Illusions that if they do something now because of a lack of quorum, there will not be any enforcement. It is unfortunate we dont have a quorum. It is inexcusable, in my view. We had two commissioners who resigned, one two years ago, another almost two years ago. Those seats were never felt. Never filled. Host why . Chair weintraub i dont know. That is something i have no control over. The nominations have to be made by the president and senate. It is easy to get over the long vacancies. We should have never been in this situation we found ourselves in. We are down to a quorum of four. Another commissioner decided to resign. That left us with only three. Totakes four commissioners initiate investigations, to authorize penalties and approve conciliation agreements. However, people should know before we lost the quorum, we authorized a number of investigations. We are at a high point in a decade in the number of investigations we have ongoing. As soon as we get commissioners back in, we will be able to finalize some of those investigations and take up the complaints filed. Host the authority of the fec is what . Chair weintraub money in politics. We were set up to follow the money. Every candidate for federal office, Political Party committee, super pac, they have to register with the fec and fil e regular reports. Any donor of 200 or more gets their name disclosed on public reports. Anybody can look them up on fec. Gov and find out who is supporting your favorite candidates. You just a followup mentioned you had a high point in the number of investigations. Can you talk about what the fec can do with those investigations . Chair weintraub staff is continuing to investigate. Unfortunately, what gets done at the fec fortunately, works gets done at the fec by people who are not commissioners. One of those divisions is our enforcement division. We more than doubled the number of investigations during this calendar year. I set a very aggressive agenda for enforcement. We were back loved on backl ogged on our enforcement docket. I worked the commission pretty hard during the seven months out of the year. Before we lost the quorum, we were working pretty hard. Progress on the backlog. Unfortunately, we have lost the ground we made up since we have been without a quorum since the beginning of september. Staff continues to work on those investigations. They will be writing reports and formulating recommendations, so that as soon as we get four commissioners, the commission will be able to make decisions on those investigations. Backe i wanted to step before the fec had its quorum. Even then there was partisanship at the commission. If you were given all the power to fix the fec, what would you do to make it a functioning agency . What do you think needs to happen in order to make it a commission that works . Chair weintraub the first thing is to have commissioners dedicated to enforcing the law. Ahat would help if we had majority of commissioners with the mission of the agency and wanted to see it accomplished, then we could really get things done. Sense, butsome particularly in the last few years, there has been an ideological divide on the commission, with half of the commission thinking the law should not be strenuously enforced because it intrudes on First Amendment rights, and the other half thinking it is our obligation to enforce to prevent corruption, and we have to make sure there is accountability when people violate the law. The interesting thing about this divide is it is not partisan in the traditional sense. It is true democrats are on the proenforcement side and republicans are on the other side, but it doesnt matter who we are investigating. We had a big case that just concluded. It concluded before we lost the quorum that involved a scheme between the super pac and Hillary Clinton campaign. The democrats voted to enforce the law, to investigate, and the republicans blocked the investigation. It is an ideological divide over whether the law should be sideced, and it is not one trying to protect their guy. Maggie i was thinking structural changes to the agency. Does it take changes to Campaign Finance law . Speaking of thinking in terms of the overall system as opposed to the personalities of individual commissioners, what would you do . Chair weintraub various changes have been proposed that would strengthen the law. There are also changes to the agency, which i think you are getting at. The most controversial one is the number of commissioners. The problem is we have an evenly divided commission, and that is why we cant get four votes to do anything, because you have three people on one side and three on the other. There are a number of what ought lesse l to be controversial cases. When staff makes a recommendation to do an investigation, if the presumption is we would have gone forward with the investigation unless four commissioners blocked it, then at least we could gather more facts and make a more informed decision. One of the ways the agency has been obstructed in the last decade or more is we havent been able to get four votes to start an investigation. We get an allegation, and my colleagues on the other side have raised the threshold for starting an investigation. They want to see proof that the law was violated before they start the investigation. We are the ones who are supposed to conduct the investigation. Anyone in the country can file a complaint. You can expect people in the public to have the resources cant expect people in the public to have the resources to file the complaint. That is our job. Instead of requiring four votes to do an investigation, it would require four votes to stop an investigation, at least we can get the facts before the commissioners whether someone violated the law. That in and of itself would be a huge improvement. Michelle you are clearly a very outspoken member of the fec. Not everyone agrees with you. There is quite an ideological divide. Especially during this time of lack of quorum, you have used your position as chairwoman to bring publicity to certain issues, called out specific issues you hope to raise in the public attention because there are not any meetings right now. You are quite voiceless at the actual agency. There are critics who say you are using your platform improperly. There is an Inspector General with the filed Inspector General, basically saying you are improperly using your position in a political manner. What do you say to the critics who allege you are compromising your agencys ability to be neutral arbiters of campaignfinance law . Chair weintraub i have several responses to that. The i. G. Complaint is a duplicate of an earlier complaint that our i. G. Dismissed, that i havent done anything wrong. It is unusual to file a second i. G. Complaint on the same set of facts. One of the more important sections of the agency is to provide the public with information about what the law is. We are hamstrung in doing that in the normal ways we would do it. I feel an obligation to get information out to the public to make sure everyone is clear where the lines are. I have put out statements that summarize the law, by going on television programs. Any tool i have to get the message out is one i am prepared to use. We dont want people to be caught by surprise by what the law is. I want them to follow the law. That is a much better plan for the agency than having us come back to years later and trying to see if someone deserves a penalty for violating the law. Wouldnt it be better to make sure everyone knows upfront where the lines are so that they can comply with the law and everyone is playing by the same