PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-626.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 19, 2011
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2011 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to reimburse the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe for the amount, plus interest, that the Tribe contributed for the distribution of judgment funds and the payment of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses associated with the litigation of Docket No. 19 and Docket No. 188 before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Requires that the Tribe's claim for reimbursement of expended funds be certified by the Tribe as being unreimbursed to it from other funding sources.
Requires the Tribe to provide the Secretary with updated membership rolls for the Boise Forte Band, Fond du Lac Band, Grand Portage Band, Leech Lake Band, Mille Lacs Band, and White Earth Band of the Tribe.
Directs the Secretary to set aside a specified amount of the judgment funds for distribution to each member enrolled with each Band and then divide the remaining funds into equal shares for each Band.
People & committees
Sen. Franken, Al [D-MN] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-626.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6767-6768)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6767)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. 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 S.1739 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 S.1739 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 S.1739 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 S.1739 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.