[House Report 117-597]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress    }                                     {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                     {      117-597

======================================================================



 
TO PROVIDE FOR THE EQUITABLE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN INDIAN LAND DISPUTES 
           REGARDING LAND IN ILLINOIS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

December 7, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 6063]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 6063) to provide for the equitable settlement of 
certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS.

  (a) Jurisdiction Conferred on the United States Court of Federal 
Claims.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, jurisdiction is 
hereby conferred upon the United States Court of Federal Claims, which 
may hear, determine, and render judgment on the Miami Tribe of 
Oklahoma's land claim under the Treaty of August 1, 1805 (7 Stat. 91), 
without regard to the statute of limitations identified in section 2501 
of title 28, United States Code, and any delay-based defense, including 
laches, estoppel, or acquiescence, no matter how characterized. The 
United States shall be the only entity or individual liable regarding 
such a claim. The jurisdiction hereby conferred on the United States 
Court of Federal Claims shall expire unless a claim is filed by the 
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma within 1 year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
  (b) Extinguishment of Title and Claims.--Except for the claim of the 
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma against the United States as a defendant in an 
action before the United States Court of Federal Claims as provided in 
subsection (a), all other claims of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, or any 
member, descendant, or predecessor in interest to the Miami Tribe to 
title are extinguished, including claims arising under the Treaty of 
Grouseland, the Northwest Ordinance, the 5th amendment to the 
Constitution, the laws commonly known as the ``Trade and Intercourse 
Act of 1790'', and any other Federal law, treaty, or agreement.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 6063 is to provide for the equitable 
settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in 
Illinois.

                  background and need for legislation

    The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma is a federally recognized tribe 
located in Ottawa County in Northeast Oklahoma. The Tribe's 
ancestral homelands are located south of the Great Lakes, in 
the states of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. In 1846, the Tribe 
was removed from its homelands and relocated to Kansas, and in 
1867 was again removed, this time from Kansas to Oklahoma, 
where they reside today.
    In 1805, the Miami Tribe, along with the Eel River and Wea 
tribes, signed the Treaty of Grouseland with the United States. 
Article IV of the Treaty made it clear that the tribes had not 
ceded lands in the Wabash River watershed, and the federal 
government agreed that it would not take any part of that 
watershed without the consent of all three tribal governments. 
However, over time the federal government placed the land in 
the public domain and transferred it to settlers--all without 
the consent of the Miami Tribe. The Tribe never agreed to nor 
was ever asked to agree to any sale of the Wabash watershed 
lands. The lands total approximately 2,648,420 acres.
    H.R. 6063 will address this issue by extinguishing the 
Tribe's land claim to this acreage in exchange for a one-year 
window for the Tribe to bring its case before the United States 
Court of Federal Claims (CFC). The legislation would give the 
CFC the authority to decide whether the federal government took 
lands that were protected by the 1805 Treaty of Grouseland 
without paying the Tribe, and it would extinguish the Tribe's 
claim to those lands, which forever eliminates the cloud on 
title for the current landowners.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See generally Hearing on H.R. 437, H.R. 6063, H.R. 6181 
[Discussion Draft ANS], S. 314, S. 559, and S. 789 Before the Subcomm. 
for Indigenous Peoples of the U.S. of the H. Comm. on Nat. Res., 117th 
Cong. (Apr. 27, 2022) (not printed), https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 6063 was introduced on November 19, 2021, by 
Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN). The bill was referred 
solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the 
Committee to the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the 
United States. On April 27, 2022, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing on the bill. On June 15, 2022, the Natural Resources 
Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was 
discharged by unanimous consent. Rep. McCollum offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was agreed to by voice vote. The bill, 
as amended, was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by voice vote.

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House Rule XIII, the 
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure: 
hearing by the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the 
United States held on April 27, 2022.

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

      COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of 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 and with respect to 
requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) and clause 3(d) of rule XIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
requested but not received a cost estimate for this bill from 
the Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee 
adopts as its own cost estimate the forthcoming cost estimate 
of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, should such 
cost estimate be made available before House passage of the 
bill.
    The Committee has requested but not received from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to 
whether this bill contains any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII, the general performance goals and 
objectives of this bill are to provide for the equitable 
settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in 
Illinois.

