 So I wasn't here. I haven't heard what anybody else said. So if I repeat what's already been said, please, someone interrupt me. One of the reasons not to be a senator is so you don't have to speak to audiences and hear to at least be trying to make it look like you know what you're talking about. So on the other hand, this is a subject that Senator Leahy and certainly myself have always cared a lot about. And David is impossible to say no to. So I was very glad to be able to come to this. And also just to be reminded of the fact that this has been going on for quite a while, there have been so many people with such commitment and knowledge that I don't have involved. And it sort of makes me realize that our job is basically to support all of you. And I think that's what Senator Leahy has always generally felt. So I know that you've been sitting through hours of listening to this subject. And what I think I'm going to do is just take a few minutes, as David said, and talk really about what the US Congress has to do with this, what we try to do. And if you have questions, I can try to answer them. Because it's fair to say that today trying to understand or predict what the Congress is going to do tomorrow is not for easy. And in response to your question, David, Senator Graham is a huge ally of ours on these issues. But our process is still very much unresolved. We need a budget agreement. We need to know how we're going to finish the fiscal 18 appropriations process. And that obviously includes funding for the office of the ambassador for global criminal justice. I think, and I made a note of this, we're actually pretty lucky that there even is an office when you think about it. I mean, I don't think there's probably many countries that have one. And so it's not a given that there is an office of global criminal justice here. Any administration could abolish it at any time unless the Congress intervened. Or the president could simply not nominate anybody. So this is something where at least we have conveyed to this administration, Senator Leahy early on, made clear that we want the office to continue, that we want an ambassador named. And at least it looks like that's going to happen. We're hoping that the nominee is someone who believes in preventing atrocities, not causing them. But we are, at this point, reasonably confident that we are going to continue to have an office that we can, in good conscience, continue to support. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it's the ambassador and the ambassador's staff, the office, where the expertise is. We're not really expert, frankly, anyone who knows the Congress on much of anything. We have our hands in everything. But this is certainly a hugely important issue for Senator Leahy. He was a former prosecutor. And I think he sees his job as supporting the ambassadors and that office. Our job is to get the funding. Both to ensure that the office continues to exist and to get the funding to pay the ambassador's salary, his staffs, her staffs, maybe someday, and the operations of the office. And that's our job on the Appropriations Committee. And it's one that he has taken seriously for as long as I've been there. We would like if the administration would budget funding for this office and these programs in ways that would make it easier for us and not have to therefore steal money from other places, which is what we are in the habit of doing. But that is what we do because it is a very high priority from our point of view. Now, for the last, well, since 1989, however many years that is, Senator Leahy has either been the chairman or the ranking Democrat of the subcommittee that funds the Department of State and our international assistance programs. And that includes the operations of our embassies, all the State Department bureaus and offices and the programs that they implement. So in addition to providing the funding for the ambassador for global criminal justice and the operations of that office, we also fund programs to implement the recommendations of the Atrocities Prevention Board. The Obama administration created the board, but they didn't provide any funding to actually turn its recommendations into action. So that is something that we, Senator Leahy and Senator Graham, recognized needed to be done and we included the funding for that. Senator Leahy also created a fund now about $6 or $7 million. We've increased it to $10 for fiscal 18 if we get through fiscal 18. For the exhumation of mass graves, identification of remains of atrocity crimes in Sri Lanka, Iraq, Guatemala, Syria, none of that was in. None of that was in the president's budget. But again, something that he felt very strongly about and that program has existed for several years. We also provide the funding for our contributions to the UN Human Rights Council, to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In fact, Senator Leahy includes over $10 million additional above what the administration requests for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and for our contributions to the various special tribunals, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, the form of Yugoslavia, which have not always been popular with the Congress, mostly because they have, in many cases, gone way over budget. They've dragged on for years. But Senator Leahy has continued to support the funding for them because he feels that the alternative is really not an option of letting war criminals escape justice. For years, we've been trying to convince members of Congress to support assistance for ICC apprehensions, investigations, prosecutions, not as a US contribution to the court because we're not a party, even though we should be a party, but other types of assistance, which we have a lot of, if we were just able to make it available. We have the support in the Senate, but not in the House, which is sort of the usual story. But we're continuing to try to do that because we think it would both add credibility to our support for the court, but also give it resources that it really would benefit from. We also find ourselves defending the budget of the State Department's Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor because, as many of you probably know, the White House has proposed about a 25% cut in the State Department's budget. So both Senator Graham and Senator Leahy are determined to protect those bureaus, those programs. And we are reasonably optimistic that if we ever get through this process, we will be able to. I think that we're all familiar with the fact that weak and corrupt justice systems and impunity are really the norm in many of the countries that provide assistance to. Senator Leahy has written many, many different provisions of law, either to cut off assistance or condition assistance to governments or to other entities