Senate Indian Affairs (Murkowski): Business meeting to consider S.239, to take certain mineral interests into trust for the benefit of the Crow Tribe of Montana, S.1055, to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the notification requirement for emergency contract health services for certain beneficiaries, S.1514, to take certain land in the State of Washington into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation, S.3219, to transfer certain Federal land into trust for certain Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico, and H.R.2400, to take certain Federal land in the State of California into trust for the benefit of the Pit River Tribe.

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. We're here today to consider 5 bills addressing tribal economic development, healthcare 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 of 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 72 hours to 15 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 72-acre parcel called Allotment 1157 from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the Quinault Indian Nation. Allotment 1157 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 19 pueblos of New Mexico. The bill would support the pueblos' continued efforts to transform a site associated with a difficult federal history into a center for education, healthcare, cultural preservation, government services, and economic development. Finally, the Pitt River Land Transfer Act from Senator Padilla and the late Representative 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.

I'm going to turn over to Vice Chairman Chutz 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 healthcare. But S.239 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's 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 2024 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.239 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 numerous subsidiaries worldwide. Its co-founder, Gennady Timchenko, was sanctioned by the US Treasury in November 2025. 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 2021 to violating federal mine health and safety regulations. It was sentenced to a $1 million fine and 3 years probation. The violations involved improperly pumping mine waste into abandoned mine areas and concealing or failing to report serious worker injuries. And up until a year ago, Signal Peak was partly owned by a FirstEnergy subsidiary who sold its stake before FirstEnergy— FirstEnergy's Ohio utilities agreed to pay $275 million to ratepayers in a settlement tied to the HB6 bribery scandal. According to the Interior OIG, from 2016 to 2018, 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 2022 fraud questionnaire, including that its former vice president pled guilty to fraud and was sentenced to 5 years in prison, and that the company pled guilty to federal worker health and safety charges in 2021. The Crow Tribe has testified in 2024 that it hoped to earn $100 million over 10 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 239 will result in an increase in direct spending of $72 million over a 10-year period due to coal 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 going to 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 S.239 that would provide transparency and accountability to the public and 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.239. Those will be included. Those documents update the record from 2024 and range from the Interior OIG reports and DOJ statements on Signal Peak to news articles.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz. Now let's start with the amendments that have been filed to the 5 bills on the agenda. We will then move to the bills. I would ask any members to hold any statements that you would like to make until after we've completed the voting.

We do know that we've got to vote— that started at 2:15 on the floor. So I would ask now for unanimous consent to take up the following amendments on block. And this is Daines Amendment KAT26544 to Agenda Item Number 1, S239. Cantwell Amendment KAT26541 to Agenda Item Number 3, S1514. Murkowski-Schatz Amendment KAT26544 to Agenda Item Number 4, S3219.

And Murkowski-Schatz Amendment KAT26509 to Agenda Item Number 5, HR2400. Is there an objection? Hearing no objection, the question is on agreeing to those amendments on block by voice vote. All those in favor say aye. 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. On—. Identify.

KAT25287.

Please record me as a no. Excuse me, would you repeat that one again? The Daines Amendment. The Daines Amendment, 26544. Oh, it did.

Yeah, I like—. I think that's—. Wait, did we—. I have that as Murkowski shots. Murkowski shots, uh, K26544.

I don't— we have not voted on 25287. 287. Yes, 25287, things A&S. I did not— the amendments that I read were 26544, 26541, 265— oh, I have 26544s. I have a mistake.

Which one is right? It's 25287. Was that the first one? Yes. Okay.

All right. We need to correct this then. What's that number?

25287. Okay. So I need to— we need to redo this then to ask unanimous consent to take up Dane's Amendment KAT 25287 to agenda item number 1, S239. All those in favor indicate by saying so. Aye.

All those opposed. Nay. Okay. Those that wish to be recorded no on 25287? Yes.

Senator Smith, how? Lujan, Smith, Schatz, Cantwell will be recorded as voting no.

Senator Rounds is not here.

He had filed an amendment 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.

