Thank you very much, Mr. Kramp, for that opportunity.
I'm starting to worry that we're building a system that's so complex that people just don't understand it. I'm feeling that as accountants, and I'm one of them, we're building a system where it's right on paper, all the theory is right and it's good for all those reasons, but it's very difficult for people to understand it. I'm not saying I'm against it, but, for example, with accrual appropriations—and I know your background, that you've studied this with the operations committee and are very knowledgeable on it—saying that you're voting a level of depreciation, even as an accountant I have to wrap my mind around exactly what that means. I'm always asking myself if there is a way to get the same objective, which is better information and better management, without building a system that is going to be so complex that there are not going to be too many people other than we accountants who get the thing.
If you look internationally, for example, in Australia the head of their finance department just said very recently in terms of the appropriation that if they knew then what they know now they probably wouldn't have gone as far down the accrual line. And I'm all for accrual accounting; I think this budgeting is great.
I know it looks as if we're being slow, but I honestly feel it's something you really have to be careful with. I'm concerned, but I don't make the decision, I just keep providing advice on this. My perspective would be, if asked, that we have to be really careful before putting accrual appropriations in place.
I also think—and I do apologize for being long-winded on this—that there are other ways to get some of the good information for decision-making that are maybe less complex. I think some departments, like the Department of National Defence, for example, are already doing that.