Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. The top 20 percent went up 13 percent. In Michigan it was 12.7, rounded off 13 percent. The middle class, the third percentile, the third level, the middle one here, during that same 6-year period, from '90 to '96, they lost 2 percent. So they went down 2 percent. And the bottom 20 percent, or the lowest economic class that they surveyed, actually lost about 20 percent over the same period of time. So we can see the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the poor middle class here that we all relate to and speak of, actually lost 2 percent in our home State of Michigan.

Mr. STUPAK. No doubt. There is a dollar and cents cost, but let us continue with this Michigan example. There are 300 and some children now who have hepatitis A. We know how to treat that. You are very ill. There is an antibiotic, you will get better. But what has happened in Michigan? Give you some idea of what kind of food we are importing here, these children right now today are still suffering from loss of hair, skin loss, respiratory infections, asthma-related illnesses, shingles, sores in their mouth. Those are not symptoms of hepatitis A. The suspicion is that there were other things in these strawberries. The unclean water that they used to irrigate, could there have been lead, arsenic? Was there an illegal pesticide as Mexico uses, DDT? We have not used that in this country for a long time, and 30 other chemicals in this country they still use in Mexico. So the secondary symptoms, which are quite horrendous to say the least, we have asked the FDA to do a further follow-up. You have these strawberries. They were impounded. What else was there? Was it lead? What else is causing these other symptoms for these poor children in Michigan? We wrote that back last fall. We still have yet to receive an answer. So while there is a monetary cost, as the gentleman pointed out from Massachusetts, of treating hepatitis A, we have added costs of things we do not know. We have the agricultural loss of jobs. You have the industry loss, but how do you tell a 10-year-old whose hair is falling out that, well, it is okay, we have got a good trade policy in this country, and we just do not have enough inspections on the border, and, well, I mean, you cannot. Financially or emotionally, you cannot put a value on that.

Mr. STUPAK. Right now there are two States. Florida is actually one of them. So is the State of Maine. In this bus trip we asked agricultural people, what does it cost if we would say you have to label your fresh fruits and vegetable products from the country of origin so the consumer would know? They said, it costs, according to State officials, $4 for every store you own a year, $4 for every store. There were some consumer groups and we asked them. I will take it back, it was $4 a month. So we asked the consumer advocacy groups what did they think. Florida said it was $4 per month per store. What do you think it is? They said, at most it is $8 to $10 per month per store. That is the added cost, very limited, very, very limited. So there is not a big financial incentive why not to do it, but again, should not the American consumer have the final say on where they want their fruit, vegetables, especially during wintertime, where it is grown, you choose where you want to take it from, that that Nation does not live up to our standards like on irrigation water and illegal use of pesticides, then you should have the right to say, I reject that fruit or vegetable from Mexico. I would rather have U.S.- grown because I know the standards it lives by. That is all we are trying to do is, what are the safety standards. We talk about safety standards all the time. Whether you are in Michigan, Florida, Georgia, when it comes to trade and food safety standards, you are certainly concerned about your health, your family's health, and you want to make sure you these high standards are met.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, remember what I said earlier. More than 50 percent of the lettuce, tomatoes, the fresh fruits and vegetables we consume in this country are not grown in this country because it is the wintertime. Our growing seasons are down, and especially now with the weather problems we have seen with El Nino as California has been hit. So now we go back to what happened to the tomato industry that we saw in Florida. Why did they lose 50,000 agriculture-related jobs? Why did they lose $750 million in lost profits? Because they cannot compete with the Mexican tomato industry which has really taken over the U.S. market. Down in Florida we tell them, you have to play by the rules. You cannot use illegal pesticides. You must use very clean irrigation water, and you must have proper handling of your product. But they do not play by the same rules in Mexico, and when they come across the border, there is no one to inspect. For instance, take a look at it, there are 9,000 trucks per day that come in from our southern border carrying fruits and vegetables. Actually it is 12,000, but 9,000 are carrying food products. Of those 12,000, 9,000, which are food products, how many are inspected? One percent. Just 1 percent are ever inspected. The infrastructure to do the inspections that are necessary was never in place when NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was passed. And look what has happened. The inspections have actually gone down. So we wrote the President and the administration a letter, 84 Members of this Congress signed it, and said, look, if we are going to do these trade agreements, and we are for trade, and if we are going to have equal standards, you have to do a couple things, Mr. President. And we hope we can join and work with you because we want to have trade agreements, but we need to include three things. Number one, we need to include strong food safety and health safety standards in these trade agreements, whether it is NAFTA or an extension of the fast track agreement. Have our standards, please, Mr. President. Let us increase the funding for border inspections of Mexican trucks carrying food produce, meats, frozen foods into our country, and last but not least let us begin an aggressive food labeling program so all food products that come into this Nation, when you go to the store and you reach for that tomato, it should be labeled in that bin, whether that is grown in Mexico, California or Florida. And let the American consumer decide whether they want tomatoes grown in Florida or Mexico.

