[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9937-H9941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           BURT LAKE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS ACT

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 948) to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of the 
Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally recognized Indian Tribe, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 948

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and 
     Chippewa Indians Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are 
     descendants and political successors to the signatories of 
     the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit.
       (2) The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, 
     Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, the Little River 
     Band of Ottawa, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa 
     Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose 
     members are also descendants of the signatories to the 1836 
     Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, have 
     been recognized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian 
     tribes.
       (3) The Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 
     consists of over 650 eligible members who continue to reside 
     close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the 
     Cheboygan Reservation in the 1836 Treaty of Washington and 
     1855 Treaty of Detroit, which area is now known as Cheboygan 
     County, Michigan.
       (4) The Band continues its political and social existence 
     with a viable tribal government. The Band, along with other 
     Michigan Odawa/Ottawa groups, including the tribes described 
     in paragraph (2), formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa 
     Association in 1948. The Association subsequently pursued a 
     successful land claim with the Indian Claims Commission.
       (5) Between 1948 and 1975, the Band carried out many of 
     their governmental functions through the Northern Michigan 
     Ottawa Association, while retaining individual Band control 
     over local decisions.
       (6) In 1935, the Band petitioned under the Act of June 18, 
     1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.; commonly referred to as the 
     ``Indian Reorganization Act''), to form a government on 
     behalf of the Band. Again, in spite of the Band's 
     eligibility, the Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to act.
       (7) The United States Government, the government of the 
     State of Michigan, and local governments have had continuous 
     dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band 
     from 1836 to the present.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa 
     and Chippewa Indians;
       (2) the term ``member'' means those individuals enrolled in 
     the Band pursuant to section 7; and
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

       (a) Federal Recognition.--Federal recognition of the Burt 
     Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians is hereby 
     reaffirmed. All laws and regulations of the United States of 
     general application to Indians or nations, tribes, or bands 
     of Indians, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 
     et seq., commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization 
     Act''), which are inconsistent with any specific provision of 
     this Act shall not be applicable to the Band and its members.
       (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible 
     for all services and benefits provided by the Federal 
     Government to Indians because of their status as federally 
     recognized Indians, and notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, such services and benefits shall be provided after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act to the Band and its 
     members without regard to the existence of a reservation or 
     the location of the residence of any member on or near any 
     Indian reservation.
       (2) Service areas.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal 
     services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the 
     State of Michigan within 70 miles of the boundaries of the 
     reservation for the Burt Lake Band as set out in Article I, 
     paragraph ``seventh'' of the Treaty of 1855 (11 Stat. 621), 
     shall be deemed to be within or near a reservation, 
     notwithstanding the establishment of a reservation for the 
     tribe after the date of the enactment of this Act. Services 
     may be provided to members outside the named service area 
     unless prohibited by law or regulation.

     SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS.

       (a) In general.--All rights and privileges of the Band and 
     its members, which may have been abrogated or diminished 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act are hereby 
     reaffirmed.
       (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or 
     of its members that existed before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided in any 
     other provisions of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed as altering or affecting any legal or equitable 
     claim the Band may have to enforce any right or privilege 
     reserved by or granted to the Band which was wrongfully 
     denied to or taken from the Band before the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS.

       The Band's tribal lands shall consist of all real property, 
     now or hereafter held by, or in trust for, the Band. The 
     Secretary shall acquire real property for the Band. Any such 
     property shall be taken by the Secretary in the name of the 
     United States in trust for the benefit of the Band and shall 
     become part of the Band's reservation.

     SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary a membership 
     roll consisting of all individuals currently enrolled for 
     membership in the Band. The qualifications for inclusion on 
     the membership roll of the Band shall be determined by the 
     membership clauses in the Band's governing document, in 
     consultation with the Secretary. Upon completion of the roll, 
     the Secretary shall immediately publish notice of such in the 
     Federal Register. The Band shall ensure that such roll is 
     maintained and kept current.

     SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY.

