good morning committee on natural resources will come to order the committee's meeting this morning to receive testimony on two bills authored by two very good friends of mine and two chairman of this committee chairman jim oberstar chairman on the committee transportation infrastructure committee and chairman collin peterson chairman of our agriculture committee both from the great state of minnesota the bills that will be hearing testimony on is the first one is h r twenty three o six sponsored by the distinguished chairman minnesota chippewa tribe judgment after decades of litigation and they go she a sion a twenty million dollars settlement was reached each of the bills before us takes a somewhat different approaches to how these funds would be first chairman of this committee chairman mao you to all stand with my friends on this matter i do commend both my colleagues for minnesota for their hard work and their dedication on this important issue and i welcome and thank the chairman and chief executive of the six bands of chippewa who have traveled here to be endeavors and stood firmly advancing their rights we have a difference of approach on settlement of the issue before you today i regret that we do have this difference but it is the tribal system whose purpose was to destroy the tribal structure and to scatter the people native americans this land by signing each individual member rights to land the land that had historically for thousands of years been held in common and that legislation was followed  ninety six years later by the dawes commission also sponsored by the same senator from massachusetts who then became its chairman and who traveled country swindling native americans out of land by the culture by the traditions by the history of the first peoples of this land subsequent to that the numbers of treaties that were disrupted making the time available for us to bring these issues before you and i will not go i will associate myself with the remarks of my chairman over here on the history which he is right on the money we disagree somewhat on the outcome here but i thank you for the opportunity to discuss the distribution of the nelson x l money as you know nine years ago the united states court of federal claims made in a ward of twenty million dollars the minnesota chippewa tribe in this award was to help compensate the descendants of a different entity that chippewa indians of minnesota for taking land and the proper valuation of timber dealing detail of how the funds should be distributed amongst the six mans is made up make up the minnesota chippewa tribe my position has always been that congress should not take an active role in this issue i believe that all of the band should come together on an agreement on how to allocate the money and only then should congress get involved unfortunately after nine years the bans are still unable to agree although i am dismayed that a deal is not yet been worked out i still think a compromise of some sort is the only realistic way to get a bill through congress that being said the department of interior has probably in my opinion followed the process laid out in the end you in judgment funds that they have recommended the distribution formula and in my mind it's a fair one in the two thousand and one results of read surge report the department of interior concluded that had the of minnesota received just compensation for their land and timber in the first place the money would have been distributed per capita under the nelson act this identification method would have been used to allocate money led by the department of interior to conclude that the current judgment fund should be divided pro pro rata months to six bags and based upon the currently enrolled tribal members and just  so that you may know this but the wider band which is in my district currently has forty seven points sixty nine percent of the population of the chippewa tribe leech like which is in mr over stars has twenty one point ninety four percent and the other four bands are much smaller ten percent or less so if you had an equal distribution in my judgment it would be very much viewed as to what was originally intended also the land mass i believe the wider reservation is by far the largest  landmass as well but equally important as the report said that equally spitting swaying the fund six ways without the consent of every band is unjust and would give preferential treatment to the membership of the four smaller bands at the expense of the membership of the two larger bands and i agree with these findings and so when the department of interior settle i just life and to implement the findings to congress i introduced it as h r twenty three zero six the minnesota chippewa tribe judgment fund distribution act of two thousand and seven now some of the lads in the two thousand one results of research report in the prorated distribution formulas should step on the toes of the minnesota chippewa tribes sovereignty as an indian tribe these critics argue that the minnesota trip was tribes tribal executive college committee has already passed a resolution resolution forty four zero down to zero zero indicating how it wishes to divide the money but resolution four zero down to zero zero did not have the support of all six bands and therefore was not consented to by every indian entity involved in the settlement the argument that all that matters is the voice of the tribal executive committee and not the concerns of the constituent bands goes against congress's clear intent in the indian judgement funds act which was to help ensure the very distribution of funds between two or beneficiary entities as well as to attempt to find an allocation plan that every indian has agreed upon the arguments that the individual objections of the band do not matter also fails to take into account the government to government status of the united states federal government that the united states federal government has with each of the minnesota trip tribes six constituent all the minnesota chippewa tribe as a number of organizations organization all six vans are also federally recognized indian and of these each of the six bands along with the minnesota chippewa tribe is acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged indian tribes by virtue of their government to government relationship to the united states according to the according to the department of interior each of the six bands also participates individually in the title for self government governance program something the minnesota chippewa tribe does not these facts make it could very clear in my opinion that from the perspective of the federal government the minnesota chippewa tribe is an indian tribe made up of six indian bands so when we talk about the sovereignty of indian tribes it is important to remember that it is not only the witches and views of the minnesota chippewa tribe that must be respected but the wishes and views of all of us component bans as well with these fun thoughts in mind i am convinced that any distribution formulae should if at all possible have the consent of all six baptists i cannot and will not support a six way equally distribution formula as proposed by resolution four zero dash zero zero that goes against the wishes of the most populous