On the issue of this amendment, I see what Mr. Bagnell is trying to do, but I think we've made the decision to draw the line somewhere. We are all in agreement that there is going to be some line drawn.
Mr. Bagnell's amendment would make this law virtually unenforceable, because if someone is legally engaged in a sexual relationship, that can mean anything, because a sexual relationship is not defined as sexual intercourse. It could mean they have any kind of physical relationship. And these are the types of exploitative relationships we are trying to avoid.
I hear what Mr. Bagnell is saying, but I think this amendment, as worded, goes way beyond even what he had been contemplating. So it's not an amendment we could support.
We have an amendment on the transitional period that protects established relationships, but this would go far beyond that.