       (a) Constitution.--
       (1) Adoption.--Not later than 24 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct by 
     secret ballot elections for the purpose of adopting a new 
     constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held 
     according to the procedures applicable to elections under 
     section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 476; 
     commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'').
       (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new 
     constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing 
     documents in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall be the interim governing documents for the Band.
       (b) Officials.--
       (1) Elections.--Not later than 6 months after the Band 
     adopts their constitution and

[[Page H9938]]

     bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), the Band shall conduct 
     elections by secret ballot for the purpose of electing 
     officials for the Band as provided in the Band's governing 
     constitution. The elections shall be conducted according to 
     the procedures described in the Band's constitution and 
     bylaws.
       (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band 
     elects new officials pursuant to paragraph (1), the Band's 
     governing bodies shall be those bodies in place on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, or any new governing bodies 
     selected under the election procedures specified in the 
     respective interim governing documents of the Band.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to 
the bill?
  Mr. KILDEE. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, in that case I would claim the time in 
opposition to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, just as a point of order, if I may would it 
be possible that I can yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and we 
will all be happy here, right?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has that right.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may, H.R. 948, the proposed Burt Lake Band of 
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians would reaffirm and clarify the Federal 
relationship of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.
  The Burt Lake Band consists of approximately 650 individual decedents 
from the Cheboigan band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians who have lived 
for centuries along the shores of Burt Lake on Michigan's Lower 
Peninsula. The band, recognized by the Federal Government through 
various treaties and Federal court cases, was terminated by the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs without the approval of Congress earlier this 
century. H.R. 948 would restore the Federal recognition of the band by 
reaffirming the Federal Government's previous recognition. H.R. 948 is 
long overdue, and I recommend its passage by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New Jersey yield 
time to the gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. SAXTON. I think the gentleman from Michigan would just as soon 
wait to hear from the opposition, and then I will be happy to yield to 
him at that time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reserve my time until we hear a 
presentation of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut reserves the 
balance of his time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
appreciate the gentleman's generosity in sharing his time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to 
the floor today. The legislation before the House today would simply 
reaffirm the relationship between the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and 
Chippewa Indians of Michigan and the U.S. Government. This tribe has a 
long history with the United States Government, dating back to the 
Treaty of Washington in 1836 and 1855 Treaty of Detroit.
  Although the Federal Government promised the Burt Lake Band a tract 
of land encompassing 1,000 acres for its reservation, the tribe never 
got the land. In fact, this tribe has suffered one of the worst 
injustices in our government's sordid history with Native Americans.
  After the tribe signed 2 treaties with the U.S. Government in the 
1800s, land was held in trust for the tribe by the governor of 
Michigan. In 1878, the land was unexplainably put back on the tax rolls 
and was eventually bought by a land speculator.
  In the fall of 1900, in my father's memory, during his lifetime, my 
father recalls this, the local sheriff evicted the tribal members from 
their own homes and burned the tribe's village to the ground. It is 
from the ashes of this tragedy which has been told to me by my father 
that this tribe seeks reaffirmation today.
  Mr. Speaker, this tribe deserves to have its relationship with the 
Federal Government reaffirmed. I urge the Members of this House to 
support this bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I rise in strong 
opposition, not to recognition of any tribe necessarily, but to 
recognition of a tribe through a legislative process rather than 
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  The fact is that this bill, as it is titled, is to reaffirm and 
clarify the Federal relationship with the Burt Lake Band as a 
distinctly recognized Indian tribe and for other purposes. What we are 
trying to do is circumvent a process of petition before the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, while the Bureau of Indian Affairs is trying to 
determine that while you were once a tribe, does this group of people 
still constitute a tribe today. That is a process that is in the works 
today. As the Bureau of Indian Affairs has stated, they expect to know 
within 6 months whether or not they can recommend that this tribe 
should be Federally recognized.
  Please know that when we recognize a tribe, we are giving them a 
status as an independent nation, notwithstanding the other benefit that 
they can establish a gaming institution.
  For the purposes of this debate, I would like to point out on the 
floor what we are deprived of hearing right now, but what the Resources 
Committee heard in this statement from Ada Deer, the Assistant 
Secretary for Indian Affairs under the Department of Interior, 
supporting what basically had been told to this tribe 2 years earlier, 
and stated directly by the Secretary of the Interior. Her testimony 
before the committee on June 24 begins:

       Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. 
     Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 
     Department of the Interior on H.R. 948, a bill to ``Reaffirm 
     and clarify the Federal relationship of the Burt Lake Band as 
     a distinct Federally recognized Indian tribe''. The 
     Department appreciates the interest the committee has 
     expressed in recognition matters.

