This is to Mr. Feldman.
Mr. Julian suggested there's an opportunity for a double taxation in reference to those that chose the EDC provisions over those that didn't. He suggested that because this piece of legislation lacks a particular reference to remission--I think that's the word he used--those who did not choose the EDC route would get 100% and remit approximately 18%; whereas the ones who chose EDC would receive 82%. Mr. Julian has suggested that because there is an omission in this legislation, there is an opportunity for those who chose the EDC route to be charged an additional 18%. Where specifically is that omission or that area of ambiguity, and how would you fix it?