manners of the minnesota chippewa tribe and although i agree with the conclusions expressed in the resort results of research report i think it is high time that this fun finally be allocated put to work it is time for a compromise if we resolve this issue now or m b as said that the bans could put this money to work by the end of the year funding is desperately needed for things like schools health care facilities and infrastructure improvements on the other hand if this expands bans remain unable to agree congress will more likely than not act and the money will not will continue to sit in a bank account here in washington doing no good for anyone so i urge the six babs to go back to drawing board and try to work up an agreement it makes no sense running away and in my opinion to draw a hard line position when judging from experience no hard line position is any chance of succeeding it is time for everyone to come together to find an agreement that maybe not every one will love but that everyone can benefit from chairman again i thank you for the opportunity to present our positions would be happy to answer any question and insisted that they should have a larger distribution and then there were various other proportional distribution proposals one that would fifty percent of the  of the judgment that would be distributed proportionately by band in the balance proportionally by population of the bands and none of those is acceptable because distribution based on percentage of population and that that was that position then was supported by the bureau of indian affairs in the document that both of us have referred to the results of research report in the judgement on favor of the minnesota chip with tribe all versus united states well that position has now been overturned by the us that their position is still what i indicate my testimony to the fact of what this gentleman said i guess the day before he left so that's one thing the second thing is i understand what you know however we can come to a conclusion if we can come to a compromise as i understand it there still has to be a bill passed under this eighty three law that says that whatever we're going to do we have to pass a bill i just think  bill you know i don't know exactly how you work this out but but i think that people need to understand that if we don't figure out a way to come with a compromise this is never going to get resolved and that's not doing anybody any good i think i think jim and i think are saying that we need to go back and sit down and figure out a way that they can come to an agreement that they can all live with preferably it was that the letter from the start on was submitted without review and without adherence nineteen therefore did not reflect the views of the department or the administration on this issue i make this available for the of the two of the most important committees in the i want to offer my personal welcome to them and they have a very honest disagreement on how we go about in doing this i just want to say mr chairman  chairman that i'm sure that we're going to be hear from later solve this thing outside of any involvement in the congress of the court and the department of interior is not going to solve your problem and i just wish i could not oberstar how many years you've been involved with this issue for the record about thirty years and we're looking at for the record of how much funds are we looking at for distribution twenty million only twenty  back thank you very much mr chairman i really don't have a statement other than i think we've got two individuals submitted two different kind of proposals right now and then hopefully that we can look at finding some kind of a compromise whether it's done through either one of the or if it's done directly by the tribes and trying to come up with a compromise in terms of how we handled the dispute and i think it's important to all of us because as we know that native americans are the ones that basically have been discriminated in a multitude of different ways and i think our chairman from the ag committee they put in actually a provision to make sure you check your native americans in the farm bill with that so i look forward to hearing and asking the questions when it's appropriate thank you very much  probably have our list of witnesses before you and the chair more than willing to allow both of you to come up be part of the rest here and i know you probably have commitments before your own committees but you're welcome to set up your ask questions  ok thank you chairman our next witness is mr jerry get near the director of the bureau of indian affairs department  heard we are here today to talk about the two bills that would distribute funds to meso chippewa tribes the department of interior did submit proposed legislation which was introduced by congressman peterson h r twenty three zero six and that is the bill that would split the fines and the pro rata manner based on population of the tribes these claims arose out of judgment and in claims commission cases settlement related to the nelson act and also improper timber evaluations and basically under the chippewa tribe representing all chip while bands in minnesota accept the red lake band for an accounting of those funds in one nine hundred ninety nine twenty million was deposited into an account a settlement of those claims and i understand that with interest the amount is now twenty seven million nearly twenty eight million dollars the tribal executive committee of minnesota did have a resolution calling for a six way split that proposal would result in sixty seven percent of the funds being distributed to the four smaller bands and thirty three percent being distributed to larger bands which have seventy three percent of total membership the least lake band represents about twenty percent of the population and they support the view that the funds be divided in proportion to the losses suffered by the band's lease they gave up most land and received the least compensation for acre under their proposal lease they could receive seventy percent of the fines the white earth band represents fifty three percent of the tribe of the total enrolled members and it supports the pro rata division or as was discussed our results of research report in two thousand and one recommended a pro rata distribution and we believe that if the funds were distributed under the nelson act which is the best evidence we have a congressional intent in this situation the funds would be distributed per capita at the end of the nelson act that's the way the fines were distributed so we continue to support the recommendation to the funds be allocated for rad we do however agree with the previous statements that a best solution would be a agreed upon consensus position by the six bands and let me just address the issue of the the perception the department interior has changes position former assistant secretary our man on the second to last day did send a letter to the committee purporting to rescind the results of research report however our april two thousand and seven position went through the established procedure set forth by the office of management and budget for putting together and sending to congress and administration position mr our friends may twenty