Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support H.R. 1140, the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. Thanks to the heroic efforts of the Speaker of the House, the Honorable Dennis Hastert, we have been able to reach an agreement on this historic legislation. H.R. 1140 is virtually identical to the railroad retirement bill that passed the House last year, 391 to 25, but was not taken up by the other body. This Congress made several technical changes, such as inserting updated effective dates. We have also included language drafted by the House Committee on the Budget that clarifies the authors' intent that transferring funds to the new investment trust does not result in outlays. To address concerns raised about protecting the investment of tier 2 pension assets from possible influence by the Federal Government, we have also included labor and management selection process for the board of trustees who will manage those assets. By moving a portion of the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund out of mandatory investment in Treasury bonds and giving it more investment flexibility, this landmark bill will provide enhanced benefits to railroad retirees, as well as reduced taxes on railroad employers. A 2 percent increase in the rate of return, which is quite conservative based on historical trends, will provide the needed boost to allow for these benefit increases and payroll tax cuts. H.R. 1140 includes safety provisions that automatically adjust payroll tax rates upward if historically predicted increases in retirement fund returns do not materialize. The burden of higher taxes will fall entirely on railroad employers, not the employees. I would like to commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), for prompting the negotiations between labor and management that produced this legislation. The bipartisan comprehensive reform package we have before us today reduces the financial burden on employers as well as the employees, while providing an overall increase in benefits, a targeted increase for widows and widowers of railroad retirees, and a reduced tier 2 retirement age. Let me briefly mention an unfounded concern that has been voiced about this bill. Many people have been told this bill involves a $15 billion first-year hit on the U.S. Treasury. Thanks to the hard work of the Speaker of the House, the OMB and the House leadership have agreed on legislative language that avoids this fictional outlay. This language reflects the fact that taking the $15 billion tier 2 pension fund out of the current approach of investing only in Treasury bonds, and allowing professional, diversified management of the investment, is not spending. Mr. Speaker, the wisdom and widespread support of this bill is demonstrated by the fact that it has 371 sponsors. And for those who say the bill raids the Treasury, let me advise them that 30 of the 42 members of the Committee on the Budget are sponsors of the bill. Furthermore, even the CBO admits that the scoring of this bill is ill- suited to the type of reinvestment this bill would allow. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents several years' effort and difficult negotiations between railroad labor and railroad management. I commend my colleagues on the railroading industry for their diligence and cooperation. I am also very pleased that the bipartisan leadership of this committee worked cooperatively to move this legislation again in the 107th Congress. Working on a bipartisan basis in this committee has allowed us to enact significant legislation on behalf of our constituents. H.R. 1140 will set yet another example of this proud record. I thank my colleague and ranking Democrat on the committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) for their cooperation and support. I urge swift passage of H.R. 1140. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for purposes of control.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues, Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Congressman Dave Camp of Michigan and Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This legislation has been drafted with the input of the Association on American Indian Affairs, Tanana Chiefs Conference, National Indian Child Welfare Association, National Congress of American Indians, tribal attorneys and the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. It has always been my intent to have all affected parties participate in the legislative process in the drafting of ICWA amendments. In 2001, we still have American Indian and Alaska Native children being adopted out of families, tribal communities and states. We continue to have this problem in Alaska and I have been asked to introduce ICWA amendments to further clarify ICWA. Specifically, the bill details jurisdiction of child custody and child adoption proceedings that involve an Indian child. The bill has a couple of specific provisions which outline jurisdiction in Alaska since Alaska is not a reservation state (outside of Metlakatla). The bill states that an Indian tribe in Alaska shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Alaska over voluntary and involuntary child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled in Alaska. Additionally, a person seeking to adopt an Indian child in the State of Alaska, may file an adoption petition at any time in the tribal court of the Indian child's tribe. If the tribal court agrees to assume the jurisdiction over the proceeding, that tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction and no adoptive placement or proceeding can continue in the state court. The bill makes conforming technical amendments conditioning an Indian tribe's existing right of intervention. It clarifies that State and tribal courts are required to accord full faith and credit to tribal court judgments affecting the custody of an Indian child in ICWA child custody proceedings, and in any other proceedings involving the determination of an Indian child's custody, including