procedures. The negotiated rulemaking procedures may be modified by the Secretary to ensure that the unique context of self-governance and the government-to- government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes is accommodated. (d) Effect. The effect of Title V shall not be limited if regulations are not published. (e) Effect of Circulars, Policies, Manuals, Guidances and Rules. Unless an Indian tribe agrees otherwise in a Compact or funding agreement, no agency circulars, policies, manuals, guidances or rules adopted by the IHS apply to the tribe. Section 518. Appeals In any appeal (including civil actions) involving a decision by the Secretary under Title V, the Secretary carries the burden of proof. To satisfy this burden the Secretary must establish by clear and convincing evidence the validity of the grounds for the decision made and that the decision is fully consistent with provisions and policies of Title V. Section 519. Authorization of appropriations This section authorizes Congress to appropriate such funds as are necessary to carry out Title V. Section 601. Demonstration Project Feasibility This provision requires an 18 month study to determine the feasibility of creating a Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project for other agencies, programs and services in the Department of Health and Human Services. (a) Study. This subsection authorizes the feasibility study. (b) Considerations. This subsection requires the Secretary to consider (1) the effects of a Demonstration Project on specific programs and beneficiaries, (2) statutory, regulatory or other impediments, (3) strategies for implementing the Demonstration Project, (4) associated costs or savings, (5) methods to assure Demonstration Project quality and accountability, and (6) such other issues that may be raised during the consultation process. (c) Report. This subsection provides that the Secretary is to submit a report to Congress on the results of the study, which programs and agencies are feasible to be included in a Demonstration Project, which programs would not require statutory changes or regulatory waivers, a list of legislative recommendations for programs that are feasible but would require statutory changes, and any separate views of Indian tribes or other entities involved in the consultation process. The Committee has deferred to the Secretary's request not to provide for a demonstration or pilot project component to the Feasibility Study to determine how to best apply Self- Governance to agencies other than the Indian Health Service at HHS. The Secretary has pledged to work in a cooperative spirit with the Indian tribes to quickly identify those programs outside the IHS that are suitable for Self- Governance. The Committee believes that there are agencies and programs outside of the IHS that should be ready to participate in the Self-Governance program at the conclusion of the study and anticipates the introduction of legislation at that time to authorize such participation. Section 602. Consultation (a) Study Protocol. This Provision requires the Secretary to consult with Indian tribes to determine a protocol for conducting the study. The protocol shall require that the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes forms the basis for the study, that consultations are jointly conducted by the tribes and the Secretary, and that the consultation process allow for input from Indian tribes and other entities who wish to comment. (b) Conducting Study. This provision requires that when the Secretary conducts the study, she is to consult with Indian tribes, states, counties, municipalities, program beneficiaries, and interested public interest groups. Section 603. Definitions (a) This subsection is intended to incorporate into Title VI the definitions used in Title V. (b) This subsection defines ``agency'' to mean any agency in the Department of Health and Human Services other than the Indian Health Service. Section 604. Authorization of Appropriations This section authorizes the appropriation of such sums as necessary for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 in order to carry out Title VI. Section 5. Amendments Clarifying Civil Proceedings (a) This provision amends Section 102(e)(1) of the Act to clarify that the Secretary has the burden of proof in any civil action pursuant to Section 110(a). (b) The provision provides that the amendment to Section 102(e)(1) set out subsection (a) shall apply to any proceeding commenced after October 25, 1994. Section 6. Speedy Acquisition of Goods and Services This section requires the Secretary to enter into agreements for acquisition of goods and services for tribes, including pharmaceuticals at the best price and in as fast a manner as is possible, similar to those obtained buy agreement by the Veterans Administration. Section 7. Patient Records This section provides that Indian patient records may be deemed to be federal records under the Federal Records Acts in order to allow tribes to store patient records in the Federal Records Center. Section 8. Repeals This Section repeals Title III of the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act which authorizes the Demonstration Project replaced by this Act. Section 9. Savings Provision This section provides that funds already appropriated for Title III of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act shall remain available for use under the new Title V. Section 10. Effective Date This section provides that the Act shall take effect on the date of enactment.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2094. It is a good government bill and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), who has authored the House bill, deserves credit for his diligence and devotion for getting this legislation passed. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2094. This is simply a good Government bill. It allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to auction nonendangered wildlife products that have been confiscated by wildlife agents or the customs service for various reasons. The bill enables the proceeds of those sales to be used to cover the costs of shipping, storing, and disposing of confiscated wildlife products, and to facilitate the distribution of such products for educational or scientific purposes, or for Native American religious purposes. Sadly, each year millions of dollars in illegal wildlife products are confiscated at our borders. This bill takes these lemons and makes lemonade by allowing some of these products to be used to raise revenue to enhance wildlife awareness and education, as well as to pay the more mundane costs of administering confiscated goods. This is good legislation made better by the other body, whose amendment ensures that no products whose sale is otherwise prohibited by Federal law may be sold pursuant to this legislation. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Skaggs, who authored the House bill, deserves credit for his diligence and devotion to getting this legislation passed. This bill is as unassuming and effective and its House sponsor and I urge the House to support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr MILLER of California