second two thousand and eight the letter did not go through that process and it's not the position of the administration and with that i'll just vote of ten four and two against this resolution would allocate each member band on equal share of the judgment fund it has been charged not accepting this vote the department is ignoring the will of a sovereign government would you care to respond to that charge do you accept that charge and why it is they do arment feel it cannot support the distribution plan in the resolution well  believe it's a little bit more complicated than that in the first place there's case law that says that despite what the tribes may want it's the administration and congress  must decide the distribution so we have a role to play in deciding that distribution in the second place and this is a very unique situation not only is the minnesota chippewa tribe a federally recognized tribes but each of the six bands are themselves fairly recognized tribes so in one sense that position to one tribe against another so we're in a difficult position where we need to decide which sovereign entity we agree with and i would just reiterate we would prefer a consensus position if that is at all possible in year two thousand  results of research reports a department proposed a thirty five sixty five percent split thirty five percent of the fine would be distributed based on the amount of damages suffered by each band and sixty five percent would be distribut per capita basis was the thirty five sixty five percent distribution idea included in the proposed legislation it was sent to the hill it was not we did not get i believe  we only heard from one tribe that issue and so we did not proceed with that so absent basically absent a negotiated agreement we went with our best  our best description i guess of what congressional intent would have been so you did not have sufficient input from the tribes in well we didn't again in that situation we did not have agreement from all six bands we don't have agreement from off expands for any proposal so we returned to congressional intent the fines were distributed at the end of the nelson act for distributed per capita so we again believe the  we had six in the last ten years and you currently serve as the director and you are for the record can you elaborate further on the  the nelson act provisions what does it mandate the nelson act said set up a process for dealing with the chippewa tribes to  value the land that was being ceded to make payments to the tribes for those lands and that money was to put into a fund for the tribes my understanding is that for a period of time interest was used or some amount of that money was used paid to the tribes for them to use at the end of that a fifty year period then that money was was divided distributed per capita to members of that for our capital according to population or land or what population according to population so it seems that we have three different versions here we have the possib by equal distribution that was one option the second option that would be done proportionate to the population we have a letter here from the chairman of the leech lake band mr george  i which makes a very valid point in my humble opinion the fact that proportionate to losses of land timber and mismanagement of the trust funds that this should also be taken to consideration has a department of interior consider this third option we  have considered a sort of combined option of the thirty five sixty five that the chairman mentioned where we would split the money into two pots one would be divided based on damage and one would be divided based i believe pro rata and again we did not have a good what's a thirty five sixty five i'm a little one moment very rough on the side of thirty five percent of the fun would have been fitted to each of the bands in proportion to their losses that part would have favored the leech lake the remaining sixty five percent would have been distributed to each of the bands and proportion their current tribal enrollment that would have favored white earth and that was based on percentages used to divide the income earned the land that they came from the case i'd like to share with you the substance of some of the compensation equal to the percentage of actual loss of timber land and mismanaged trust for those associated with the nelson act of eight hundred eighty nine do you find that reasonable to consider or  we find a reasonable and fact are results of research report even even acknowledges that they did suffer the most again we're trying to make a decision based the best we can on congressional intent in the absence of a consensus by the tribes and because the nelson act called for the money to be distributed per capita as our decision that was the the sir let alone even the farmer the interior cannot give the best possible advice or suggestions to the six branch on how to resolve this issue it's a very difficult issue and we gave what we believe was the best advice and the best legislative proposal we would not oppose other possible distributions of those fines but the judgment fund actually cars us to put to for with i would leave that to the panel of tribal leaders who i think would know that better than i at one point they were for doing the chippewa indians of minnesota the minnesota chippewa tribe as an council has made of this decision or a proposal were guiding how fund should be distributed or anything else do you general that has the past practice been that you've supported the council it is the b just generally ignore it and come up with their own i would say without specific knowledge of all of them or even most of them i would say there's a range  depends on what other factors there are if a tribe comes up with a position and it does not violate other statutes we probably would normally would support that again this is unique because the minnesota chippewa tribe is a tribe but the band are also tribes so it's competing but they have a council made up of the band the different bands correct they do and they met and voted on a resolution yes they did together but there's case law that says it's our decision responsibility to all the tribes and individuals of the tribes so it's not as clear cut as saying the tribe said this the b i e r the us government must come up with the same position as have you or anyone from the bureau discuss your compromise position with the bands or the council thirty five sixty five  discussed some years before my involvement in this we have had several meetings with the tribe and with band and with individual bands over the past several years we understand the minnesota chippewa tribe has been constant and it's your criticism and opposition to the position that we're taking but again we would be very willing to work with the tribes if they were interested and coming up with a consensus to say when you say the tribe you're because it's composed of all the different bands so you when you say the tribe you're talking about all the different bands that come under the gator you know first our first national policy was to kill all the indians at my correct and secondly let's assimilate and make them all americans then thirdly terminate the with the sides that that should not be the intent that certainly