  And then she continues:

       Although we acknowledge and respect the Congress' authority 
     to recognize Indian tribes, we have serious concerns with 
     H.R. 948 because of unresolved questions about the group's 
     history, community, government, and the nature of the 
     membership to be acknowledged. These are concerns that cannot 
     be resolved at the present time without a detailed review of 
     the facts and documents presented by this group. 
     Knowledgeable members of this group have raised significant 
     concerns with the BIA concerning the membership of the band. 
     Preliminary research indicates that while the current 
     leadership and a substantial body of new members affiliated 
     with them may have ancestry from the historic band in the 
     19th century, they may not have been part of the tribal 
     community and have not resided close to the historic homeland 
     of the band for over a hundred years. This raises significant 
     questions within the BIA about how the community wishes to 
     define itself.
       This has also caused political dissension within the group. 
     A related concern is that the group's present membership 
     criteria appear to create the possibility that a large number 
     of individuals with no ancestral ties to the ``historic Burt 
     Lake Band'' or no Indian ancestry at all could be added to 
     the group's membership.
       The BIA believes it is premature to consider 
     acknowledgment, until the community resolves these questions. 
     Although the bill states that it is to ``reaffirm and clarify 
     the Federal relationship of the Burt Lake Band as a distinct 
     Federally recognized Indian tribe'', the fact that a 
     recognized Burt Lake Band existed at some earlier point in 
     time does not automatically mean that a tribe presently 
     exists. It is the responsibility of the Department to 
     ascertain the maintenance of tribal existence for 
     acknowledgment, notwithstanding previous tribal recognition.

                              {time}  1645

  Then she said, ``See the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals in U.S. v. Washington. The court rejected the argument that the 
group should

[[Page H9939]]

benefit from a presumption of continuing existence, just because their 
ancestors belonged to tribes with which the United States had signed 
treaties.'' This is what we are being asked to do.
  ``Without question, Congress has authority to recognize Indian 
tribes. However, we believe recognition would be premature even for 
Congress if it is yet to be established that the group has continued to 
exist as a social and political entity, as required of all other groups 
petitioning under established BIA procedures. The questions concerning 
the present composition of the membership requires this kind of 
detailed review.''
  Then she continues,

       During the 103rd Congress, legislative recognition and 
     approval by the President ended the Department's review of 
     certain Michigan acknowledgment cases. One of them, the 
     Pokagon Pottawatomi, were recognized by Congress while the 
     BIA was evaluating its petition. Stopping the administrative 
     process has resulted in some problems for the band in 
     defining its membership and in dealing with other issues 
     petitioners normally resolve during the acknowledgment 
     process.
       Because of the importance of Federal recognition and the 
     rights and services acknowledgment brings to tribes, the BIA 
     cannot, at this point, affirmatively support this 
     legislation. It is important that the group document its 
     existence in anticipation of adjustments to existing State-
     tribal agreements on treaty fishing rights under U.S. v. 
     Michigan.
       ``The BIA's acknowledgment process is designed to evaluate 
     the facts and evidence pertinent to the Burt Lake Band and 
     its members, and to provide pertinent information for 
     resolving questionable and conflicting claims.''
       The BIA maintains cordial working relationships with the 
     Burt Lake Band leadership and the individuals working on 
     their petition. Extensive technical assistance from the BIA 
     Branch of Acknowledgment and Research has enabled the group 
     to complete the documentation of its initial petition.
       The petition is now fully documented and ready for review. 
     A preliminary determination under Section 83.8 is that a Burt 
     Lake Band was previously recognized as late as 1917. However, 
     the historical membership issues raise questions which the 
     BIA has not had the opportunity to fully research. The 
     question of whether the present group's membership reflects 
     the same tribe as the one that was previously acknowledged 
     must be resolved in cooperation with the group. If this is 
     the same group as previously acknowledged in 1917, it would 
     substantially reduce the amount of work necessary to produce 
     a decision on acknowledgment.
       In conclusion, the BIA has provided technical assistance 
     and conducted on-site visits as were promised to the Burt 
     Lake Band's Congressman in 1995. The petitioner has 
     subsequently completed its research. Real progress has been 
     made and the case is moving forward. The acknowledgment 
     process should be allowed to continue.
       An evaluation of the Burt Lake Band's petition under 25 
     Code of Federal Regulations Page 83 will allow resolution of 
     important continuing issues concerning the group, 
     verification of the petitioner's claims, and demonstration of 
     continuous historic existence, while taking into account past 
     Federal acknowledgment.

