To speak on the subamendment, I am going to reference the amendment as well, in the sense that the bill, as currently written, makes the clarification and ensures that dependent contractors are treated as employees, since that is how they are defined in the code.
We can't support the subamendment because we don't think it's necessary and could lead to an inconsistency in how dependent contractors are treated under all other provisions of part I of the code.
Again, I would ask Ryan to see if he agrees with the statement that the bill as currently written makes this clarification and ensures dependent contractors are treated as employees, since it's how they are defined in the code.
I would ask for some comments on the subamendment.