your question i right track wrong hold it in something confuse me maybe you can help me as i understand it some of the revenues come from the leases of lands that come from the trust properties and i correct  think you would be asking us vendors create another case of first impression relative to that issue and how it impacts on tax payers jurisdiction i guess is that correct well we also have a tax i trust  well the next issue and i understand what you thought you know i i have to think a little more about this question of the parallel state tax very standing which is the federal taxpayer standing in the little boy case there's no one that i'm from trying to sort out when the settlement was made truck on the alleged breach of trust it is my understanding that there was a a bond public bonds were issued to finance the settlement executor act yes that's correct and then somehow those bonds would be paid stairs and that was supposed to tighten up back their portion of the back revenues from nineteen eighty through ninety ninety one and that those were trust money money the federal government would be actually spending money for probably for some come program that hasn't been having a greater impact on some states rather than other say that program be challenged on them on the grounds that whether or not i'm directly impacted by that by the office of homeland affairs with regard to the office of the mine affairs we believe that the district court was correct in determining that it was a political question as to whether  so the court concluded under that kind of the situation you could apply the rational basis test on the exclusion of hawaii is from the regulation however the court went on to discuss history of native hawaiian and and the fact that native hawaiians and their history and their treatment by the united states is totally unique and they have not been able to  they had treaties of the united states of america between eighteen twenty and eighteen east so for a period of sixty years the ho ho mayans were recognized as subjects of an independent sovereign nation an ongoing process pursuant to the apology resolution which we are congress called upon the president of the united states of america and nine hundred ninety three and the state of hawaii to commence reconciliation effort and there is i think some of what you're saying involved in this situation and i think going back to kind of some of the earlier questions the the tech there standing what intertwined with what congress does and so another word ohio administers for instance a native hawaiian revolving loan find a case that is a program that is passed by congress congress pas good question and i i guess i would have to say that that would still be nontraditional at the present time don't tell me any challenge to any act whether it's by whether it's a state actor whether it's an act of congress that have a special process is ongoing we are going on a journey we have an office it's just been created as a department of interior we have congress taking particular steps right now moving in that direction and  we criticize the department of interior for doing nothing a native hawaiian and for not doing the kind of research that they would or normally do for native americans to make some determination heard i read your argument i looked into it and i seem to get the same impression now that i did in your brief it seems as though when we deal with sovereigns within the united states the indian issues some of the issues we've had in alaska they all seem to be different are you saying the whole why are you going to progress a transition and congress is not yet crossed that line where we have maybe was the native americans and the dealings we had with in country of scrutiny and then there's this greater issue about the political question and it seems to me that you know congress that any day can wipe out all sovereignties if they want to and you're saying to somehow if we read this we have found that congress does not want to do that yet to enter into the arena of what is going on between the united states of america and made a point well presented necessarily mean and when we talk about the impact issues that the congress has allowed certain sovereignty things to happen with regard to native hawaiians where that might not apply in indian country because of the unique situation with the white islands in our relationship and were directly walking into that when we start talking about their experiences no question about that more carefully at that october decisions and i'm having great concerns with the way that the government of handling the whole why and question as we had great concerns with union countries we we played i've been playing twenty years with the indian country and i've been quite a little bit with this for twenty years and i have my concern is that overarching issue when you know about the priorities got to be pretty specific i don't know what we did in october tell you the truth but there's got to be some affirmative action some very strong action when we've for years and years given but the standard review turns into a china negative going around and is that enough to breach under what we've said the way you just don't read sovereign immunity which was a few words you've gotta do is very specifically we're doing it this way by doing the standard reviews wri and they know how to do it if they want to do it and politically they haven't gotten as far as i can i mean that would be the that would be the argument which which means then that having failed that having failed to establish native hawaiian and they recognized sovereign plaintiffs relying upon the taxpayer standing not properly bringing in the united states in this case because in the us nor anything the relevant federal law requires the expenditure of the taxpayer dollars in short given that they tack their standing qualifications in the white homes commission act because it is mandated by federal law the terrible part of the theory as well that the terror will require the presence of united states in order to sustain theory of being able to detain under a truck  demanding direct injury caused by the expenditure of taxpayer dollars now purportedly initiated under the organic act by which the territory of whiteness created i say neither of those have any merit has laid for standing because of the reasons given latches issues of the fact that the u s is not it is no longer the trustee and we can go on a lot i think it was thrown as it was put into the complaint as an alternative macca a matter of achieving standing because  beneficiary category and i'm not so sure that the united states as represented by the u s attorney is who that's talking about i believe it's congress i believe that's what makes this a political issue because congress has to all the cases we've heard regarding whites have always talked about the sovereignty of the whole way in people and it's never changed and it seems to me that's still the history now with the so the issue before us is whether