divorce proceedings. It clarifies that ICWA applies to voluntary consents to termination of parental rights and voluntary consents to adoptive, preadoptive and foster care placements. It clarifies and adds exacting details on setting limits on when an Indian birth parent may withdraw his or her consent to an adoption. It clarifies that tribe's are to receive notice of voluntary adoptive placements of Indian children and details the content of notice when an Indian child is placed for an adoption. It clarifies in detail the intervention by an Indian tribe and sets specific time frames for intervention by a tribe in the voluntary foster care placement proceeding and voluntary adoptive proceeding. It also requires tribes to show why it considers a child to be covered by the ICWA. It provides for a detailed notice to parents when a child is placed for adoption. It provides detailed requirements for resumption of jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. It imposes criminal sanctions on any individual, group or association who knowingly conceals whether a child is an Indian child or whether a parent is an Indian. Finally, the bill provides further clarification of the definition of ``Indian child'' and ``Indian child's tribe'' as applied in child custody proceedings. I think it is appropriate that Congress further clarifies the ICWA to ensure that American Indian and Alaska Native children are not snatched from their families or tribal communities without cause. In a recent July 1, 2001 article in the San Antonio Express News, the story stated that ``This year, the head of the Child Welfare League of America offered American Indians something they have longed to hear for more than three decades: an apology for taking American Indian children.'' (San Antonio Express News, Sunday, July 1, 2001 Article ``Torn from their roots; The unfortunate legacy of the Indian Adoption Project is that it has separated many Native Americans from their culture''). ``It was genuinely believed that Indian children were better off in white homes,'' said Terry Cross, Executive Director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. (San Antonio Express News, Sunday, July 1, 2001 Article). That changed in 1978 when Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act. ``Even now, Cross cites problems. Sometimes social workers are not properly trained to identify children as Indian. Or agencies fail to notify tribes of adoptions''. (San Antonio Express News, Sunday, July 1, 2001 Article). I believe that these FY 2001 ICWA amendments to be acceptable legislation which will protect the interests of prospective adoptive parents, Native extended families, and most importantly, American Indian and Alaska Native children. The Committee on Resources will seek additional input from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services. I am hopeful that these agencies will again embrace this legislation so that we can affirm this country's commitment to protect Native American families and promote the best interest of Native children. I urge and welcome support from my colleagues in further clarifying the ICWA to ensure no more American Indian or Alaska Native children are lost.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which will facilitate and promote the successful commercial reuse of the former Naval Air Facility on Adak Island, Alaska. At the same time, this legislation will allow the Aleut people of Alaska to reclaim the island and to make use of its modern developments and important location. The legislation I introduce today ratifies an agreement between The Aleut Corporation, an Alaska Native Regional Corporation, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Navy. ``The Agreement Concerning the Conveyance of Property at the Adak Naval Complex, Adak,'' Alaska was signed last September and is the result of more than four years of discussions and negotiations among the three parties. The bill and the Agreement also further the conservation of important wildlife habitat. A portion of Adak is within the Aleutian Islands subunit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The Agreement facilitates the Department of the Interior's continued management and protection of the Refuge lands on Adak and even adds some of the Navy lands to the Refuge. Moreover, in exchange for the developed Navy lands, which are not suitable for the Refuge, but are commercially useful, The Aleut Corporation will convey environmentally sensitive lands it holds elsewhere in the Refuge to the Department of the Interior. For many years the Navy was an important constituent in Alaska's Aleutian Chain. Its presence was first established during World War II with the selection and development of the island because of its combination of ability to support a major airfield and its natural and protected deep water port. The Navy's presence there contributed greatly to the defense of our Pacific coast during World War II and throughout the Cold War. Through the Navy's presence, Adak became the largest development in the Aleutians as well as Alaska's sixth largest community. With the end of The Cold War our defense needs changed, however, and Adak was selected for closure during the last base closure round. Those very same features that made Adak strategically important for defense purposes also make it important for commercial purposes. Adak is a natural stepping stone to Asia and is at the crossroads of air and sea trade between North America, Europe, and Asia. With the ability to use Adak commercially, the Aleut people, through The Aleut Corporation can establish it as an important intercontinental location with enterprise enough to provide year round jobs for the Aleut people. These goals are consistent with the promises and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the legislation that created the corporation. This rebirth of Adak is already well underway. The Aleut people assumed responsibility for the operation of the Island from the Navy last October and there are