[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.
____________________