You don't have to put it in, but it would include it, so that it would avoid the awful spectre of the courts each and every time you needed to collect from a railroad company, and we know how litigious they can be.
So I welcome that amendment. It seems to me to be a sensible solution to the problem.
There are other amendments that you have raised that I also find very sensible. Any time there is vagueness in the law, the big parties tend to use that vagueness against you. So the operational term, I agree, should be dropped.
This has been asked of you a couple of times, but I'll ask you a third time: is the notion of being able to put into your service level agreements a dispute resolution mechanism the most important of these changes, if you had to order them?