through annual appropriations funds sufficient to reimburse the Treasury for any claims paid in the prior fiscal year pursuant to the foregoing provisions.... Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1991, Pub.L. No. 101-512, § 314, 104 Stat.1915, 1959-60 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 450f note). Two federal appellate courts have held that this language only provides for a money damages remedy against the United States for claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Snyder v. Navajo Nation, 382 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir.2004) (“Congress, however, did not intend [this language] to provide a remedy against the United States in civil actions unrelated to the [Federal Tort Claims Act].”); Demontiney v. United States, 255 F.3d 801, 807 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow, 64 F.3d
holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper recognizing that any claims compensable under the act could not be brought by nonemployee spouse except for intentional tort claims holding that ethical violations may be relevant to tort claims brought against attorneys holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act