Mr. STUPAK. Nonpartisan. FDA inspections, talking about domestic and imported foods, in 1981 we had 21,000 inspections in this country. 21,000. In 1996 we have, domestic and imported, 5,000 inspections. In 1981 we had 21,000 inspections of our food supply; 1996 we had 5,000.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, jumping a little bit ahead here, but let me explain a little bit of what has happened, what we have found. I mentioned the General Accounting Office and they have done a couple of reports. One was in May of this year, and here is what they told us.

Mr. STUPAK. From food poisoning. And we do not always recognize it as food poisoning. But these numbers are from reports and studies of the General Accounting Office. U.S. News and World Report did a big article on it a couple of months ago. That is where some of these statistics derive from.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. I am talking about 10-year-old students here. Most of these children were second, third and fourth grade 10-year-old students. If we stop and think about what we are doing in this country, we have food standards in this country that are the envy of the world. We have the safest food. But if we look at what has happened recently, every second of every day someone is stricken with food poisoning. If we take a look at it, that is 33 million Americans a year. In fact they attribute 9,000 deaths to tainted food here in the United States.

Mr. STUPAK. What is their biggest concern right now?

Mr. STUPAK. If the gentlemen will yield on that point. In talking about the middle and upper class, and I guess we could say the lower class, those on the lower economic scale, there was an interesting article recently put out by ``Inside Michigan Politics,'' a publication from our home State, just 2 weeks ago.

Mr. STUPAK. Right. Basically, they have been doing this study and they had broken down the American workers into five different categories, the top percentile, the middle, and the lower percentile; and again breaking them, the whole working population, into 5 percentiles. The highest percentile, from 1990 to 1996 nationwide, they went up 13 percent greater than any other class.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman for his work on this legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1604, a bill to distribute judgment funds to the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Over 25 years ago, the Federal Government agreed to pay $10 million as settlement for underpaying American Indians for the land which makes up most of northern Michigan, the majority of which is in my district. After years of disagreement on how the money is to be distributed, a negotiated compromise has been reached. H.R. 1604 codifies this agreement and distributes the long-overdue money. The money that will be distributed by this bill has already been appropriated by Congress way back in 1971, so this is not a new appropriation. Instead, the bill merely releases money that has remained in an account with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the past 25 years. Madam Speaker, the passage of H.R. 1604 will close this chapter of what is a long record of mistreatment of American Indians by the Federal Government. This justice is long overdue, and this bill is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Madam Speaker, let me thank the leadership on both sides for working so closely with us, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. It has been to the Senate, and we have reached compromise. Let us finally do this and get this over with after 25 years.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention to a business development in Escanaba, a shore community in the 1st Congressional District of Michigan. In that city on December 13, my brother Frank Stupak and his long-time law partner, John Bergman, will dedicate their new business location, a new building on the waterfront in downtown Escanaba, next to the historic House of Ludington. In December Frank will also mark his 25th year as an attorney, a quarter century of service to northern Michigan. Frank began his legal career after graduating from the University of Toledo law school in 1972. He began with the firm of Hansley, Neiman, Peterson and Beauchamp PC, and later went into partnership with John Bergman. Frank's first year of practice, which included prosecuting cases for the city of Escanaba, coincided with my first year as a law enforcement officer in Escanaba. I would arrest people and Frank would prosecute them. We were an unbeatable team. Before I was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 1988, I was a partner with Frank and John and worked out of their offices in Escanaba and nearby Menominee. Frank had been the oldest brother in our large family, and we always looked up to him. Now, as a law partner I got to see first-hand his professional commitment. I've watched my brother consistently handle some of the most important cases in northern Michigan. To those who ask how he has managed to land such good legal work, his standard answer is, ``because I've worked hard on every case for 25 years.'' Mr. Speaker, today I wish the best for Frank; his wife Penny; his daughter Stefanie, a family services counselor and youth activities coordinator; and his son Trent, a student in pre-law at Michigan State University. I know that Frank hopes one day his son will follow him in service to northern Michigan. I also offer my congratulations to John, his wife Mary and his son John, a high school student. Good luck, too, to Martin Fittanti, a junior associate at the firm of Stupak & Bergman PC. I'm proud to have been part of their firm, and I continue to feel pride when I hear the respect with which people regard the quality of service the firm provides. In fact, the quality of the representation of that firm has only been a benefit to my political aspiration. Now the partnership will carry on this tradition of service in a new downtown building, reflecting the partners' long-term commitment to the city's historic commercial district.