not raising any funding available under existing programs what's the relief here the relief is a holding by the court that a contract exists for the terms of the tribes contract proposal issue there's no myron in the act that the bureau be directly providing the services that are the subject of the title one proposal at the time of the it's proposal in order to give rise to a contract that the self determination act  zero so the provision that i'm understanding your honor to mention is the secretarial amount provision four fifty one jay want to believe in the statute and that the language there sets a funding floor in the circumstance beloved providing any of that so they can't go above that so well and as i say the tribe is free to propose any amount of the contract that life in the bureau is free pursuant to one of the five exclusive declination rationales to decline a proposal that proposes funds beyond those that it would have otherwise provided that's precisely the issue in this case the bureau had the opportunity to do that and it failed to do so with another player said i will say sure that we agree with that that as an alternative avenues of the tribes could have pursued directly to the federal either that alternative doesn't differ prescribe i don't believe so your honor i think the tribe can pursue directly in federal district you have a deemed approval but you don't actually have a contract yet in fact what you've asked us for in your email is roumanian for the person i still wouldn't nation as a contract and in fact we do have a contract not not just the act itself and its regulations speak in terms of the the proposal being deemed approved and awarded within a ninety day period unless the scenes are proved and a contract shall be awarded i thought the statute actually afford ninety days so you know now or didn't comply but that doesn't mean it morphs into a contract how does it how does the provable morph into a contract when they haven't actually given you the contract yet i mean you acknowledge that the proposal isn't just the model of the terminations agreement there are always conditions by the government that are added in as part of the contract and that's what you're anticipating will occur as part of the actual articulation of the contract as opposed to the deemed approval of the proposal i just am struggling i don't see how this case clearly belongs in the courts or place i'm glad that you had the foresight to file both places so that you preserve your rights in your case i mean i think it's important to be precise about the language and the  and they clearly violated the regulation if you're right you've got to get approval and they have been awarded the contract within ninety days so what we can force them to do is awarded the contract except if there isn't actually a contract we don't actually have the indian place as mandated by that by that language within the ninety day period so there's no there's no additional signature required for example but do you recognize that there is an additional contract required that the proposal doesn't delineate are services that the b s a is authorized to administer for the benefit of indian tribes for soon to federal law so that that that language that at the end there were two tribes doing it i'm sorry on what the tribes are already performing the services th the the bureau provide these types of services to indian tribes and their members they were providing them to the iraq tribe at the time of the tribes request but that's not what the f d a requires united states simply requires that the the programs be those authorized t the legislative history is important to note on this point the one hundred eighty eight senate report clarified that the tribes are eligible to contract for any program or function operated by the bureau for the benefit of tribes regardless of whether such specific programs for functions  is not your means that the provision that we're talking about is the secretarial amount provision and what that vision does is set a funding floor it doesn't set a ceiling it will be have to be i wants to decline a transfer puzzle for an amount in excess of that which it would have otherwise provided for those programs or services it must decline within the ninety days set forth in the act otherwise the proposal to deem to prove and i can see it let's say that the that the v a was providing services at five million dollars or ten million dollars and we deem approved a contract then you'd have five or ten million dollars to go and yes we'd say we we want part of all that let me transfer go over to it but the v a is a providing any there's zero dollars of that i think i think we're where i would differ is that if the try to propose a fund of funding in the amount of six million dollars say and the bureau is providing five million dollars ok it couldn't then the board just didn't reach it and then you didn't bring it up again you argued it went to jurisdiction which may or may not be correct it might be said or simply might be jurisdiction why didn't you bring it back up in your brief to us especially given your argument that it was t in this case there is the statute for fifty f paragraph b that also applies and it was a mistake for us not to identify that and we apologize for the no doubt cost of court so you agree  self determination that contract addresses existing programs for service why the statute says which the secretary is authorized to administer for the benefit of the indian isn't the secretary authorized to administer police and judicial services for the benefit of any yes you're on a self determination contract can be granted anything which the secretary secretary is authorized to administer for  you acquiesced they are in fact authorized to administer exactly the programs for indian what and they do for other tribes just not for this particular tribe i don't understand that's the statute the statutory provision