so back in the '70s when arisa was passed and when the cost accounting standards were first put up, arisa and cast were harmonized, in other words, if you had a union welder and they were working in a plant in ohio and they worked that year, under arisa, the company would put into the pension fund the amount of money that would cover their pension in the future. and then cass would -- through the cass system, through the government contracting provision, the company would be repaid for that, reimbursed. what happened in the course of the last 30 years is the congress had made changes to arisa, the most latest being in 2006, but they made a multiple amount of changes and cass never changed. so what you had is a situation in which the firms were required to pay a certain amount and were reimbursed this amount over the long term. >> right. >> so you had in a sense that -- we'll go back to that welder, that welder would work on the line and perhaps 20, 30 years down the road the firms would be reimbursed for this. >> right. >> so what's changed is under the passage of the ppa in 2006, instead

but what it's referring to is essential, an essential part of arisa, the national health service act and the affordable care act. it can't possibly be, even the plaintiffs have an argument that those acts would all fall in their entirety if you took out the minimum coverage provision. as a second example of the same usage by congress, the statute that was before the court, section 801 of title 21, the court said that the regulation of intrastate drug activity, drug traffic, was essential to the regulation of interstate drug activity. again, it is simply not skeeable that congress was saying one is so indispensible to the other the way the united states uses the term here. so indispensible if we can't regulate the interstate traffic either, the whole law criminalizing drug traffic would fall. so i think once you look at the finding for what i believe it says, which is we believe this is a useful part of our regulatory scheme, which congress would think in its own approach would be sufficient -- >> counsel, the problem i have is that you're ignoring the congressional findings and all o