relating to where either there's a history of committing atrocities or a failure to hold people accountable. That's the purpose of the Leahy Law, which some of you are probably familiar with. And our job, me and my two staff, is to try to ensure that the Pentagon and the State Department are implementing the law as intended. And sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But that is very much a work in progress. It's really pretty obvious to us that it's the executive branch that has the expertise and the responsibility to articulate and implement policies relating to criminal justice, global criminal justice. But at the same time, Congress provides the funding. We make it possible for programs to be implemented. You can have the best policies, but if you don't have the resources, there's not a whole lot you can do. And when we see lapses or weaknesses in the administration's policies, whether it's a Republican in the White House or a Democrat, we try to use what resources we have or what influence we have to try to change it. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. But for us, these are issues that really are important to us regardless of who's in the White House. It's just a matter of principle. There's really only one way to accomplish anything in the Congress, which I think people are relearning every day. And that is for Republicans and Democrats to work together, which may sound a bit like a fantasy. But fortunately, Senator Graham and Senator Leahy, a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat, pretty much see eye to eye on these issues. They were both prosecutors before they were senators. And we're very lucky, actually, to find ourselves in this situation. We could easily not, and our lives would be miserable. And we would have a very difficult time finding agreement to fund any of what I've talked about. So that even when our process breaks down, like it kind of has, or the government shuts down, we know that sooner or later, people will come to their senses, and we will pick up where we left off. And we have to set priorities. We have a $50 billion budget. And, you know, Senator Leahy has, like any member of Congress, a million things that he's being asked to do. But certainly, defending human rights, and preventing and punishing atrocity crimes is at the top of his list, along with quite a few other things. But it's definitely there. And, you know, I feel very lucky to have that support because it's enabled me to do things that I otherwise never could possibly have been able to. I think each of us can think of instances when the United States failed to act quickly enough, or forcefully enough, when atrocities were occurring, including in some cases atrocities perpetrated by people that we were supporting, that we had provided training to, or equipment to, or when we failed to insist that governments hold those people accountable, as we should have. But there are other examples, plenty of them, when it was the United States, and particularly the people who spoke here before me, who played really an indispensable role in galvanizing international support for global criminal justice. And that is what we in the Congress are trying to support, people like you and others who may have left already, but who spoke earlier, to do what you all have been doing for so many years. I think in many ways this is a time when we have to do whatever we can to convince others in Congress who may know nothing about this office, or the atrocity prevention board, or any of this, as well as the White House and the State Department and the Pentagon, that these are not partisan issues, that we need to do everything we possibly can to prevent atrocities, to support international tribunals, to punish those who commit these crimes, and to help the victims. And so that is kind of how we see it. I've known all the different ambassadors, David, Steve, and others over the years. And it's been, I think, for us, just a great opportunity to be able to support them. It really has. I wish we could do more. But we're always interested in good ideas if anybody has any, things that we could do that we're not doing, ways that we could do what we're doing better, areas where a little money can make a big difference. There are things we can do. Actually, quite a few things we can do. You don't read about it. Most people in this country don't know about it. But actually, a lot does happen in the Congress that's positive. And we want to fight the kind of chaos that is swirling around us, continue to do the things that we know make a real difference. I'm going to stop there. Tim has agreed to stay for just a few moments before rushing back through all those duties to take a couple of questions. The obvious question is, as long as we're going to have to develop it. I don't think that will be happening in my lifetime. I mean, there are obvious reasons why that would make good sense. And some other countries do that. For so many of the things that we're trying to do, obviously, it's a multi-year process to enable people to plan. They need to know. But the fact is that budget year to year appropriations build. And for whatever reason, the forces, plus from changing that, are not ones that we're going to overcome anytime. Wish that were, I wish it were otherwise. And we have talked many times about at least two-year budgeting, but we haven't got there. And I pull a lot of optimism that it's going to happen. Anyone else? Yes, right here. Yes, I just had a question. If you could update us on the status of the Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act. And I guess maybe more broadly about the kind of budgetary institutionalization of the Atrocities Prevention Board, which is in part in the act, I think. But just in general about the dynamics about institutionalizing the ABB, thank you. So enacting freestanding legislation these days is not very easy. Anyone can object. Because very rarely does legislation get debated on the Senate floor. And so more often, the way that legislation is enacted is by unanimous consent. And one senator can object. And you can imagine that there would be a few objections to that legislation. So more likely, we will take pieces of it and try to incorporate it into our appropriations bill. But at the end of the day, most important is the money. Because most authorities exist. What we really lack are the resources. And that is where I see the most opportunity. So while I'm hopeful that that legislation makes its way and that we can at least enact parts of it, I know how difficult that has become, unlike 25 years ago, when you actually had debates on the Senate floor and amendments and things happened. It doesn't work that way anymore. So people introduce legislation, try to get the respective committee of jurisdiction to report it. But then