within your purview to change that intent again we do not oppose a different distribution but you will not use the nelson act as the basis of how we could best to discuss this very troubling issue that's that we've been dealing with as everybody's indicated for many years my name is norman shop as you mentioned i'm president of the minnesota chippewa tribe and also chairman of the graham portas band at lake superior chippewa i'm here in speaking in support of our three six nine nine pursuant to its constitution minnesota to put tribes past resolution one ninety nine which approved the settlement and settlement of twenty million dollars in the u s court of the court of claims they also passed a resolution number forty das zero zero as you know which allocates those funds to each of the six reservations on an equal sort of tribe was awarded the judgment in the claims the minnesota chippewa tribe constitution gives each band an equal voice in tribal governance and management of tribal resources vote was in support of the one sixth ward to each band with leech lake opposing our constitution bylaws do not require a unanimous vote to enact laws these actions or laws or votes or resolutions are valid they are binding in their governmental acts of the minnesota chippewa tribe i think it's important to no too that the vote to settle the case for twenty million dollars was not a unanimous vote and the bureau accepted that vote as a matter of fact they requested a lot of discussion amongst the bands and there has never been i don't think one hundred percent agreement on this issue from day one and what are the impacts of this  it is there is a precedent that we're setting where the bureau can decide whether or not a resolution or law passed by a tribal government in their opinion is not valid i think that question has to be answered the reservations respectfully disagree on this issue but in the end i think the majority has to rule that's the way we're set up that's the way we operate the lack of any other way to settle this matter hall members of the committee my name is kevin lisi i'm the chairman of the boys for advantage of one northern minnesota it's a pleasure to be here today you'll have find my testimony in your package so i'm just going to briefly   certainly the majority of the tribes voted on this and agreed to that and also as chairman to shop it stated earlier you know this was the claims that led to the award were first brought in the name of the minnesota chippewa under the constitution approved by the secretary of the interior on july twenty fourth nine hundred thirty six and no i think we're going off into path and and i respectfully disagree with the director of the beyond who says it's really our decision i think you know with respect to sovereignty of the tribes in this case minnesota  good morning thank you so much for having us here today i'm speaking in favor of h r thirty six ninety nine and i'm sorry twenty three i'm getting a little confused i apologize if there are thirty six ninety nine in opposition to twenty three o six i also have the same concerns as my colleagues but more along the support of rule of law i'm certainly hoping that the committee isn't going to give permanent time on its agenda for the minnesota chippewa tribe bands to come back to resolve it disputes when we don't have unanimity because certainly that is the door that is being opened and it is my worry i've been a student of what is best practices and tribal governance and certainly the adherence to a strong rule of law is what exemplifies strong tribal governments and i believe this move and this push to have us come here to our but arbitrate our difficulties would be under my not only to us but any other representative form of tribal government we're finding ourselves in a difficult position and i'm finding a little disingenuous the remarks of the b i a that they seem to want to have it both ways they want unanimous decision making but they allow us to settle the litigation without a unanimous decision they also are failing to understand that this is not a nelson act settlement and to use the congressional intent of that time perhaps of congress wanted us to have that money at that time they wouldn't of given it all away prior to the settlement of this action and each tribe made that settlement and they accepted it at the time i find this to be a divide and conquer mentality that much like the honorable gentleman said i don't think they really want us to settle otherwise they would uphold our rule of law fond du lac has signed more than five treaties as an individual band but we did not take this action as an individual band we took it as a part of the constitutional authority that it has through the minnesota chippewas tribe and we want to adhere to that action we don't always agree in fact if we use leech lake the methodology fond du lac had the second most losses but we recognize and support that the m c c took this agreed at the outset to split it one sixth and continue to agree to the rule of law despite the fact that there are other ways to slice the pie that may be more beneficial it is the governance and the adherence to a strong governance model that is most important to us i also have my written testimony that's available to you and i guess just as the two honorable congressmen that we're up here much like they disagree on how to proportion this the will of this body when it votes will become the rule of law that will affect the outcome of how you to distribute this money to us why would you ask any differently we are a representative government as well and our vote was our law we're asking you to do that if not then my challenge back to you is to come back to us with a settlement when you also can find unanimity in your body what's good for the goose is good for  to work on drafting off a new one that concludes my comments thank you for your listening and if i can answer any questions please thank you chairman  reimbursing the bands for certain legal fees and expenses supporters of this legislation may say that's enough that had the nelson act been successful it would have done in the same manner but let me remind the committee that such a distribution was intended to be made not to members of indian tribes but to indians who had the simulated into american society the nelson that grew out of the wrong headed a lot and then assimilation error of federal indian policy starting with passage of the indian reorganization act in one nine hundred thirty four congress has since expressed turned away from the policy of allotment and simulation towards tribal self determination because it arguably adoption individual per capita distribution scheme contained in legislation that originally sought to promote the now discredited policies of allotment and simulation h r two thousand and six should not as a matter of policy be supported represented over starts legislation h r thirty six ninety nine would distribute the judgment fund and six equal shares among six bands comprising the miso chip what's right h r thirty six ninety nine respects a position of a majority of the six members of the minnesota chip watch not surprisingly it unfairly favors those four bands at the expense of leech lake that is because four bands have the voting majority yet