It is not a waiver, Mr. Burkes. It is an exemption. It is an exemption that has the effect of law.

I said hypothetically.

Did any other railroads support the exemption?

But KCS has never requested that they be not considered because of their smaller size?

This is my last question.

I am trying to find out the effect. The plan you said is a good idea, but a good idea that is not enforceable is not necessarily a good idea if it cannot be enforced.

The agency has spoken pretty clearly. They are very inhospitable to mergers.

This Subcommittee is going to be aggressive in making sure that we try and create circumstances that lead to more competition, not less.

We have to have a competitive society.

If that continues, we are going to have more regulation.

If you do not have competition, you have to have regulation, which is my main point.

That certainly changes the burden of proof, though, does it not?

What in the new rules guarantee that we are going to have the same result in a future merger, though?

We want to stay in touch with the Board on this decision and work with you on future things.

But you may have one in mind.

Merci, Monsieur Tellier. It is nice to hear someone who does not have an accent testify.

pass legislation such as S. 1103 that would promote the long-term health of the nation's railroads by allowing free-market forces to operate in a truly competitive manner.

I want to thank the panel.