You're assuming that the same people are going to be involved on Tuesday who were involved last Sunday, and that's just an improper assumption. It's not a static industry, number one. In fact, we're reading all the time about changes—potential consolidations, investment decisions, bankruptcies, receiverships. It's an industry that is in flux, and this legislation is going to last for three plus three years, potentially. So six years from now, I suspect, you'll be dealing with all kinds of different people who may have, today, relatively no knowledge of the industry. I don't think that's a particularly helpful way of approaching legislative definition, to assume that those who will use the legislation, because they're in the business, know what it means. It hasn't been in the area of customs since we had our first customs act and our first customs tariff. It's simply not the case.
For example, we've had disputes about tariff classification, not to get too mundane, over all kinds of different products, and I'm sure Mr. Feldman has had experiences in his country as well. The people who bring appeals to ascertain the meaning of those words, for purposes of taxation, have been in the business for decades. So it's not a proper way of approaching it, from a legalistic point of view.