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a very special individual who is residing in my congressional district in Michigan. Her name is Alma Anna Welk and next month she will be celebrating her 100th birthday. I'd like to bring you back in history 100 years to the time of the Klondike gold rush, Joseph Stalin's birth, and the closing of the British Victorian period. It was during this era that Alma was born in Alpena, MI, on December 11, 1897. Born to Millie and Charles Bromund, Anna was the second of six children. Not long after Anna's birth, the Bromund family made their way to Marinette, WI, where Anna attended Peshtigo Point School. In 1910, at the age of 13, she began working for families around the area. She left her jobs and her community when she was 17 to return with her family to Alpena. It was here, in 1917, during the Lenten season, that Anna met her true love, William Welk. They were introduced to one another by a mutual friend, Beulah Schultz. Beulah had put together a perfect match. Anna and William were married on November 23 of that same year. On March 9, 1919, they had their first child--Laurine. During the next 15 years and all through the Great Depression, the couple bore five more children, three girls and two boys: Ethel, Margaret, Ruth Jane, William, and Richard. They were just getting over the effects of the Depression when the family was struck by tragedy with the death of their youngest child, Richard, at the age of three. Years went by and Alma and William's children grew up and, one by one, they all married. The family expanded with the addition of 10 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren. In 1967, the passing of William--loving husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather-- was a tremendous loss to the entire family. Mr. Speaker, next month we will be commemorating these 100 years of Alma Anna Welk's life. My congratulations go out to Alma on this very special occasion. It is an event that has found her continuing to be a vigorous and active member of the Alpena community. It is always a pleasure for me to deliver a tribute of this kind to my constituents who are living legends of the Michigan area. Alma is an enduring witness of American history from the William McKinley administration to the William Clinton administration. As she celebrates this milestone with family and friends, I offer my best wishes for many more joyous years to come. In my personal life with family members and my professional life as a Member of Congress, I have found that age does indeed equate with knowledge, wisdom, and a profound respect for the value of tradition.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution because I believe it is necessary to give witnesses the right to protect their reputation by preventing TV cameras and print photographers from a hearing. I do so because of a hearing that took place last week which really magnified the irresponsibility and the improperness of the majority's conduct that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] just spoke of in structuring their oversight investigations. The problem is not necessarily the rule but how are we going to apply it in our job as Members of the U.S. Congress. Every day the majority party wants new investigations. Every day we have more and more calls for investigations. What do you have when you have political people doing political investigations? You get more politics. We do not get to the truth of the matter but rather we get more and more politics. That is what investigation and oversight has been used for in this Congress with the new majority party. I am a former law enforcement officer. I was trained to assure that the accused of a crime, that their behavior was based on facts that could prove the guilt or innocence of an individual. Unfortunately, the majority's standards are much lower than that of law enforcement, because the majority, and especially the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, held a hearing, and there were leaks before we had the hearing and they promised with the leaks, to get the media there, that there would be a smoking gun that would have the fingerprints of the Vice President on it. That was to get everybody to show up, and, lo and behold, we go up to the hearing, and we have a memo from the majority counsel once again saying we are having a hearing, that, quote, and I am going to quote from the memo by the majority party, there is no smoking gun which opens us up to partisan criticism for engaging in a witch hunt. And that is exactly what they did. They said in the same memo that, we are going to make people come and testify under oath because, quote, it forces key players to deny allegations of misconduct under oath, and, I will quote again, it generates an enormous press opportunity for us, end of quote. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, the same kind of tactics took place by a Senator from Wisconsin. He made a mockery of the congressional investigations and of Congress itself, just like we had last week after 21 hours of testimony, not one scintilla, not one scant of evidence of any wrongdoing, but these people were drawn before the TV cameras for 21 hours to deny their innocence. The rule prohibiting the filming of testimony without the witness' consent was adopted in response to what happened 40 years ago. It should continue today because the same abuses occur by the majority party. Mr. Speaker, we should not be holding hearings so that witnesses are forced to deny their innocence and for a press opportunity. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and stand up for a fair investigatory process.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House should oppose fast track because of labor standards, environmental standards and human rights. But there is another very valid reason, that of food safety and pesticide use in foreign countries on food coming into this country. Since the last fast track legislation, NAFTA, it limited our right to make border inspections of imported food. So what has happened? Food imports are up, inspections are down. What will happen with this new fast track deal is more countries will be shipping their food into this country. We have not addressed the infrastructure to provide a safety net to protect American citizens from food coming into this country. That is why in 1997 we have had 3 major outbreaks of disease in this country from imported food. What do they tell you when you go to foreign countries, Latin America and South America? Do not eat the food, do not drink this, do this, get a hepatitis shot. So what are we going to do? Have more food come into this country and less inspections. Over 3.3 million trucks every day cross our borders into this country, many of them carrying food products. That is 9,000 trucks per day. One percent is inspected. Let us not risk our families' health. Vote no on fast track.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, since most of these lands were ceded in my district. I just want to say I certainly endorse this proposal. I hope it will be passed. It is long overdue. It has been a long time, 1971, this money has been sitting here. I thank the chairman and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the ranking member, for all their hard work in moving this legislation forward. It is a good, fair settlement. The Native Americans are entitled to this money and I certainly strongly support this legislation, and I thank the Members for assisting us in getting to this stage here today. Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: section-by- section analysis H.R. 1604, to provide for the division, use, and distribution of judgment funds of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan pursuant to dockets numbered 18-E, 58, 364, and 18-R before the Indian Claims Commission. section 1. table of contents Section 1 of the bill provides the Table of Contents for the Act. section 2. findings: purpose Subsection (a) contains various Congressional findings relating to the Act. These findings specifically note that judgments were rendered in the Indian Claims Commission in dockets numbered 18-E, 58 and 364 in favor of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan and in docket numbered 18-R in favor of the Sault Ste. Marie Bank of Chippewa Indians. It also notes that the funds Congress appropriated to pay these judgments have been held by the U.S. Department of the Interior pending a division of the fund in a manner acceptable to the tribes and descendance group and pending the development of plans for the use and distribution of the respective tribe's share. Subsection (b) states that the purpose of this Act is to provide for a fair and equitable division of these judgment funds among the beneficiaries and to allow the tribes to develop plans for the use and distribution of their respective shares of the funds. section 3. definitions This section defines the important terms used in the Act. section 4. division of funds Subsection (a) provides for the Secretary of the Interior's division of the principal and interest generated by the funds appropriated to pay the claims stemming from dockets 18-E and 58. Paragraph (1) provides that the lesser of 13.5% or $9,253,104.47 of the funds shall be paid to newly recognized or reaffirmed tribes as well as individuals whose names are found on the judgment distribution roll of descendants which the Secretary of the Interior is mandated to develop pursuant to section 6 of this Act. Paragraph (2) states that the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians shall each receive a share of the next 34.6% of these monies. Of this 34.6%, the Bay Mills Indian Community shall receive the lesser of 35% of the principal and interest as of December 31, 1997, or $8,313,877 and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians shall receive the remaining amount minus $161,723.89 that will be