self determination and education assistance act as is dia yes your honor i will do that great and think thank you and may please the court i would like to make three points about the indian tribe  issue st under a natural reading of the indian tribe definition eligible a clause squarely applies to the native corporations nd the legislative history and the rule against surplusage a cannot and do not undermine that natural reading and rd there is no uniform counter textual agency interpretation that congress could have been aware of let alone sought to ratify in an act in the cares act and  or something like them for that matter with we have not so moved yet your honor we thought we would wait until after these proceedings the district court did appear to leave it open to this court to continue the stay if it so desired so we thought we think is where the analysis should begin and the indian tribe definition consists of a series of parallel nouns with three the villages in the cool two sets of corporations listed as an illustrative subset agencies would have you stop there but that would be a failure to read on immediately following the agency's comes the eligibility clause in ordinary english that clause would be understood to sweep in the a and sees the government however no doubt you're right about that as a matter of grammar but suppose it were perfectly clear at the still take the position that the ordering of mounds prevails over the web in my hypothetical anyway would be a completely would still apply and would still be worthy of being honored and i think it's worth noting a few things in this regard and subsequent practice subsequent congressional practice only confirms this congress uses the talk and that's a pretty striking insertion into the statute it is its own clause including any native village or regional corporation stablished by the  a you would you would just read all of that right out well i know you want to know we certainly would have read it your honor i think as we understand the steps toward phrasing congress allowed for the or whatever word you want to use if there's no possibility that the corporations can could could at the time maybe have been recognized as an indian tribe friends and if the press and i want to make friends and whether the premises static or dynamic one thing about the eligibility phrasing is it allows for changes in status over time so congress again to success in the premises may have understood at the over time and indeed all those entities have had changes in status over time as a historical fact as we've said congress in one thousand nine hundred and five would have had no reason to understand that in c's absolutely could not provided the original form of banks provided that within twenty years all restrictions on access stock would expire originally they were pledged to natives but that restriction on the alienation would have been only lifted within twenty years so under the government and the n c view the only entities that would not be subject to the dynamic force of the eligibility clause over time would be the very energies that twenty years hence may have become fully non native sense i'd like to make another point test your point in response to your question which is to look at the language of the cares act itself because you know there's been a lot of hypotheticals thrown around in the in the briefing but congress is actual words i think confirm our position in the case if one looks at the definition of a local unit of government which follows immediately after the indian tribe definition this is on a page if penned explore of our opening brief congress to find a unit of local government to mean a county municipality town hound ship village parish borrow or other unit of general government with a population that exceeds i have one hundred thousand people so we have a qualifying was at the end let's just take parishes as one example parishes are the louisiana one of the county of the defined as such under louisiana law we checked there is no parish in louisiana or in the country that has a population exceeding five hundred thousand people in i think ordinary understanding except the principles of  by definition right now none of them meet meet the eligibility cases there we think that that is not the the way that statutory interpretation would normally proceed the congress has made very clear there that and i think this is a normal matter of statutory drafting that it can draft a broad expansive list of entities with the understanding that all find closet the end can then cabin the the appropriate universe and eighty s and the interior department deemed i think the least fifteen or twenty villages to be non eligible so that's i think part of the reason why the government understands the eligibility clause has to apply to the  villages otherwise you would have entities fall fine for all manner of statutory benefits who in fact the government has deemed to be non native and non native villages the problem with the government's position of course is that it makes  honour's i don't know because treasuries allocation formulas is a black box to those of us on the outside so we we don't know how treasury would end up allocating those monies the plaintiffs here are an assortment of tribes in the lower forty eight an alaskan native villages and the concern here i should underscore is is not only the money which is incredibly important for the governmental purposes for which it was intended but also the what it did the principal mechanism for as it was to save an indian tribe passes a resolution saying to the federal government hey we want now to administer programs that you in your paternalistic way used to administer we either want to administer them ourselves fill that role for all manner of contracting they can say hey we want contracts to go x y or z but we're all that in seas of actually playing you know care and they want it and you're stepping into an area where you have another question and that is certainly had governmental authority and the corporations it's been understood i think from from the get go and that opinion again confirms this that corporations do not have sovereign governmental powers they do not enjoy the government to government relationship with the united states the n c s don't make even make that claim they are not recognised in that way well i'm trying to understand what this eligibility assists looking for because as i read it it sounds like  the tribe has to be eligible i say for s m to receive the special programs and services provided by the