We would prefer that it be dealt with here and now through an amendment with the committee. We think there's a fairly strong consensus on that issue. It's the kind of direction that really is best coming from the legislators, as opposed to leaving it to a regulatory process.
The third item I mentioned had to do with group FOA. And again, this is a matter not so much of a major impact on the productivity of the system, but it's just basically making sure that if you're going to have a group FOA process, then for heaven's sake, let's make sure it works well.
Our view, when we looked at the legislation, was that it doesn't define what the basic criteria are for who should be a group. That's why we're suggesting that this question that the group should be equal in terms of their interests is good direction for the regulators and for the people who are going to make the detailed rules. That's really what we're suggesting.
As I say, our broad concern with the legislation--and we know there is obviously a dispute with this position--is that we think the current system doesn't work badly. We believe we're continually improving our service. And with all due respect to your comments, I hear them too.
Having said that, the bigger public policy issue for all of us is ensuring that we have the right kind of investment climate going forward, that we can all make the investments necessary to make sure we stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the demand, because it's growing and there is no excess capacity out there any more. We are just a little concerned that if you move the pendulum back the other way and you start creating uncertainty as to what the rates will be or how the system will work, you're going to impact the investment climate, and that's our broader issue.