that we would rely on organization level so how do i know you wouldn't provided i mean they're asking the right contract in the future for police and judicial services and it says that what you can give them is less than you can what what is the contract so our position that congress could not have intended a scenario would be i could approve a contract but not have to fund it so in this case there would be nothing under the statute been one of the five statutory criteria under which you could have declined the contract expressly under the statute its funding is one of them but you didn't do that so go back to your piggy bank and find the money doesn't say the transfer an existing program the secretary can make a self determination contract for any program it would otherwise be authorized to get to we do disagree on that interpretation your honor and we point to the  you pull it out so part b is the part that's relevant to us right big the one big on for fifty years or fifty s a one big b that's the part that's relevant to us yes you're right and it says which the secretary is authorized to administer so anything else terminations contract can be granted for anything the secretaries authorize to administer at least that's what the language says you want me to you can read on anything the secretary is authorized to administer then look at see which says this kind of contract can only be authorized if it's currently being provided by secretary of health and human services so why does that not draw exactly the statutory distinction that you want me to morph into b congress knew how to say when a contract could only be awarded if it is currently being provided by an agency it did so express c with regard to health and human services contract but with regard to be it went broader and said anything which the secretary is authorized to provide not which is already provided just like he says but which is your honor c d c does say provided we don't we don't necessarily read it the same current are being provided to make that distinction but we would also point out that there are programs and services that b i provides to indians with their benefit that they cannot transfer to indians control because of the trust responsibility and as we try to point out their grief that's authorized to provide that there's a distinction between there are things that b i does for indians for their benefit such  that were true that that's not this case right it's case isn't one of those unique situations where because of your trust responsibility you can't turn something over to them back that's correct ana you're just trying to give me that example of why shouldn't read the word authorize as broadly as i'm and if it's a new program or service you would have a situation in which well guess what he doesn't want less than what you gave him last year he wants more what you gave him last year so i don't think that he would stand up here and suggest that you want less or that anything he's doing would implicate the le than yes yes your honor and if this if the court was to agree that this was a deem to prove a contract and i went back to the board to work out the terms or to wherever the secretary were come to terms right now the secretary is not obligated to provide under the statute provide the tribe anything more than zero because that's what's being provided right now that's the secretarial pool but if it's deemed to bring it was saying earlier i mean if it's already deemed approved there is a proposal is deemed approved and are you now on the hook for five million you're on of the radio no you're on the regulations state that the proposal does not become part of the contract unless the parties approve and here the secretary can take objection to this funding amount so under the statute he could or within the ninety day he could have taken objection to finding out isn't that exactly what that ninety day period last year and there's two steps in the process there's do you prove the process reviewing the proposal and approving it once it's approved then the second you have a contract or anything that takes place after that it is a post award contract activity no your honor if it's deemed approved and then the secretary is commanded to take that second action  results in the award of the contract so it seems to me the only thing left here if you agree that you didn't answer within the ninety days and the contractors deemed awarded the only thing left to do is to go to step two and that is for you to issue a check it's generally yes you are but it's more complicated than just issuing a check there has to be yes saying that contract isn't ordered on the ninety f no contract existed therefore one of the prerequisites to bring in the claim was missing but that was a misinterpretation of the statute that we've been discussing here today in a contract exist because it was deemed approved and awarded by operation of law and so the world was wrong in that respect proposal suddenly become all the award contracts and i got involved in already existing contracts and the single line item amendment to that contract which was the proposal in fact that the court held was because the contract and all of its provisions are clear there was already a contract in place all the visions were clear this is the single line item in the proposal the court finds the nation letter proposed amendment to the contract between the festival and secretary sale time within ninety days isn't that a different situation that we have here we don't have a clear a already existing contract or be fully delineated term there are still seems to be fleshed out in the contract writing here and i don't think that the principle underlying insanity case hinges on whether  we're talking about an amendment to an already dissing title one contract or a proposal for an entirely new contract the statute speaks doesn't distinguish between the two situations that is the