us government but then you reference there to other arguments that actually this clause satisfied if and n t provides the programs that the government would otherwise be providing is that you have to be is providing it by contract or whatever the services  government otherwise would be say health services or educational services is then sufficient to satisfy the eligibility or you have to both is providing it insufficient you also have to you and your members have to be eligible to receive them  us it's a it's a term of our john it's been used for a long time in federal and in law and what it was historically understood to mean was that you had to be eligible to receive benefits and services from the united states you know by virtue of your status as indians and so then what is the is said was so if you are so eligible by virtue of your status to receive benefits and services then you can make this designation to say hey we actually now wan to minister those programs those services ourselves we want to take them over and we're passing this resolution directing the secretary your question goes to a very important point the the the a n c is a lot of the a n c briefing including some of the anarchist briefing tribes the villages have designated them as tribal organizations to provide such services there are some limited exceptions where congress itself has it provide them some you said in the meantime maybe this is where you are going they do you it's  and seven act which covers that situation where you have the anchorage which this is why the n c and us briefing focuses so much on the provision of health care in anchorage the anchorage area because there's a separate congressional statute that and their subcontractors to provide health services in the anchorage area one thing that you know a one seem common theme in the government briefing the a n c briefing the end of this briefing on their side is trying to create this picture that if you adhere to the statutory text year that to what judge cancels refer to as the grammatical reading you would be abandoning you know forty five years of agency practice and i really want to stress that that is not the case that  acting as a trial where they the were the ones authorizing the contracting the government initially couldn't identify any situations ultimately i think the only situations that the government or the a pointed to where the a n c is acting and again i want to be very clear as the authorizing rod aren't really a handful of situations the anchorage the priest the priest tach atory anchorage health care situation step into the shoes and essentially act as as the bill of government what's happened since then is all federally recognized native villages in alaska have unction governments in a paddock for decades now so that's why as a matter of practice to go to your question the number of situations where you had contracts authorised by a corporation are extremely limited and now are a historical because  because the villages have a functioning functioning robust governments they act as the contracting authority so if one is talking about  of i'm going to interrupt you because you're over your time and i have a one last question and that is what concerns me is the alaskan natives who i understand are not part of any tribe and they get whatever services help assistance that they get from the c s now you gave the example of the parishes  numerically there would be no parishes that would qualify for carers act assistance but those people are also eligible for state assistance and my question is so they wouldn't be left without any assistance my question is does the state of alaska or any other body if we will with you provide the assistance the emergency assistance that is going not be left out in the cold for three reasons your honor one yes the state of alaska provide services to them they certainly are alaska citizens secondly the a n c is as it said in the urban areas have been authorized by a separate congressional provision to provide services in these urban areas and that really is absolutely no different than the situation for indians in the lower forty eight states where actually over half of indians in the lower forty eight dollars states live in urban areas and are provided for by these separate programs not the indian tribes and in that regard it's worth noting that title six of the cares act immediately following t e is a direct towards health care provisions and includes a one billion dollars in funding including four hundred dollars i think four hundred and fifty million dollars for i just funded programs like the ones that the  agencies are carrying out in the urban areas so there are nobody force wants anyone left out in the cold and that would not happen to you know alaska natives in the urban areas or alaska natives and in the village s but it is critically important as a as a matter of on how the services and programs are provided for the congress as determination as to where sovereignty resides in the text is respected all right thank you  the core point that we want to make is that the cares act is the statute that we're dealing with here today and that carries act as recognized governing body of an indian tribe everybody agrees recognize and say they have governing bodies but the phrase recognized governing body of an indian tribe has always been understood to mean the recognized tribes in the united states united brief in this case in back admits that if this had said oh we're going to give this money to the recognized tribes that would be the five hundred and seventy four dollars tribes and but they they come back and say but when we put in  governing bodies in the middle of that phrase suddenly that changes it and that makes agencies eligible the case law that we discuss shows two things st that recognized governing body is a not the a n c the recognized governing bodies of those tribes are the ones that are to get this money now you other part of it is and we cite in our brief number of cases  it's not important that they're only talking here about services and not for that additional you know tribes are more than just getting recognized indian tribe says you're using the phrase do much more than just get services programs they are conferred sort of on that point i'm not i understand i actually really understand i believe everyone's positions here in this case i'm going to try to question what is your evidence the case law statutory law department largely recognized pride comes from the idea of the list act and or the tribes have been recognized by