comprise only twenty seven percent of the total enrolled m c p membership but more importantly suffered only twenty two percent of total damage under this bill these four tribes would receive sixty seven percent of the money in the settlement  call supporters of this bill argue that congress should respect tribal sovereignty since the tribal executive committee of the minnesota chippewa tribe adopted a resolution approving the six way split however the sovereignty of minnesota chip what tribe flows from its six member band and not reverse the rationale behind h r thirty six ninety nine therefore disregards the independent tribal sovereignty of each individual man two of which have long opposes in the equitable  scheme since congress has an obvious role to play in this process congress must exercise fairness and independent judgment i was charged can reach a consensus just like h r twenty three zero six represented over starr's alternate alternative while appearing to be a simple solution to a complex matter would actually undermine the longstanding commitment of congress to strengthen tribal sovereignty for the record we have proposed our own plan for distribution which is fair and consistent our plan simply unfairly requires the judgment fund to be distributed to the bads proportion to the actual damages suffered by each from the disposition of their tribal lands their interest in lands and other of their tribal assets this proposal offers a real solution can be accomplished without legislation it is only fair that each member receive a share in proportion to what they lost as a committee considers these issues as the following two questions number one is it fair and equitable to tribe who suffered sixty eight point nine percent of the damages might only receive sixteen to twenty percent of the payment for those losses while the others could receive more than sixteen times the amount of their actual loss number two perhaps a better question to ask ourselves mr chairman members of the committee is if this were your conscious constituents instead of leach they being asked to accept the solution proposed in these bills would you think it was fair we submit that only through equable distribution of the fund in the court and the damages fairness to the parties be achieved and i believe there is hope that a compromise can be reached i wish to share  r thirty six ninety nine you have my written statement for the record i just want to share some background and highlight a point the band and the tribe structure we operate under is a bit unusual in the lower forty eight are a limited number of things we come together to do as the minnesota tribe or and we determine tribal membership together we hold some land titles together we conduct our elections together and our constitution can only be revised together when reaper form these functions we are doing so as a sovereign but we must do things separately which are also federally recognized tribes in our own right for example lacks has its own self governance compact we operate in on our own businesses we manage our own resources and provide education and health services to our members as chairman  point which is the n p t is a sovereign recognized american indian tribes are thirty six ninety nine should be adopted because it allows this decision by a sovereign tribe to be implemented in h but this time the interior failed to accept or vote according to the judgment upon distribution act interior had one year to file a distribution plan to the congress the deadline was june two thousand which interior failed to make because of interior failure we are here today congress must now enact a statute providing for the distribution of the judgment upon we cannot access these litigated these claims that the discussed how to divide the cost on the attorneys we could have required the bands with the most timber to pay a greater share of the legal costs are the band with the greatest land holdings to pay more regardless of other factors whether our band had ten thousand or a thousand members we divided this cost six ways we share the vote ten were in favor and two against but it was legally binding if two families today state for a common injury agreed to divide the legal fences among the families agreed to divide that any recovery equally as well the governor would not come in and say i don't care what you agreed to i'm giving the most money to the families with the most members which brings me to my third point thirty six ninety nine should be supported because  six split approved by the t e c is a fair way of dividing the funds and consistent with how we agreed to pay for and did pay for the litigation the committee also had some history on these matters when  chairman amended the judgment funds distribution act and one hundred eighty two the importance of tribal decision making and all of his discussions and legislation in those amendments he wanted to get away from the pro ra hundred eighty s our chief executive the late arthur gobble testified in front of this committee when it was called interior and insular affairs he was speaking on the division and distribution of another indian claims commission  it had not yet voted on it in this very room the late congressman bruce spent all of minnesota told him respectfully to go home he told our chairman that the distribution of these funds was just about black span he said the minnesota tribe would have to decide this matter together as a tribe we've done just that it was a legal vote it was fair and it is time to resolve this matter once and for all unfortunately this is not our finest hour as a tribe but we've expanded to a lot of good work together just a few examples of the minnesota tribal government which malacca started chairman if you held a hearing on everything we do together and we do agree we'd be here all week we are supportive of each other we are relatives and leaders are friends everyone mr chairman member i would like to take this opportunity to thank you to present the views of the waiter's band of chip or indians a sovereign sovereign federally recognized indian tribe to present our views on the legislation introduced by congressman peterson h r two three zero six for the apportionment of funds awarded under the nelson act claims litigation also i'd like to recognize and i'm honored today that the waiter tribal council is here this is an important issue to us i would like to take this opportunity to make several very important points the first is an explanation of why the bureau of indian affairs results of research and the bill h r two three zero six is the correct disposition of the nelson funds and second i would like to address what we believe are the comparative equities of the two bills that are the that are the subject of this hearing and finally we would like to share our thoughts on the main objection that we have heard h r two three zero six to be a result of research recognizes the historical background and context of the settlement at land and timber resources were stolen from our people under de authority of the nelson act and the discredited policy of allotment in the early part of the last century around this time most of the ojibway living throughout the state were removed to the white earth reservation this includes many of the residents of the current six reservations and other bands that no longer exist essentially at this time the federal government shuffle the deck of our people in that shuffle the majority of ojibwe who suffered under to nelson act were relocated to waiters under the indian reorganize ation act of one nine hundred thirty four the federal government in effect ojibway population in minnesota except those ojibwe it rolled in red lake interest six separate governments representing the then existing settlements under a single constitution the minnesota chipboard tribe the membership of the individual persons and each federally recognized band was based on the reservation on which they reside and at that time as a result of removal the majority of the current minnesota chipper tribe then resided on the waiter's reservation due to desist torkel accident wider three main the largest than the minnesota chipboard tribe and therefore represents the greatest number of errors of the affected by the nelson act the six sovereign governments of the minnesota chipboard tribe have grown stronger and more separate with the passage of time each reservation band is exclusively responsible for the health and welfare of sovereign over our own lands and people each band is federally recognized as a sovereign american indian tribe and each band has a separate self governance compact with the united states government therefore in two thousand eight the proper governmental entity to administer the settlement for the airth of indian people affected by the abuses of the nelson act in one hundred fourteen are the ban remise represents the historical reality of our membership the reasoning of the be a in a port of research as presented to the committee as h r two three zero six is clear accurate and has a rational basis the basis for the apportionment and distribution must take into account as the be a result of research does that while all members of each band are members of the the value of that settlement should be for all these indian beneficiaries equally any other manner of any other manner of division would offend the spirit of the settlement act and the fundamental notions fairness and equity the one six split essentially argues that one thing held in common among all members should be valued very differently under the under the h r three six six nine plan the quote unquote value of the settlement to separate two members of separate bands would vary wildly in the most extreme case grand portage members would get ten that plan would be to give seventy five percent of the proceeds of the settlement to twenty five percent of the beneficiaries we frankly do not see that such a finding would withstand judicial scrutiny as a final point i would like to point out to the committee that the other bands of the me object that h r two three zero six disregards quote unquote tribal law if this is indeed the case which which we do not believe it is then tribal law is uncommonly fair but we urge the committee that this objection to h r three zero six is irrelevant does not prepare reports of research under tribal law it is acting under federal law likewise congress is exercising its plenary federal authority and a pass in passing and apportion and build a federal law to receive the process because tribal law is not working that the federal government the administration at the direction of congress is stepping in this is allowable because this is a this is a distribution of federal settlement funds these funds do not become quote unquote tribal in nature until after they are distributed according to and under federal law as an acted by the distribution of judgment funds act in some we believe the only course of action because consistent with fairness equity and due process is for the committee to approve h r two three zero six thank you again for this opportunity to speak with you and your sharing your many meetings were scheduled before that many just to note that one that just to clarify when that resolution passed again leech lake voted against that as a matter of fact that resolution answers and they are not they are very very complicated everybody said grant portage itself we seem to get mentioned because we're a small reservation we did not vote for the settlement initially where  of these people were not there by the way when that happened and that was a consensus at that time as to how they wanted to deal with the proceeds from that settlement a lot went into that i don't know if there was a lot of discussions that surrounded that i don't know that you know how would it if there was a different outcome to resolution if everybody would have supported the settlement it's hard to say we can't go back but there are a lot of discussions and issues related to how that was perhaps a let me ask chief executive benjamin in your testimony you state that because of the failure to submit a propose poorest at that time and we were i think we were all pretty poor but lacks is probably the poorest in those years that we would have had we could have invested that into the tribe in different areas to better our membership and by having those funds unavailable it prevents a lot of success of the band from occurring and in those early years money was very  think the band could've been that much further if it had the opportunity to invest that money into the blacks than people in the governments at that time anybody else with comment on it the chippewa nation in minnesota i'm just trying to take a little poll here if i want to make sure if i've got the right polling here mr de champed supports three six nine nine am i correct irma windsor also with three six nine nine two three zero six that's a real history majority here i don't know why this quite understandable why  the issue is not as simple as most people think it might be and i can't say much on how much the department of interior has done even to mess things up even more with all due respect to our friend there was a director as you mentioned earlier mr de shop you currently are the the chairman of the all the tribal bands and under this constitution that was approved by the assistan interior which makes up so not only you are you a federally recognized nation as i'm in a sort of chippewa tribe but you're also individually recognized as separate nations within a nation am i correct you know i have a general behind me who i all the twenty years almost twenty years that i've been here over one hundred ten years this tribe has never been recognized by the congress yet halfway through somewhat most asinine and as far as i'm concerned the most the greatest injustice that has ever been done by the congress and i suspect hum had a lot to do with it and i'm talking about the lumbee indians this gentleman ms knight has not been recognized as a recognized tribe for the last hundred ten years and here we have a very distinguished group here being recognized twice already figure that out and i this is the first timers german in my life that i hear tribes that have been recognized twice i don't know if you had a chance recently i saw this great movie called the great debaters and this thing came rattling through when one of you mentioned about the strong rule of law and  if there's any message that i would suggest to my distinguished chairman watch