19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–501 

MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE JUDGMENT FUND 

DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2012 

MAY 30, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1272] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1272) to provide for the use and distribution of the funds 

awarded to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, et al., by the United 

States Court of Federal Claims in Docket Numbers 19 and 188, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) On January 22, 1948, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, representing all 

Chippewa bands in Minnesota except the Red Lake Band, filed a claim before 

the Indian Claims Commission in Docket No. 19 for an accounting of all funds 

received and expended pursuant to the Act of January 14, 1889, 25 Stat. 642, 

and amendatory acts (hereinafter referred to as the Nelson Act). 

(2) On August 2, 1951, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, representing all Chippewa bands in Minnesota except the Red Lake Band, filed a number of claims 

before the Indian Claims Commission in Docket No. 188 for an accounting of 

the Government’s obligation to each of the member bands of the Minnesota 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Chippewa Tribe under various statutes and treaties that are not covered by the 

Nelson Act of January 14, 1889. 

(3) On May 17, 1999, a Joint Motion for Findings in Aid of Settlement of the 

claims in Docket No. 19 and 188 was filed before the Court. 

(4) The terms of the settlement were approved by the Court and the final 

judgment was entered on May 26, 1999. 

(5) On June 22, 1999, $20,000,000 was transferred to the Department of the 

Interior and deposited into a trust fund account established for the beneficiaries 

of the funds awarded in Docket No. 19 and 188. 

(6) Pursuant to the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act 

(25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), Congress must act to authorize the use or distribution 

of the judgment funds. 

(7) On October 1, 2009, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Executive Committee 

passed Resolution 146–09, approving a plan to distribute the judgment funds 

and requesting that the United States Congress act to distribute the judgment 

funds in the manner described by the plan. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

For the purpose of this Act: 

(1) AVAILABLE FUNDS.—The term ‘‘available funds’’ means the funds awarded 

to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and interest earned and received on those 

funds, less the funds used for payments authorized under section 4. 

(2) BANDS.—The term ‘‘Bands’’ means the Bois Forte Band, Fond du Lac 

Band, Grand Portage Band, Leech Lake Band, Mille Lacs Band, and White 

Earth Band. 

(3) JUDGMENT FUNDS.—The term ‘‘judgment funds’’ means the funds awarded 

on May 26, 1999, to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe by the Court of Federal 

Claims in Docket No. 19 and 188. 

(4) MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’’ 

means the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, composed of the Bois Forte 

Band, Fond du Lac Band, Grand Portage Band, Leech Lake Band, Mille Lacs 

Band, and White Earth Band. It does not include Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians, Minnesota. 

(5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

SEC. 4. LOAN REIMBURSEMENTS TO MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to reimburse the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe the amount of funds, plus interest earned to the date of reimbursement, 

that the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe contributed for payment of attorneys’ fees and 

litigation expenses associated with the litigation of Docket No. 19 and 188 before 

the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the distribution of judgment funds. 

(b) CLAIMS.—The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’s claim for reimbursement of funds 

expended shall be— 

(1) presented to the Secretary not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; 

(2) certified by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as being unreimbursed to the 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe from other funding sources; 

(3) paid with interest calculated at the rate of 6.0 percent per annum, simple 

interest, from the date the funds were expended to the date the funds are reimbursed to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe; and 

(4) paid from the judgment funds prior to the division of the funds under section 5. 

SEC. 5. DIVISION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS. 

(a) MEMBERSHIP ROLLS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe shall submit to the Secretary updated 

membership rolls for each Band, which shall include all enrolled members the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 

(b) DIVISIONS.—After all funds have been reimbursed under section 4, and the 

membership rolls have been updated under subsection (a), the Secretary shall— 

(1) set aside for each Band a portion of the available judgment funds equivalent to $300 for each member enrolled within each Band; and 

(2) after the funds are set aside in accordance with paragraph (1), divide 100 

percent of the remaining funds into equal shares for each Band. 

(c) SEPARATE ACCOUNTS.—The Secretary shall— 

(1) deposit all funds described in subsection (b)(1) into a ‘‘Per Capita’’ account 

for each Band; and 

(2) deposit all funds described in subsection (b)(2) into an ‘‘Equal Shares’’ account for each Band. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

(d) WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS.—After the Secretary deposits the available funds into 

the accounts described in subsection (c), a Band may withdraw all or part of the 

monies in its account. 