Vice Chairman Schatz, you have filed 5 amendments to Agenda Item 1, S.239, Senator Daines' bill. It's my understanding that you are withdrawing Schatz Amendment KAT26503. Is that correct? Yes. Okay.

And would you like to offer any of your other amendments?

Yes, Chair Murkowski. I would like to offer KAT26501.

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 Musselshell 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 White Clay testified that he'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 44% or $100 million over 10 years, whichever is greater.

It also guarantees that Musselshell County get at least 12% to replace the lost royalty revenues, which are currently about 12.5%, 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 the people who represent the public interest, and made available for anyone to see. I hope my colleagues would agree that a land exchange involving public lands and resources shouldn't move forward on a revenue sharing, sharing handshake that we are not allowed to see.

Senator Daines.

Chair McCowsky, first, thank you for including this Proven Act in today's markup. I do have a poster board behind me that details the tremendous local support we have for this bill, top to bottom. I will say there was one county commissioner that opposes this, this act. He was soundly defeated 2 to 1 in the June primary. So he's no longer being part of this discussion because the people in Musselshell County said 2 to 1, 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 want to welcome the chairman of the Crow Tribe here today, Mr. White Clay, and as evidence in terms of his tribe support we're trying to do here. This is a win-win for Montana. The Crow Tribe receives an important source of new revenue.

We address longstanding inholding issues. These miners in Roundup, 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. Now, regarding just the amendment offered by the ranking member Schatz, I would just argue this is an affront to tribal sovereignty.

Instead of allowing the Crow Tribe Chairman White Clay 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 is pervasive around the reservation. And now Chairman White Clay is working hard to try to find ways instead of greater dependencies on the federal government 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 Department of Interior would this bill be allowed to be implemented. I hope my colleagues will support the Crow Tribe and oppose this amendment.

I'm Senator Schatz. 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 favor of this project, but I'm not a county commissioner. I'm on the federal side. And 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 pig in a poke. If I might be able to apply it. Senator, first time I've ever used pig in a poke in a sentence.

Thank you. Just to clarify the record, there was one person opposed to this. That person was removed by the people of Musselshell County. So we have virtually unanimous agreement. And this was the issue in the primary election.

It was two Republicans, 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 2-to-1 margin. So 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 to allow them to proceed on this and to get this deal done. Thank you, Chair. There's a letter from 3 commissioners of Muscleshell County, August 4th. 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 Muscleshell County in the revenue sharing agreement. So it may be true that people like the idea of this deal, but actually Muscleshell County is specifically asking that we enshrine the revenue sharing agreement in federal statutory law.

I'm going to go ahead and oppose this amendment. I do think that it departs from 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.

You've indicated, Senator Daines, that somehow or other this amendment would presume that the Crow cannot negotiate on their own.

And so I am looking at this as an amendment that conflicts the bill as endorsed by the Crow tribes, the county, and others, and would far more likely undermine the economic benefits than bolster them. So I'm going to oppose. Any further comments?

Seeing them, Vice Chairman Chatz, are you asking for a roll call? —On your amendment. The question is on agreeing to the Schatz Amendment, KAT 26501, to agenda item number 1, S239. We have got a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Murkowski. Murkowski is a no. Mr. Holben. No by proxy. Mr. Daines.

Mr. Rounds. No by proxy. Mr. Moran? No. Mr. Armstrong?

No. Mr. Schatz? Aye. Miss Cantwell? Aye.

Miss Cortez Masto? Aye, by proxy.

Miss Smith? Aye. Mr. Lujan? Aye.

On this vote, the yeas are 5, the nays are 6. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there other amendments? Madam Chair? Senator Lujan.

Madam Chair, I'd like to call up Schatz Amendment 26497.

Go ahead, please. Madam Chair, this is a simple amendment, one that I'm thinking that might just be accepted. 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 lessee in the bill is circular and vague. We all know this land exchange will affect the interests of 4 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. 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 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 Peak Energy. So the amendment is very simple.

