I guess I'm hearing that, if you're going to have two tiers, the ultimate question is who's going to pay for the upside in the cost. I have a sense that ultimately, if it's not going to be the taxpayer, it's going to be somebody very close, because if it gets very broad it's going to be passed on to the consumer and, ultimately, that will perhaps end up in the taxpayer's realm.
We had some testimony that said the person who handles the product should be primarily responsible and insured because they have the care and handling of the product. When you start moving away from that principle, there may be less care in the handler. So they're opposed to broadening the coverage beyond the person who handles and carries. What's your thought about that?
Second, there was some testimony that rail companies, which are insured as much as they can be, charge premiums or extra costs depending on the type of goods the customers caused the rail to carry. So they're already paying an amount to offset the cost of insurance and they think it's inappropriate to include them in yet additional insurance. What do you have to say about that?