 Thank you about the EPA's draft report on the environment. We've talked about it already today. The EPA professional staff was deeply concerned about the way the White House handled this report. And if I may, I'd like you to refer to exhibit F, which is a memo about the draft report on the environment from the staff of EPA to Administrator Whitman of the EPA. It says that, as a result of Mr. Cooney's edits, the text, quote, no longer accurately reflects scientific consensus on climate change. And I read a number of other statements in their examples of what they meant. The EPA memo says that the White House told the EPA that no further changes may be made. Did you make the decision that no further changes would be made? No, I did not. And I would observe, Congressman, that the I only saw this document for the first time over the weekend was not something I saw in my conversation years ago with Governor Whitman. But I would observe a number of the items being complained of verbatim language from the National Academy of Sciences report. I mean, that told me something else was going on. There was a pride of authorship going on between EPA and the other agencies. At the time, by the way, it seemed to me that to the extent there were editorial differences, they should be reconciled. They weren't being reconciled. That suggested some back and forth. And that's really what Governor Whitman and I ended up talking about. And the solution that she came up with, I thought was perfection. Well, then is it not true that someone advised Administrator Whitman that no further changes were to be made? No, actually, the document I saw, again, I only saw it for the first time over the weekend, was a handwritten note that said, these changes must be made. These changes must be made. But I would note the context for that, Congressman, is important. What was happening is we have a process where agencies provide their input to these documents, and then there's a reconciliation process. It doesn't mean all the comments have to be accepted. You just have to have a process where you say, I accept it, or I reject it, and here's why. That wasn't happening on this particular set of issues. Remember, this document was 600 pages long, as I showed you just a fraction of it. We are talking about a small number of edits to a two-page passage in an otherwise massive document. We're just down to the end on this. And so it was really what was going on, and I thought it was reasonable at the time, was the notion that we needed some reconciliation. It was an issue of whether the comments were in or out. As it happened, by the way, none of the comments being raised by the committee, none of the comments could possibly confuse the public because they didn't make it into the report. But that's because EPA found the report to be so inaccurate that it said that if they released it, it would cause great confusion in the public. Isn't that correct? At least that's what that memo says. I saw the memo in my personal reflections, and I said, it seemed a little bit melodramatic.