On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I didn't mean to ask that question in furtherance of or in consternation about your ruling. The ruling is past; it's gone. But that would mean, then, that if Mr. Comartin's motion is out of order, we are back to Mr. Moore's motion, which is, under G-1, should we have a six-year mandatory minimum? This is what we're talking about now, as I understood it.
May I ask another question just for a point of information?