Okay. I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'll seek clarification, so that way you won't have to go through what you're proposing. Just one moment, everyone.
Ms. Dabrusin has the floor when we come back. After that, it's Mr. Rayes.
Okay, we're back, everybody. My sincere apologies.
I'll tell you what we're trying to do here, Ms. Dabrusin. We're trying to help. You can't amend a subamendment, so we were trying to figure out ways to satisfy your concern. I know all you have is a very simple solution.
There are several ways you can do this, one requiring unanimous consent and so on, but may I suggest we do it this way, as I originally suggested? Why don't we just deal with this subamendment in a total package as is, and then go back? Then you can move your subamendment to take out the word. It's awkward only in the sense that you're voting on the same thing in two different manners, without getting too far into the weeds—maybe it's too late for that now.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the cleanest way to do this is to handle Mr. Champoux's subamendment in total, and then deal with the amendment you wish to propose afterwards.
Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.