Thank you, Mary, for the presentation of your amendment. We certainly support the language in terms of altering the preferential aspect that was embedded in the original proposal. We, of course, have no problem with the life-cycle emissions consideration of products and information on the face of it. However, given the fact that if this amendment passes it might eliminate an opportunity to discuss our proposal, I just wonder if you would consider an addition to your amendment.
It's our perspective that the broad, comprehensive testimony of the variety of witnesses we've had here in consideration of the bill, regardless of which organization they came from, made forceful arguments that there are a variety of important considerations in terms of the use of building products for federal procurement and infrastructure in federal buildings. We wonder if you would consider even broadening out your proposal, and in so doing reflecting the testimony of the people who participated in discussing the bill. Perhaps you might add a line at the end, or in whatever way works for you, to include a clause that says, “also taking into account aesthetics, availability, cost, performance, and safety characteristics, as well as the environmental impact of the use of the product”, or however you might accept the wording. It was pretty clear among the broad base of witnesses that there are a number of important factors that play into the decision-making for procurement and uses of materials.