Mr. Chairman, with great respect, all of these could be done through two or three separate amendments. They were done as one amendment. The only thing that changes in this motion is that, one, it adds Mr. Zuckerberg to Mr. Chan as a proposed witness, and two, it directs you to find a time during a non-sitting week in March for the meeting, based on Facebook's availability.
There is nothing else in there that is a substantive change from the original motion put forward by Ms. McPherson. Therefore, I disagree entirely with the ruling that you just made, because I could easily take Ms. McPherson's original motion and make smaller amendments to do this. I think that to save time for the committee, it was easier to do it this way. I disagree that there were any changes that were beyond the scope of the original motion or that make great changes.
I could have just proposed to add Mr. Zuckerberg to the original words of Mr. Chan being invited. I could have just proposed to add the time that you would be asked to invite the committee.