. >> that is the pagination given the amendment that is before you today. supervisor chu: 962, is that correct? supervisor chiu: i think it is 96961. >> i apologize, in the amendment before you today, it is on page 30 and 31. supervisor chu: ok, colleagues. looks like what we are looking at, item one does include those sections. item two does have those two sections removed, it looks like. i am imagining your motion is to reassert the same language in section 96961, correct? supervisor kim: yes, that is my motion. just to speak to this motion, this is an issue i have been really thinking about and struggling with over the last couple of weeks as we begin opening of discussions around tax exclusions that were already controversial previously, and after some discussions with some of our companies that do currently benefit from these tax exclusions -- i just have to say i have always been very clear that if we ever reform how we do business tax, that these tax exclusions might not continue, but in conversations i have had, because some of these companies also