added to the funds described in paragraph (1). Paragraphs (3)-(5) provide that the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan shall each receive 17.3% of the principal and interest, minus $161,723.89 from each tribe to be added to the fund provided for in paragraph (1). Paragraph (6) states that any funds remaining after the aforementioned distributions are made shall be divided among the recognized tribes listed in paragraphs (1)-(5) of this section in an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount so divided and distributed as the distribution of judgment funds pursuant to each of subsections (1)-(5) above bears to the total distribution under all such subsections. Subsection (b) explains how the Secretary of the Interior is to divide the principal and interest generated on the funds appropriated to pay the claims stemming from docket 364. Paragraph (1) provides that the lesser of 20% or $28,026.79 of the principal and interest shall be paid to the individuals whose names are found on the judgment distribution roll of descendants which the Secretary of the Interior is mandated to develop pursuant to section 6 of this Act. Paragraph (2) states that the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians shall each receive a share of the next 32% of these monies. Of this 32%, the Bay Mills Indian Community shall receive 35% and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians shall receive the remaining amount. Paragraphs (3)-(5) provide that the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan and the Little River Bank of Ottawa Indians of Michigan shall each receive 16% of the principal and interest. Paragraph (6) states that any funds remaining after the aforementioned distributions are made shall be divided between the recognized tribes listed in this subsection in an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount so divided and distributed as the distribution of judgment funds pursuant to each of subsections (1)-(5) above bears to the total distribution under all such subsections. Subsection (c) provides for the Secretary of the Interior to pay 65% of the principal and interest generated on the funds appropriated to pay the claims stemming from docket 18- R to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan and 35% to the Bay Mills Indian Community. Subsection (d) requires the Secretary to hold all amounts to be paid to the individuals whose names are found on the judgment distribution roll of descendants, developed pursuant to section 6 of this Act, in trust until those monies are distributed to those individuals. section 5. development of tribal plans for use or distribution of funds Section 5 provides for the development of tribal plans for the use and distribution of these judgment funds to the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan. Paragraph (1) requires the Secretary to distribute the funds allocated by this Act to the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan no later than 30 days after each tribe submits and the Secretary approves a plan for that tribe's use and distribution of its respective share. Paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) provide that the plans set forth in sections 7, 8 and 9 of this Act detailing the Bay Mills Indian Community's, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe's, and the Grand Traverse Band's use and distribution of their respective shares of these judgment monies shall be deemed approved by the enactment of this Act. It also requires the Secretary to distribute the monies allocated to these tribes no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act and requires the tribes to use these monies in the manner provided by the aforementioned plans. Subsection (b) describes the process that the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan, and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan must undertake to obtain the release of their respective shares of these judgment funds. This subsection requires each tribe to develop a plan for the use and distribution of its respective share. It further requires the tribe to hold a hearing or general membership meeting on that proposed plan and submit that plan together with a tribal government resolution, a transcription of its hearing or meeting on the plan, any documents circulated or made available to the membership on the plan, and the comments it received to the Secretary of the Interior. It also establishes time-lines within which the Secretary must act on the plans and the steps the Secretary must take if a tribe does not submit a plan within eight years of the date of enactment. section 6. preparation of judgment distribution roll of descendants Section 6 requires the Secretary to develop a judgment distribution roll of descendants and details the procedures that he must follow in performing that task. This roll must be developed within nine years after the date of enactment of this Act and in accordance with parts 61 and 62 of title 25, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The roll shall consist of the names of all citizens of the United States who were both born and living on or before the date of enactment of this Act and who are at least one-quarter Michigan Ottawa or Chippewa Indian blood, or a combination thereof. This roll shall not include persons who