Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to be clear as to what the Senator from Florida is asking. Senator Brownback and I intend to be very brief. Is it the understanding of the Senator from Florida that we can dispose of that very quickly and then go back?

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. I express my appreciation to the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia. One of the most serious environmental problems in our country and in the world is the excessive emissions of carbons into the atmosphere. Senator Brownback and I have worked for a number of years together on a bipartisan basis because we believe it is time for the U.S. Congress to begin moving together on a bipartisan basis to deal with this serious environmental problem. Therefore, the amendment we worked out with Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar sets up what is known as a carbon sequestration program, a program that allows us to store these carbons in trees, in agricultural products, and in the land. Our legislation specifically does two things: It allows the research dollars in the legislation to be used by State forestry programs for carbon sequestration. This allows mobilization of various State forestry programs such as we have in Oregon and other States in this country to seriously attack this carbon problem. Second, our legislation sets up a carbon sequestration demonstration effort which allows private parties to pay farmers and foresters a market-based fee to store carbon and to otherwise reduce net emissions of greenhouse gasses. It would be the first effort to set up a marketplace-oriented system of reducing these carbons. We are not saying tonight, Senator Brownback and I, that carbon sequestration is the be-all and end-all of dealing with the climate change problem. But it can be a significant tool in our toolbox to reduce global warming. I happen to think that carbon sequestration can be a very significant jackhammer for those who are fighting the climate change issue. I conclude by thanking Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar. This is a chance to bring Americans together--businesses, environmental leaders. It will not cost jobs, it will save money. Look at the costs. It takes between $2 and $20 per ton to store carbon in trees and soil. Emissions reductions can cost as much as $100 per ton. That is why Senator Brownback and I have worked for several years. I believe this legislation can reduce a third of the problems we are having with excessive emissions in our country. With that, and with thanks to Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, I ask that the amendment be agreed to on a voice vote at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I filed with Senator Brownback of Kansas be called up at this time. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. WYDEN. To restate my request, I ask unanimous consent the amendment I have filed with Senator Brownback of Kansas, that I believe can be disposed of very quickly, be considered at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the distinguished leader from Nevada, I was under the impression that as to the amendment that has been worked out with Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, I could speak on that for 4 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I and Senator Brownback will be next with an amendment on carbon sequestration. I want the chairman to know I will be very brief and I will yield my time to Senator Brownback.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to work with public health programs in their communities. I certainly intend to do that in Oregon, at home, during this high-risk season. I think it is possible to get clearer, more understandable messages out to the public about this program. I do think there needs to be a better system in place for making sure that high-risk persons, particularly older people, get these vaccines. I think we also need to take steps to make sure there are backup plans if there are problems with a manufacturer, both this winter and in the future. Secretary Thompson has worked with us in a constructive way. Progress has been made. I certainly do not think there is a need for people to go out and panic. But I think there are steps that do still need to be taken so we do not have frustrated older people, health care providers, and others who want to take steps to protect their health and that of the American people. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about a program for vaccinating Americans, particularly as the country heads towards the season when many have the flu. This is an area I have a great interest in since my days as director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. Obviously, older people are particularly vulnerable. This year, certainly there is going to be considerable focus on the flu vaccination program. Given the new threats of bioterrorism that have been widely discussed, certainly many are going to be particularly interested in getting the flu vaccination. It is important that we reevaluate how flu vaccinations are provided in light of the unfortunate, significant new health concerns of many Americans. Certainly the threat of bioterrorism has increased demand for flu shots. In my view, it has caused considerable confusion. In recent days, my office has canvassed State health departments and many senior citizens programs around the Nation. We have found that while no shortage currently exists, there are delays and certainly a substantial amount of misinformation about the various programs and services that are available for older people. There have also been problems with one manufacturer that may be exacerbating delays in getting vaccine doses out to the public. Even more important, my sense is there isn't yet a clear, understandable system in place for ensuring that high-risk Americans, particularly the Nation's older people, are vaccinated early and first. My sense is that more needs to be done in addition to prioritizing the concerns of high-risk, vulnerable Americans to put in place a better distribution system for getting out vaccines. There needs to be a better plan to make sure that there are processes in place, if there are problems or snafus of one manufacturer. It is extremely important that there be a uniform message coming from all health officials with respect to the flu vaccine program. For example, while CDC and others have told Americans to get vaccinated later, others in the health system have urged Americans to get vaccinated quickly against the flu because of the anthrax threat. Since anthrax has been