  That concludes her statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I would petition and ask the Congress and the Members 
who are not here, and the staff that may be listening, that we defeat 
this bill. It certainly should not be on the consent calendar, as I 
would call it. It should be defeated, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
should be allowed to conduct its review. Their estimate is that it will 
take 6 more months.
  I know the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], who is interested in 
this bill and is working for his constituents, would like to move now 
rather than later. I appreciate that. But we should let the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs work its will, or we should just abolish the whole 
process. That, I would say, would be a disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, in response to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentleman is correct in that under 
normal circumstances we would all certainly prefer to let the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs manage those affairs which they have been delegated. 
Unfortunately, the history of this set of circumstances is such that I 
believe the great majority of the Members of this House believe that 
the action we are taking today is quite appropriate, and, in fact, 
perhaps more than appropriate.
  Were we to step out of the way and permit the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs to complete their consideration, these things in the BIA take 
years. These people, these Native American people, have been waiting 
years if not decades to have their status as a recognized tribe 
restored. We can take an important step in that direction today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 948 and for the reaffirmation and clarification, not the new 
certification and not a recognition, but a reaffirmation and 
clarification of the Federal relationship of the Burt Lake Band of 
Odawa and Chippewa Indians as a distinct federally-recognized Indian 
tribe.
  The Burt Lake Band was an original signatory to the 1836 Treaty of 
Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. Pursuant to these treaties, 
the Burt Lake Band relinquished lands in the western half of the Upper 
Peninsula of Michigan and the northern half of the Lower Peninsula.
  As a result of these treaties and the Burt Lake Band's subsequent 
treatment by the Federal Government, the Burt Lake Band was and is a 
federally recognized tribe. Shortly after the turn of the century, the 
Burt Lake Band lost all of its land as a result of illegal tax sales. 
They were forced from their homes, and as the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Kildee] pointed out, their village was burned to the ground by the 
local sheriff and a timber baron who claimed ownership of the lands 
pursuant to the illegal tax. The United States Justice Department 
subsequently filed suit to recover the lands as trustee and guardian 
for the Burt Lake Band in 1917.
  Mr. Speaker, a tribe can only be terminated by an act of Congress, 
not by the administrative action or the inaction of officials of Indian 
Service or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Congress has never, Congress 
has never, ever passed an act to terminate the Burt Lake Band. The Burt 
Lake Band continues to exist today. However, the administrative actions 
of the Indian Service of the 1930s amounted to and had the practical 
effect of an administrative and illegal termination of the Burt Lake 
Band.
  The Burt Lake Band contends, and I believe justifiably and legally 
so, that since they were never legally terminated, they have been and 
continue to this day to be a federally-recognized tribe. H.R. 948 
simply reaffirms the Burt Lake Band's recognized status, which they 
have never legally lost, and would commence to mitigate the injustice 
the Burt Lake Band has endured since the 1930s.
  The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] mentions the Pokagon Band 
Potawatomie and the Algonquin, which we recognized in the 103rd 
Congress. That legislation was enacted into law, once again reaffirming 
the status of three other tribes in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan who 
were likewise previously considered to be recognized tribes, but who, 
like the Burt Lake Band, were denied the opportunity in the mid-1930s 
to reorganize under the IRA.
  The Burt Lake Band also had similar legislation pending in the 103rd 
Congress. Unfortunately, it did not come before the floor. The merits 
of the Burt Lake Band, the merits of the Burt Lake Band legislation and 
this bill before us today are actually, I think, stronger than the 
legislation Congress adopted in 1994 for the three other Michigan 
tribes. H.R. 948 should be given the same thoughtful, favorable 
consideration.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding, and I thank him for his work on behalf of the Burt Lake Band 
and the other Native Americans throughout northern Michigan.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for his sponsorship of this piece of legislation. 
I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Resources, 
the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, for his support, and 
certainly other Members from that side of the aisle for their support, 
especially our good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

[[Page H9940]]

