Business Meeting on Tribal Trust Lands and Health Care Bills

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. We're here today to consider five bills addressing tribal economic development, health care access and the restoration of tribal lands. The Crow Revenue Act from Senator Daines would facilitate an exchange of mineral and surface interests in Montana. The exchange would return substantial privately owned mineral interests within the Crow reservation to the Crow tribe, provide the tribe with a continuing share of revenue from any future development the exchanged Bull Mountain mineral interest and complete a related land exchange to improve public access. The Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act from Senator Rounds would extend the period for notifying the Indian Health Service of emergency care received outside the IHS system from seventy-two hours to fifteen days. This common sense change would help ensure that Native patients are not denied payment for emergency services because they could not meet an unreasonably short administrative deadline. The Quinault Nation Land Transfer Act from Senator Cantwell would transfer a seventy-two acre parcel called Allotment eleven fifty-seven from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the Quinault, Indian Nation. Allotment eleven fifty-seven contains old-growth cedar trees of deep cultural significance to the Quinault people. The Albuquerque Indian School Act from Senator Heinrich would transfer the remaining federal property at the former Albuquerque Indian School into trust, for the nineteen pueblos of New Mexico. The bill would support the Pueblo's continued efforts to transform a site associated with a difficult federal history into a center for education, health care, cultural preservation, government services, and economic development. And then finally, the Pitt River Land Transfer Act from Senator Padilla and the late Representative uh LaMalfa would transfer to the Department of Interior the culturally significant Four Corners property currently managed by the Forest Service and related tribal fee lands to be taken into trust for the Pitt River tribe. I'd like to thank each of the sponsors for the work on these important measures for tribes across the nation. I support advancing these bills. I hope my colleagues will join me while similarly supporting my home state Alaska Native priorities when I seek to advance them. So with that, I'm gonna turn over to Vice Chairman Schutz for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for convening today's business meeting. The bills on today's agenda address a range of tribal interests from conveying land into trust to improving Indian health care. But S two three nine stands apart from the others. This is no ordinary land swap. It transfers ownership of federal lands to a private entity for certain mining activity in the Bull Mountains. If enacted, none of this activity would be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and federal royalties would cease. It also lacks transparency. The lessee is not named. There is no requirement for an appraisal, and there is no guarantee that the Crow tribe would benefit from any revenue sharing deal in the Bull Mountains. It is a net loss to the American people on public lands access and as taxpayers. I had questions in twenty twenty four when we had a hearing on this bill, and this bill is unusual. We are sort of being asked to be the city council zoning and land use committee for the United States of America and that's unusual in and of itself, but if we're going to do that, then we should at least know as much as a city council zoning and land use committee would know about what is in the deal. There is no appraisal, there is no revenue sharing agreement that we're aware of. We don't even know exactly how this deal is to work. What we do know is this deal is configured specifically to exempt a coal mine operator from the National Environmental Policy Act. The lessee is not named. There is no requirement for appraisal. Here's what we know about this bill and the players behind this land swap. S two three nine would authorize transfer of certain federal parcels in the Bull Mountains of Montana to the Hope Family Trust, which plans to partner with the current lessee, Signal Peak Energy, to mine coal resources in the tract's mineral estate. If enacted, none of the Bull Mountains' mining activity would be subject to NEPA. Signal Peak Energy is partly owned by Gunvor Group a multinational trading company that operates through num- numerous subsidiaries worldwide. Its co-founder, Gennady Timchenko, was sanctioned by the US Treasury in November, twenty twenty five. Trump's treasury department tweeted that, quote, "the Kremlin's puppet, Gunvor, will never get a license to operate and profit." End quote. Signal Peak Energy pled guilty in twenty twenty one to violating federal mine health and safety regulations. It was sentenced to a one million dollar fine and three years probation. The violations involved improperly pumping mine waste into abandoned mine areas and concealing or failing to report serious worker injuries. And and up until a year ago, Signal Peak was partly owned by a First Energy subsidiary who sold its stake before First Energy Oh uh First Energy's Ohio utilities agreed to pay two hundred and seventy five million dollars. to rate payers in a settlement tied to the HB six bribery scandal. According to the Interior OIG, from twenty sixteen to twenty eighteen, Signal Peak submitted false invoices to the agency to reduce the amount of coal royalties it owed under a specific federal mineral lease. The OIG also determined that Signal Peak withheld information from the government in its answers to a twenty twenty two fraud questionnaire, including that its former Vice President pled guilty to fraud and was sentenced to five years in prison, and that the company pled guilty to federal worker health and safety charges in twenty twenty one. The Crow tribe has testified in twenty twenty four that it hoped to earn one hundred million dollars over ten years from the development of the coal in the Bull Mountains through a revenue sharing agreement with the Hope Family Trust. The CBO estimates that enactment of two thirty nine will result in an increase in direct spending of seventy two million dollars over a ten year period, due to cold royalties that will no longer be collected. This bill does not give us any of these details. At the very least, the deal between Signal Peak, the Hope Family Trust and the Crow Tribe should be transparent. We are being asked to approve something and we don't even have the basic data as if we're buying a condominium. You can't buy a condo without an appraisal. And yet we're gonna do a massive land transfer and evade the National Environmental Policy Act without even knowing the basic configuration of this deal. And that's why I filed amendments to two thr- uh S two thirty-nine that would provide transparency and accountability to the public and in to ensure that the tribe's stated interests in benefiting from the land exchange are locked in. I also ask unanimous consent to enter several documents into the record on S two three nine.