congress or that not have been recognized by the united states in some other manner  india tries so there is there was the concept of recognized tribes at that point in time largely that had a reference is now are to the list act itself that that's where we talk about that  are not the recognized governing bodies when you typed in its response brief the united states actually cited one of the cases that we had to leave on the cutting room floor in our brief opening brief the nd box case election worker case and the the grass rolls which are a circuit cases and in both those they're talking the core point is what is a recognized governing body of an indian tribe that is the core of those cases and there was a year we know what they're referring to they're referring to those five hundred and seventy four dollars tribes and so that's that's they're referring to the sovereign tribes in the final point i want to make it was the general structure  five is all four sovereigns every single other entity there is a sovereign and that is what how congress structured this act and used the phrase recognized governing body trying to reference behalf of united states may it please the court the is d a definition of indian tribe expressly includes and sees and uses it and sees specific language statutes are not self defeating a statute should not be read to include an c s and then fact that they didn't just added any and seeds but also added that additional phrase established pursuant to you means that this wasn't just some kind of misunderstanding about what and cs are it's not like they were just kind of throwing the kitchen sink at anything that could possibly exist in alaska this reflects an actual understanding of why planes are there special corporations that are established it's pursuant to federal law the federal law does not itself establish now in their actions set out as alaska corporations so i think the also used for this this concept is it's kind of a senior hackett's the idea is to use the language of some of the early one thousand eight hundred dollars supreme court cases that indian tribes are those kind of domestic dependency chance that the federal government is recognizing or acknowledging their sovereign status that in that we comes with that is books forming a government to government relationship and also having this kind of obligation to provide special services to them and we say in our brief several cases going back to the early which made clear that they were looking at whether there's a history of a political relationships or a recently formed were profit corporation under alaska state law just couldn't have that kind of history but it just might and there may also just be a text will answer your question which is if you just parse the phrase to be eligible for these special programs and services provided to indians because of their status as in yes it's hard to understand how these corporations could be eligible because unlike every other listed entity and that last entity which president knew was on by indians might not always be on but unions were is everything else like a trial although it may have some kind of legal status is also just a group of indians who are eligible to receive those kinds of services in relief so i think that's i think you would or political status is just about eligible for programs and services and given that they just said we said these things in this statute why wouldn't have been perfectly sensible for an awful lot of members included and steve's kind of as a hedge in case congress by statute would leader recognize and c s i think there are two responses the st is just although of course congress can pass statutes that recognized tribes there is still a kind of conception of what recognition counts as and although i think the plaintiffs have suggested that not on the margins there is some complexity or maybe some disagreement so it kind of whined about exactly what is or could be recognized has never even come close to something like an a list essentially what they were trying to do is they were trying to say look there are things that count as indian tribes for different purposes and his answer is our indian tribes under is mind you a position that obviously the plane just thank you seem correct that we want to make sure everyone knows referring two certainly the leader federal register news has many answers come on and then go off they start to make clear look we're including them for limited purposes then they take them off easy we're ticking them off because it was essentially causing the very kind of confusion that we're talking about now but it's not  think that's not how recognition had typically been understood and i mean i just want to point out lots of congressional statutes are complex or deal with kind of mysterious of the law and you know the general rule against reading a statute doesn't know any i don't think it's only limited to statutes that are kind of intuitive or obvious or ever only know what's going on in the statute i think we generally understand that congress knows what it's doing when it passes a law and we kind of beat that tax based on the actual meaning of the tax without evidence that congress may have known every little kind of jot and tittle and concept but here i do think that the plain tax when it says to be eligible for services because of their status as indians i think that is a reference to the groups of indians that perceive them rather than to these artificial legal entities that at bask in the subsequent years provide services but don't actually receive services from the definition but i think there are you know what both sides are claiming taxed but who sent the most fair way of thinking about this carries is that and your friends on the other side have a pretty powerful on that we don't lightly presume completely bizarre grammatical constructions where you know one cause modifies everything at the beginning and everything at the construction of the statute we offer two ways of reading the eligibility clause and one way to read the eligibility clause completely avoids the grammatical prop if you read the eligibility clause in its ordinary meaning not a term of art reference to recognitions and sovereign but if you read it instead and i think this idea was embedded in some of judgment that's questions if you read it instead as simply a recognition or eligibility for special programs made available only to native americans if that's the way you read it which i think is it's ordinary meaning then you don't have to choose there's no grammatical