cases with respect to determining whether or not congress intended to confer several right however the second prong and the implied right of action cases i will quote as a secondary determination of whether or not congress to guarantee certainty to the parents in terms of future payments and i think that the issue in this case you know whether or not the main events were determined and according to the statute in accordance with the statute and that is something that cannot be just cannot be determined by the agreement itself number one and number two you're not challenging the amount of the payment amount that was sent forth in the agreement a determination that it's my way the statutory right to have your payment determine individually we're not challenging we're not challenging whether or not  state violated the agreements a particular amount and we're not asking the court to decide whether or not the green whether or not the amount the parents are receiving is in accord with their agreement what we're saying is that the regulations possibly have the claim that you say here is turning and not have a claim directly under the agreements you know the parents have agreed to new numbers there's no breach of agreement claim and that  essence the there is the question of whether or not the state is actually breached breached their agreement but i can i think that the issue really is whether or not whether or not the state the families from contesting the state in a straight if you're in any aspect with respect back to the reduction so not only the the the reduction itself but families were not allowed to actually go back and try to renegotiate the amount to certainly can go into state court to try to enforce their agreement but i think that the two problems with that in terms of dealing with the statute that congress had the intent state regulation after i say let's actually prohibits them from going back and renegotiating their payment amounts based on any change of circumstances that may have resulted from the regulation the regulation that is currently the effect morning with the discussion of the of the merits issues because i think they provide important background and context for what oregon did in fire did it which i which i believe might be helpful to the court as i noted there are two to two merits issues whether the through action violated title story and whether it was implemented and cordons with due process i proposed to address those in that order first whether the benefit reduction violated title for that very question turns mediately to whether the reduction was authorized by the foster care maintenance cap under section six seventy one or six seventy three eighty three that provision sets forth the standards that are supposed to be applied when entering into an adoption assistance the the payment doesn't exceed what would have been available in foster care at the time when the agreement is executed the provisions been complied with and it has no further application i don't think that that construction would give due respect to the provision of the foster care kept it up twice if it's just a payment cannot exceed the foster care means payments that would have been paid during the period if the child had been in foster care i think itself to be required to make individual determinations and so i don't know i look at the regulations it's the foster care care maintenance payment which would have been paid during the period if the child with respect to whom the adoption  child does pay the child i think that the and of course that's exactly the argument the point is to make that if the foster care cap is going to be responsive well i think it's not persuasive because it's extremely impractical dealing with here are largely to to be are largely left to the discretion of the implementing states so i think that there's some important discretion there that needs to be taken into consideration and i think there's also  it's important to recognize that oregon's interpretation of the cap is being properly implemented based on and across the board reduction in foster care maintenance by similar across the board action adoption assistance it's really and why isn't factor so nice and well it's not persuasive because it would be it would expect what it would do is it would have to actively lock in not only the adoption assistance payments but it would also lock in foster care payments because it's a state would be unable to make discretionary adjustments to the foster care program because it would be impractical and ultimately too expensive to implement the foster care cap in sight  in view of the reduction in foster care maintenance it would be impractical to to ensure compliance with the with the doctor assistance act you would need to organs got thousands of the alchemists agreements and that pales i'm sure in comparison to bigger states if we were to it's in oregon each time we wanted to make it a discretionary adjustment to foster care payments which is in fact a rare event these are important programs that are not touched unless many high priorit are reached before them but if you wanted to reach foster care i need to provide go through thousands of individual adoption assistance agreements to determine on a case by case basis whether it across the board changes afterwards if you read the statute the way it's written but maybe con didn't intend to permit that and that construction though would mean that you couldn't make cross border actions in foster care either as a practical matter and wouldn't that be logical given that at least for adoption agreements you supposed to negotiate those individual unit or binding agreements and i think that i do understand the court's point but the point i'm trying to make is that if you can't make the construction that the foster care cap that's the foster care cap by the way it is for the state to administer is a directive to the state that in no case shall the state make a payment that exceeds what would have been paid in boston care so the state has to figure out how to administer that and the actual adoptive mom well just to determine again to determine whether each individual was implicated by the foster care cap on a case by case basis would just be practically prohibited because that's what the statute requires then and that will be the issue i would suggest that will be the issue when plaintiffs bring their actions on their agreements and state court organs defense will be that reduction in foster care for you as you say when it comes up for individual consideration i'll be looking at this i don't think they're saying go look at well the for the plaintiffs claim in their in their state court action will be that there should not have statute but from the argument that it's not practical otherwise xterm from our what we think is a thorough hate of construction if that provision is entitle to deference and also that's supported by health and human services binding agreement entered into between the government and its citizens well it would seem it would seem to me that if the contract incorporates a term of the statute and the statute that the program but but that is the situation that congress created and while congress created a finding agreement if the state gets to decide for itself how to interpret the contract well i don't think i'm not suggesting that the state just perfect the contract any way it wants i think the state is to be subject to scrutiny in state court or perhaps here with respect to how it's construed the contract my my my point is that the state history of the contract the only way that it could practically and that we think of was lawful and and i guess i would also add with respect to whether the production violated title forty the plaintiffs claim that it did but in fact what they're saying is that oregon was overly conservative in it compliance with foster care caps not that it violated the cap and and perhaps if it's true that we were unlawfully conservative in our compliance with the caps it's then it would be true that we violated the agreement but it would not be true that we violated title story well i don't for each so this shall be determined through agreement between the adoptive parents and the amount of the payment so we terminate through agreement however you can't go over the limit well this estate was in fact doing anything with foster care capital is just not paying the money and in fact i suppose that my argument would be that there again the problem is with whether the state has complied with the agreement not with whether complied with the act provided that the state did go through the process the procedures that are mandated by the i think that it did negotiate and of individual adoptions business agreements with each of the families based on their particular circumstances and did make those are really the same issue on a timeline i think the plaintiffs have a pretty good argument if that was the issue in the case that there is a right under title for for each to have the state negotiate those agreements in good faith based on individual circumstances and make them that at least requirement was not part of the statute it was part of the federal regulation state couldn't possibly have any bearing whatsoever on congress intent to provide to make section eighty three available in addition  congress had no idea that if there was going to be a lease requirement when it was adopting the statute it was at the point of such when forced air here by contrast title for self in the statute congress requires that the these started off there is an eleventh amendment community to wait in that circumstance like to make a few points and revile first of all none of the plaintiffs in terms of the facts of the case know the plaintiffs had breached the foster care maintenance cap one of the things to on the age of the child and once families negotiate their adoption assistance agreements they don't necessarily get the maximum pain but secondly there is a whole system especially care rates that are far based on the needs of the child practical to sit down for a government to sit down and negotiate individual contracts based on the individual needs of the child and the individual and individual family circumstances but that's the program they congress created secondly the