I'm sorry. I got a little confused by Mr. Moffet's explanation. He's talking about this being more restrictive than the current interpretation of the bill as far as “cumulative effect” goes. I thought this would be specific enough.
However, Mr. Moffet, what you're telling this committee is that the non-definition, if you will, would speak to the evolution of the way this could be interpreted in the scientific community going forward. Am I hearing from you that by defining this, we are restricting the use of what “cumulative effect” will mean?