a number of new commercial enterprises and endeavors. At the same time a new community has begun to take shape. Just last month the new City of Adak was established as a result of a public referendum and is in the process of taking over responsibility for the many public facilities. The Agreement resolves a number of important issues related to the transfer of this former military base and the establishment of the new community on Adak, including responsibility for environmental remediation, institutional controls, indemnification, required public access, and reservation of lands for government use. This legislation furthers this country's objectives of conversion of closed defense facilities into successful commercial reuse, it benefits the Aleut people and restores them to their ancestral lands and it benefits the National Wildlife Refuge System. I believe everyone will agree that such legislation is important and worthy of our support.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I love his theory, but one thing I would ask the gentleman. Two years ago I was in New Mexico standing and overlooking a huge ice action and the gentleman with me said, you know, think about it, Congressman, 12 million years ago there was 284 feet of ice where you are standing. I never will ask how the ice got there, but it was there, and that has scientifically been proven. But I will ask the gentleman from Maryland, what melted that ice all the way back to the North Pole when our activity is less than 4,000 years? So I want to ask the gentleman, what melted it all the way back there? It always intrigues me about the idea of how arrogant we are thinking we are the real problem for all of the problems that occur on this earth.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the oil that we are going to drill and the gentleman from Maryland is going to help me drill in Alaska if he has any wisdom at all; in fact, when we drill, we do not drill through rock up there, we drill through ferns, tree trunks, elephants, all the way down to the bottom to get to the oil. Now, if we are to follow the gentleman's theory and there is not going to be any change and we are the fault of all of it, then why did this always occur in the past? We take a great deal upon ourselves saying it is our fault because of this global warming when, in reality, if we look at the past history of this earth, it was warm at one time, it was very, very cold at one time; and that was before mankind had anything to do with it. So before we jump off the cliff, let us understand one thing: we may not be as important as the gentleman thinks we are.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation and Related Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. I first want to again to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his excellent work on this legislation. He has done an outstanding job in making difficult choices with very little money and finding the funds to ensure the Nation's transportation infrastructure needs are met. While I may not agree with every choice made in the legislation, I do recognize his leadership and hard work, and it has resulted in an excellent bill. I want to congratulate him for the work well done in his first term as chairman of the subcommittee. At the beginning of this Congress, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and I began a process of improving communications between our two committees, and I am hopeful that we can continue to work together to improve our communications and cooperation. I also would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for reporting a bill that generally honors the funding guarantees contained in both the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, and the Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21st Century, AIR-21. However, I still have several concerns about the legislation. First, I have made it clear from the beginning of my term as chairman of Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that I am going to ensure that the guaranteed funding provided by TEA-21 and AIR-21 are respected. These funds are essential to maintaining and improving our ground and aviation transportation systems. The formula adopted by Congress under TEA-21 and AIR-21 guarantees that our promises are kept to the taxpayers who pay the taxes on fuels for the purpose of improving and maintaining our highways and airports. A major guarantee of TEA-21 is that as the revenue from taxes increases, those revenues would automatically be distributed to the States through a process called Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA. Unfortunately, section 310 and section 323 both redistribute RABA funds for NAFTA-related spending in violation of the guarantee provided in TEA-21. While I do support the object of the funding, strict safety inspections of Mexican trucks, I am concerned that opening up RABA to other purposes is not the appropriate manner in which to solve this problem. For that reason, I will object to this change in the law contained in bill. The bill was reported with actually 50 legislative provisions that fall within this jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am not objecting to the majority of these provisions, either because the appropriate consultation with my committee has taken place or because we are able to reach an agreement on the merits of certain actions. However, there will be a number, as I mentioned before, of other provisions that I will object to and raise a point of order that the committee has legislated in an area that is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Finally, I want to express my strong support for the amendment to be offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). His amendment is needed to address the significant shortfall in the appropriation to the Coast Guard. It was my understanding that the Committee on the Budget had provided a sufficient Function 400 to cover all the needs of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, that allocation was not passed along in the Subcommittee on Transportation, which now makes this amendment necessary. Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations for its consideration and cooperation. I want to commend the excellent staff of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation for their hard work and willingness to work with my staff. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman through this appropriation process to produce the best transportation appropriation bill possible.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his comments. I hope to work with the ranking member and of course the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee, to see if we cannot get these monies somehow into this program. It is a good program. Again, though, I think it should be coming from the general fund and not necessarily from the funds that were set aside for the improvements of these airports. Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I do. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that one of the most unfortunate things that occurred to the Subcommittee on Transportation is the fact they do not have the money. I do think the budgeteers did a bad thing. Four percent is not enough. I said this all along. So I will continue to try to seek funding of this program as we progress with this bill and other bills to see if we cannot accomplish what we are all seeking. I have more small airports than any place in the United States and most of my people do not have highways, so I am very supportive of this program, but we also have to make sure it is funded adequately and appropriately and I concede the point of order at this time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 323 beginning on page 50, line 22, and ending on page 51, line 15. This language authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to reserve up to $18 million of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, RABA, for four States, Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, for the purpose of hiring State motor carrier safety inspectors at the U.S.- Mexican border. This explicitly waives existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 310 beginning on page 38, line 23, and ending on page 44, line 2. This language explicitly directs the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to alter the TEA-21 distribution of funds contrary to existing law. It directs the redistribution of $56.3 million of Federal Highway Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) to carry out a program for State and Federal border infrastructure construction. This is a clear violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order beginning on line 22.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language found at page 15, beginning on line 9 and continuing to line 14 which begins ``That of the funds available under section 104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States Code'' and ending on line 14 with the words ``border safety audits.'' The language is unauthorized earmark of $13.911 million of Federal Highway Administration administrative funds for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in violation of clause 2 rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language found at page 23, beginning on line 20 and continuing to page 24, line 2, which begins ``Providing further, that notwithstanding section 3008 of Public Law 105-78'' and ending on page 25, line 2, with ``capital investment grants.'' This language violates the guarantees of TEA-21 to provide funds for the Clean Fuels Bus formula grant program to the other discretionary grant program. This language supersedes existing law and clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language found at page 13, beginning on line 24 which begins ``for administration of such programs'' and continuing to line 25 and ending with the words ``section 40117.'' The language would fund the cost of administering the Airport Improvement Program from contract authority that, under chapter 471 and section 48103 of Title 49 U.S.C., is authorized only for grants, not administrative expenses. This is an unauthorized earmark of funds. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I also make a point of order against the language found on page 14, beginning on line 12 with the word ``Provided'' and continuing to end the end of line 20. The language on lines 12 through 17 before the words ``Provided further'' would fund the cost of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program from contract authority that is authorized only for AIP grants under chapter 471 and section 48103 of Title 49 U.S.C. Although I support this program, I must object to funding it with AIP grants as this would constitute an unauthorized earmark of funds. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, the language found at page 14, beginning on line 17 with the words ``That notwithstanding'' and continuing through the end of line 20 would fund the cost of administering the Airport Improvement Program from contract authority under chapter 471 and section 48103 of Title 49 U.S.C., that is authorized only for grants, not administrative expenses. This supersedes existing law and clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores funding for the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program that was stricken by my point of order. This program will help small communities that do not have adequate, affordable commercial air service attract new service. Without reliable air service, small communities cannot sustain its economic growth. The Small Community Air Service Development Pilot program authorized by section 203 of the Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, AIR-21, will assist underserved airports obtain jet air service. It will also allow communities to market that service to increase passenger service. The money provided by this program could also assist a small or midsized community by making money available to subsidize air carriers' operations for up to 3 years if the Secretary of Transportation determines that the community is not receiving sufficient air carrier service. Mr. Chairman, this program is important to many small communities through our Nation, and I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I also suggest, although I struck the money, I do support the program. This is an attempt to put the money back in without having tapped the sources that it originated.