That's simply because the notion of how the committee is now appointed in the U.K., the notion of not having the protections that existed at the beginning, would send a message to the security agencies that work on behalf of all of us—and I think all of us around the table share a high regard for the men and women who devote their lives to our national security—that this would be a committee that they could not necessarily be frank with or trust. Until that relationship is established over a period of time, it could have a negative effect on the risks they're prepared to take within the law and the Constitution to protect our national security.
I'm very much of the view that even though the U.K. has progressed from where they were decades ago to where they are now, because this is our first real parliamentary oversight committee that actually has security clearance to get the whole truth, we should be starting where they started and not where they are now.