plan for public employees in this case originally challenge many of those provisions the cases whittled down to a single issue the issue that we sometimes refer to as the six percent diversion issue argument is the money that's already contributed to the individual health stays in when people retire what's been in the individual accounts still subject to money matching option but it's relies on its unilateral contracts and if you recall when we all learn you know back if i promise you fifty dollars to cross the the golden gate bridge i can't wait for you're halfway across and change my promise that hasn't the strike litigation resolved this issue the only issue before the chorus the court is what happens to the obligation that the members have to place the six percent of their salary in the member account  when he said isn't the real question here what are the terms of the contract we agree with appellants that hers is a contractual nature there's absolutely no space between us on that issue the issue however is what's in the contract and that's it seems to be where we disagree now the district court went through the proper federal court analysis looking to see whether there's a substantial impairment of the federal contract clause it looked exactly at the terms of the statute themselves what was in the statute it looked at this to actually to see if there was a clear and unequivocal expression that was going to bind the government to contractual terms with the person members it also took into account the fact that the contract clause never operates to bar a prospective operating legislative and in other words the contract clause only express it is only applicable if a later legislative an act that operates retrospective and we don't believe reform litigation operates in that matter for the very reason i just judge silberman mentioned a few moments ago there is absolutely nothing in the member accounts that gets taken out of those accounts after the reform legislation takes effect the accounts are s there they're still earning interest they're still earning money for the person members the only difference is that after the reform legislation takes effect the six percent obligation to contribute six percent of income goes into a different that is the only difference difference that is a future benefit for future work that has not yet occurred that's the other half of the equation that mr hartman seems to be leaving out of his analysis he was talking about future benefits but he never actually discussed are those benefits for pas or are they for future work in his discussion of the keating case it's critical to note that the benefits that were being discussed by the court in keeping with the benefit to be able to withdraw early monies that have been put into these retirement accounts for the nevada retirement system those are benefits based on past work it was work these individuals had done they had put their money into these accounts and at the time they contract to be members in the data they were told you could take the money out early state step and took that benefit away that is completely different than what's going on regarding the six percent issue before the court today i should also note regarding heating that the issue before the keating court is certainly not what is the contract sheet in court rather think is that heating did exactly what my strip arts are supposed to do they're supposed to defer to the highest state or in the state when the state court is reviewing the terms of the state's special ed contract under the state close if not the same as the federal contract was analysis and if the term and that there is absolutely no contractual terms in this provision in the six percent provision that would that give the person members a perpetual right place six percent obligation into the member a half simply wasn't there that the district court looked at the same provision in this case the district court's decision as i said earlier came out the or struck district court ended up in exactly the same place said there is no perspective language there's no retrospective language rather that would affect the rights that were held by the person members for that we reason we believe the district hardest correct so turning to the statute that issue here it's clear that language in the statute in the in the member count statute doesn't evince any intention create a future right for future benefits for future work happened hasn't been accomplished and there is no text in the statute saying that those of the six percent issue your first benefits can never be taxed now or henceforth well later the state legislature attempted to change that promise that was a promise for future benefits based on past were as completely different from the situation here there was winstar the question again before the court never was what is the contract the question winstar was whether the federal government having entered into an express agreement with savings and  reached that agreement was then able to use state sovereignty to defend against a breach of contract well that's certainly not the situation before the horse and because the court in winstar never had to determine what the contract was whatever the question was and when starr doesn't directly fair on the question here what does baron winstar however is the idea of the under state ability doctrine which holds that if the government is going to take on new obligations in public contracts those obligations have to be clear in the terms of contract and that's exactly what the amtrak national road passenger perforation that the terms of the statutory contract have to be clear and unequivocal expressed in the legislation itself there's no distance between those two pronouncements and frankly the parker court in the first circuit made that connection it understood that there is a connection between the amtrak case and a connection between the  but again the issue is what's the contract and we believe when you take a look at the rights of the legislation that's for or if you look at the specific contract terms that issue there simply is no promise that mr hartman seems to find her perpetual right with six percent obligation into the number of houses isn't there it's not a question of putting in an extra promise saying i will break my promise the question is what's the promise in the first place of promises not there and with that unless you change in the state of not know was the change for future service which converted an employee contribution to an employer contribution and took away the right food with her of those funds for future service