the movie degrade debaters sometimes rule of law doesn't necessarily mean rule of law i'm just laws there's no law at all so far as this gentleman by the name of mr farmer who was a student in this black wireless college and had the nerve to debate they're the number one country debaters at university and harvard university and they beat him one who was speaking about rule of law my graduate studies were actually at the kennedy school of government at harvard so harvard is now unlike in the movie and that is the place where i learned and tried to study what was best practices in indian country and when they looked across this great country about tribal governance rule of law is actually the number one thing but it's our laws our laws so and i also wanted to say with our do all due respect i will put plainly decline the b i coming to negotiate with us that's for us to do within our own esteem body within our own constitution obviously it has not worked out so well having that outside influence and interpretation it may have been vague areas that best about which of the rule of law they chose to use at any given point during this process they  they say this they say rules of research they say congressional intent i frankly can't keep up with what's rule of law they are following they perhaps are on that side of the fence during this great debate remarkably not to tell you the truth i remember the old indian reorganization act constitutions most closely modeled to the articles of incorporation for nonprofit organization and any provision that allows the chippewa nation to change the provisions of your constitution absolutely and i would consider that our greatest priority going forward and if you've done that method of decision making was a consensus and when i say consensus meaning unanimous consent where there's no actual polling like what the americans i mean that westerners do but it's a sense of the spirit of  consent if you will this does not exist in your decision making am i correct no not at based on our existing constitution no show and basically you're following the western t majority rule five out of six or six out of five you know when the decision ok now how do you resolve what you may consider to be an equitable or unfair law or rule that is in the process how do you resolve that problem because i think this is exactly what my friend chairman google ari has a problem with i understand that i think like i said before the majority has to rule and there are a lot of laws that the m c p passed that i don't agree with and or any one of us we work well together we have a good relationship but we don't i reservations vary greatly not only in population but in other differences we have different types of natural resources we have different land bases are you actually have it all mean united states within the united states with all the same problems here how does the council or how does the constitution as you or do you didn't draft a constitution the first place how do you handle issues like what mr blair is claiming to be some what the sense of unfairness how the majority is rul there is a there is a provision our constitution that if the people don't agree with what the decision made by the governing body that they can petition that action  congress let me but let me point this suggestion to all of you distinguished members of the panel the thing that comes to my mind and if you want to think about the highest possible priorities that i think everybody could be anonymous  what do you think of looking at the issues saying about educational scholarships for the six bands on an equal basis and giving help and let's not get into the substance look at the issues are what would be helpful to everybody at this point in time and not wait another fifty years while you people still need more education better scholarships and all of this i assume all of you have your own scholarship programs why not all of you agree unanimously that port be allocated now to give scholarships opportunities to chippewa students who may want to pursue whatever of feel of a profession that they may want to do i mean that's something that there should be anonymous consent with all the tribes because it seems to me that by the time that this congress will never again which i doubt you hear what mr peterson and mr roper strive say they don't even agree among themselves and you can imagine what this means to the rest of us it's not east a portion of the funds go immediately to scholarships and educational opportunities for all to polish students will be good could you maybe look at it from that point of view and not be so cut and dry about how you're going to divide the pie maybe health conditions more doctors more professors whatever in the professions that you people have a need for maybe big sam is a presentation but let's not be so high on cutting up the pie but giving in to programs that i really need it for the chippewa people as a whole i'm just offering this as a humble suggestion that maybe we might look at it from the subject matter a matter issue and not population or land losses or anything but look at the issues that are so critically needed for the chippewa nation as a whole and come back to the congress and this is how we want the money allocated now so there's a sense of unanimous consideration by the tribe i'm absolutely certain i'm sure that at least i would be very supportive of it i don't know about my colleagues but i'm just trying to see how we can unravel this twenty years thirty years of one of divide the party now we're going to be sitting here for the next hundred years and still is and are going to be resolved if this is where we find ourselves with mr chairman i'm sorry i didn't mean to take my time i just a right you're against you you support neither and i think i can is that what you said need a bill that's going i think i can understand why you don't support thirty six ninety nine but could you claim and then distribute if i understand it correctly and then to distribute the rest of it equally is that right among the bad so those  christiansen maybe i missed maybe i don't understand the bill either way it doesn't it doesn't reflect the damages incurred by the leech like people neither bill it's something that that that our people the people that i represent my constituency can support even if it is you know the payment of the legal fees and then the distribution leech lake still does not receive it's just compensation you know this this discussion could go a lot deeper and you know what i don't intend to do that today but you know my position and our position at accepted that amount and that vote back in one thousand nine hundred ninety would have said no because it it is if it's about principle then it's about that land that is important to us you know there's there's there's a lot of things that the tribes give up and one of the most important things that leech like was it you know the federal government got over six hundred sixty thousand acres of of our land of our home we own approximately five percent of the land within our own reservation that's an injustice that's one of the problems that we face as a large tribe is we don't have the land base in this no amount of money that would justify what has happened in the past and it's not