problem that you can read the ordinary meaning of the eligibility clus to modif and seize and agencies readily satisfy it because they are eligible for special programs they've been recognized as such from the federal government going all the way back to the settlement act itself in one thousand nine hundred and seventy one they have been recognized you see at least one clear example where congress used in eligibility clauses that looks exactly like is dia's to talk about eligibility for special programs in the context of a tribe that express we did not want to make a federally recognized tribes or sovereign hurts us so i have my nd answer to you but i do want to make clear that the virtue of our argument that read the eligibility clause in its ordinary meaning and see satisfy it the virtue of that is there's no grammatical problem at all now can i get around to you and take let me just interrupt and say but doesn't that interpretation make the eligibility clause almost surplusage i mean what does it clause is sure you start with the you know the series distribution you can examine think anybody thinks that modifies only the last fantasy but you only have it modify those terms that it usefully or meaning modifies and if you get to a point where it would just modify the term in a way that would allow you to get a subset of those nouns but would completely oust the noun from the statute even though congress expressly includ if that gets you to a point where you're going to oust a phrase that congress expressly to the statute then i think that clause yields so it's a the long answer question is if you have an application of the series modif candidate carries the day and i think that basic statutory principle is profoundly buttressed by the legislative history not everybody looks at it i realize but the drafting history is very powerful here because there's been as has been alluded to the eligibility clause was in the statute modify all the other nouns including alaska native villages at the point that congress added the a n c as to the statute and one other piece of context to evidence and again not everybody likes to look at house reports but there is a house report that buttresses that accompanies the addition of that language the government sites and on page thirty one of its brief and what with the house thought it was doing and it stated very matter of fact lee is adding a n c's to the definition of an indian tribe it didn't say it was c's status would be if someone were applying it language to them so just what i'd like to beg to differ and i really think you know there are two kinds of federal statutes that address indian tribes in some loose sense and some of them that are about providing programs and services to native americans and some of them are about more sovereign matters and i don't think you can just mission mass those together i mean that alaska federation made us meet this creep i think it's unless i'm wrong please tell me my research some of them exist and the only time this phraseology was useless for terminations x and i think that's what i'm trying you know i feel like i need to look at bad and not look at the sort of he will say mishmash and statute obligation to provide services and programs that depended nation it's terminated both sure and i mean you know and i suppose if you're going to terminate sovereignty you terminate an obligation you that but when you come and you have a statute that's about something else which is not about sovereignty at all and you see that reference to the banks the question of whether it's was about sovereignty or not and so you think you think if they were meant something that didn't include the political relationship that really is different crazy but here's here's the other part of my answer you just notice that the big thing i think with all due respect your question misses is the big of it is happens in and seventy one congress creates these new novel hybrid organizations that they know are going to play a very important role in deliberate programs and services to alaska native delivering but not receiving i mean that's why that's why i can imagine why congress was confused here but as i read that language is talking about the tribes mean for services and programs provided by the united states to them and their members not just that they are eligible to sign a contract to deliver these services to indians but with respect under is the this is very important  isn't any question that the a n c he's are the tribe that receives the fun they are the tribe that is all they have to prove i mean do you have this will be very helpful to me is there something you can point me to that says the c received not just to administer it to someone else but receive for itself and its members which i guess would be shareable there's programs or services from the us government does it get health care services does it get and it was either a compact were a contract with the united states government to provide the services through to native americans not to themselves but to the native americans and they don't feel they in their members provide services to someone else and being someone who's eligible to receive to do both both receive those services and you know what let's get out the middle person we will deliver it to our people with all due respect i mean the statute doesn't say or i guess if i'm a subcontractor providing vaccines to the local community it doesn't mean that i am eligible for that maxine myself it just means i've been hired as an arm of the federal government to give this to other people here those other people are people of the status of indians but it doesn't mean i'm eligible to receive it myself you had a vaccine that was only for health care workers and in the fire and not health care workers but really good should not be immersed to administer it to help provide this program or service to help your work it would not mean that the contractor is itself in this respect and i think if i mean it's i think it's helpful if you read the statute i think even under my friends on the other sites position which is recognized clause is modifying not the recipients it's recognizing any indian tribe band nation or other other group community including the village or the village corporation or the region corporation all of the relevant programs all of the relevant special programs and benefits especially if you understand the context of is the which is they're essentially kind of moving from the federal government providing all the benefits to the native americans directly