It says to clearly include Signal Peak as in that definition of lessee. I see no reason to apply the same level of transparency to the lessee as it's been applied everywhere else. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of adopting this common sense and really technical amendment. Senator Daines. Thank you.

By the way, I do want to recognize Senator Moran. Senator Moran visited Montana, and the very first place he ever went to was the Crow Reservation. There we go. Yes, he was. So 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. Me addressing the, uh, the amendment offered by Senator Lujan. I do believe this amendment is unnecessary.

We believe the existing definition is sufficient. As my colleagues are aware, the majority of the mine is owned by the Boyce companies based in Ohio. There's a minority interest owned by the Gunvor Group. This is a Swiss headquartered employee-owned company with a U.S. citizen as its CEO. In fact, the current CEO is from Houston, Texas.

So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Madam Chair, if I would respond. I'm just surprised by that. All the others are listed by name. The lease from BLM is pretty clear.

It has the name on it. I don't know why we would include or not include. I think typically when we work on legislation, we include who it is. I'm just surprised by that. I would hope that consistency with legislation that we would adopt this amendment.

I'd also ask unanimous consent to submit the legal status notice of availability for the lessee and leaseholder into the record. Without objection. Senator Daines, it's my understanding that the Bull Mountains lease is already defined in the bill with the BLM lease number, which I assume is relevant to this.

As I have reviewed it, I look at this 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 I intend to oppose. Any further discussion? Senator Daines, did you want to comment on that? No, we do believe the existing definition is sufficient and the amendment is unnecessary.

Ask for a vote. All right, a roll call vote has been requested.

So let's see, let's go ahead and, uh, clerk will call the roll on, um, on KAT 26497 to agenda item number 1, S239. Ms. Murkowski. Murkowski is a no. Mr. Hovind, no by proxy. Mr. Daines, no.

Mr. Rounds, no by proxy. Mr. Moran, no by proxy. Mr. Armstrong, no. Mr. Schatz, aye. Miss Cantwell, aye.

Miss Cortez Masto, aye.

Miss Smith, aye. Mr. Lujan, On this vote, the yeas are 5, the nays are 6. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Yes, I'd like to bring up— sorry, I'd like to bring up KAT 26540.

5406. No, sorry, 26506.

This is so simple. Any land exchange, public sector, private sector, you need an appraisal. This requires an appraisal. Um, the Interior Department— and I want everyone to hear this— the Interior Department, this Interior Department stated for the record that, quote, 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 ensure 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, the thing that I think is even more worrisome than the basic configuration of this deal is that, you know, Senator Luján 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. Again, and thank you, Ranking Member Schatz, but I do believe this amendment is unnecessary. I think it's stalling implementation of the bill in 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.

I might also observe that we are not doing similar appraisals for Senator Cantwell's and Senator Heinrich's bills, and I hope my colleagues will afford the Crow Tribe the same trust and deference they afford other tribes.

I will be opposing this amendment. Senator Daines' bill follows the precedent that's established by the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act with a similar acre-for-acre land exchange. 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?

The question is on agreeing to Schatz Amendment KAT-26506 to Agenda Item 1, S-239.

Uh, roll call will be called by the clerk. Miss Murkowski? Uh, no. Mr. Hovind? No.

Mr. Daines? No. Mr. Rounds?

No, by proxy. Mr. Moran? No, by proxy. Mr. Armstrong? No.

Mr. Schatz? Aye. Miss Cantwell? Miss Cortez Masto?

Aye. Ms. Smith. Mr. Lujan.

On this vote, the yeas are 5, the nays are 6. The agreement is not— the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? I have one final amendment. Senator Schatz.

KAT 26540. As introduced, S.239 would take effect on the date of enactment. My amendment changes that by ensuring that the bill does not take effect until 5 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, similar to Schatz Amendment 4, I believe this amendment is 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 alerted the U.S. government, they entered into 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 going to 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 settlement payment schedule or arbitrary 5-year delay. Is there further discussion?

Senator Schatz? I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record this document from the Office of the Inspector General. Without objection. And, 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 the 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 cared to in trying to get to yes. And so, you know, um, 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 an energy project.