Those will be included?

Those documents update the record from twenty twenty four and range from the interior OIG reports and DOJ statements on signal pe signal peak to news articles. Thank you, Chairman.

Great. Thank you, Senator Schatz. Um, now let's start with the amendments that have been filed to the five bills on the agenda. We will then move to the bills. Uh, I would ask any members to hold any statements that you would like to make until after we've completed the voting. Uh, we do know that we've got a vote that started at two fifteen on the floor. Uh, so I would ask now uh for unanimous consent to take up the following amendments en bloc. And this is Daines' amendment, KAT two six five four four to agenda item number one, S two thirty nine. Uh, Cantwell amendment, KAT two six five four one to agenda item number three, S five one five one four. Murkowski-Schatz amendment, KAT two six five four four to agenda item number four, S three two one nine. And Murkowski-Schatz amendment, two six five zero nine to agenda item number five H R twenty four hundred. Is there an objection? Hearing no objection, the question is on agreeing to those amendment on block by voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

D aye, aye.

Aye. Any opposed nay? The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it, the amendments are agreed to.

Chair, I think we have a number of members who would like to be recorded as a no

Okay, if you can identify.

on um K KAT uh two five two eight seven. Uh I I please record me as a no.

Excuse me, would you repeat that one again?

The Danes' amendment.

Oh. The Danes' amendment two six five four four. Oh, it did? Yeah, I likewise.

No, I think that's

Wait, did we

I have that as Murkowski shots, two six five four four.

Murkowski shots uh k two six five four four. Yeah, I think I see your No, the the ANS, the Danes' ANS. motion. Was the motion

Two five two eight seven.

I don't we have not voted on two five Two eight seven. Two six five. Two eight seven. Two eight seven.

Yes, two five two eight seven, things A and S.

I did not. The the amendments that I read were two six five four four, two six five four one, two six five oh, I have two six five four fours. I have a mistake. Yeah, yes. Which one is right? It's two sh sh two five two eight seven. Was that the first one? Two seven, yes. Okay. Right, we need to correct this then. Um, what's that number? Two five two eight seven. Two five two eight seven. Okay. So I need to, we need to redo this then to ask unanimous consent to take up Dain's amendment KAT two five two eight seven to agenda item number one S two three nine. All those in favor indicate by saying so. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. No. Nay. Okay. Those that wish to be recorded, no, on two five two eight seven. Yes. Senator Smith, out. Luhan, Smith, Schatz, Cantwell uh will be recorded as voting no. Uh Senator Rounds is not here. Um Uh he had filed an amendment uh that it was my understanding that he was choosing to withdraw, but he is not here to speak to that, so we will move forward. Uh Vice-Chairman Schatz, you have filed five amendments to agenda item one. Uh, S two three nine, Senator Dain's bill. Um, it's my understanding that you are withdrawing shots amendment KAT two six five zero three, is that correct? Yes.

Yes.

Okay, and would you like to offer any of your other amendments?

Um, yes, uh, uh, Chair Murkowski, I'd like to offer KAT two six five zero one. Um, uh, this amendment requires the tribe and the Hope Family Trust to reach a written agreement before the conveyances take place and to share that agreement with the secretary, this committee and the house committee on natural resources. It requires that the agreement be made public and it ensures that the tribe and Muscle Shell County benefit from the agreement. The goal is to allow transparency and fairness before the land swap moves forward. At the hearing on this bill, Chairman Whiteclay testified that it'd be open to any amendments that would solidify and clarify the tribe's benefits. In response, this amendment sets a profit floor, guaranteeing that the tribe gets no less than forty four percent or one hundred million dollars over ten years whichever is greater. It also guarantees that Muscle Shell County get at least twelve percent to replace the lost royalty revenues which are currently about twelve and a half percent with the remainder going to the Hope Family Trust. This isn't asking anyone to give up more than they've already agreed to share. It simply requires that the terms be written down, shared with

Senator Daines.