are members of one of the tribes receiving judgment funds pursuant to section 4 of this Act. The persons whose names are contained on this roll must be lineal descendants whose Michigan Ottawa or Chippewa ancestry is derived from the Chippewa and/or Ottawa Bands of Cheboigon, Grand River, Traverse, Grand Traverse, Little Traverse, Maskigo, L'Arbre Croche, Michilmackinac, Sault Ste. Marie, or any Ottawa or Chippewa subdivisions of any of these groups. The Secretary shall also exclude from this roll the names of persons who are deemed ineligible under subsection (e). In preparing this roll of descendants, the Secretary shall refer to the Horace B. Durant Roll, approved February 18, 1910, of the Ottawa or Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, as that roll has been qualified and corrected by other rolls and records acceptable to the Secretary, including the Durant Field Notes of 1908-1909 and the Annuity Payroll of the Ottawa or Chippewa Tribe of Michigan approved May 17, 1910. The Secretary is authorized to employ the services of descendant group enrollment review committees to assist in this effort. section 7. plan for use and distribution of bay mills indian community funds The section establishes an approved plan for the Bay Mills Indian Community's use of its share of the judgment funds. Specifically the section authorizes the establishment of two tribal trust funds, a ``Land Trust'' which shall be used exclusively for the improvement of current and future tribal lands and the consolidation of the tribal land base, and a ``Land Claims Distribution Trust'' which shall be used to assist Bay Mills Members over the age of 55. Both funds shall be administered by the Bay Mills Executive Council. The Secretary of the Interior shall have no trust responsibility for the investment, supervision, administration or expenditure of the funds once they are transferred to these tribal accounts. The funds are, however, subject to an annual audit and the auditor's report must be made available for inspection by any member of the tribe. section 8. plan for use of sault ste. marie tribe of chippewa indians of michigan funds This section establishes an approved plan for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe's use of its share of the judgment funds. Specifically it authorizes the tribe to establish a ``Self- Sufficiency'' trust fund for the benefit of the tribe. This fund is administered by the tribe's board of directors. The principal of this fund must be used exclusively for investments or expenditures which the board determines are financially beneficial to the tribe, reasonably related to economic development, for the development of tribal resources, or for the consolidation or enhancement of tribal land holdings. The income produced by the fund can be used in one of five ways. It can be added to the fund's principal, it can be distributed as a dividend to tribal members, it can be distributed as per capita payment to some group or category of tribal members, or it can be used for educational, social welfare, health, cultural, or charitable purposes which benefit the tribe's members, or it can be used to purchase or exchange land to consolidate or enhance the tribal land holdings. All lands so acquired shall be held as Indian lands are held. The fund must be maintained as a separate account and shall be subject to an audit by a certified public accountant at least once a year. The Secretary of the Interior must transfer the tribe's share of said judgment funds directly into this fund and the approval of the Secretary shall not be required for any payment or distribution from the principal or income of the fund, nor shall the Secretary have any trust responsibility for the investment, supervision, administration, or expenditure of the funds it contains. section 9. plan for use of grand traverse band of ottawa and chippewa indians of michigan funds Section 9 of the bill authorizes the Secretary to deposit the total share of the Grand Traverse Band, as determined in section 4(a)(3) and section 4(b)(3), into a ``Land Claims Distribution Trust Fund'' to be established by the Band. The Band is empowered to use such funds as collateral for a loan in the amount of 80% of the share. The proceeds of this loan would be used by the Band to make a per capita payment to its members. The annual earnings of the Trust Fund, less amounts for administration, would be used to amortize the loan. As soon as the loan was repaid from the proceeds of the Trust Fund, the Band would create a new trust fund to be known as the ``Elders Land Claims Distribution Trust Fund.'' The principal and accrued earnings remaining in the first fund would then be deposited in the Elders' Trust Fund. Thereafter, 90% of the earnings of the Elders' Trust Fund would be used by the Band to make supplementary income payments to their elderly members. The remaining 10% of the earnings would be added to the principal of the Elders' Trust Fund each year. section 10. payment to newly recognized or reaffirmed tribes This section requires the Secretary to distribute the funds in section 4(a)(1) of this Act to the persons listed on the judgment distribution roll of descendants and to the newly recognized or reaffirmed tribes. This roll shall be prepared pursuant to section 6 of this Act. Upon federal recognition or reaffirmation, each tribe