Okay, thank you.
Recommendation 10, which I understand is in some sense a non-substantive recommendation, but is a procedural recommendation, states:
Where consensus has emerged around a particular issue during a previous Commission inquiry, in the absence of demonstrated change, such consensus should be taken into account by the Commission, and reflected in the submissions of the parties.
I've read the justice department's—your—response to the commission, and I have to commend it for its thoroughness. I'm just wondering on this issue of the 3% differential whether this particular point, actually a recommendation from the commission itself, loomed large in your thinking. If we are in times that the government considers to be financially straitened times, did the fact that the previous consensus was that there would be no differential weigh extra heavy in your thinking? If this was originally put into a budget bill, I'd like to think that one of the primary motivations for not accepting a recommendation of the commission really was a financial judgment and not a substantively different judgment from the commission.