Chair Mikkowski, first, thank you for including this program in today's mark-up. I do have a poster board behind me, the details, the tremendous local support we have for this bill. top to bottom. Uh, I would say there was one County Commissioner that opposed this, this uh, this act. Uh, he was soundly defeated two to one in the June primary. So, uh, he's no longer being part of this discussion because the people in Muscle Shell County said two to one, we don't want you serving as County Commissioner. He was the one person opposed to this. You can see the overwhelming support we have. I wanna welcome the Chairman of the Crow Tribe here today, Mister White Clay. as evidence in terms of tribe support we're trying to do here. This is a win-win for Montana. The Crow tribe receives an important source of revenue. We address long-standing in-holding issues. They minors and round up hundreds of jobs, get assurances their jobs will be there in the future. We expand hunting access on public lands. I look forward to getting this passed. Uh, now regarding just the the amendment, uh, offered by, um, uh, the ranking member, uh, Schatz. Uh, I would just argue this is an affront to tribal sovereignty. Instead of allowing the Crow tribe, Chairman Whiteclay, to negotiate their own deal for revenue sharing, this amendment simply says, here's the deal, take it or leave it. The Crow Revenue Act, evidenced by the first word, Crow, puts all the power in the Crow tribe's hands. They get to negotiate a deal that they see as fair. I would hope my colleagues here could sometime come out to the Crow Reservation, like I've done many times, see firsthand the issues of poverty that that is is pervasive around the reservation. And now Chairman Whiteclay is working hard to try to find ways, instead of greater dependencies on the federal government, if this is how we can defend tribal sovereignty and allow them to generate revenue, let them negotiate the deal that they see as fair. And only after they are satisfied And then notifying the Department of Interior, uh, would this bill be allowed to be implemented? I hope my colleagues will support the Crow tribe and oppose this amendment.

I'm I'm

I think I'm at center d- center shots.

chair, um, I I won't belabor the point other than if the point is to establish a revenue sharing agreement, it's not at all unreasonable to enshrine that in the statute, um, as opposed to what we we have now, which is a notion of a deal that may be cut, but that we're supposed to ratify in advance. And I, I respect the idea that county commissioners and local leaders, you know, they may be mixed, they may be decisively in favour of this project, but I'm not a county commissioner. I'm on the federal side. And um, a waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act is a very serious thing and a very unusual thing. And so I'm not even saying we should definitely not do that. I'm saying that if we're going to do that, we should understand what we're doing it for. And I don't think that can be a a pig in a poke.

And if I might be able to reply it, um,

Senator Dan.

thank you very much.

First time I've ever used pig in a poke in a sentence.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh, just in in um, just to clarify the record. Uh, there was one person opposed to this. Uh, that person was removed by the people of Musselshell County. So we we have virtually unanimous agreement. And and this was the issue in the primary election. It was two Republicans, uh, the sitting County Commissioner who opposed the Crow Revenue Act, and one who supported it. He was the last one that was opposed to it. The one that supported it defeated in the primary, the one Commissioner that opposed it by a two to one margin. So, uh, it'd be unfair to characterize this as saying there's division back home, there's a complete agreement, and I'm just grateful that we're trying to stand up here for the sovereignty and self-determination rights and principles of the Crow tribe allow them to proceed on this and to get this deal done. Thank you.

Chair, there's a letter from three commissioners of Musselshell County, August fourth. We're following up on our previous meeting with your staff last January to again request your support for amending the Crow Revenue Act to include Musselshell County in the revenue sharing agreement. So it may be true that people like the idea of this deal, but actually Musselshell County is specifically asking that we enshrine the revenue sharing agreement in federal statutory law.

I'm gonna go ahead and oppose uh this amendment. I I do think that it departs from uh the bill that Senator Daines has introduced and probably make it harder for parties to reach the revenue sharing agreement that is required in the base text here. Um uh you've you've indicated, Senator Daines, that uh you know somehow or other this uh this amendment would presume that uh the the the crow cannot uh, negotiate on their own. Um, uh, and so I I am looking at this as a an amendment that conflicts, um, the bill is endorsed by the Crow tribes, the county and others, and would far more likely to undermine the economic benefits than to bolster them. So I'm gonna oppose. Any further comments? Seeing them, um, uh, Vice Chairman Schatz, are you asking for a roll call?

