All right. My question was on Mr. Easter's actual motion. I think we're somewhat splitting hairs here. I don't think anybody disagrees on what we need to study and what we need to look at. It needs to be a priority.
I have some concerns with Mr. Easter's motion. I was actually going to ask Mr. Valeriote a question. To me it reads that the committee will look at AgriStability and the committee will specifically examine the impact of that. It seems we are saying that we are going to specifically look at this. Our hands will be tied if we get into a discussion about whether it is AgriRecovery or whether it's different aspects of AgriStability that we don't like. It seems to me that this motion ties the committee's hands on what we're going to talk about when the witnesses come forward.
I would actually agree with Mr. Lemieux's motion, because it seems to broaden it. I'm sure we'll want to talk about the specifics of the CAIS overpayment or whatever, but I think it's better for the motion to be a little broader. The witnesses are going to come from all over the country. We can ask them a wide range of questions on the programs. I don't want to be tied into only one aspect that we're allowed to question the witnesses on.