(e) DISBURSEMENT OF PER CAPITA PAYMENTS.—All funds described in subsection 

(b)(1) shall be used by each Band only for the purposes of distributing one $300 payment to each individual member of the Band. Each Band may— 

(1) distribute the $300 payment to the parents or legal guardians on behalf 

of each dependent Band member instead of distributing such $300 payment to 

the dependent Band member; or 

(2) deposit into a trust account the $300 payment to each dependent Band 

member for the benefit of such dependent Band member, to be distributed 

under the terms of such trust. 

(f) DISTRIBUTION OF UNCLAIMED PAYMENTS.—One year after the funds described 

in subsection (b)(1) are made available to the Bands, all unclaimed payments described in subsection (e) shall be returned to the Secretary, who shall divide these 

funds into equal shares for each Band, and deposit the divided shares into the accounts described in subsection (c)(2) for the use of each Band. 

(g) LIABILITY.—If a Band exercises the right to withdraw monies from its accounts, the Secretary shall not retain liability for the expenditure or investment of 

the monies after each withdrawal. 

SEC. 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

(a) PREVIOUS OBLIGATIONS.—Funds disbursed under this Act shall not be liable 

for the payment of previously contracted obligations of any recipient as provided in 

Public Law 98–64 (25 U.S.C. 117b(a)). 

(b) INDIAN JUDGMENT FUNDS DISTRIBUTION ACT.—All funds distributed under this 

Act are subject to the provisions in the Indian Judgment Funds Distribution Act (25 

U.S.C. 1407). 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1272, as ordered reported, is to provide for 

the use and distribution of the funds awarded to the Minnesota 

Chippewa Tribe, et al., by the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in Docket Numbers 19 and 188. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On January 22, 1948, and August 2, 1951, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, representing all Chippewa Bands in Minnesota except 

for the Red Lake Band, filed a number of claims before the Indian 

Claims Commission. These claims (later referred to as Docket 

Numbers 19 and 188) are related to various accounting obligations 

of the federal government pursuant to the Nelson Act and various 

treaties that are not covered by the Nelson Act. The Minnesota 

Chippewa Tribe filed these claims against the federal government 

alleging that the six bands were not adequately compensated for 

lands ceded under the Nelson Act and for improper timber valuations. All six bands equally shared the risk and expense of prosecuting the cases. The United States Court of Federal Claims 

awarded a $20 million settlement for Docket Nos. 19 and 188. 

These funds have been held in trust since June 22, 1999, and with 

interest they total $28.5 million. 

Nelson Act of 1889 

The Nelson Act was established to provide a way for the federal 

government to negotiate with the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota 

to obtain land cessions for certain lands that had been reserved for 

them under various treaties. After land surveys and valuations had 

been completed, tribal lands were then ceded to the United States 

and those ceded lands were opened for settlement under the homestead laws (usually sold at public auctions). The money received 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

from the land sales was then deposited into the United States 

Treasury for the benefit of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota. 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe/Tribal Executive Committee 

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is a federally recognized Indian 

tribe, organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and 

is comprised of six member reservations (Bois Forte, Fond du Lac, 

Grand Portage, Leech Lake, Mille Lacs, and White Earth). The governing body for the Tribe is the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Executive Committee which has the authority to allocate the proceeds of 

the judgment funds, according to their Constitution. 

On October 27, 1997, the Tribal Executive Committee authorized 

a referendum to its tribal members seeking approval of the $20 

million settlement (see Resolution 01–99). Then on September 9, 

1999, the Tribal Executive Committee passed a resolution (see Resolution 40–00) that allocated each member band an equal share of 

the judgment funds. However, Leech Lake opposed this resolution 

and its formula. 

Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act 

This Act, first enacted on October 19, 1973, sets forth a convoluted procedure to handle the distribution of settlement funds 

where more than one tribe is involved and the parties do not agree 

on a distribution formula. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was 

tasked with executing the responsibilities of the Act. On June 6, 

2001, the BIA issued a Results of Research Report on the Judgment in Favor of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, et al., v. United 

States, Dockets 19 and 188 (Report). The Report ‘‘recommended an 

alternative distribution that would acknowledge the losses suffered 

by each of the Bands. Under the proposal, 35 percent of the fund 

would have been distributed to each of the bands in proportion to 

their losses. The remaining 65 percent would have been distributed 

to each of the bands in proportion to their current tribal enrollment.’’ 

