That's correct.
The point I'm making here relates to whether or not the bill is clearly constitutional. That is the criterion the subcommittee is required to apply. I was saying a little earlier that it raises certain questions. However, there is no jurisprudence on which I can rely to say that, in such a case, this is what the committee should or should not do. I have identified several issues, but I also pointed out that the principle underlying the bill is not unconstitutional. I believe the issues or concerns that I raised could be reviewed as part of the legislative process. The committee's role is now to decide whether it's unconstitutional—yes or no.