and they're trying to involve the tribal entities as a middle person so i think if you understand that context it's clear that they're not talking about not just and sees but the tribe or you these other groups being the ultimate recipient of the shot in the arm of the vaccine they're saying in the context where previously the federal government would do the vaccinations themselves through the indian health service which they had  those are all entities those are all groups then i think you read the whole phrase which is recognized as eligible i think you do essentially say recognizes eligible as middle people because that's the role under these programs all of the entities perform and then you keep reading and it says for the special programs and services provided by the united states indians present their status as indians so the rest of the clauses talking about the helps to take a step back because we know from the house report we know from the drafting history that congress thought that it was including and seizing the statute and it seems to me there's two past that result either thought that because they simply read the eligibility clause as plain english and said yeah the agency satisfied we know that we just created them and we just created them under the indian commerce clause and we gave them all sorts of landed all sorts of money that were available to native american entities so if you read it and it's plain language it seems like the most obvious thing in the world that congress thought yeah of course the agencies which we just added are not excluded by the eligibility clause inversely you can read it in this term of our way that says yeah that's sovereignty and say the word sovereign certainly doesn't cross reference the list act which is a pass for twenty years but if you want to read it that government like services that in the lower forty eight dollars would be performed by tribes rights like the tribal equivalent of h h s and recognition seems to have been much less clear at the time than it is now so why isn't the solution to what is the solution to my problem  you know which which can and do i offend is to say everything hangs together because even though it turns out a n c zwar recognized a sovereign that was an open question at the time so your honor st of all to be clear if you can look at all of the legislative history you have to confront the fact not looking at legislati special entities and federally dictated state chartered corporations now i don't think anybody is going to tell you that if aig a newly created novel enterprise is at bottom a state corporation but the voting patterns of which are dictated by federal law is sovereign and i just i mean we're not was for i mean there's a whole line of  amtrak is sovereign or not structured as a corporation but if you're see other than just katz's which i think buttresses my point is that they knew they were creating these new corporations as something novel they were in addition to the alaskan native villages and they understood those were sovereign and so they created a new novel thing that they understand is going to overlap with them and our corporate entities i just think it it really beggars belief that they really thought those were soccer and here's the other thing cats is if you're going to get any sort of kind of meaningful sort of consistent interpretation of the statutes you do have to realize that over time congress keeps on using the is the definition one after all of this is settled one after nobody thinks the a n c is can be truly sovereign it keeps on th circuit's position which is the circuit where all of these tribes are located but in addition if you really see this like we cite this two thousand eight hundred statute the bio mass demonstration amendment it may not be the most important statute in this whole sort of corpus of statutes but it's crystal clear congress wants to provide these demonstration projects to federally recognized tribes and seeds and it does it using  because my friend brought it up and i do think it's important not to misunderstand that act the nine hundred and ninety seven act is doing something that is important actually confirms our position but there's not support the  to organization is providing services for members of multiple tribes it has to get the assent of those all of those tribal entities so what happened right before nine hundred and ninety seven wasn't just like a directly in anchorage and with syria all sorts of natives from all sorts of different tribes was handed over to syria to run and the question that arose was wow there's like native americans who went to one hundred different villages and regional corporations that are served by this entity to siri really have to get the approval of two hundred different tribes and a n c it's and that was what the litigation in that one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven case was about congress passed a statute that said essentially this the silly like the silly specific legislation you don't need to get the approval of all the villages and regional corporations and village corporations and the important part of that is congress itself that waive the requirement to get the approval of the a n c as themselves and you only need their approval under the statute if they are as businesses business concerns some of them so some of them may have been your honor and i don't think there's anything that express leads but the same thing is true of the lower forty eight tribal corporations as a tribal government no one thinks they can act no no but i mean this whether the folks who are seeking money here could also and it's sort of different uses of money i'm just asking whether any could have very aware if you're aware any of your clients have corporation whether lower forty eight dollars or an alaskan affiliated think if i could just maybe finish on this point though the one thing i think is crystal clear is you know mr continuity right my friend may be right that  you don't know exactly how the funds are going to be allocated your if we loose but i do think in the a f n brief i think there's a nice job of making this one given the reality on the ground given the reality that lots and lots of people in anchorage for example who are native americans are getting their medical services through sciri that lots of individuals in other regions are getting their housing used they're a little complicated part of this population but one big important part of them is employees and so the lower forty eight tribes can count all of their employees in