We're doing our best here. We climbed down from our first attempted amendment last week of 60 days, and 20 days is just patently unreasonable. I don't think I've ever seen a document order of 20 days in my six years in this place.
Really, what we're talking about.... We're fiddling at the margins here, I would say, because what's really at stake here is the motion itself. The motion itself is asking the Infrastructure Bank to break the law. It's putting officials at the bank in the position of asking them to break the law, to break their own governing statutes.
It's a thing that we should not be doing, as a committee. I think it's going to reflect poorly, at the end of the day, on the way we are perceived and our ability to understand and execute our jobs in a responsible way at this committee. It's putting all the staff, both at the CIB and the committee staff, in an extremely unfair and awkward position. Frankly, the motion is an embarrassment and it should be an embarrassment for all of us. That's what really is at stake here.
We've tried to come down from 60 days to 45, to try to find an incremental way forward through the thicket of this motion, but please, you must try to meet us somewhere on this path through the thicket.
I understand Mr. Bachrach is ready for a vote and Mr. Scheer is ready for a vote. I see that Mr. Barsalou-Duval has his hand up. I should certainly love to hear his opinion on this before we proceed to a vote. I see Mr. Iacono has his hand up.
I think we just have to have an opportunity to hear a few more perspectives and, I hope, some common sense on this.
Thank you.