wasn't that targeting in the sense that yeah they say we're setting aside a little bit of money for three programs we know there's not enough there for all three programs to be fully funded so why haven't they targeted those three programs to get sliced contrary to their earlier obligations actually the congress did was  there was there was help me with the record here there was care a better and only one other person involved in these equity loans wasn't there i mean it's it was pretty the ones with contracts yes already had contracts in place contracts in place equity loan contracts there and this isn't a we're not talking about it's not a farmers program where there are thousands of people involved across the country this is the equity loans that the congress abrogated care about is the only one you've got the repayment agreement with and you're the one and they're not going to pay you well there's other cases it's hardly like centex where there was a lot of billion for hood uses discretion to fund some of these of decides to do that not really hearing much of a reassuring answer for one for why how we identify what's targeting and what isn't well one of the  third way to look at it that doesn't put the the problem i have is on the one hand you can say to pursue judge raters line of questioning you can say that what congress did was to say with respect to pete carroll who had these this repayment agreement and a contractual right to the two forty one f loans you can say well congress simply by allocating only seventy five million and presumably only twenty five of that to the the contract basically said we're going to let you get the equivalent rough equivalent of these equity loans through the capital loan program but only to the extent of twenty five million dollars and therefore it seems to me if that's right it's no different from canceling let's say a contract for a weapons system and saying well we'll continue the contract but we're going to cut back on the amount you're going to get on the contract by by half or two thirds of clearly the bridge congress can simply modify a contract by that kind of declaration i should caravette up we want to protect care of that and their contract right in it's in in general by saying we're going to substitute a essentially equivalent program and we're going to throw enough money into the pot so that those there new loans that capital loans will be able to be fully funded if congress was not targeting them that's why they weren't targeted it seems to me but then the question is when her decides not to use the full seventy five million for care better but instead to give care but only twenty five million why isn't heard on the hook for effectively breaching rights that caravette ahead under the contract or the equivalent rights that they would have head under the statute that it has been applied in full force the two different ways to look at it one is congress does something which constitutes targeting along the lines the judge hyde exercising its discretion has breached its contract and i'm wondering what happens to this contract are you saying it has not ceased to exist by some act of congress why isn't that targeting or the alternative why isn't the discretion i'm struggling with your answer to judge bryson's question which i haven't understood respected tar i are you telling us that in the weapons systems example or in any other example of a contract the government could always avoid it by having congress in an appropriations bill abrogate contract and then give a little discretion to the agency which the agency would then decline to exercise and sleep so we're out of office any contractor want to get out that's the prescription here and  between the eyes abrogating their repayment agreements they're the ones that lost out on something they thought they had an obligation to receive that's true let me ask you well us on the name of the club let me let me see what the government's position is with respect to an issue that that seems to me to be not so far as i can see very different from this i mean suppose that congress decides that the marine corps is not very good at contracting for weapon systems it's just it's it's watch the army the navy the air force and the marine corps contracting and doesn't like the way the marine corps contracting operation works so they say henceforth no more marine corps contracts now we know that there is one contract in existence which is the us pray contract for the us for  over the arrangements for the continued production of that subject to putting a cap of twenty five million dollars on the probable that the contract was for one hundred million dollars but the army is given authority to spend up to twenty five million dollars does the maker of the spray who has a contract with the marine corps have a claim for breach of contract or would the government be able to successfully to argue that well this is a very large program in which what we've done is to is to change the whole way military contracts are let particularly disperse say there's no more marine corps contracts at all so you have no rights to your original advantages for both sides and there's no real see evidence in the record one way or another that anybody is bargaining for and giving consideration for a modification in a doesn't have any letters saying exchange saying well and then we can pursue this alternative way and that a substitute for your obligations and the government saying yes we'll meet our earlier obligation through this new program there have we're in did you accept the i x the only citation i'd say maybe there's something else in the record but the only citation i could find to the assertion that there was acceptance was to your trial document  is where did congress indicated all that either that it was abrogating your contract by doing away with the equity loan program or substituting something for your project by a seventy five million new capital loan program well i think that i think the indication is the fact that it's all a person act this appropriations act what is the practical when i say practical i really need dollars and cents for all practical purposes the difference between the benefits that you enjoyed under two forty one f and the benefits that you would have enjoyed under a fully funded capital loans program i mean where i'm going with that question is a it seems to be your position now and perhaps it has been all the way through that you were perfectly happy to accept of the capital loans program so long as it was fully funded that is to say all of the properties covered is there in fact no real significant dollar difference between the benefits  we're going to give you five hundred thousand dollar won't tat interest free for ten years then it seems to me in that situation which is analogous to this one we we can essentially cross out the princip know if if the universe were such that you knew that that money would not increase in value at all then there wouldn't be any reduced presence that right on the of the i mean you you'd just  interest which is what it meant for me to ours and let's assume i only have to put aside twenty five thousand dollars which will in interest grow to be a five hundred thousand dollars three paper record years in the future to value what i'm getting if i take the five hundred pounds per shirt loan i did up to twenty five thousand dollars that i have to set aside and there may be one or seventy five thousand dollars is just pure kasten but that's because of the interest rate if the interest rate went down to zero  point and banks just said you can drop your money off but you have been good i think and there were no place you could put the money then the present value of that five hundred thousand dollars would be five hundred thousand dollars agree what yes but of course that's not the case you know what you mean and reason is the nature of the game but the listener miss the man who has five minutes left statute has been anakin and we see that there are seventy five million dollars as long as you commit any amount that's necessary to cover our loans up to seventy five million dollars we're delighted and happy and week sept your position with respect to another when the program is very different the the direct character loans were direct from her with no private lender there was no debt service on the take out equity because any instance of you saying well the equity loans are dead everything's over with and so clearly we're not continuing on with the the contract at all whatever happens from here on else is something very was told that they wouldn't get all of their properties funded your i mean was there some point at which obviously some point before now because they know it now would  was there any finding as to what happened after january twenty fourth one thousand nine hundred seven when this memo was sent to internally to hide as to as to what was the nature of the communication to care about or that would have support you anymore and it supports them and yet things seem to go forward with you giving them some share what they had coming under the repayment program under the guise of this new capital lo pages is a number that kind of explains their program but essentially the flexible subsidy loan program the caravan accepted and this is the only property it's a unique camry at that time period it they're committed rosenbaum you're calling party has given you an opportunity for a battle on the tax and they