process you don't rewritten the statute in a way that you think is maybe a more reasonable or equitable use of federal dollars but it's it's not what the law says you are i don't think we have rewritten the statute i think it disabilities in accordance with their unique needs in order to ensure that they receive a free appropriate public education as the statute requires no subsection e t provides that the state may not reduce the amount of state financial support for special education and deleted services for children with disabilities or otherwise made available the state is a purely pensive after in the texas especially to cation funding system the state has never reduced any financial support and makes available the exact same amount of financial support every year in texas funding for special education occurs according to a formula data from school districts processes that data under the statutory formula and disperses funding according to whatever that only dictates in others a couple of key points to take away from that process one as i said the state has no discretion it is a purely hazard actor mechanically providing whatever the local school districts asked for based on the inputs that they report to the state second the state contacts and your honor i don't think there is any evidence that that's happening here the local education districts are reporting to the state their needs for special education and we provide family support mentor to that there's never any as i said the state has no discretion there is no statutory cap no limit to the not the state can disperse tax law does not regard the texas does not allow the texas education agency to disregard or quest for a school district now the department claims that we violated subsection e team because in truth two thousand and twelve as we discussed the state's total for capital expenditures went down according to the apartment to reduce my nish support means to decrease actual per i'd like to turn to the second independent reason for setting aside the secretary's final decision the supreme court just held repeatedly that the federal government cannot enforce a range conditions if the court holds that the department's view of the statute is reasonable then that would only establish that both parties have put forward reasonable constructions of subsection eighteen in that case the department cannot withhold idea funding simply because it disagrees with the state's reasonable interpretation that's the holding pen purse case and the pollington central case which requires statutory conditions to be ambiguous and require grant programs to put states and clear notice of their conditions for the reasons we discussed earlier the state's view of subsection eighteen is that the minimum reasonable there's a few items here i think are worth keeping in mind one is i that there were there were no children with me gender this statute in the entire state that the state still would not be able to reduce its funding by one dollar that's right your honor and congress has provided for  s and that is in texas and its briefing is conflating the free appropriate public education condition which is a separate condition from the maintenance of statement itself support provision and there is a provision in the meeting in spite of the financial support requirement that states that the state can apply for a waiver on the basis that it provides a free appropriate public education to every child in the state so if there is no exception for needing fewer services what texas is doing is saying the students in our state don't need as many such services but that would give states the opportunity to circumvent the requirement that they maintain financial support if they were allowed to just reduce services and save the earth this is the same that the words amount  financial are ignored by taxes here and in order to obtain a waiver they would have had to prove his clear and convincing evidence and comply with the secretary's regulations on that and they didn't even burdensome expensive process if we were to apply for a waiver every time the department the four of you have the statute we think is incorrect we think that it's a harmful crest and we didn't it was appropriate to fly for a waiver in this case when our view of the statute is reasonable relevance the same is true of the davis case as well as the forest grove case sound like an economic decision not to apply for waivers but litigation is less expensive than your honor we thought we didn't think this needed to come to litigation as the record indicates we're here to talk you were right about an interpretation of the statute and the department thinks it's right so your honor you didn't take that might come to litigation your honor we didn't initiate this the department issued a notice that it was withholding the funding only of that state it was obvious that we needed to challenge through the administrative process the department's decision here as being a lawful that's when we went into the administrative proceedings we wish that we mourn litigation we wish that apartment would accept our view of the stash is at a minimum reasonable because we believe