i almost wish mr. meltz could join us now from the c.r.s. because mr. perrelli, his testimony seems to be a little different than yours on ts issue of retro activity. the reason why i'm interested in this, i think it is like millions of americans, we want to know who is going to clean this up and how we're going to pay for it and make sure the taxpayer doesn't become the deep pocket on this and that we also don't wait 20 years as we did with the exxon valdizz case. the constitution disfares retro activity, at least five constitutional provision noted above basically make it very hard to go back and do retro activity. so you seem much more confident. >> and i read his testimony and i think it is more consistent and while he starts from the proposition and a quote that the constitution favors retro activity. congress legislates it all the time, particularly in a context wherthere is an important public policy issue. congress is pursuing it in a rational way to try and address potential compensation and cleanup for victims and as the statute that is not pe