Hearings to examine S.630, to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the Quapaw Nation and certain members of the Quapaw Nation in accordance with the recommendation of the United States Court of Federal Claims, S.1514/H.R.2389, to take certain land in the State of Washington into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation, S.2796, to provide for a land exchange in San Bernardino County, California, S.2871/H.R.2400, to take certain Federal land in the State of California into trust for the benefit of the Pit River Tribe, S.3219, to transfer certain Federal land into trust for certain Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico, and S.3475/H.R.2916, to authorize, ratify, and confirm the Agreement of Settlement and Compromise to Resolve the Akwesasne Mohawk Land Claim in the State of New York.

Good afternoon. We're going to call this legislative hearing to order. Today the committee will consider nine bills, six Senate bills, and three House companion measures. These are all focused on land transfers, land exchanges, and the resolution of long standing tribal land claims. S. 630, the Quapaw Tribal Settlement act, sponsored by our former colleague, Mark Wayne Mullen, would implement a $137.5 million U.S. court of Claims recommended settlement between the United States and the Quapaw Nation.

Next we have s. 1514, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act. This is sponsored by Senator Cantwell and its house companion, HR2389. It would take approximately 72 acres of old growth forest in the Olympic National Forest into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation. Next on the agenda is S.2796, which is sponsored by Senator Padilla. It would authorize a land exchange between the Juha Viadam of San Manuel Nation and the Forest service of approximately 1,460 acres of fee land owned by the Yuha Vatim of San Manuel nation for approximately 1.475 acres, not 1.1475 acres of national Forest System land to be held in fee.

The land exchange would help connect tribal fee and trust lands to improve wildfire management and protect culturally significant sites, including the Arrowhead Landmark. Next we have S.2871. This is the Pitt River Land Transfer act, also sponsored by Senator Padilla and its house companion, HR 2400. It would transfer approximately 584 acres of Forest Service land in Shasta County, California, into trust for the Pit River Tribe, expanding the tribe's reservation and supporting cultural and economic needs. And next, S. 3219, the Albuquerque Indian School act of 2025, sponsored by Senator Heinrich.

It would transfer the remaining Albuquerque Indian School property from the General Services Administration into trust for the 19 pueblos of New Mexico. This transfer would ensure the site can continue to support educational, cultural, health and economic development opportunities. And then finally, s. 3475, which is sponsored by Senator Gillibrand and its house companion, HR 2918, would approve a negotiated settlement between the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, the State of New York, several New York localities, and the New York Power Company resolving land claims that have been in litigation for more than 40 years. These bills reflect years of work by tribes, local communities, states and federal agencies to resolve land issues and advance tribal priorities. While only federal agency witnesses will testify today, I would encourage the tribes that are affected by this legislation to submit written testimony and other materials for the record so that their views may be fully considered by the committee.

I'll now turn to the vice chair for his opening statement. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for calling today's hearing. The bills on the agenda would accomplish two important goals, rebuilding tribal homelands and settling debts owed by the United States. And before going any further, I just want to, you know, this isn't our last hearing, this isn't our last markup, but I think it is just always worth remembering what an oasis of bipartisanship the Senate Committee on Indian affairs continues to be. And that's because of your leadership, that's because of our friendship, that's because of the good work of the staff on both sides.

So thank you for that. Thank you. Over the past three Congresses, the Senate Committee on Indian affairs has considered over a dozen bills that would take land into trust, and eight have become law. As a committee, we're familiar with the importance of land into trust and the opportunities it creates for building and advancing tribal sovereignty and self determination. But we don't often see bills that provide redress for harms when the federal government has not lived up to its statutory obligations.

For the Quapa Nation, it was historical mismanagement of trust, property of tribal members. For the Mohawk Tribe, it was the purchase of their ancestral lands in violation of federal law. Authorizing and ratifying settlements between sovereigns is just one of the ways this committee ensures the federal government lives up to its duties. And as a trustee and I look forward to learning more about these particular bills. And I want to thank our testifiers today.