in the news so much, it is logical for people to think they should get vaccinated immediately. But because people cannot get their shot the day they want it or the day a clinic is scheduled, some people may think there is an immediate shortage. On the basis of the survey we have just done of the State health departments and many senior citizen centers, it does not appear there is a shortage with respect to the vaccine. But there are delays. There are instances where mixed messages have been sent by public health officials. This has certainly contributed to the confusion that exists. Under the leadership of Senator Breaux, the Senate Aging Committee has been looking into this issue. At Senator Breaux's request--and let me also state the ranking minority member, Senator Craig, on the Aging Committee has been considerably interested in this in the past as well--our Aging Committee held a hearing that I chaired to look at the flu vaccine program. We have worked with Secretary Thompson. I think he has made a number of steps that are constructive and have moved the program in the right direction, but certainly there is more to do. For example, our survey found that in Indiana they received about 10 percent of the order the counties have placed, but it will have 50 to 100 percent of their order in 4 to 6 weeks. And, obviously, if shipments don't arrive on time, don't arrive in line with the plans that the programs and the senior citizen centers are putting out to their members, there is going to be a great deal of confusion. So as we move to this crunch time for vaccinations, health officials in this country still cannot tell us if all the high-risk patients are being vaccinated, or if there are plans to vaccinate them. I think we need to develop a better system, for example, to track seniors who are in these programs. Many are signed up, and there are others who should be vaccinated early. This can be done if the public health system wants to do it. So around the country there are concerns. I mentioned Indiana. In the State of Oregon, one large provider of public health clinics has received only about 40 percent of their order. In Michigan, health officials are concerned that by the time they get the rest of the order they need in December, the public will not come. Doses may actually have to be dumped. So there are a variety of concerns about the flu vaccine program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article in yesterday's Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as the original Senate sponsor of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, I have spent 18 months trying to find common ground on this issue. For hour after hour, we have gone at it, because obviously the technology sector is being pounded and local governments are understandably concerned about their revenues. Today, however, and I want to emphasize this to the Senate, many in both camps are in agreement on what the Senate should do. Groups as diverse as the American Electronics Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures are in agreement. There ought to be a simple 2-year extension of the current Internet Tax Freedom Act. It would be a mistake to support the substitute, although well-intentioned, by the Senator from Wyoming. The current Internet Tax Freedom Act makes it illegal to discriminate against electronic commerce, and no jurisdiction in the country has been able to show that they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate. I want to emphasize to our colleagues tonight, a vote for the Enzi substitute means millions of Americans could be hit with new taxes for clicking on a Web page. The substitute is bad news because it changes the definition of Internet access so if Internet access includes receipt of content or services then Internet access can be taxed. That would mean, for millions of Americans, the first thing they would get when they get on to the Web, news or weather or sports, that could be taxed. If this were not damaging enough, the substitute actually makes it possible to inflict those taxes retroactively to 1998. I am of the view most Senators believe there ought to be a permanent ban on Internet access taxes, that Internet access taxes widen the digital divide, and yet the substitute goes in the opposite direction. Our first economic responsibility ought to be to do no harm, but the substitute creates new opportunities for economic mischief. For many Americans, basic Internet access is about plugging the computer into a plain old phone line, dialing an Internet Service Provider, such as Erol's or Earthlink, and logging on to the Internet. Obviously, the blank screen does no one any good; most people when they click on to the Net they get a Web page and start receiving information and content on that Web page. For that, the substitute opens those millions of people up to new taxes. The second flaw with the substitute is it would not prevent every tax jurisdiction from imposing new taxes on the Internet. Any of the 7,600 taxing jurisdictions in America could go out and concoct new taxes. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why that would be good for the economy right now. The third flaw in the substitute is it allows discrimination against remote and on-line sellers, forcing them to pay different tax rates than in-State businesses. The substitute permits the remote seller to be taxed differently than an in-State business and, as a result, millions of small businesses will face significant large, new burdens trying to navigate a system of multiple and varying tax rates. For example, in one part of Colorado there are five distinct tax rates within a single zip code. No software exists today that can help the small businessperson navigate the sea of bureaucracy and redtape, and I hope the Senate won't force that daunting task on unsuspecting small businesses. I will conclude with this comment. Tonight, the Senate is being presented with two different views of Federal policy towards the Internet. The first, which is contained in the underlying bill, stipulates that there ought to be a short, clean extension of current law barring discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and nothing else. The substitute--the Senate Finance chairman is absolutely right, and I am grateful for his support on this--hasn't had a hearing. It exposes millions of Americans to the prospects of new taxes, creates the possibility of a crazy quilt of Internet regulation throughout the country, and looks to the possibility that we would see scores of forms and paperwork that would chew up a vast amount of time in compliance. I hope my colleagues will support the underlying bill, will reject the substitute, and join a diverse coalition that includes the American Electronics Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures, two groups that, on this issue, have in the past disagreed again and again. Those two groups, the American Electronics Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures, are united saying the way for the Senate to proceed is to go for a clean 2- year extension of this moratorium and reject the substitute. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we are moving to wrap this up. I want to come back to a couple points because I think there is confusion, for example, on the Internet access charge issue. There is a sense among some Senators that this is something that would have to be approved by this body. That is not correct. This amendment--the substitute--changes the definition of Internet access, and it can be applied to millions of Americans without any further action by the Senate. In particular, what the amendment says is that it would be possible to ``tax content or services.'' That is virtually everything. Nobody wants a blank screen on their computer. Of course, they are going to have a Web page with news, weather, and basic information. The fact is that the substitute means that millions of Americans could be hit with new taxes just for clicking on a Web page, and this could be done without any further action by the Senate. I think most Senators believe there ought to be a permanent ban on Internet access taxes, that Internet access taxes widen the digital divide. Yet the substitute on the Internet access tax issue goes in just the opposite direction. A lot of Americans think Internet access is plugging the computer into a phone line, dialing up the Internet provider, and logging onto the net. Then you would get a blank screen. Of course, you want information and content. People need to know, as they move to this vote, that they could be taxed for getting those kinds of services that many of them believe are essential, such as the weather. At the end of the day, I pledge to continue to work with the Senator from Wyoming. He has been extremely sincere and extremely dedicated. However this vote comes out, I want to make it clear that I will work closely with him, Senator Dorgan, and all the Senators who see this differently than I, Senator Baucus, Senator McCain, and others. We are going to have to stay at it. When you vote tonight, you are talking about two very differing approaches with respect to Internet policy. One approach that we advocate tonight is backed by the American Electronics Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The other is opposed by virtually all of the technology groups in the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts leaves, I want him to know, as the original Senate sponsor, I want to redouble my efforts to work with him and Senator Enzi and all of our colleagues. We may be able to see that there is a technological fix here that is going to make it possible to collect taxes owed. There is a lot of good will on both sides. This is by no means the end of the issue. I am very pleased the Senator from Massachusetts is ending this discussion in a conciliatory way because we are going to have to stay at it. He has my pledge as the original sponsor of this effort to do it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first I salute Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for doing, in my view, a superb job with respect to this bill. They have really set a special standard in terms of trying to work on important issues in a bipartisan way. The chairman has left the Chamber, but I want him to know how much I appreciate the good work he and his staff are doing on this issue. This morning I wish to talk about a health and a scientific issue of extraordinary importance, and that is the vacancies that now exist at the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. At a time when the public is focused on public health because of bioterrorism, there are many reasons we should be concerned about the work of these agencies and get these positions filled. I want to talk for a few moments about why I am so troubled by the vacancies we are seeing at these agencies today. This has been, as all of us know, a decade of remarkable scientific progress in the health care field. It has really been something of a scientific and health care renaissance with extraordinary amounts of information learned about cells, about cancers, about what has come to be known as biological detectors that are important as we deal with anthrax and smallpox, and various other serious health concerns that Americans are focused on today. This scientific progress has been bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans alike have joined to support funding for these very key public health agencies, and we have worked together to ensure these programs are properly funded. I am convinced if those vacancies are not promptly filled, if we do not soon get a head of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration and the National Cancer Institute--if those positions are not soon filled--it threatens to unravel some of the important progress that has been made in this country over the last decade. Suffice it to say, if those positions are not filled, a message is sent to the young scientists, to the young future leaders of this country in the health care field, that the Federal Government does not think this is particularly important. It takes years for companies to get products developed and approved, and this is especially true of the new products created by biotechnology. It is important that we have scientific leadership throughout this process-- at the companies developing these products and at every level of these two important agencies--NIH and the FDA. Without these scientists throughout the process, in the companies, and at the Federal level, biotech companies lose the incentive to invest in what might be the next medical breakthrough. I spoke to a group of students on a college campus just a few days ago. A young woman came up to me and only half jokingly said: ``I am ready to be the head of the National Institutes of Health. I have focused on these issues. I have studied the questions for some time. Why in the world can the Federal Government not get somebody to head the National Institutes of Health right now?'' I have focused on health care and technology questions over the last few years in Congress, and the business community is especially alarmed that these vacancies are open. They want to work with leaders at the Federal level to