the tribal headquarters and i believe they can count even the ones in the casino those all count as their employees now the alaskan native villages because they rely on the regional and cs and the village and sees the delivery of a lot of services and not because they're lazy or they're weird but because that's the way congress set it up in alaska in one thousand nine hundred and one they had very few employees their budgets are much smaller than analogous lower forty eight dollars friday and that's because a bunch of the employees that are discharging that kind of roles that lower forty eight dollars tribes discharge in alaska are situated in the a n c s a lot of the budget for some of that is situated in the a n c s so if you say they're not you are not they are not included in the statute you will systematically excuse undercount alaska underfund alaska which presumably explains why the delegation is here where the alaskan federation of natives that provides benefits to native americans who are not the member of any village and that i think is particularly true you know it may not be true sort of very much every regional corporation but as a population matter i think it is it is it is very true because a disproportionate number of services are provided by siri to individuals in the anchorage area  that's where the population is and a disproportionate number of the native americans in anchorage don't have a village tribal affiliation so there really is you know from a population standpoint  billings they're not members of a native village they may be shareholders of either siri or one of the other regional corporations they may even and this is where it gets a little complicated but this is where it is the same as the lower forty eight you know the possibility that some of the series organizations are providing services to a member of the security tribe who happens to be up in anchorage but that also happens in the lower forty eight too so i don't think anything turns on that but in terms of a unique undercounting problem statutory entity and a condition attached to that any because of the end of the condition isn't satisfied you would have circles it in that is simply not how surplusage is understood mr clement mentioned you know many statutes si name a and c is those statutes actually prove our point because many of those statutes clearly do not apply to a n c they only a sovereign governments of give a couple of examples law enforcement statutes like the missing americans alert act twenty five mentioned them without an eligible because it always states several examples in our reply brief congress knows how to how to do this the legislative history does not help on the surplusage argument at all all congress did was bring to the same baseline put them on the same footing as all the other listed entities in the statute which are subject to the algae because we can psychoanalyze congress there may be disputes as to what it was in its mind but there is no dispute as to the text con ss placed the and sees before they'll jubilee clause and as i said earlier it would be passing strange for the one entity that congress that julie stated could be nominated within twenty years for congress not to ply the dynamic principle of the eligible because to those to those entities the questions about the this stuart understanding i think are exactly on point st a judgement that your questions yes the eligibility language is the mirror what was used in the terminations statutes it was clearly understood to apply to tribal status the term that the agencies ignore is that the term at the end of it because of one's status as indians one was eligible for programs and services that was understood to mean that if you had tribal status the trust responsibility attached you are eligible for the full panoply of programs and services that the government has to talking about the interior expressly referencing the terminations statute said no we should use this formulation it had a well understood meaning and judge kansas is exactly right at that time it is a historical for the united states to look back with hindsight  state of flux congress itself the joint conference report we cite from one thousand and seventy one said we're creating these institutions we honestly have a lot disagreements and understanding about what the exact nature of these institutions are we're going to push this down the recognize try to mean something recognize members of tribes mean something and as he discusses go back and what we were initially starting with is this idea that they have this trust responsibility to these specific native american people and his native americans that have entered into treaties with the united states the tribes entered into the tree the membership of the tribe has the united states has a trust responsibility to members of th obviously we all respect mr clement but he really makes a huge mistake here is to assert that we should interpret the statute based upon race and indian definition is not based on race it is based upon your i'm a terms well no we disagree with what we've got is yet the treasury department developed criteria for how it would allocate money but for every tribe and over two hundred dollars tribes in alaska every tried every member who is a member of that tribe yes there was just an allocation for that member every single one of them were issued because there's fewer ways if i understand the system and maybe i don't there was an concerns about that but we also mr commence argument is dramatically over capped because it would bring all those large multinational corporation employees within that count so yeah this is not this is alaska natives for indian was no they're not because we're using the term to mean people who are have the political relationship with united states if they have that political relationship then their regional or their core the hybrid got money more them because they have that political relationship with united states and that's where we can give money united states can't give money based on the racial categories can only do it based on political relationship so if those people who might not be a mole went and got involved they would then be counted but many of them are not involved and we have the same thing in the lower forty eight dollars where there are many indians  indian blood who are not enrolled in a tribe and that's not different than it is in alaska and so there is an undercount in that way as well for all of the tribes so the allocation formula that was what the united states came up with