the most immediate and tangible exchange, judge's lawyers and clients would have saved and and norma samad of time and expense. i don't know of any studies that have been able to measure, how much time and money is spent in legislative history. i strongly suspect justice scalia was right about this. he supported the proposition that pointing to his time as head of the legal counsel during the ford administration. legislative history was used in practically every case. and justice scalia reported that most of his time was utterly wasted. and this explanation is entirely possible and persuasive, if a statute is on -- is ambiguous it is likely a legislator or the staff -- the ambiguity emerges over the course of time. resolution of the ambiguity, the legislative history is likely to come up with a set. that is a lot of time and energy that is wasted. i think justice scalia was correct about that. recent trends of the legislative process have probably made this problem considerably worse. a bill would be similar to one house of congress, there would be hearings, there would be a markup by the