[House Report 109-324]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-324
======================================================================
TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 107-153 TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE THE NEGOTIATED
SETTLEMENT OF TRIBAL CLAIMS
_______
December 6, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Pombo, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4292]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 4292) to amend Public Law 107-153 to further encourage
the negotiated settlement of tribal claims, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and
recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 4292 is to amend Public Law 107-153 to
further encourage the negotiated settlement of tribal claims.
Background and Need for Legislation
In consequence of certain treaties, statutes, executive
orders, and continuous dealings with Indian tribes, the United
States through the Department of the Interior holds legal title
to more than 50 million acres of lands in trust for tribes and
individual Indians. The revenues derived from these assets, and
the accounts into which these revenues are deposited, are also
held in trust by the federal government.
Tribes currently have nearly $2.5 billion in the tribal
trust accounts managed by the Department of the Interior. For
years, many tribal governments and individual Indians claimed
that the Department had mismanaged their trust assets and that
the Department could not provide sufficient accounting reports.
Beginning in the late 1980s, Congress began requiring the
Interior Department to reconcile all Indian accounts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the Department is responsible for both accounting for
both tribal and individual Indian accounts held in trust, the
accounting for tribal accounts was separated from accounting for
individual Indians, which is being adjudicated in Cobell v. Norton. The
Cobell accounting claims are not addressed by H.R. 4292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, the Department began sending accounting
reconciliation reports to tribes. The General Accounting Office
(now called the Government Accountability Office) reviewed
these efforts and found that a reliable and complete accounting
for the tribes' accounts could not be assured. Without a
sufficient accounting, tribes would not have reliable means to
determine if their assets had been correctly managed by the
federal government.
To protect their right to a proper accounting, by 2002
tribes began filing lawsuits to force a complete accounting of
tribal accounts. They did so over concerns that a six-year
statute of limitations had begun running on their accounting
claims in 1996, the year when they began receiving the
Department's accounting reports.
To stem the potential avalanche of lawsuits, Congress
enacted Public Law 107-153. Public Law 107-153 deemed December
31, 1999, to be the date on which tribes received the
accounting reports. This effectively gave tribes until December
31, 2005, to negotiate settlements with the United States
before their claims could be barred by the statute of
limitations. In other words, the law was meant to encourage
negotiation instead of litigation.
For a number of reasons, tribes and the federal government
have yet to reach settlements of the accounting claims. There
is a great possibility that many tribes will file lawsuits
before December 31, 2005, to protect such claims from being
time-barred by the statute of limitations.
H.R. 4292 amends Public Law 107-153 to deem December 31,
2005, to be the date upon which tribes received tribal
accounting reports from the Federal Government. This
effectively begins a new six-year running of the statute of
limitations. With a new six-year time-clock set, tribes will
not feel compelled to file lawsuits before the end of 2005 to
protect the viability of their claims. An avalanche of lawsuits
is not in the interest of the tribes, the Administration, and
U.S. district courts (and appellate courts) that would have to
address them.
Committee Action
H.R. 4292 was introduced on November 10, 2005, by Resources
Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA). The bill was
referred to the Committee on Resources. On November 16, 2005,
the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No
amendments were offered and the bill was 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 Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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)(3)(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.
2. 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, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
enactment of this bill could result in some unspecified amount
of direct spending.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. 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. 4292--A bill to amend Public Law 107-153 to further encourage the
negotiated settlement of tribal claims
H.R. 4292 would effectively extend by six years the statute
of limitations for certain tribal claims against the federal
government related to federal management of tribal trust funds.
Under the bill, tribes would have until December 31, 2011, to
file such claims.
By extending the deadline for filing claims, H.R. 4292
could increase direct spending from the Judgment Fund for
awards resulting from claims that might not otherwise be filed.
Additionally, the bill could affect the timing of payments for
claims that might be filed under current law. Enacting the bill
also could lead to negotiated settlements rather than
additional lawsuits against the federal government. CBO has no
basis for estimating the bill's effect on the number and timing
of tribal claims or settlements, and we therefore cannot
estimate the timing or magnitude of any resulting change in
federal spending. H.R. 4292 would not affect revenues.
H.R. 4292 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Enacting this legislation could benefit Indian tribes by giving
them additional time to file claims against the federal
government.
On November 9, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
1892, a bill to amend Public Law 107-153 to modify a certain
date, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs on October 27, 2005. The two pieces of legislation are
similar, and their effects on the federal budget would be
identical.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mike Waters. The
estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
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 Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
ACT OF MARCH 19, 2002
(Public Law 107-153)
AN ACT To encourage the negotiated settlement of tribal claims.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF TRIBAL CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
for purposes of determining the date on which an Indian tribe
received a reconciliation report for purposes of applying a
statute of limitations, any such report provided to or received
by an Indian tribe in response to section 304 of the American
Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C.
4044) shall be deemed to have been received by the Indian tribe
on [December 31, 1999] December 31, 2005.
* * * * * * *