After discussing this Report with the Tribal Executive Committee and the Bands’ representatives, the BIA sent the Tribal Executive Committee a draft legislative proposal for the division of 

judgment funds on November 25, 2005. However, the Tribal Executive Committee was firm in its opposition to any legislative proposal that did not split the funds evenly. On May 1, 2006, Chairman Norman Deschampe of the Grand Portage Reservation Tribal 

Council sent a letter to the BIA requesting that the Department 

forego any recommendations to Congress. 

However, as noted earlier, the BIA has a responsibility to prepare and submit to Congress a plan for the use and distribution of 

judgment funds awarded by the Indian Claims Commission or the 

United States Court of Federal Claims. It was not until April 26, 

2007, that the BIA sent a letter to then-Speaker of the House of 

Representatives Nancy Pelosi with draft legislation to disburse the 

settlement funds. The draft bill would have divided the funds on 

a per-capita basis, as recommended in the 2001 Report by the BIA. 

However, on May 22, 2008, the BIA sent a letter to the then-Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Nick Rahall, withdrawing its support of the draft bill that was sent on April 26, 

2007. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

In the 110th Congress, two bills, H.R. 2306 and H.R. 3699, were 

introduced to provide for a distribution of the Minnesota Chippewa 

funds. H.R. 2306 (Collin Peterson, D–MN) would have distributed 

the funds on a per-capita basis. H.R. 3699 (James Oberstar, D– 

MN) would have split the funds evenly among the six bands. A 

hearing was held on both bills with the Bush Administration supporting H.R. 2306. No further action was taken on either bill. 

In the 112th Congress, on March 1, 2012, a legislative hearing 

was held on H.R. 1272. Witnesses included Congressmen Peterson 

and Chip Cravaack (R–MN), the Director of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, the President of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, the Chairwoman of the White Earth Band, the Chief Executive of the Mille 

Lacs Band, and the Chairman of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. 

The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 1272 because the 

bill ‘‘respects the decisions of the governing body of the Minnesota 

Chippewa Tribe.’’ However, it should be noted that H.R. 1272 does 

not have unanimous support among the six member bands. As 

noted above, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe expressed its opposition to the distribution plan. 

Leech Lake Band 

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is a sovereign tribe and is one 

of six bands which make up the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Leech 

Lake Band opposes H.R. 1272 because it alleges more actual damages (land and timer sold improperly or taken and mismanaged) 

were suffered on its reservation as a result of the Nelson Act than 

the reservations for the other five bands. Therefore, Leech Lake 

does not agree with H.R. 1272 providing of per-capita payments for 

all the bands’ members and then evenly splitting the difference 

among the bands. 

During Full Committee consideration of the bill, the Committee 

adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Don Young (R– 

AK) that would clarify: (1) that parents or legal guardians can accept per capita payments on behalf of dependents; and (2) the liability of the Secretary of the Interior once a Band withdraws such 

funds. These amendments were suggested by the Department of 

the Interior in its oral and written remarks. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1272 was introduced on March 30, 2011, by Congressman 

Collin Peterson (D–MN). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. On March 1, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On April 25, 2012, the Full 

Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was discharged by 

unanimous consent. Congressman Don Young (R–AK) offered en 

bloc amendment designated #1 to the bill; the amendment was approved by unanimous consent. The bill, as amended, was then 

adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 1272—Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2012 

H.R. 1272 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to disburse amounts held in trust for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. In 

1999, a $20 million settlement was transferred from the Treasury’s 

Judgment Fund to the Department of the Interior (DOI) and held 

in trust for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe pending legislation to 

release the funds. Under the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use 

or Distribution Act of 1973, if the Secretary of the Interior cannot 

obtain consent from the tribal governing body concerning the distribution of an award within 180 days after the funds have been 

appropriated, legislation is required to authorize the distribution of 

such funds. In fiscal year 2010, the Chippewa’s Tribal Executive 

Council (TEC) approved a resolution describing how to distribute 

the settlement amount among the bands of the Tribe and individuals. Though the federal government transferred ownership of the 

funds to the Tribe when the funds were expended from the Judgment Fund, the federal government has retained fiduciary responsibility over the amounts until they are distributed. The bill would 

make the disbursement of the funds contingent on the Tribe submitting updated membership rolls. 