will receive a minimum of $3 million or more as called for in this section. The per capita payments are to be made directly to each living competent adult. However, if a person entitled to receive these funds is deceased, the funds shall be paid to that individual's heirs or legatees in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary. If a person entitled to a share of these funds is legally incompetent or is under the age of 18 years, the funds shall be paid in accordance with the procedures which the Secretary determines are necessary to protect and preserve the person's interests. Subsection 10(c) provides that if, after the date of enactment of this Act, but before the Secretary's approval of the judgment distribution roll of descendants, a tribe is recognized, Congressionally or by the Secretary, which includes one or more individuals whose names are on the judgment distribution roll of descendants, the funds allotted for that individual shall be held in trust for that newly recognized or affirmed tribe. These funds shall then be subject to a plan approved in accordance with this Act. Subsection 10(e) provides criteria to be used by the Secretary in determining whether one of more persons whose names are contained on the judgment distribution roll of descendants is included in a newly recognized tribe. Subsection 10(e)(1)(A) provides that if the tribe is acknowledged by the Secretary under part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary shall use the tribe's most recent membership list provided under that part. If a tribe is recognized by Congress, the Secretary shall use the most recent membership list provided to Congress, unless the recognition statute otherwise provides. If the tribe did not submit a membership list to Congress, the Secretary shall use the most recent membership list it was provided under part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If none of these lists were provided, the newly recognized tribe shall submit a membership list to the Secretary before the judgment fund distribution roll of descendants is approved. If it fails to do so, its share of the funds will be distributed to the individuals named on the judgment fund distribution roll of descendants. Subsection 10(e)(2) provides that if a membership list was not provided to the Secretary, the Secretary will use the tribe's most recent membership list provided to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in their petition for federal acknowledgment filed under part 83, of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, unless the statute which recognized the tribe provides otherwise. If the Bureau of Indian Affairs was not provided a membership list, the tribe must submit a membership list to the Secretary before the judgment distribution is approved, unless the statute which recognized the tribe provides otherwise. If the tribe fails to provide either of these lists before the judgment distribution roll of descendants is approved, the judgment funds are to be distributed per capita as provided for in section 9 of this Act. section 11. treatment of funds in relation to other laws Section 11 provides that an individual's or tribe's eligibility or receipt of distributions under this Act shall not be considered as income, resources, or otherwise when determining that tribe's or individual's eligibility for or computation of any payment or other benefit under any financial aid program of the United States, including grants and contracts subject to the Indian Self-Determination Act and any other benefit to which such tribe, household, or individual would otherwise be entitled under any federal or federally assisted program. section 12. treaties not affected This section makes it clear that no provision of the Act shall be construed to constitute an amendment, modification, or interpretation of any treaty to which a tribe mentioned in the Act is a party, nor to any right secured to such a tribe, or to any other tribe by any treaty.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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. 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. 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. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the intent of an amendment I offered to the House's version of this bill, which was accepted, in regards to current leaseholders in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The conference report contains a different version of my original amendment, and I wish to clarify for the record my intent behind it. Many of the current leases at Sleeping Bear Dunes will expire soon. While the National Park Service has stated that it plans on restoring the properties of expired leases to their natural state, they do not have the funds to restore these properties. Clearly, this amendment prohibits the Park Service from evicting current leaseholders until they have the necessary funds to do so. However, my intent was also to have the Park Service restore the existing abandoned residential structures before evicting any additional leaseholders. Currently, there are numerous abandoned structures that have been standing empty for a number of years. Not only are these deteriorating structures blights on the natural beauty of the lakeshore, but they are also health and safety hazards for the