Yes.
With the second one first, the common point in both cases was not to limit the wording to necessary measures, but to broaden it to those things intended to protect the environment and health.
On the first point, the U.S.-Australia agreement in 2004, it's the specific point on expropriation that we preferred, in that there was no ability of private companies to sue the government of either country for environmental regulation and claim damages. We've seen that happen under NAFTA. We don't like it happening. We think it's a problem, and we don't think it's necessary.