  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that I have the highest respect for 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] expressing his point of 
opinion on this piece of legislation.
  I would like to share some bits of information with my colleagues 
about this bill, and why it is important that we should pass this 
legislation.
  In the first place, this tribe, along with three other tribes in 
Michigan, were unilaterally terminated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 
It was not by an act of Congress. But it was in 1994 that three tribes 
in Michigan were federally recognized by this body, by the Congress of 
the United States: the Little River Band, the Pokagon, and the Grand 
Traverse tribes. So what we are doing, we are just simply correcting a 
deficiency that existed even for these two tribes. We were simply 
saying that the Congress has absolute authority to do this.
  I want to share some information with my friend, the gentleman from 
Connecticut. The Federal administrative procedure, in recognition given 
to the tribes, is not working and has never worked. We have tribes, Mr. 
Speaker, on the rolls that it has taken over 100 years, and they are 
still not recognized by the Federal Government. It is a sad situation 
for our Government to recognize the fact that the Federal 
administrative procedures now, as applied by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, simply is not working.
  I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, this is 
just simply correcting an error that was committed by a bureaucracy. It 
was not done by the Congress. The Congress has the absolute authority 
to give proper recognition, Federal recognition, for any tribe that 
wants to be recognized federally.
  The problem we have also with the recognition process, some tribes 
have accumulated in excess of $500,000 to $1 million just to pay 
attorneys to try to apply for recognition. If a tribe has only 500 
members, where are they going to get half a million dollars to seek 
recognition from this bureaucracy? Impossible. So what we are simply 
doing here is correcting an error that was committed by a bureaucracy.
  I sincerely hope my colleagues will support this bill. We should 
grant Federal recognition to these two tribes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy process to speak against any bill 
proposed by any Member, but unfortunately, the explanation we were just 
given is the reason why we need to clearly vote down this attempt to 
circumvent the Bureau of Indian Affairs, because really, then, what we 
are saying is it is going to be a political process. It is going to be 
what Congressman do you know? What Congressman has the power? It is 
going to also be: which Indian tribes have greater motivation to be 
recognized? Which tribes will be given independent status as a nation 
within our own country?
  This is an extraordinary decision. I totally concede the fact that 
this tribe did exist in 1917. We just do not know, and we will not know 
until the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with their documentation, 
ascertains that the tribe that existed in 1917 is the same tribe that 
we want to recognize, with all the same historic lineage. For us 
politically to make that determination, frankly, boggles my mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I would strongly oppose recognition. I would say to both 
gentlemen from Michigan that we are going to know in 6 months whether 
the Burt Lake Band will be recognized as a tribe. The BIA has done so 
much work on this application. It is likely that this tribe will be 
recognized. It is likely, but not certain. But there will be some 
stipulations along with that recognition as to who, in fact, are 
members of the tribe and who are not, which are not issues resolved in 
this legislation and will not be.
  We should allow the Bureau of Indian Affairs to complete their work 
and not do an end run around the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a system 
that we, the Congress, established.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, the point of this bill is to correct a 
wrong. The wrong was the BIA's incorrect decision to administratively 
terminate a tribe, a power they did not have. Now, we are asking the 
same BIA to treat them well when they violated the law in terminating 
them in the first place.
  A few years ago, the Catholic parish in this area, who keeps the best 
records, one can go back and find their great, great grandfather's 
baptismal records, they know these Indians. The Catholic parish gave 
them 3 acres of land so they would have at least some land they could 
call their own, some of the same land that they had lost before.
  We should certainly recognize what the locals, the European locals, 
the European Catholic Church recognized, that these were the same 
people whose homes were burned to the ground by the sheriff. The church 
gave them some land so they would have at least that recognition. I 
think we should do no less.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say that this is not the same BIA today that existed 
in 1917. It is just blatantly not a factually correct statement. The 
facts are that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was established and new 
processes were established by recent Congresses to get recognition out 
of the political process, which it is in right now, and give it to the 
experts.
  We had testimony before the full Resources Committee from Ada Deer, 
the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, who has given us ample 
reason why we cannot recognize this tribe until we know who is actually 
a member of this tribe. And we have testimony from the Assistant 
Secretary who says that there is dispute as to who are members and who 
are not.
  I beg this Congress to take this out of the political process. Let 
this work be completed in the next 6 months. The Bureau of Indian 
Affairs is cooperating with Burt Lake. We do not have much longer to 
wait. But what a gross precedent we will continue to set by 
circumventing the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. With all due respect to the gentleman from Connecticut, 
in the 103rd Congress I had the legislation then to recognize the Burt 
Lake Band, and we were told it would only be 6 months, do not worry 
about it, we will get it taken care of. That was 4 years ago.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just ask the 
gentleman, had they submitted a petition? Had they gone through the 
process?
  Mr. STUPAK. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do not think they had. The petition was 
just recently submitted to answer the questions the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs had.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
first part of that petition was before 1994, in the 103rd Congress. And 
to keep asking for more information, they say, just one more piece of 
information, we will get it to you. This has been going on since 1917.
  Mr. SHAYS. Let me say to the gentleman, if he withdrew this bill, I 
would not oppose this bill next year if the bureau has not completed 
its work. I have been told they have the documentation. They can 
proceed, and it will be done.
  Mr. STUPAK. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing 
that since 1994. Here is our opportunity today. I think we should move 
the bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just to say that the 
petition is now complete and they are ready to take action. It would be 
a shame to now circumvent the process.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The question is on the motion 
offered by gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 948.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H9941]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________