Thank you, Senator Schatz. We will now turn to our witnesses. We have today Mr. Brian Mercier. He is the director at the Bureau of Indian affairs, the Department of Interior here in Washington D.C. and we also have Mr. John Crockett. He is the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service Department of Agriculture, also here in Washington, D.C. i will remind both of you that we do have your full written testimony.

It will be made part of the official record. So we'd ask you to summarize within the five minutes. I do anticipate that there will be members that are coming, but I will also remind that we have a vote that begins at 2:15. So I'd like to get witnesses testimony in before. Maybe we might have to take a break.

I know. Senator Schatz, you have another committee hearing, so we're double tasking, Triple tasking maybe. But we welcome you to the committee so that we can as a committee move forward in processing these important bills. So, Mr. Mercier, if you would like to lead off? Yes, thank you.

Madam Chair, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss several bills affecting tribal nations. Chairman Murkowski, I would like to personally thank you for the invitation to Bethel, Alaska last month. I was very impressed with that community and the field hearing that you hosted, and I've been thinking a lot about it since my visit there last month. Well, you're going to be invited back again. I look forward to it.

I look forward to it. Thank you. My name is Brian Mercier. I'm a proud member of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Rock community of Oregon, and I am also the Director of the Bureau of Indian affairs at the Department of Interior. The BIA carries out the federal government's trust and treaty responsibilities across 56 million acres of trust land held for federally recognized tribes and individual American Indians.

Through our programs and partnerships, we work to strengthen tribal sovereignty, promote self determination and support sustainable economic development and stewardship of tribal lands and resources. I'm here today to discuss six bills that would affect tribal lands, land claims and tribal communities. First, s. 630, the Quapa Tribal Settlement act of 2025, would establish a settlement trust account and authorize payment of settlement funds related to long standing legal claims. The Department supports the intent of the legislation to effectuate the payment of settlement funds in resolution of the claims against the United States brought by the claimants. We look forward to working with the Sponsor and the Committee on Technical Assistance to address concerns and ensure that the legislation establishes a settlement payment process that is efficient and legally sound.

Next, s. 1514, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer act would transfer approximately 72 acres of lands administered by the Forest Service into trust for the Quinault Indian Nation. The Department supports the goals of the bill and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on Technical Changes. We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding the impacts to Forest Service lands. Next is S.3219. The Albuquerque Indian School act of 2025 would place approximately 9.89 acres of federal land managed by the General Services Administration and into trust for the benefit of the 19 pueblos of New Mexico.

The Department supports this legislation and we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on a few minor technical modifications. S. 2796 would authorize a land exchange between the United States and the San Manuel Nation to consolidate federal land holdings and enhanced Stewardship of the San Bernardino National Forest. The Department would like to provide technical edits to ensure that associated easements and encumbrances are provided to the Department prior to the finalizing of the exchange. We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding the Forest Service lands affected by the bill. Next is S.2871.

The Pitt River Land Transfer act of 2025 would transfer approximately 584 acres of federal land administered by the Forest Service into trust for the Pitt River Tribe of California. Department supports the goals of the legislation and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on technical modifications related to land surveys prior to the transfer. Finally, s. 3475, the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement would authorize ratify and confirm the agreement of settlement and compromise to resolve the Akwesasne Mohawk land claim in the State of New York. The United States has a limited role in this settlement and is not contributing funds or land or other compensation to secure the settlement.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you, Mr. Mercier. And know that the committee looks forward to working with you and the Department in these areas where you've indicated technical assistance and support there. So thank you for that. Mr. Crockett, please, your testimony. All right.

Thank you. So Chair Mikowski Ranker, Member Schatz, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is John Crockett, and I'm a deputy chief in the U.S. forest Service. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on three bills before the committee. S. 1514, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer act, s.2796, the Yehovah Tayum of San Manuel Nation Land Exchange act, and s. 2871, the Pitt River Land Exchange.