Yes, please.

On your amendment, the question is on agreeing to the Schatz amendment KAT two six five zero one, to agenda item number one S two three nine. Um, we've got a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Miss Markowski?

Uh, Markowski is a no.

Mister Hoven. No by proxy.

No by proxy.

Mister Daines. Mister Rounds.

No by proxy.

Mister Moran.

No.

Mister Armstrong.

No.

Mister Schatz.

Aye.

Miss Cantwell.

Aye.

Miss Cortez Masto.

Aye, Mike Fox.

Miss Smith.

Aye.

Mister Lujan.

Aye.

On this vote the ayes are five, the nays are six.

The amendment is not agreed to. Uh, are there other amendments?

Madam Chair?

Senator Lujan.

Madam Chair, I'd like to call up Schatz's amendment uh two six four nine seven.

Go ahead, please.

Madam Chair, this is a simple amendment, one that I'm thinking that might just be accepted. Um, I think it was an oversight in the drafting of the legislation that did not clarify the term " lessee" in the piece of legislation. As currently drafted, the definition of " lesssee" in the bill is circular and vague. We all know this land exchange will affect the interests of four parties, the Hope family, a private entity that owns land on the Crow reservation, the Crow tribe, the federal government, and Signal Peak Energy. All but Signal Peak Energy are clearly identified in the bill, which which surprised me. Um, while I know that the sections are different in the amendment versus the original bill, if you go to the amendment that will be offered on the legislation and you look at, um, uh, under lessee it says the term " lessee" means the lessee for the Bull Mountain lease. But everyone else is listed by name. And if you look at the BLM lease notice, it's clear. It's signal So the amendment is very simple. Um it says to clearly um uh include signal peak as uh in that definition of LESSI. I see no reason to apply the same level of transparency um to the LESSI as it's been applied everywhere else I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of adopting this common sense, a really technical amendment.

Thank you.

Senator Daines.

Thank you. By the way, um, I do wanna recognize Senator Moran. visited Montana and the very first place he ever went to was the Crow Reservation. That's what I'm gonna say. There we go. Yes, he was. So, uh, um, I I I I stand corrected here when I talk to the committee here, I will have to applaud Senator Moran when he came to Crow Agency and visit the tribal council with me years ago. Thank you. Thanks, Senator Moran. Um, let me, r- r- addressing the, uh, the amendment offered by, um, by Senator Lujan. Uh, I do believe this amendment's unnecessary. We believe the existing definition is sufficient. As my colleagues are aware, the majority of them mine.

Madam Chair, if I may respond. Sarah Zelen. I I'm just surprised by that.

Sarah Zelen.

There, all the others are listed by name. The lease from BLM is pretty clear. It's It has the name on it. I don't know why it we would include or not include. I think typically when we work on legislation, we include who it is. Um, I'm I'm just surprised by that. I would hope that for consistency with legislation, that we would adopt this amendment. Um, I'd also ask unanimous consent to submit the uh legal status uh notice of availability for the leaseee and leaseholder into the record.

Without objection. Senator Daines, it's my understanding that the Bull Mountains lease is all already defined in the bill with the BLM lease number, which I assume is is relevant uh to this. Um, as as I have reviewed it, um, uh, I I look at this and and see this as an amendment that doesn't necessarily improve the bill or substantively change it. The Department of Interior has not indicated that any change is necessary. And so, um, uh, I I intend to oppose. Any further discussion, Senator Daines? Did you wanna comment on that?

No, we we do believe the existing definition is sufficient and the amendment is unnecessary. I would ask for a vote.

Okay. All right. Uh,

Roll call.

a roll call vote has been, uh, requested. Um. So, let's see, let's go ahead and, uh, Claire could call the roll on, um On KAT two six four nine seven to agenda item number one, S two three nine.

Miss Markowski.

Markowski is a no.

Mister Hoven.

No.

No by proxy.

Mister Daines.

No.

Mister Rounds.

No by proxy.

Mister Moran.

No by proxy.

Mister Armstrong.

No.

Mister Schatz.

Aye.

Miss Cantwell. Miss Cortez Masto.

Aye by proxy.

Miss Smith?

Aye.

Mister Lujan? On this vote the yeas are five, the nays are six.

The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments?

