Quickly, what I would say is that there may be areas.... I would add as an aside here that when we're concerned about Russian rhetoric about the Arctic we should take a look at our own rhetoric about the Arctic. That's just a side note. It's a little bit of a bugaboo that I have about this.
On those areas of national jurisdiction, this really becomes a question of costs and the expense, and what's the most effective way to do it. You can imagine that if the Arctic moves forward very rapidly, as some people predict it will, how much and where these funds, out of fixed government revenues, are going to come from.... There are always winners and losers in that context.
But no matter those areas where we think we have a national capability and we can respond nationally within national territory and waters, it is still vitally important that the United States be informed, because we still need to have them in a bilateral type of arrangement on these issues. Perhaps binationalism is too much for us right now in the Arctic, but certainly they need to be part of the picture.
Did we lose Dr. Charron?