I would just add that I think sanctions have been a boon for lawyers and for consultants. My own personal view, both when I was on Capitol Hill and when I was in the executive branch, is that people shouldn't have to pay to make sure they're complying with the law. There should be an obligation on regulators to be clear about what the regulations are or, if there are questions, to be able to respond to the questions and to provide that kind of guidance. The more complicated it has gotten, the less the executive branch has been able to respond in some of these circumstances, even in the U.S.
Firms go to great expense—I'm talking millions and millions of dollars—to comply. They employ software. You've talked about a consolidated list. If you go to the software companies that do this kind of thing, there's World-Check, there's Thomson Reuters, and there's even SWIFT tools and utilities. They're out there, but you have to pay for them. As for what they do, they're updated on a daily basis and that's what the financial institutions use to screen against transactions, but again, think about the volume of transactions that are going through messaging systems in terms of financial transfers. It's quite voluminous. Every time there is a hit against one of them, that means a person has to look at it and decide what to do about it.
I think we have to be aware that these kinds of tools, these foreign policy tools, while important, are not cost free. In essence, what we're doing is downloading the cost onto the private sector. As a former regulator, I believe that it's the job of the regulatory system to provide that kind of clarity. It shouldn't have to be that you go out and hire a whole team, but unfortunately, that's what has happened in recent years.