Yes, I'd like to bring up sorry, I'd like to bring up uh KAT two six five four zero. Wait,

Aye.

which one? Yeah right.

Five four zero?

Six, no, sorry, two six five zero six.

Okay.

Um, this is so simple. Uh, okay. I think he's talking about Any land exchange, public sector, private sector, This is all my fault. you need an appraisal. This requires an appraisal. Um, This is, this is originally the cap. the Interior Department, and I want everyone to hear this, Sorry? the Interior Department, this Interior Department stated for the record that quote Your pillow's Sorry, doesn't either. "it is unclear whether the parcels to be conveyed are of equal value" and quote "the department has recommended that the proposed land exchange be of equal value to insure that the American taxpayers receive a fair return. I do not think this is too much to ask. I do not think this does violence to the project. Like, uh, the the thing that I think is even more worrisome than the basic configuration of this deal is that, you know, Senator Lujan just said, can we name the lessee? And I'm saying, can we appraise the property? And these are the kinds of things that like wouldn't kill, like I said, a condo deal. That wouldn't be considered bad faith or interrupting a real estate transaction and yet this thing is getting less process than like an apartment on H street. And that I think is raising everybody's alarm.

Senator Daines.

Um, again, uh, and thank you, Ranking Member Schatz, but uh I do believe this amendment's unnecessary. Um, I think it's stalling the implementation of the Bill and Hopes. This mine closes and the Crow never receive any revenue. This is an acre for acre swap. It was approved by the Crow tribe, the Hope family and the mine. Um I might also observe that we are not doing similar appraisals for Senator Cantwell's or Senator Heinrich's bills. And I hope my colleagues will afford the Crow tribe the same trust and deference they afford other tribes.

Uh I will be opposing this amendment. Um uh Senator Daines' bill follows the precedent that's established by the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act with a similar acre for acre land exchange. Uh, the approach has been agreed to by the parties to the land exchange, and I think changing the terms now without support from the parties or input from the implementing agency would only serve to delay implementation and withhold long overdue relief for the tribe. Further discussion on this amendment. Seeing none. Is there a request for a roll call vote?

Yes, President.

Uh, the question is on agreeing to Schatz's amendment KAT. two six five zero six to agenda item one S two three nine. Uh, roll call uh will be uh called by the clerk.

Miss Murkowski.

Uh, no.

Mister Hoven.

No.

Mister Danes.

No.

Mister Rounce.

No, sorry.

No, by proxy.

Mister Moran.

No.

No, by proxy.

Mister Armstrong.

No.

Mister Schatz.

Sorry.

Miss Cantwell. Miss Cortez Masto.

Aye, by proxy.

Miss Smith.

Aye.

Mister Lujan. On this vote, the yeas are five, the nays are six.

The agreement is not uh the amendment is not agreed to. Uh are there further amendments?

I have one final amendment.

Ciner shots.

Um, KAT two six five four zero. Um, Okay. as introduced, S two thirty nine would take effect on the date of enactment. My amendment changes that by ensuring that the bill does not take effect until five years after signal peak, the lessee makes its final payment under a settlement with the United States for violations of the False Claims Act. This amendment does not change any of the terms of the underlying bill, but simply builds in time before the conveyances and other provisions take effect. It seems simple enough to require that the lessee be in good standing with the federal government, before it receives substantial land and mineral estates from the BLM and the Bull Mountains.

Is there discussion? Senator Daines.

Yeah, Madam Chairman, um, similar to Schatz amendment four, I believe this amendment's unnecessary, it's meant to stall the implementation of the bill in hopes the mine closes, and the crow never receive any revenue. As my colleagues should know, the mine was defrauded by a former employee who was criminally prosecuted and is serving jail time. As soon as the mine found out they're being defrauded, They alliter the US government, they enter in an agreement, and they paid the outstanding royalty payments. In fact, the fine mentioned in the amendment has already been paid, making this amendment completely unnecessary.

I'm gonna be opposing the amendment because it would penalize the Crow tribe for the conduct of a private lessee. The False Claims Act settlement already provides a remedy against the responsible party and I don't think that we should be holding long overdue relief for the tribe hostage. to a corporation's settlement payment schedule or arbitrary five year delay. Is there further discussion? Senator Schatz.

Um, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record um this document from the Office of the Inspector General.

Without objection?