The Forest Service manages 193 million acres of grasslands and national forests, many of which are in proximity to tribal ancestral territories. Our partnership with tribes support forest management, wildfire mitigation, restoration and the protection of culturally significant lands. We remain committed to strong government, to government relationships and close coordination with our federal partners. S. 1514, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer act, would transfer approximately 72 acres from the Olympic National Forest to the Department of Interior to be held in trust for the Quinault Nation subject to valid, valid existing rights. The bill prohibits gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The USDA supports this legislation, and we are committed to working with the Department of Interior and the Quinault Indian Nation to ensure a smooth and well, coordinated transfer. S2796, yuhavatem of San Manuel Nation Land Exchange act, would authorize a land exchange involving approximately 1,460 acres owned by the nation for about 1,475 acres of national Forest System land. The Forest Service has been engaged in a proposed land exchange since 2022, including public consultation in 2023, and reached a major milestone in May of this year with the completion of the land appraisal review and signature on the ANIPA analysis. This bill exempts the exchange from public land exchange provisions in the Federal Land Policy and Management act, and it requires an agreement to preserve the Arrowhead landmark site. The USDA is supportive of this legislation, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on the implementation details.

In particular, we recommend clarifying the respective roles of the USDA and the Department of Interior and in completing this land exchange. And because their mineral estate is involved, the Department of Interior has the responsibilities that are necessary to complete that part of the transaction. Clarifying these responsibilities in the legislation could help avoid delays as well as support a more efficient process. S. 2871, the Pit River Land Exchange Act. This bill would transfer approximately 584 acres within the Shasta Trinity National Forest to the Department of Interior to be held in trust for the Pitt River Tribe, subject to valid existing rights, and includes a prohibition on gaming.

The USDA supports this legislation, and we would like to continue working with the committee to ensure that the existing easements and special use permits are accurately represented geographically. Taken together, these bills represent an important opportunity to support tribal sovereignty, protect cultural resources, and strengthen intergovernmental partnerships. The Forest Service remains committed to working with this committee, tribal nations, and our federal partners to implement these actions in a manner that is thoughtful, coordinated, and respectful to all interests involved. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions. Thank you, Mr. Crockett, and again, extend the same as I did with Mr. Mercier.

Looking forward to working with those of you at Forest Service, too, to get through some of the technical issues that you have highlighted. Senator Heinrich, I know that we have one of your bills on the docket here today, the Albuquerque Indian school Act of 2025. If you would like to speak to that or ask the witnesses particular questions, but please proceed. Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski, and thanks for holding this hearing on S.3219, the Albuquerque Indian School act, and certainly thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I'm very pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague Senator Lujan, who is a co sponsor of S.3219.

And I also want to recognize Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, who introduced The House companion, HR6162, along with Congresswoman Teresa Ledger Fernandez. Finally, thank you to Mr. Mercier and the Department of Interior for their testimony and support of this legislation. I very much appreciate the Department's recognition that this bill advances tribal sovereignty and self determination. The Albuquerque Indian School act is about putting a small but important piece of land where it belongs with with New Mexico's 19 pueblos. It makes sense from the federal government's perspective, and this bill would transfer nearly 10 acres of excess federal land next to the Indian Pueblo Cultural center into trust for New Mexico's 19 pueblos.

GSA has already identified these tracts as excess property. So this bill helps reduce the federal real estate footprint while putting underused land to a higher use. And it does so in a way that respects the history and the location and the leadership of the 19 Pueblos. This is about more than just a land transfer. The Indian Pueblo Cultural center is now a nationally recognized museum and cultural institution owned and operated by the Pueblos.

It is dedicated to preserving and perpetuating Pueblo history, culture and art while promoting future economic growth and long term economic stability. Its broader campus is also a major economic engine in the region. What began with less than a million dollars in annual revenue in 1976 now generates more than $60 million each year, a testimony to its growth and success. This additional acreage would allow the Pueblos to expand on that success with a new walkable business park featuring space for scaling local small businesses, warehousing and distribution, all under Pueblo leadership. There is a long bipartisan history behind this effort.