Mr MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. It is interesting that the Republicans who spent months and months trying to get a budget, then when they cannot get a budget, they say it does not amount to a hill of bean, that it makes no difference to the American people. Then why did you spend all those months in the Budget Committee trying to hammer out a budget? You say it does not matter that the appropriations bills are not done yet. But why did you spend all this time trying to do it? The fact of the matter is you have an ideological fight going on within the Republican Party within the right wing and the far right wing and you cannot resolve it and you have not been able to do the American public's business. You have not been able to do it. Most of the businesses in America are increasing their productivity. Workers all across America are increasing their productivity. People are making investments in productivity. The Republican Congress is working less every year. Every year. You lost a month this year. Last year we worked 132 days. This year we worked 106. You have lost a month. Two years ago you worked more days. You have lost 2 months in 2 years. At this rate we will be the most unproductive workers in America. You cannot get a budget, you cannot get appropriations bills, you could not get a tobacco agreement, you have not been able to reform HMOs, you cannot deal with crumbling classrooms in this country, you cannot deal with getting more teachers in the classrooms because of a teacher shortage, and yet you are getting the same pay. But you have lost 2 months in 2 years' time. If you worked for any corporation in America, either you would shut down your corporation, you would reinvent your corporation, or you would go out of business. Name another entity in this country that lost 2 months in the last 2 years in worker productivity. American workers are working harder than they have ever worked before for their wages and the first thing that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) suggests is that we take away their wages in Davis-Bacon, that we take hardworking Americans and his answer to the budgetary problem is to take away their wages. That is outrageous. Those people are working 8 and 10 hours a day. They are working 6 and 7 days a week. The Congress is coming in on Wednesday and leaving on Thursday, the Congress cannot show up after its August break until the middle of September, and it is ready to go home in October and it is not coming back until March. That is a hell of a job we have got here, ladies and gentlemen. The only problem is you have not done your work. Anywhere else in America, you would be fired. You would be fired, because you failed to show up and go to work every day like every other American. So what has happened? So we have said no, this Congress, to 100,000 teachers for our children. We have said no to our children who are in crumbling classrooms, where $12 billion worth of work needs to be done to make those classrooms safe. We have said no to America's children for afterschool programs that the police departments tell us all the time they need to help us fight crime after school between 3 and 6 in the afternoon. You have said no to the people who want to submit the patient-doctor relationship, you have insisted that we are going to continue to let the insurance companies get in between patients and doctors who need that kind of care. You have said no to the tobacco settlement so we can get back to the Medicare system the money that was stolen from them because they had to deal with the tobacco ailments of the American public from smoking after being deceived by the tobacco companies. This is the most unproductive Congress in the history of this Congress. If we keep losing the days of work like this, pretty soon we will just show up in January, collect a year's pay and go home, because according to you, it makes no difference whether we have a budget and appropriations. It makes a difference to the American people because the reason you do not have a budget is you do not want to admit what you have not done.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment is really immaterial here. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has pointed out, it fails to remove any of the fatal flaws that exist in this legislation. We have been told now several times by the supporters of this bill that they have compromised and they have worked with the administration and others, except the fact of the matter is on those areas where they talked to the administration, where they did not get the answers they wanted, they just stopped talking and, therefore, the administration continues to oppose the legislation. We have just received a letter from the Department of Agriculture, from the Secretary of Agriculture that continues to be opposed to the Chugach Alaska provisions in this bill because it gives away much more public land than is necessary and it gives it away without compensating the taxpayers. That is why the taxpayer organizations continue to oppose this. And it does it in an environmentally insensitive way. That is why the environmental organizations continue to oppose this. And it goes on and on and on and on. What they have tried to do now in the 11th hour is add a little bit of frosting to this old piece of legislation to see if they could get one or two more votes to vote for it. The fact of the matter is that this legislation remains unacceptable to a bipartisan coalition in this House, to the major environmental organizations, to many local environmental organizations and citizen organizations. This legislation remains unacceptable to taxpayer organizations in this country and remains unacceptable to the Department of Agriculture, to the Department of Interior and to the administration. That is why it is going to get a veto and that is why it is not going to get taken up in the Senate. That is why we ought to kill it now and then go back to the business of trying to put together legislation that deals with those projects that have bipartisan support, that deals with those projects that are noncontroversial in terms of the environmental insults, and drop from this bill, or drop from this negotiation those items that are far too controversial to allow them to be signed into law before the end of this session. Those items should have been brought out here on the floor of the Congress. They should have been debated openly. We had many, many hours in every week of this session where we went home in the middle of the afternoon, where we did not show up until Tuesday night, where we left on Thursday morning and we could have been debating this legislation. But the effort here has been to try to jam the members of this Congress so the Members of this Congress would try to jam this vote and to somehow agree because they got one small project or one small commission or one small boundary change that somehow they would then enable the real agenda of this legislation to pass, which is huge environmental insults that cannot stand on their own, cannot take the light of day, cannot take the scrutiny of any of the citizens organizations or of the public interest or of the taxpayers. We ought not to be doing that. Members ought not to take and trade their integrity for some small bill when this bill insults taxpayers, when it is a waste of public moneys, when it insults the environmental policy in this country in the manner in which it does. Members ought not to make that trade. This bill ought to go down and then those Members that have good pieces of legislation that are noncontroversial, that are bipartisan and that have the support of environmental organizations and the administration and taxpayer organizations, that bill ought to be put together and it will pass out of here on unanimous consent. That is how you legislate. That is how you bring environmental progress to this country. You do not do it in the 11th hour at the end of a session where you have had plenty of time and then try to see whether or not you can squeeze every Member to vote against their conscience so that somehow we can have these bills that have been opposed for many, many, many months. Many months, where there has not been discussion about them and bills that they have refused to submit to the committee because the committee probably would not approve them, bills that they have submitted to no hearings because the hearings would be controversial and probably end up with people opposing the legislation from local organizations and elsewhere. Now all of a sudden they decide that all of that has got to be put into one bill and Members are told to take it or leave it. The Members ought to leave it. Then we ought to get back to the business of legislating legislation in the environmental area, in the public lands area that we can be proud of, that we can talk about and we can show the American people that we care about the environmental assets of this country without destroying them in the name of saving a few others in different parts of the country. I would urge Members on a bipartisan basis, my colleagues here, to oppose this legislation and then let us get on with the people's business. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).