going to replace the land it's not going to solve our the tribes have been treated but today we're talking about how to distribute the twenty million dollars and i'm trying to understand that you don't think it's either one is fair to  was this factor taken into consideration at the tribal executive committee when they were in a discussion about the distribution the size of your bed white earth and this is this all these federal policies intended to destroy our people and white earth has had the most horrific of  histories because it was federal policy to move all indians to reservations actually and to get rid of the indian problem one of those reservations was waiting at the other was read like there for a w a large membership because indians were relocated to white or however however many of the tribes many of the bands did not give up their on reservations and came to a wider and moved back home again or didn't move to wait or but a large large number did therefore we have the largest membership waiter's went back to the minnesota chip committee and along with leech lake asked to rescind that one six split and we were outvoted because we are we are the two largest bands within the minnesota chip or tribe we can we comprise probably seventy five percent of the tribal membership of the minnesota chipper tribe but we are all voted because each of the six bands have to vote and whiter and leech lake together have four votes so we are voting do i say the minnesota triple a tribe constitution is fair no it's not in the process of  constitutional reform right now after we found after we researched on our own we went back and asked to resend that resolution because it was to the detriment of our people  and i would imagine that's what is being considered for reform that it would be based on population is that what you considering in the reform  the minnesota to put tribe constitution as it is today is an indian reorganization act constitution it is it is flawed in so many ways it is it is it does not have any separate judicial system we want we want the people to participate so that's our that's our director white or too even if it means separation for the chip or tribe we want we want a government that is where people have a voice and and we want to government that is not consolidated in an executive form of government that's what we have under the minnesota chipper tribe constitution i think that getting beyond the scope of the the hearing to those who support thirty six ninety nine now thirty six ninety nine is equal distribution which reflects the council resolution are you willing to reconsider that decision to try to seek consensus even though i understand you know the council is made up to vote for each band and consensus is not required conclusion and again we could not come to a consensus you know this decision took place in one nine hundred ninety nine i mean my just reelected to my second term i wasn't party to the decision however i have a duty to to respect that decision and you know but there has been attempts there has been many attempts to try to come to some kind of conclusion and you know i will the question about reconsideration that question thank you for that question melanie benjamin chief executive like spendable and i think that's what positive about our relationship that we are willing to sit and discuss these issues even though we've already made a decision we have come back on numerous occasions and said here we are again do we have a resolution that we can all agree upon and i think as we go forward that we will have additional meetings to talk about these issues at this point and i know this body has always been open to that to revisit an issue and see if we can come up with a consensus yes to both of your points the constitution has been there for seventy two years and it's operated well does it match your traditional form of government for us it does not but we had hereditary chief although amount of time that has gone by this has become our new norm and we've operated under it with the upmost respect and followed it even when we didn't agree it is different and that we do give due process to each of the tribes we do have the opportunity to influence each other there are not were successful comes out at a vote but nobody is denied their time whether it's in a formal meeting or whether it's informally calling each other letting them know providing written materials asking for research in that way it is very respectful open and honest but it does and eventually come to a vote someday a change in our constitution will come to a vote will come to a vote of this body but it will also come to a vote for each of our members because that will take action of our entire membership until that day once again it is it is what it is for all of its foibles and it has served us well for seventy two years and we have managed to come together when we not agreed it is disheartening that it ends up coming to this level especially when that agreement served congress well and be a well  they they choose not to let it serve when it i can't tell you why it seems rather convenient but the settlement certainly went through with justices and everybody's approval and that's all we want to continue and hopefully like i said it won't set precedents for us having to continue to come back and have you interpret our constitutional rule for us we would much rather perhaps update that constitution and have that be approved through interior so that we can make these decisions locally as well thank  forth called for two million dollars of the settlement to each of the six bands and the remaining fine to be distributed on per capita white or supported that all the white earth would would have take some losses significantly but white earth has consistently been willing to come to the table to negotiate a settlement and we will again members of the committee that proposal also is not acceptable to the leech lake band but i do want to make note that there has not been one proposal discussed by this body in the period of time that i have been here that discusses the damage award or the amount of damages that is something that leech lake will continue to hold out for if there's a discussion that involves the damage  ard and the decision reflects that that is something we still hold out hope for and we we do hope for a compromise that there's no question about that that's our was very very difficult because i think at the end when agreement was for a new reached the kind of there's henry kissinger back and forth with the various tribes sovereign tribes he's one sovereign with oberstar and one by mr peterson and i do know it's a very difficult question very often that genesis quickly in michigan i know was the federal government the federal government upon sovereign governments and i'm speaking with how to great deal of specific knowledge of the case in minnesota but i would hope that the various could come to us and tell us what their plan is rather than imposing the plan a plan upon them as co chair of the native american caucus i think the one word share wishes to thank the panel for being with us today and advised that if there is additional materials that any witness wishes to submit for the record the record will remain open for the summation of such