Okay, thank you.
The other question or concern I arrive at is this. Originally I thought Mr. Comartin was trying to address an issue that was retroactive. It's clear to me now that the amendment actually moves forward. If it were retroactive and we were trying to address issues that because new legislation is enacted someone who may have fallen under the existing legislation would need to be grandfathered or whatever the case may be, to make the exception based on retroactivity.... I don't know how we could support both of these pieces as an amendment, because it actually creates a loophole moving forward. That's where it is inconsistent with the bill and probably why we shouldn't be dealing with it.