                           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.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the 
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chair of 
the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the 
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee, if such 
estimate is not publicly available on the Congressional Budget 
Office website.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of 
the federal government known to be duplicative of another 
program.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

               PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of ArticleVI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    I oppose H.R. 6063 as ordered to be reported by the 
Committee on Natural Resources on June 15, 2022. H.R. 6063 
purports to provide for the settlement of certain Indian land 
claims in the State of Illinois for the Miami Tribe of 
Oklahoma.
    H.R. 6063 is fundamentally a waiver of the United States' 
immunity from a suit that could have been, but was not filed, 
by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma during the period when Indian 
Claims Commission Act (ICCA) claims were required to be filed. 
It bypasses the strict bar contained in the ICCA, not only by 
authorizing the filing of a claim in the Court of Federal 
Claims, but by waiving any delay-based defense by the United 
States against such claims, including laches and the statute of 
limitation provided in the ICCA.
    The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma originated in the Great Lakes 
region but was removed to Kansas and finally to Oklahoma by the 
U.S. government. In 2000, the tribe filed a lawsuit against 
homeowners and farmers in Illinois, claiming 2.65 million acres 
of the Wabash River watershed as rightfully theirs under the 
1805 Treaty of Grouseland.\1\ A court ruled that the tribe 
could only file this lawsuit against the United States--not 
private citizens--and the tribe voluntarily withdrew its 
lawsuit in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Complaint for Possession of Indian Tribal Lands, Damages and 
Declaratory Judgment, Miami Tribe v. Walden, U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of Illinois, filed 6/02/2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 6063 aims to settle this proposed tribal land claim, 
but in so doing, it would open past land claims after the 
statutory deadline to bring these claims has passed. This bill 
would confer exclusive jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims (CFC) for the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma's land 
claim arising under the Treaty of Grouseland. The court would 
be required to render judgement without regard to defenses 
based on the passage of time, including any statute of 
limitations. The United States is the only entity liable for 
such a claim, and monetary damages are the only available 
remedy. Jurisdiction conferred shall expire unless a claim is 
filed in one year.
    H.R. 6063 is fundamentally a waiver of the United States' 
sovereign immunity from a suit that was not filed by the tribe 
during the period when the ICCA claims were required to be 
filed. The Miami Tribe was aware of the ICCA process, as it 
filed several claims, which resulted in cash judgments for the 
tribe and other tribes and identifiable groups of Indians.
    Congress barred claims against the United States that pre-
date August 13, 1946, and that were not filed before the Indian 
Claims Commission (ICC) by August 13, 1951. Section 12 of the 
ICCA states:

    ``The Commission shall receive claims for a period of five 
years after the date of approval of this Act [August 13, 1946] 
and no claim existing before such date but not presented within 
such period may thereafter be submitted to any court or 
administrative agency for consideration, nor will such claim 
thereafter be entertained by Congress.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ICCA, Sec. 12 (emphasis added); see also Sioux Tribe v. United 
States, 500 F.2d 458, 489 (Ct. Cl. 1974) (``The Act provides in no 
uncertain terms that any claim existing prior to August 13, 1946, must 
be filed within five years (i.e., before August 13, 1951), and if it is 
not filed within that period, it cannot thereafter be submitted to any 
court . . . for consideration. There is no doubt about the fact that 
Congress intended to cut off all claims not filed before August 13, 
1951.'').

    Through the ICCA, Congress intended to vest the ICC with 
time-limited, exclusive jurisdiction to hear Indian tribes' and 
identifiable groups' pre-1946 claims against the United States. 
The ``chief purpose of the [Act was] to dispose of the Indian 
claims problem with finality.''\3\ Moreover, Congress intended 
``the jurisdiction of the Commission ought to be broad enough 
so that no tribe could come back to Congress ten years from now 
and say that it had a meritorious claim.''\4\ These 
Congressional goals, as well as the plain wording of Section 12 
of the ICCA, firmly establish that the ICC was the only 
tribunal with authority to adjudicate pre-1946 Indian tribal, 
and identifiable group, claims against the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39, 45-46 (1985) (quoting 92 
Cong. Rec. 5312 (1946) and H.R. Rep. No. 1466, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 
10 (1945)).
    \4\Navajo Tribe of Indians v. New Mexico, 809 F.2d 1455, 1465 (10th 
Cir. 1987) (quoting 92 Cong. Rec. 5312 (1946)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While H.R. 6063 aims to resolve the proposed land claims of 
the Miami Tribe by giving them more time to file land claims, 
it is doing exactly what Congress intended to prevent by 
enacting ICCA. H.R. 6063 would open up past claims and prevent 
the United States from asserting a defense against these claims 
based on the tribe's lack of timely filing.
    In addition, H.R. 6063 could make the land eligible for 
gaming. Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 
bans gaming on newly acquired trust lands, with certain 
exceptions. One of these exceptions is when land is acquired in 
settlement of a land claim. Under the land claim exception, 
land acquired in trust through judgment or settlement of a land 
claim is automatically eligible for gaming, without the consent 
of the state or the federal government. In effect, the bill 
waives the United States' immunity from suit and removes the 
statutory bar on the Tribe's lawsuit in the U.S. CFC over its 
land claim in Illinois.
    For these reasons, I oppose this legislation.

                                           Bruce Westerman.

                                  [all]