And so 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, let's go and have the vote. Okay. So we are, we are voting on Schatz Amendment KAT 26540 to agenda. Item 1S239. The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Murkowski.

No. Mr. Hovind. No. Mr. Daines. Nope.

Mr. Rounds.

No by proxy. No by proxy. Thank you. Mr. Moran. No.

Mr. Armstrong. No. Mr. Schatz. Aye. Ms. Cantwell.

Aye. Ms. Cortez Masto. Aye. Ms. Smith. Aye.

Mr. Lujan. Aye. On this vote, the yeas are 5, the nays are 6. The amendment is not agreed to. At this time, I would ask, are there other amendments to Senator Daines' bill?

Seeing none, I would now— before we take up the Daines bill, I would ask unanimous consent to take up and adopt the 4 remaining items on the agenda as amended on block. This is agenda item number 2, S1055; agenda item number 3, S1514, as amended; agenda item number 4, S3219, as amended; and agenda item number 5, HR 2400 as amendment. Before I ask for objection, I'm going to just take a pause here.

You need to vote on your deal. I got to go vote on the floor. Oh, do you? Yeah, yeah. I think to hold the quorum.

Yes, Chairman, I got to go vote on the floor, so I got to go vote on the Where is Rounds?

Is he on his way or— I second your motion.

I would like to hold for just like 2 minutes if we can, because I would like to take care of the Daines bill first if we can. Okay. And then do our on block, and then that would conclude our business.

I'm afraid we're just going to lose a quorum. We're going to lose our quorum. Yeah. So can we get— does he have to be here for the final passage? He does.

Okay. I haven't voted yet either. On the floor? Yeah, they're not going to shut it down. All right.

Have you voted? You haven't voted? Have you voted? No, none of us have voted. So all right.

Where is my—. Okay, no sweat. Right, right. We're all in the same boat. We got 2 minutes here.

We're giving him 2 minutes. Good thing Senator Collins is here. Yes. Yeah.

Is he here yet?

He's on the train. He's on the train. Sheesh. A lot of downtown trains. Yeah.

It's just that it's a train over Union Station.

What's that? Not at all. To what? Yeah, it's fine. You don't know what my last question is.

Well, I don't. I don't. We still haven't completed the task yet here, Madam Chairman. Yes.

What is that? Is that maybe an explosion? I guess. It's called doodling. Yeah, but you're big into like Shazam!

Exactly. Today. It's exciting. Rolling Hills. Breaking through.

Shazam! Like Where's Rounds?

All right, we care about you. We are, we are going to now begin.

We, we have a quorum present, so we can vote on the bills on the agenda.

I'm going to call up agenda item number 1. This is on S.239, the Crow Revenue Act, as amended.

Wait a minute.

The vice chairman has requested a roll call vote on this agenda item number 1, and so the clerk will now call the roll.

Ms. Murkowski. Aye. Mr. Hovind. Aye.

Mr. Daines. Aye.

Mr. Rounds? Mr. Rounds? Aye. Thank you. Mr. Moran?

Aye. Mr. Armstrong? Aye. Mr. Schatz? No.

Ms. Cantwell? No. Ms. Cortez Masto? No by proxy. Ms. Smith?

No by proxy. Mr. Lujan?

No. On this vote, the ayes are 6, the nays are 5. The ayes have it. The bill as amended is agreed to and reported favorably to the Senate. I now ask unanimous consent to take up and adopt the 4 remaining items on the agenda as amended on block agenda item S2— item number 2, S1055, agenda number 3, S1514, as amended, agenda number 4, 3219 as amended and Agenda Number 5, HR 2400 as amended.

Is there an objection? Hearing no objection, the question is on agreeing to agenda items 1 through 5 as amended on block. Excuse me. Yes. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Any opposed say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The bills are agreed to.

Are there any members wishing to be recorded no on any of these bills? Seeing none, that concludes our business for today. Thank you. I appreciate that. And if there are any members who wish to make any statements on any of these bills, now is the time to do so.

Otherwise, the hearing is concluded. Thank you.