Based on information provided by DOI, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1272 would have no significant cost to distribute 

the settlement funds. The settlement amount was considered a federal expenditure when it was transferred from the Judgment Fund 

to DOI because the Tribe received ownership of the funds. Therefore, the ultimate distribution of the settlement and accrued interest is not a budgetary outlay of the federal government. CBO estimates that the total amount to be distributed under the bill would 

be about $29 million, which includes the $20 million settlement 

and about $9 million in accrued interest payments. Enacting H.R. 

1272 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, payas-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 1272 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Enacting 

the bill would benefit the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von Gnechten. 

The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill, as ordered reported, is to provide for the use and distribution of the funds awarded to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 

et al., by the United States Court of Federal Claims in Docket 

Numbers 19 and 188. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(8) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

I write to express my concerns as well as those of the Leech Lake 

Band of Ojibwe, with regard to the distribution plan proposed in 

H.R. 1272. 

Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Judgment Fund Use or Distribution Act (‘‘Judgment Fund Act’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), 25 U.S.C. 1401 

et seq., to establish an administrative process to determine a formula for the division of settlements approved by the U.S. Court of 

Federal Claims that involve two or more tribal beneficiaries. The 

Judgment Fund Act directs the Bureau of Indian Affairs (‘‘BIA’’) to 

prepare a distribution plan for such settlements. In preparation of 

the plan, the BIA must use the ‘‘legal, financial and other expertise 

of the Department’’ and examine the ‘‘needs and desires of any 

groups or individuals who are in a minority position, but who are 

also entitled to receive such funds,’’ among other factors. Under the 

Act, the plan must provide that not less than 20 percent of the settlement funds be set aside for the educational and economic development purposes of the beneficiary tribes. 

The BIA, acting pursuant to the Judgment Fund Act, conducted 

‘‘research necessary to identify the present-day beneficiaries of the 

funds awarded by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Minnesota 

Chippewa Tribe, et al., v. United States, Dockets 19 and 188.’’ The 

BIA’s Report reviewed the long history of the underlying legal 

claims that are the subject of the settlement funds that would be 

impacted by H.R. 1272. The BIA stated that ‘‘[w]e do not find any 

compelling reasons to support a six-way split of the fund. . . .’’ 

However, H.R. 1272 would distribute nearly half of the settlement 

funds in this manner. 

The concern raised by H.R. 1272 is that Congress will simply 

stamp its approval on the distribution of a federal court settlement 

when a group of tribal governments enters into an agreement over 

the objection of a minority tribe that may have a majority interest 

in the proceeds of the settlement. 

Members of the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs raised a number of questions during the March 1, 2012 legislative hearing on H.R. 1272. The BIA was unable to answer many 

of those questions. 

The example of a recent congressionally approved tribal water 

rights settlement was raised at the hearing. The settlement involved the water rights of four pueblos in the State of New Mexico. 

The approved legislation distributed the settlement based on damages of priority water rights. Thus, each of the Pueblos was compensated based on their prior rights and how those rights were 

damaged. In our hearing on H.R. 1272 on March 1, 2012 the BIA 

was asked, ‘‘Does the Secretary believe the plan proposed in H.R. 

1272 is equitable?’’ The BIA responded, ‘‘This is an agreement that 

was reached by the MCI and we’re trying to support that decision.’’ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

When later asked ‘‘In the future if we have disputes and the tribes 

get together you’re going to support that?’’ The BIA representative 

responded ‘‘I don’t know if I have a good answer.’’ 

Members of the Subcommittee acknowledged that this is a complex issue. To gain a better understanding, the BIA was asked an 

additional series of questions: When the Department of the Interior 

considers settlements, does it consider damages? Should congress 

consider damages? Can the Department give direction on this? Are 

damages one of the main criteria in distributing court settlement 

funds? Congress enacted the White Earth Lands Settlement Act in 

1985, which involved losses that occurred under the Nelson Act. 

How was that compensation distributed? Was it based on damages? 

The BIA responded, ‘‘I don’t have answer, but will get you an answer.’’ To my knowledge, these questions have not been answered. 

In sum, while I acknowledge that MCT, as a whole, and the 

Committee on Natural Resources have come to an agreement on 

this longstanding legal claim, I am concerned that the Leech Lake 

band will be unfairly impacted as a result of this approval. Indeed, 

time has come to distribute the proceeds of the settlement, but at 

the very least the payments should reflect the damages incurred by 

individual parties to the settlement. 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS