PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 27, 2007
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to distribute the funds awarded to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, Docket Nos. 19 and 188 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims together with all interest and investment income accrued on deposit in trust account JA1041696 in equal shares to each of the following constituent bands of the Tribe: (1) the Bois Forte Band; (2) the Fond du Lac Band; (3) the Grand Portage Band; (4) the Leech Lake Band; (5) the Mille Lacs Band; and (6) the White Earth Band.
Requires that the shares of such Bands be made available for use in the manner determined by the governing body of each Band, except that at least 20% of such funds shall be set aside for social and economic development, education, reservation infrastructure needs, and other governmental purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Oberstar, James L. [D-MN-8] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3699 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3699 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3699 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3699 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.