 I want to get some of your other policy proposals because you have really interesting and I think innovative ideas that nobody else is talking about. So you're proposing ranked choice voting, publicly financed elections, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, one I really love, lowering the voting age to 16. Love it. You want to legalize marijuana, you want net neutrality. So these are all phenomenal proposals. However, there's one thing that makes me a little bit skeptical. And this is your provision to sunset all laws. So if you pass all of those really phenomenal ideas, then they'll automatically be sunset it. So even if you pass UBI, you also have another proposal that sunsets it. So in 10 years, when the date comes up for it to be renewed, I mean, Republicans, they're not going to want to renew that. They didn't renew the Children's Health Insurance Program. So does this mean that you support all laws is expiring? I mean, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security Act, tell me more about that sunset provision, because that's the one thing that gives me pause because you have great policies and I don't want them undermined by an automatic sunset clause. Oh, yeah. And the sunset clause is really designed to just force our legislature to actually grapple with the laws that are on the books. Because right now, so it's not, you know, to your point, certainly we can't have a society where like every law then gets called into question. So it's specific laws then? Yes. And I know the way that that reads, it does suggest that we're like constantly reexamining. In a way, it's more of like, like trying to take an inventory of what's on the books now because we have, I believe it's tens of thousands of rules and regulations that at this point, if you were to go to anyone on Capitol Hill, like no one knows what's going on. Yeah, I get this because a lot of these things have been passed like years ago and it's like no one's job really. And so, you know, we were trying to come up with an effective way just to get people to reexamine what's on the books and then see like, Hey, does this still make sense in 2019 or 2020? It is true that if you were to apply it to everything, it would become unmanageable. And so the point was really just to say, look, we need to actually reevaluate the laws that have been on the books for a certain period of time. Okay. Do you have like an example of like a specific set of laws that this would be applicable to? Like would it involve tax law or city? I mean, you can't really do city codes at the federal level. But can you just give me some examples as to what you're specifically intending to sunset if it's not technically everything? Thank you. And it's a great question. So when I was with some farmers in Iowa, they were talking about various arcane federal regulations that apply to the way that their crops are set up or that the way that there's like, you know, when one of them said to me, it's like, look, the fact is, if you came in and came to my farm, you could find a half dozen violations anytime you want because like because they're like, he said that there are so many different rules that even if you were to try his best, that you know, he'd be found in violation of half a dozen any moment in time. And some of the ones he cited to me seemed like, you know, like, like they were more rules for rules sake than that they were actually going to make his crops any safer, healthier. So it was like, like that was one example that hit my radar when I was in Iowa. There have been other other like small businesses and proprietors who've said it's like, look, you know, the fact is that like, I'm probably not keeping track of a lot of the rules that I'm accountable to. And I think that's really unhealthy for a society when you have people are trying to be responsible who, you know, if you give them rules, they'll try and follow them. But at this point, our rules are so dense, because we pass them and then we never unpass them and then we just make new ones. And at some point, actually that ends up eroding the importance and efficacy of the laws. I was influenced by an author, Philip Howard, who's a little bit more than conservative in the spectrum. But he calls it like the rule of nobody, where at this point, no one knows like what to do or what's in charge. And there's like this rulebook, like a, you know, a phone book thick that could be brandished on you and like we all live in fear of the phone book rulebook. Sure. No. Yeah. Well, let me, let me say this though. In the event you are a farmer and you're saying, look, President Yang, I have all of these regulations that I don't want to follow. How do you determine what actually is or is not legitimate? Because for example, President Trump last year, he postponed water testing rules. And then we saw the direct result of what happened. We had a nationwide E. Coli outbreak and it was because of dirty water, because of the loosening of regulation. So how do you determine what concerns are legitimate and which ones are illegitimate? Like, are you going to set up a type of commission of experts? Like, how do we determine, you know, whose concerns are actually valid and how many people just want to script regulations to save a buck or two? Yeah. And another excellent question. You know, one of the things that made me sad is how the Republicans got rid of the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995, where they used to have an office to advise Congress on tech regulation and they said, we're wasting money on these things. They got rid of it. And so that's exactly the kind of thing we need more of, not less of, where you actually have experts that are not subject to industry money or lobbying. And then just, they can say, they can come and say, look, you know what would actually make our water safer and cleaner or our crops safer for our people? It's like these things and these things more marginal. And so your bilateral commission is exactly the kind of thing that we would want, taking a look at some of the regs. The OTA, which doesn't exist, but hopefully the Democrats are going to succeed in bringing it back, is exactly the kind of third party objective advisory body that you would want to try and come in and take a look at what's on the books. And certainly, I'd be the opposite of the guy who's like, hey, let's like ignore the water regs for a particular period of time. When I was in Ohio, someone just said to me offhandedly that their cancer rate is several times the national average because in that particular area northeast Ohio because of the drinking water, and that what we think of as the Flint water crisis is actually endemic to dozens of communities around the country. And that, I mean, I don't know if people listening to this are watching this for shock by that. I think I knew that, but then to actually be with someone who just offhandedly like knew that their cancer risk was going to be like several times the national average, that still struck me as very jarring that they just sort of accept that risk every day. So certainly anything that actually used a public safety, it's possible that we should be doing more of not less. Like my ask of the legislature to evaluate laws is certainly not like an anti-public protection. It's more like an efficiency and legislative accountability measure.