No, no. It's all good.
There are two caveats to this idea of going through. One is to look at clauses of the bill that don't have amendments to them--to have the committee look at those and pass those they deem worthy of passage. That was my understanding.
The caveat is this. As folks who have been through bill review before know, sometimes if you leave a clause behind while you go ahead and pass other clauses, there are occasions where, when you go back to make an amendment earlier in the bill, the language changes. I just want the committee members to be cognizant of the fact that we may pass clauses that will then have to be looked at by the drafters for discordance of language because of an earlier passage.
The second thing is I want clarity on this. Mr. Anderson talked about moving through to clause 21, where we have an amendment. My understanding is that the idea is not to address any clauses that have amendments attached to them today.