Since 1969, the 19 Pueblos have worked with Congress and federal agencies to reclaim and consolidate portions of the former Albuquerque Indian School campus for cultural preservation and economic development. Congress acted in 1978 under Senator Pete Domenici's leadership and again in 2008 and 2015 to place additional land associated with the former Albuquerque Indian School site into trust. My Albuquerque Indian School act follows that very same path. The development of these underutilized parcels of land will create jobs, foster entrepreneurship, and expand business services for Pueblo communities and the broader public as well. Additionally, the House has shown support for our house companion, HR 6162, and in fact it passed the House yesterday with bipartisan support.

This is a good bill. It is rooted in history, grounded in practicality, and led by the Pueblos themselves. It turns underused federal property into an asset for cultural preservation, entrepreneurship, and long term economic strength. So I would urge the committee to move S3219 as swiftly as they see fit. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. And know that I noted in my opening statement that there has been a great deal of work in these respective bills that we have on the docket here today. And we recognize that the witnesses that we have are here to give the final sign off, but what has gone into it needs to be recognized as well. So to those who have been helping to advance the Albuquerque Indian School act, let them know that we appreciate their cooperative efforts. Thank you.

Senator Armstrong, I know that you would like to make a statement on your bill. I introduced it as the Quapaw Tribal settlement Act of 2025 that your predecessor, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, had introduced, but pleased that you are here to speak to the bill and to continue the effort that was led by now Secretary Mullen.

Yeah. First, I'd like to acknowledge the chair for the supernov of the Quapaw Nation. And there she is. Thank you. Thanks for joining us today.

And thanks for your efforts on this and a lot of great dedication on her part of trying to get this wrapped up and to the final account allocation determination. So, anyway, I just want to say thanks for sticking with this and the good efforts on that. I do have a few questions today on that, and are we ready for that as well? I am happy to yield to you, Senator Armstrong. To begin the questions, I know that we've got a vote, so please proceed.

All right, great. First of all, on to Mr. Mercier and the final allocation or determination. You testified that your department would not support measures to expose the United States to additional liability, among other concerns. And so would a provision waiving any potential liability of the department for distributing the funds and determining a final allocation between the tribe and allottees, if needed, be sufficient to resolve the department's concern. Thank you, Senator Armstrong, for the question, and congratulations on the appointment.

It's good to meet you. I would need to take that back to our solicitors to confirm that there would be legal sufficiency for such a waiver, but. So I'm not able to answer affirmatively right now, but I'm happy to take that back to the department and see if that would be sufficient. Okay. And how long do you think it would take to get an answer back?

That would take just a few days, I'm sure, with our solicitors. Forward to that. Thank you. And. And then on as well.

On the cost issue, the United States agreed to settle the litigation underlying the Quapaw Tribal Settlement act in the court of Federal claims for 137,000. Sorry, 137,500,000. Is that correct? Yes, sir, that's correct. And does.

Do you feel like Congress has an obligation to pay sums agreed to by the United States to settle claims against it? Yes, Senator, we're supportive of the settlement of the claims. Okay, great. And then finally, does the department have ideas as to where those funds could be redirected to offset? Yes, Senator, we have some ideas and we would be happy to speak to you and the tribe and other members of the committee to discuss those ideas.

Okay, great. Thank you. Very good. I think the, you know, the other issue I just wanted to raise and make sure that we come up with a solution is in the process of then allocating those funds amongst the allottees and the tribes and whether or not what you see the responsibility of your department in that regard in terms of helping out with the settlement of that.

Thank you for the question, Senator. I think we would be. We're always willing to provide technical assistance and try to assist with this type of settlement. Settlement. And we've done them in the past.

And that's part of the. I think the, my testimony today is that the bill is currently written is somewhat different from what we typically would see. And we would like to maybe get back to that. Okay. All right, good.

You know, it seems like that's something that shouldn't take us too long to resolve. I, I appreciate, you know, your need to be able to get back to me on that and, and to this office. But it seems like something that we should have some pretty good clarity on. And I know that's been done in the past as well. So could you speak maybe to what you think is unique about the language today?

Yeah. This current bill has a couple of provisions that concern us. One of them is that the process is inconsistent with what we've done previously with some of the other settlement agreements. And in our opinion, it exposes us to additional legal liabilities. And when you say inconsistent with prior, in what way is it inconsistent?

The distribution mechanism being through the United States, we've done this through parties in the past and other mechanisms in the past. But the other aspect of the bill that has us concerned is that it seems to ask the Secretary of Interior to mediate an interest party dispute at the tribe that we're very concerned about. We typically try to stay out of those inter party disputes. And you all haven't done that before. No, we typically do not.

We try to stay out of intra tribal disputes as best we can. Okay. Well, I can appreciate that. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can do that. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You have my time. Thank you.

Senator, Let me ask a couple questions. Mr. Mercier, on S3475.

And again, I think it's important to note that there has been great persistence in pursuing this settlement. I think you have noted that as well in your testimony. The Department states that any settlement should be, quote, responsible with taxpayer dollars and, quote, serve the national interest.

Do you have concerns regarding this settlement, given those standards? In other words, are you saying that the Department believes that the settlement is not a responsible use of taxpayer dollars or do not serve the national interest? And if so, what leads you to that conclusion? Thank you, Chairman, for the question. No, I don't think we're making that.

I think we are not taking a position at this time on the bill and would be very open to having further conversations with the sponsors and the tribes about the bill. So my understanding is that the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, which serves as the traditional government, withdrew from the litigation. They're not party to any final settlement agreement. Does the Department have any concerns about the absence of MNCC from the settlement? And in other words, does withdrawing from this, withdrawing from the settlement create any risks about implementation or future claims or just the concern about settlement overall?

To be honest, Chairman, there's, I think, many different aspects about the bill that we would want to have a conversation with the sponsors and the committee about. I can't speak to that one in particular, but we are open to further conversations, for sure. Okay. Well, as we move through these bills, and again, whether it's going through what should be the easy things on some of the technical assistance. Let's work with you.

But I know the bill sponsor would again like to be able to advance this. So if we can have more discussion with the Department on, on this particular one, we would appreciate that. Absolutely. Moving to S3219, which Senator Heinrich just spoke to, in your testimony, you expressed support for the transfer, but when you were in the House testifying on the companion bill, you specifically noted the need to ensure the relocation of all the federal tenants that are occupying the property before the transfer can occur. So who, I guess the question to you is, who's occupying that property now?

And is 90 days enough time to accomplish the relocation? Yeah. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. So, and I believe My testimony is about six months ago in the house on that. So I'm not sure whether there are still tenants at the current location.

We would need to work with the General Service Administration to confirm, but I'm pretty confident now, six months later, if the bill were to pass, 90 days should be sufficient. Okay. Okay. Well, we'll check on that. And you did refer to some modifications that you thought might be needed.

But again, I'll take it that that was six months ago, so we may be in a better place. Correct? That's correct. Yes. Got it.

Got it. Thank you. Let me Turn to you, Mr. Crockett, and I'll begin with S2796. This is the Uvarium San Manuel Nation Land Exchange.

Forest Service has historically treated fee to fee land exchanges as transactions that require appraisal to determine the value of the lands and to ensure that. Basically, we're talking about equal value here. This proposed exchange does involve a tribe, but it does not include a land into trust component and therefore seems to be consistent with the type of fee to fee exchange for which the Forest Service has traditionally required valuation and equalization procedures. But the bill itself does not expressly require an equal value determination or appraisals of the parcels. Is this something that we should be considering?

You've spoken in support of the bill, but do we need to look at at equal value? I guess I'm concerned that we might have a situation where you have the Forest Service departing from the valuation principles that ordinarily govern federal land exchanges in this case. So walk me through where we are with that. Yeah. So thank you.

Thank you for the question. And so we are anchoring to our standard guide. Our standard guides related to the appraisal for this, which does actually require equal value. And we've already done the appraisals. The appraisal was submitted to the tribe last week or last week.

So I feel like. I know we're managing both the administrative aspect of this as well as the legislative aspect of it, but we've taken care of the equal value concern through the appraisal. So you're doing the appraisal because the reason I ask is we're. As you probably know, we deal with situations like this in Alaska. We've got one situation with Chugach, Alaska.