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language found on page 26, beginning on line 9 and continuing to line 10 which states ``That notwithstanding any other provision of law'' and also against the language found on page 26, beginning on line 15 and continuing to line 16 which states ``together with $50 million transferred from ``Federal Transit Administration, Formula grants''; this clause ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' explicitly supersedes existing law and clearly constitutes legislation on appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives. This language on lines 15 and 16 transferring $50 million provided by TEA-21 for Clean Fuels Bus formula grants program to the transit bus discretionary capitol investment grant program affects the total transit program outlays for fiscal year 2002, which violates section 8101 of Public Law 105-178 and supersedes existing law. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language found on page 31, beginning on line 9 and continuing to line 10 which begins ``Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178, as amended.'' This language waives the statutory distribution of funds specified in TEA-21 for the Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants program and explicitly supersedes existing law. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order on page 38, line 23.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Interior Appropriations Committee bringing their bill for fiscal year 2002 appropriations to the floor for consideration today. H.R. 2217 has programs which address many of the health, education, lands, law enforcement, conservation and roads needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. I appreciate the Interior Appropriations Committee's increase of the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget of $3,000,000 over the budget request and $124,351,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. This increase is justified and will provide much needed additional program services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. However, I am concerned with language that is in both the House bill and Committee Report regarding Contract Support Costs (CSC) for Indian Health Service (IHS) programs. While I appreciate the Interior Appropriations Committee's increases in the last few years for CSC shortfalls, the current bill contains some provisions harmful to the tribal health delivery system. The bill would limit IHS' authority to enter into new and expanded contracts which is directly contrary to the federal policy of Indian self-determination. It would also limit payment of the direct costs portion of CSC; further, the Committee Report appears to advocate for their eventual elimination. In 1999, the House Committee on Resources held several hearings to address the shortfalls of CSC and received several recommendations from the General Accounting Office (GAO) to correct and meet the true need of CSC. One of GAO's recommendations stated that the IHS and the BIA should remain consistent with their payment of CSC for tribally contracted and compacted run programs. I agreed with the GAO recommendation that both programs should be consistent with their CSC payments. However, while the IHS pays both indirect and direct contract support costs, the BIA does not pay for any direct costs, a policy it (the BIA) now, according to its February 24, 1999, testimony before the House Committee on Resources, has under review. Given the fact that the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA) and its regulations provide that CSC include direct costs, it is appropriate that the BIA review its policy. In fact, the GAO report (Indian Self- Determination Act: Shortfalls on Indian Contract Support Costs Needs To Be Addressed (GAO/RCED-99-150, June 30, 1999) criticized the BIA for not paying direct costs as part of CSC. The FY 2002 Interior Appropriations bill states: ``no existing self- determination contract, grant, self-governance compact or annual funding agreement shall receive direct contract support costs in excess of the amount received in fiscal year 2001 for such costs. . . .'' This language would unfairly prohibit tribes from negotiating an increase in their direct costs. The Committee Report language appears to question the propriety of paying direct CSC, indicating that capping direct CSC at the FY 2001 level would be the beginning of a process to eliminate direct CSC payments. Further, the report instructs IHS to seek Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval on the payment of direct CSC for any new and expanded contracts in FY 2002. This violates the ISDEA by capping the portion of the direct costs portion of CSC payments. The Committee Report goes even further, suggesting that IHS should not pay the direct costs portion of CSC, an amount which is close to 20% of CSC and requiring OMB approval of direct costs for new and expanded contracts. The ISDEA clearly includes direct costs as a part of CSC payments. Elimination of the direct costs portion of CSC payments would be devastating to tribal health care providers. We need to address this important Interior Appropriations issue in the Senate and in conference. Tribal health care providers should not be penalized because the IHS and BIA have inconsistent CSC payment systems. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a reasonable and just resolution to the CSC issue for our American Indian and Alaska Native constituency.