expedite the development of drugs, vaccines, and therapies. One of these business leaders told me recently what concerns him is that at a time when the public is focused on public health, on the question of how to deal with anthrax and smallpox and bioterrorism, there is not anybody home in the Federal Government. I think it is extraordinarily important that the Congress work with the President to get the officials we need sent up for review by the key committees. The National Institutes of Health has now been without a leader for almost two years. The National Institutes of Health is now hemorrhaging the key people they need to be effective advocates for the public health. Recently, there was another vacancy at the National Institutes on Mental Health, and there is a vacancy at the National Cancer Institute. There has been a substantial period of time where we have not had anybody heading up the Food and Drug Administration. If we want to attract the stellar scientists whom I know Democrats and Republicans both are so interested in supporting, we are not going to be able to do it, and we are going to lose very talented people who are in these agencies now. We are already seeing a real brain drain in these essential agencies. What we need to do, and the Congress is prepared to do, and what the chairman and Senator Specter have made it very clear that they are willing to do, is make sure these agencies are properly funded. What we need now especially are scientifically sound programs to take on anthrax, smallpox, and ensure we can allow our scientists to work on what are known as biological detectors so we can move more rapidly and readily to recognize the agents in the field. We can more precisely describe the various strains of these bacteria and diseases. We will have a chance to learn more about their genomic sequence and develop creative strategies for public health that could pay very significant benefits for this country. Certainly the potential benefits to this country can be extraordinary. I am very interested in working with the President on filling these positions. Biomedicine research and science policy has long been bipartisan. Senator Mack, for example, from Florida, did yeoman work for years and years with Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, myself, and others. That is the kind of progress, it seems to me, that is in danger of being lost at this time. The President of the United States certainly has lots on his agenda right now. All of it is extremely important as we deal with the question of fighting terrorism. I come to the Chamber today to say it is of extraordinary importance these positions at the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration move to the top of the President's agenda, move to the top of the congressional agenda, and we work together in a bipartisan way, as we have done on a variety of subjects in recent weeks, to get the key officials in these agencies in place. To make progress in the area of biomedical research and science, we need a public-private partnership, one where the Federal Government is involved in ensuring our laboratories are helping address issues that involve coming up with the basic knowledge that companies and scientists can then take to develop the cures and therapies that will improve the quality of life for the public. I want to work with the President of the United States to get the biosciences back on track. I want to make sure we don't step back from this golden age of scientific progress, when we had an administration committed to ensuring we moved forward with this important research, and Congress backed it up on a bipartisan basis. The Congress has the power to advise and consent, and it is important that the Congress and the President work together to fill the positions at the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute. We are not dealing just with bioterrorism although that is obviously very much on our mind this morning--but the entire public health system. We are seeing, obviously, when we open our morning newspaper, there are gaps that we need to address. We can best address this if officials in these key agencies are in a position to advise the Congress. It has been too long that we have gone without a leader at the National Institutes of Health. It has been too long that we have gone without a leader at the Food and Drug Administration. The Senate will meet the President of the United States more than halfway. He can speak for himself. He has been extraordinarily eloquent on biomedical research over the years. Senator Kennedy, who I have discussed this with, has made it very clear as chairman of the committee that focuses on these issues, he is very anxious to get these officials confirmed. I hope this message this morning, at a time when we are working on this important bill that funds so many key health agencies, can help spark a new effort to speed up getting these key positions filled. I, and I believe every Member of the Senate, wants to work with the President to get these positions filled. Even though there are so many important issues the President has to deal with, this issue of the vacancies at the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute has become so serious, it needs to be a priority matter that Congress moves quickly to deal with. We ought to move quickly to deal with it before we adjourn for the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to this Chamber today to join my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith. One can debate whether we have found precisely the right offset. Senator Smith and I have scoured the budget and intend to work closely with the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee and, of course, the ranking minority members as well, so as to ensure that this is addressed at the proper time in the proper way. But as Senator Smith has correctly said, what I think is not debatable is the fact that there is a world of hurt, a world of pain in the Klamath Basin in the State we represent. We have scores and scores of farmers in that part of the State who are on the ropes as we speak. These are people who have worked hard all their lives. That have played by the rules. They have done nothing wrong. But clearly, now, as a result of policies that ensure we can find water for all the uses about which people of Oregon and people of this country feel strongly-- agriculture, environment, conservation--there is a tremendous crunch in our part of the country. Senator Smith and I have spent many hours in recent weeks working to forge a coalition between agricultural interests, environmental interests, the rural