invariably, the process kind of breaks down unless you can get unanimous consent. And it's very hard to do that. So we pick and choose pieces. And our committee focus on, OK, are there really authorities here that aren't available, that we need to legislate? Or is the problem really about how to get the funding to implement it? Yes, Ambassador Rapp. It follows up on something we were conversing about not long ago. But in terms of FY18 appropriations, and you've mentioned the great work that's been possible with Senator Graham and Senator Leahy working together. And I know we'd had this slender budget that the administration proposed last year that would have cut the State Department and international development by more than 20%. And you and the Senate committee basically restored almost all of those cuts and unanimously reported out like a $50 billion bill. On the House side, there hasn't been quite that as much action or clarity about where we're going. Of course, we're all interested in money for the atrocity prevention board and for human rights programs and for contributions to international organizations. And that kind of thing. And this is a much bigger picture. But as perhaps we work toward a budgetary compromise and perhaps toward another one of these omnibus bills that has everything in it, which we've had in the past. I mean, where are we likely to end up versus the slender budget versus at least allowing us to continue to be as active as we've been in the past on diplomacy and development and the exercise American leadership? But what it looked like we're heading toward? I actually was quite encouraged by the reaction to the president's budget because it was almost universally repudiated by Republicans, by Democrats, by everybody. And so, while we don't have a budget agreement and I'm always low to predict anything anymore when it comes to the Congress or, but I actually think that chances are more likely than not that we will get some number, which will be a lot closer to the end, the Senate number and that the bill will end up being okay. The House bill is better than the president's budget, but it's not great. They had a different allocation than we did and they have different priorities than we have, but usually we can bring them to their senses, sit down and negotiate with them. And so, while the whole process could collapse, we could end up with a continuing resolution again, but that actually wouldn't be the worst of all possible worlds. Actually, the fiscal 17 bill is not that bad. There would probably be some changes to it, but more likely, if both parties actually believe what they say, which is that they want to find a way to finish this process, and it would be an omnivorous appropriations bill. We've already been negotiating with our House counterparts for the last almost two months. So we're well along in resolving not numbers issues, but other issues. And I think if things go as we hope, we'll end up in a place where we feel okay about it. It might not be quite as good as last year. In some cases, it might be better than last year. But I think that we can all feel quite confident that what the president proposed is not on the table. That's fun shock. Thank you so much. Oh, it's on, sorry. Many people focus on the American Service Members Protection Act as being this sort of bar for many forms of cooperation. But as Ambassador Rapp mentioned, Senator Dodd got put in a little amendment that said, as long as you're helping with non-U.S. personnel who are being prosecuted for atrocity crimes, it opens the door to various forms of assistance. However, there's a previous statute that's an appropriations statute that didn't have a sunset clause that bars any form of funding to go to the court, which could be very broadly defined to include sort of U.S. assessed money that might go to the U.N. that could then indirectly go to the court, et cetera. Are there any prospects for just quietly getting rid of that little statute? And saying, oh, but we've got ASPA, which should be the sort of structure, you know, the framework for our engagement with the court. We don't need this other little appropriations statute and just kind of get that deleted for us. Well, as Todd and Steve and I'm sure David know, I mean, we've been trying to do that for the last five years. We are very acutely, painfully aware of that problem. You know, we know that not being a party, we can't make a contribution to the court the way that we would like, but it is ludicrous to us and help support the prosecutors, help in apprehensions, help in investigations, et cetera, in other ways, even, and we are doing some in-kind assistance, but there is an inherent contradiction between those two statutes. And the provision that we, the Senator Leahy has proposed and which Senator Graham has supported. In fact, it has been reported out of our committee five times in a row, would do what you just said, essentially. But we keep running into problems in the House and the irony is that we have gotten the support of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, everybody. So there's no logic to opposing it. We've even got the Israelis to agree because there was some concern there. We exempt, obviously, NATO, the United States, everybody that, you know, we're not concerned about. We're concerned about, you know, real war criminals that the court is trying to bring to justice. So we are trying, we're trying again this year. It's in the Senate bill, but I know that when we finally get to that issue with the House, you know, they're gonna say, their Judiciary Committee opposes this, therefore they oppose it. So if we could get rid of the House. And... That's what I was. That's what I was doing. But, you know, we totally agree that this is something that the United States should be doing. I think on that note, that's an excellent place to close and then perhaps begin again with a new life. I wanna thank everyone and I wanna thank Tim, obviously, we'll applaud him in a moment. But thanks to all of you for attending today. This has been live streamed. It is available on the Carnegie Endowment website so you can point your colleagues and friends to the entire video record of it. We'll try to get this up on the Northwestern Law School website as well. This has been an extraordinary event and I have just been humbled by the entire presentation and participation of so many good friends and colleagues. I don't think we'll have a 25th, but maybe if we're all around by the 30th, we'll try this again. And some of our new successors will be able to join us on the panel. I have one organizational demand by many people. Could the ambassadors stay behind? We're supposed to take a group photo for some sort of historical record. And we'll try to get that accomplished. Thank you all very, very much. Have a good day. Thank you.