I think it's a very fair comment, but this is my concern. First of all, with respect, I want to thank the member for accepting the $1 billion amendment. Secondly, the notion with respect to specific means, we've made our request before, and they have pushed back, right? And they've given us rationales why they can't attend. I thought the names would be important to highlight that we want senior officials, because somehow they don't think this committee request was important and they've neglected to come or show up at this committee meeting. As a result, we're making it very clear that we want people in senior positions, people who actually understand the process, who were there when the decisions were being made, to provide answers to us.
That's why I specifically mentioned the names and that's the rationale behind it. I'm open to changes to that, but that's what my rationale was and I'm still sticking to that. I think it makes sense.
I also want to mention that I do agree with the date change. I had requested October 31, but I'm comfortable with November 2 as well.
Those are the three things I felt I should talk about. The $1 billion I think should be included, and I appreciate the consensus in support of that. I still believe we should have specific names, given the fact that they've decided not to show up at this meeting. Third, I think the date change to November 2, 2006, is sufficient as is and I remove my initial request of October 31.