communities--all of the stakeholders--the tribes, and all of the parties who feel so strongly about this. The reason we come to the floor today is that we want to work with the Appropriations Committee--particularly the chairman, Senator Kohl, and Senator Cochran, who have been very gracious to us in working on Klamath issues in the past--so we can get this urgently needed assistance. It is our understanding that there are some questions about exactly from which account this should come. Senator Smith has been very clear, in making our initial remarks, that we intend to work with both the subcommittee and the full committee to ensure this offset does come from the appropriate account. What is not debatable is how grave the need is. We have farmers who are not going to survive. They are not going to be there a few months down the road, if we can't get the assistance through this amendment the two Oregon Senators offer today. I thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Cochran. We are going to be working closely with them and with the chairman of the full committee and the ranking minority member, Senator Stevens, so that we can find the funds needed so urgently in the Klamath Basin and we can give a little bit of hope at this critical time to those families who are suffering today and are worried about whether they are going to be able to farm tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, if I may continue briefly on my reservation, Senator Smith has summed it up very well. At this point in the State of Oregon, there are no wiretaps; there are no sting operations; you cannot infiltrate dangerous criminal groups no matter how dastardly their plans. We are not talking about some kind of abstract proposition. The bill that is going to be passed tomorrow is essentially a bill that deals with terrorism in 49 States. As I say, it just seems to me once you allow a sanctuary, a launch pad for terrorist groups anywhere, everyone is at risk. What is different tonight is we have been able to secure a commitment from the White House. The majority leader, as is his tradition, has worked very closely with me and has made a similar commitment to Senator Smith, and tonight--and I will say this is very hard for this Member of the Senate to do because I think the people of my home State are going to be at risk tonight--but because of the commitment we have secured from the majority leader--and it is a renewed commitment; again and again he has been in these meetings fighting to change the McDade law and give our prosecutors the tools to deal with this problem. With the new commitment tonight from the White House and with the continued commitment and assurance of the majority leader tonight, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for giving me this opportunity. He and I have discussed at length the concern that I have that is shared by Senator Smith of Oregon. I want to take a minute or two to describe what is so important to us and have a discussion briefly with the distinguished majority leader. In my home State of Oregon, we have not been able to do a covert investigation into dangerous criminal activity such as terrorism in more than a year. The hands of our prosecutors are tied. Senator Smith and I, along with a number of other colleagues and prosecutors, believe very strongly that it is critically important as part of this antiterrorism effort that we allow the prosecutors to go forward and do wiretaps, stings, and essentially undercover operations. We have not been able to get such a provision into this antiterrorism legislation because of the work of the House. Senator Daschle has been exceptionally supportive, as have Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. The Senate is united on this matter. The Senate has agreed in its entirety. For reasons that are inexplicable to this Member of the Senate, the House has been unwilling to untie the hands of Federal prosecutors in my home State. The question then is: Why should every Senator care about what is happening in the State of Oregon? The reason I feel so strongly about this is that if we learned one thing on September 11, it is that if the terrorists get sanctuary anywhere, Americans are in trouble everywhere because we saw on September 11 the terrorists set up shop in New Jersey, they set up shop in Florida, and they ended up murdering Americans in New York City and in the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. As a result of the work that was done on the foreign operations appropriations legislation, again, to the credit of Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, and Senator Smith, Senator Leahy added the original bill that I authored. Senator Smith and I have teamed up on this, and it is now in the foreign operations appropriations legislation that passed this body. What is different tonight and why I am not objecting is that the White House has now indicated for the first time that they will support in the foreign operations appropriations legislation what Senator Smith and I have crafted. We have also been able to, in discussions with Senator Daschle, have an opportunity to let him discuss his views on it. He has renewed his commitment to me that we will have the united support of the Senate on the foreign operations appropriations bill, and if, in fact, the House junks this on the foreign operations appropriations bill in spite of the administration's effort, Senator Daschle, to his credit, has renewed his support for this effort and has been kind enough to give me this time to state my reservation. I would like to have him briefly describe his views on this matter.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I appreciate the work that has gone into this. He obviously has strong views on it. It has been very constructive in trying to work with me and others. I ask my colleague about a procedural matter that could allow us to go forward and bring the parties together. Senator McCain and I introduced legislation several weeks ago that is virtually identical to what the House passed this week. The House has already begun to move. My question to my colleague is, would the distinguished Senator from Wyoming be willing to work with me and others, the entire group involved, to craft a unanimous consent request that could come up early next week where we could take up in the Senate the House-passed bill and then have an open and fair debate on amendments and all of the up- or-down votes that Members of this body would choose to have? Would my colleague be willing to work with me and others to see if we could craft that kind of approach that is agreeable all around?