And um you know, I started this journey with my friend Steve Daines sort of trying to balance the equities of the sovereign use of land, trying to help Indian country, and my predisposition against a coal mine. Let's be honest, right? And then the more I dug into this, the more I understood that this is a very unusual deal. I don't care if it's a shopping mall or a marina or a solar farm or a stack of condos, like this is being done in a very, very unusual way with some companies that have been kind of repeatedly in trouble with the federal government. And I do not think all of this is squared away, both in terms of the difficulty that the federal government has come into with the operator but also just basic clarity about when we do land exchanges, we have to make sure that we understand the kind of architecture of the deal. And I just don't. I just don't understand the architecture of the deal, and I've spent more time than I would have cared to in trying to get to yes. And so, you know Um, th this is a tough one, because you can see the chairman of the tribe here, and he wants it, but I will tell you, I am not satisfied that the tribe is going to benefit. And I am very confident that the county may lose a ton of revenue, and I am also just very confident that this is a highly, highly unusual way to do a land conveyance in order to effectuate um uh, an energy project, and so I uh, th this thing is in my view messy and unclear, and had we adopted some of these amendments that you know, Senator Daines, if you think these are redundant and they're already being done, then you could have just accepted them as friendly amendments, right? To name the lessee, for instance, to conduct an appraisal, those are not unreasonable asks to get a deal done, and I think the reason some of us are increasingly alarmed is these kind of almost ministerial questions are being blocked. And so we're increasingly worried that we don't actually know what we're authorizing here.

Senator Daines.

Sorry, let's go ahead and have the vote.

Okay, so we are we are voting on Schatz's amendment uh KAT two six five four zero to agenda item one S two three nine. The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Murkowski.

Uh, no.

Mister Hoven.

No.

Mister Daines.

Nope.

Mister Rounts.

No, by proxy.

No, by proxy. Thank you.

Mister Moran.

No.

Mister Armstrong.

No.

Mister Schatz.

Aye.

Miss Cantwell. Miss Cortez Masto.

Aye, by proxy.

Miss Smith. Mister Lujan.

Aye.

On this vote, the yeas are five, the nays are six.

The amendment is not agreed to. At at this time I would ask uh I if i are there other amendments to uh Senator Dain's bill? Seeing none. Um I would now, before we take up the Dain's bill, I would ask unanimous consent to take up and adopt the four remaining items on the agenda as amended on block uh this is Ite agenda item number two S ten fifty five. Agenda item number three S fifteen fourteen as amended. Uh, agenda item number four S three two one nine as amended. And agenda item number five H R twenty four hundred as amendment. Before I ask for objection, I'm gonna just take a pause here. Uh, there we go.

Um.

You need to vote on your deal. I gotta go vote on the floor.

Oh, do you? You got

Yeah. Chairman, I gotta go vote on the floor, so

I gotta go vote on the floor, too.

Yeah, so you gotta vote. You may as well.

Where is rounds?

He is on his way.

Is he on his on his way or

He's on his way.

I'm sure are we I second your motion.

Um, I would like to hold for just like two minutes if we can, because I'd like to take care of the Danes' bill first if we can.

Okay. Yeah.

And then do our our en bloc and then that would conclude our business.

What what should we issue now, or what? We can't do anything about it.

I'm afraid we're just gonna lose a quorum.

We're gonna lose a quorum.

Yeah.

So can we get, do you guys need to be here for the final passage?

Mm-hmm.

He does, okay.

I haven't voted yet either. On the floor? Yeah, they're not gonna shut it down. Okay, all right. Well, let me ask him about your manager. Have you voted? You haven't voted? Have you voted, Michael? No, none of us have voted.

I mean none of us have voted, so okay, okay.

None have voted. Oh, okay, all right. All right. Then we're gonna connect. Where is Rance?

Okay, okay.

Okay, no chef.

Right, right, we're all we're all in the same boat.

Well, okay. We got two minutes here.

Okay.

We've given him two minutes. It's good things to recall that they're not hungry, so. Yes.

Yeah.

Is he here yet?

He's on the train.

He's on the train.

Yes. Oh, dear.

Sheesh.

Perfect. Not a downtown train. But we can throw new ones as well. Yeah. It's just that it's a train over Union Station. Yeah, that wasn't possible.

I don't know, people don't decide on mission, so do you take personal care?

What's that?

Do you take personal care?

Not at all.

I thought you guys, we're very good, you all take personal care. To what?

Yeah, huh, it's fine.

I don't know how that works. You don't know what we're talking about, right?

Well, I don't, I don't. We still, we still haven't completed the task yet here, Matt and Chairman, but

Yes. It's t- called doodling, it's called doodling. Nuclear weapon? Yeah, but you're big into like Shazam.