That raises another question then. So this amendment that allows small businesses to hire family, that is an exception to the rule. Is that what we did? So the rule is you are not allowed to hire family, or you are not allowed to discriminate against anybody on the basis of family affiliation. I am just wondering if the committee or everybody has considered that, because I can think of other situations other than...I do not know. This is very confusing.

From what I am hearing, from what Ms. Peterson is saying, is that by this amendment, we give an exception to the family so that they can hire their own people, you know, do whatever they want because that is...you know, they are allowed to do that. But that is not allowed everywhere else, and I am not sure if that is the kind of law we have. I guess I am just not understanding the full implication of why...okay, let's go back to...let me put it this way. What are we trying to accomplish with having protection of family affiliation as a prohibitive grounds? Maybe that is a better question. Thank you.