visiting public and local citizens. The National Park Service Report on ``Residential Occupancy Under Special use Permits'' dated June 21, 1996, raises serious concerns about the Park Service's ability to remove the structures on park property. The report states, ``Without sufficient funding the lag time between abandonment of a structure and its ultimate disposition will increase. This will create safety, and other problems, for the park.'' Who will be served by evicting these families from their homes, leaving deteriorating structures that will become eyesores and health and safety hazards? No one. These families take great price in maintaining the integrity and beauty of Sleeping Bear Dunes. It makes no sense to continue evicting families, adding to the number of deteriorating structures that are blights on this pristine National Lakeshore, when the Park Service has yet to take care of the currently abandoned and decaying structures. It is my hope that the Park Service is willing to address this situation before evicting more families and adding to a growing problem. In addition, the Park Service has indicated that they may use funds raised through the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program to restore the properties of leases that expire during fiscal year 1998. I believe that this would be a misuse of the revenue generated by this program and violate the intent of the Congress. In 1996, the Congress authorized the National Park Service to collect entrance fees to deal with a growing backlog of maintenance problems due to funding shortfalls. I believe that using the revenues created by this program to restore the properties of leases that will expire during fiscal year 1998, and thereby ignoring the existing backlog of residential structures, is inconsistent with the desire of the Congress in authorizing this program. These fees should be used to address the restoration of properties that have been neglected over years past, not to evict current leaseholders. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope to work with the National Park Service to address these concerns and find a solution to this problem that is satisfactory to all parties involved.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two families in my district for their exceptional accomplishments in conservation of our resources. Harold and Virginia Schlenvogt are receiving the Menominee Conservation District's 1997 Conservation Farmers Award and Tom and Pat Schloegel are receiving the 1997 Conservation Forestry Award. Harold and Virginia Schlenvogt own and operate a farm that has been in their family since 1932. The Schlenvogt farm is typical of the farms in Menominee County. It is 280 acres, with 150 acres cleared. There is a milking herd of 50 Holsteins and a herd of 40 young stock. The barns, silos, and sheds were all built by Harold, and a new home stands next to the site of the original farm house. While the farm may be typical, the commitment of the Schlenvogt family to the task of farming and to community service is something special. In addition to full-time farming, Harold has served on many local boards and commissions, as well as church building and Sunday School boards. Harold and Virginia have passed along their strong family values. One son, Steve, has his own farm just down the road, and another son is serving the county as a member of the road commission. The Schlenvogt's are now planning to retire and enjoy their 3 children and 10 grandchildren. While Menominee County still has some 300 producing farms, we will truly miss Harold and Virginia's agricultural contributions. The second couple being honored for their conservation efforts is Tom and Pat Schloegel. The Schloegel's moved to Menominee in the mid 1960's to escape the pace and development of Chicago and to raise their family in God's country. One of their early investments was in a 280 acre parcel of property with many dilapidated old buildings and woods that were in need of sensible forestry management. Over the past 30 years, Tom, Pat, and their children have harvested wood from the property and planted thousands of trees as part of the Forest Stewardship Program. When the Schloegel's four boys were in school, Tom sent saplings to their classes on Arbor Day to encourage an early education of the importance of forest stewardship in our youth. Tom and Pat's son Scott Schloegel is my chief of staff here in Washington and recalls many weekends spent with his family on the property working their garden, planting trees, and harvesting select trees that were marked for removal to allow healthy growth of the forest. Now every time Scott gets home to see his parents it includes a trip to ``the farm'' to monitor progress of the plantings and reminisce about the great times spent with the family over the years. The Schloegel's continue their efforts to encourage stewardship today by planting trees to honor their grandson, constructing ponds for wildlife and giving Global Relief shirts to their children which say ``Cool the Globe, Plant a Tree'' on them. Mr. Speaker, it is because of families like the Schlenvogt's and the Schloegel's that we in northern Michigan are able to enjoy such a high quality of life. I thank them for their conservation efforts and congratulate them on receiving their awards from the Menominee Conservation District.