mr. bondurant, you are out of time. why don't you take a minute? >> thank you, your honor.first, the argument that this would be a rewrite of the senate rule is not well taken, unless you're prepared to say to the supreme court we wrote the affordable care act when they suffered some of its provisions. severance and rewrite are two things. severance is a loud. in fact, it's encouraged and lest it is utterly clear that the legislative body would not have chosen a rule without the severance section. secondly, it is not true that the procedural rights do not exist in the legislative context. chopper was the legislative context -- >> it's a case where the court said chopper suffered a result as the statute does not a factor. simply was not a valid statute there at all. >> it is result of the procedure violation. >> you can call a procedural and i recognize the supreme court used the word procedure at least once in that opinion, basically found there was no valid statute, period. >> because there been a violation procedure clause and that was a violation of chadha's right. a pro