I think it would be helpful, as we look at the act, to have almost a colour-coded system that says, “This part of the act is great in theory, it's just that you haven't had enough regulation, applied enough resources to it, or put in the timelines”.
So if you could help us over time differentiate between things that work--in theory it's just terrific; it's just that we haven't done one of those three things--that would be very helpful to us. Then we would be able to devote appropriate...because that's not a reform of the act, except for small things--well, regulation or timelines.
I have another question that we may have to get back to, given the shortage of time. Perhaps you could make a distinction between flaws that were inherent at the time, which everybody said would be a problem--and I'm getting beyond the regulation and timelines--versus evolving or new evidence, where we now know a whole lot more about this thing, so this is a good reason to change things. You could actually point those things out.
But I've given you such a general question, I don't know whether you can find a way of dealing with it, at least in the future.