We're seeking a land exchange. And we have been criticized for the fact that it is not a traditional equal value exchange. It's more of an acre for acre settlement given the oil spill trust fund under the Recovery Act. So what I'm Hearing you say is you are following the practices that require appraisal and equal value exchange. Correct.

And the Chugach study was just a little bit different because the Dingle act required us to do the provide a 2022 report to Congress that had a lot of specificity in it and which we anchored to in our. In my previous testimony for it. So that the Trugash land exchange is different because it did identify specific parcels of acre. Acres. But for this land exchange, we are looking at the appraisal as a primary mechanism for providing equal value.

And that appraisal then comes back at. So you will select equal value based on that appraisal. Correct. And it doesn't have to be acre for acre. It's just the value, the equal value associated with it.

Okay. I understand that the Forest Service has been working with the tribe to accomplish the land exchange administratively.

Is that still going forward? In other words, why are we doing legislation if you think that you can do this administratively? Yeah, we've actually made a lot of progress administratively. Signed the decision memo on it as recently as Monday. And like I said earlier, the appraisal has been done and delivered to the tribe.

We are in the final stages of signing the subsurface mineral declarations. Once that leaves the agency, we'll get departmental approval that will in turn be submitted to the Bureau of Indian affairs or Bureau of Land and Management, and then the ball will be in their court to approve that and then back to the agency for final disposition. So we are making a lot of progress administratively on the land exchange. So that is still going on. You're not, you're not pulling back on that in light of the legislation that you're testifying to?

Absolutely not. We are moving full steam ahead on the administrative aspects of the land exchange. Okay. In the, in the written testimony, you ask for exemptions from National Historic Preservation act as well as nepa. Why are you asking for these exemptions?

So, once again, so in my written testimony, we've made a lot of progress since my written testimony because we've signed the NEPA already. It's kind of a moot point to ask for that exemption. But the original reason for asking for that exemption was to be responsive to the 120 day time frame that was part of the legislation. We thought that exemption would help us move through NEPA faster, but we've tackled all those hurdles administratively at this point, so it's not needed. Okay, so in other words, we're further down the road with this legislation as well?

Absolutely. Let me ask One question. With regards to the Pitt River Land Transfer act, it appears that some of the lands would be transferred, that would be transferred to Pitt river are currently subject to special use permits and some other easements, including with electric utilities. They were perhaps not fully detailed in the bill or properly excluded from the transfer. You referenced in your testimony.

Special use permits and the need to accurately represent them geographically, I think, is what you said. I mean, is this just a situation of getting the maps right? That's exactly what it is. The acreage is accurate, but the maps are off. And so we need to produce the updated maps to reflect the appropriate amount of acreage, and that's the minor technical correction that we want to make.

Okay. All right. So then to Director Mercier. Do we need to have interagency agreements or MOUs, to ensure a transfer of the management responsibilities, whether it's fire management and access? If this bill becomes law, then.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question. So, yeah, if the bill becomes law, this is a mandatory acquisition, and we will take the land into trust. We obviously want to still coordinate with the neighboring Forest Service and other jurisdictions, so we'll want those. I don't know if we need to say. We would have to have them to move forward.

Okay, so that's something that we may look to. I don't have any further questions of either of you. Senator Armstrong, anything further. Would either of you care to add anything that you feel needs to be reinforced before the committee on any of the matters that we have before us today? If I may, Madam Chair.

Just that we do look forward to working on some technical amendments to many of the bills, and, of course, with Senator Armstrong on the Quapaw Bill itself, and then with the senators from New York on the Mohawk one as well, please. Thank you. Good. Mr. Crockett? Nothing additional for me.

Supportive of all three bills. Looking forward to the minor technical corrections and moving them forward. Good. Well, we appreciate, again, a level of cooperation with the department, with the agency policies to advance this. As Senator Schatz mentioned, we like to do bills in this committee.

We actually like to advance some policy initiatives that good people have been working on for a long period of time. And so thank you for helping us advance just that. And with that, the committee stands adjourned.

Sam,.