Madame, I understand your point. It still deals with the list of witnesses. The change is that rather than our continuing to try to squeeze these witnesses out, maybe we'd better check with the Speaker first for any consideration before we actually go that far. So it somewhat limits what your original proposal is. It still may occur that we would try to schedule them after consulting with the Speaker. I would think that would be our....
I raise, sort of as a precedent, the fact that when we debated the original motion, there was an amendment to extend it to all other parties. That's a fairly substantive thing and that was in order.
So as you can see, yes, there could be a lot of differences.
I believe my ruling is correct that we are still dealing with the witnesses and moving that forward. It just happens to be a slightly amended route on how we address some of the problems. It's debatable; it's an amendment. It has to have its own vote. If that vote does not carry, we obviously are still back at your motion as was originally proposed, as you're aware.
Mr. Del Mastro, on debate on this matter, because you can't sever witnesses and speak...but you can speak to this matter for the edification and we will eventually have a vote on the amendment.