set of rules . Thosed like to add, to who argue this is political or partisan, you can look at my voting record. I have voted to enforce the law against the highestranking officials of both parties over the years. I gave a case where i voted to enforce the law against Hillary Clinton, against barack obama, against the current president , donald trump, the last republican president , george w. Bush i dont care who violated the law, it is my obligation to ensure everyone is complying with the law and to enforce it fairly, regardless of rank and party. Michelle speaking of the issues the public cares about, we had indictments relating to influence operations by foreign entities who are trying to gain access to the u. S. Political system. We realized we are still dealing with issues coming from the 2016 elections when it comes to foreign attempts. Is the fec equipped to handle these concerns . What role does the fec have in making sure you can enforce the laws that prohibit influence on u. S. Elections, especially now that we are entering the 2020 elections . Chair weintraub we have a number of investigations that are ongoing. Details to the cant go into the details. When we discuss foreign intervention, we have found a surprising degree of unanimity on those issues. We are not alone. This is an international problem. Countries around the world are grappling with this same issue, how do you prevent outsiders from trying to intervene in your elections . The Justice Department has an Important Role, because these are serious issues. I think the laws need to be strengthened. I would like to see better and stronger sanctions imposed, and for us as a government to make it clear that every Single Person is on the same page on this issue and that strong sanctions will be applied to anyone who tries to muck around in our elections. It is hard to know what tricks someone will pull the next go around. The Intelligence Community has confirmed this, that foreign governments will try to interfere in the 2020 election. It behooves us and congress to adopt strong measures to warn everybody off. This is the United States. It is our democracy, and we will not tolerate anyone else trying to intervene. Foreign election interference is such a huge issue right now. I think it is sprawling. What do you see the fec doing to curb this problem . Chair weintraub we have a number of investigations ongoing now. With were to come out strong outcomes we had a case earlier involving a domestic subsidiary of a Foreign Company that made over a 1 billion Country Vision to a super pac. Ac. Contribution to a super p we had one of the highest penalties we had in a decade of almost 1 million in that case. There have been some alarming items of dissension on that. We had a couple of complaints that i thought we should have investigated, one involving whether russian money was funneled through the nra. We could not get a consensus to investigate. I think that is unfortunate. For the most part, the fec commissioners had been on the same page on this. Speak, are at work as we investigating some of those cases. The bigger cases will be handled by the Justice Department. That is appropriate, because they can throw people in jail. Host you gave an extension to Michael Bloomberg in filing his Financial Disclosure forms. Why . Chair weintraub i was not personally involved in that decision. Our lawyers handled that in accordance with the regulations on providing extensions. I wasnt personally involved. I wasnt consulted before the extension was given. Host so that is unusual to give an extension . Chair weintraub no, that is not unusual. Michelle i want to pivot to something wonky, microtargeting. Recently you wrote in the Washington Post about eliminating microtargeting, the use of it in political ads, saying it may be undermining the political character of the United States. s prohibition on microtargeting is about to go into effect for u. S. Advertisers. I am curious, why do you propose eliminating Something Like this . Why is it better to have advertisers run ads targeted to a broader audience rather than specifically reach people who are the most engaged or not engaged before . Doesnt eliminating microtargeting mean someone who has the most resources can have the broadest megaphone, like a billionaire like Michael Bloomberg who is flooding the airwaves with ads reaching tons of people . Chair weintraub the benefit of social media as is they are not extensive to begin with. Even if you expand the number up asll see it, it adds you do a lot, but individual as are not expensive ads are not expensive. The problem with microtargeting we had different responses from Different Social Media platforms. Twitter said they will ban all political advertising. That may be a step too far. We want people to reach their audience. We want candidates for office to ave a way of reaching people, lowcost way of reaching them. The problem with microtargeting the standard response on First Amendment jurisprudence to someone running an ad with inaccuracies, okay, if you disagree, you can counter them by putting out your information. When it is microtargeted, nobody sees it, so there is no room for an opponent to say that ad is inaccurate. It made charges that were untrue. Into thefolks can get mix and say there is information that has been debunked. You are trafficking in conspiracy theories. What we dont want is for individuals to be targeted based on the vast amount of data these social Media Companies collect for their susceptibilities to arguments that may not be true, and there is no opportunity on the other side to counter the speech. More people having access to the same information will provide a more honest debate and find people with the opportunity to respond. We have seen a couple people be invited for raising huge amount of money for pacs t hat look like charities. Trumps scam pacs for reelection. These issues are becoming bigger, but there seems to be a lot of apathy in washington about fixing it. When you ask people on the right, there are free speech concerns when it comes to curbing the behavior of super pacs to raise money. Seems like a reasonable route to do something to fix scam pacs, or will this be a Justice Department issue . Chair weintraub i am not apathetic about this. People are getting ripped off. Donors are trying to exercise their First Amendment rights and they are being misled. They are being ripped off. You think it is unsophisticated folks who are the most likely targets, and sometimes they are, but daniel craig was taken in by a scam pac. Who is more sophisticated than james bond . There are people preying on peoples vulnerabilities. They sent these letters and say if you want to protect your way of life, you have to support this candidate. Somewhere in the fine print there will be something that says we are not affiliated with that candidate, but people dont see that. One thing we can do is require much broader disclaimer information in plain english so that it is information that says clearly and unmistakably on the solicitation, this money is not going to that candidate. We have had candidates who filed complaints about this kind of scam pac activity. It is ripping them off too. People are trying to support them and maybe only have 25 they can afford to spend, and it goes into the pocket of somebody who set up this organization and money is funneled into overhead expenses and ends up in the pocket of the person who organized it in the first place. We need stronger fraud protection. Fec recommended congress strengthen the laws against fraud in campaigning. I dont know how much protection i want to give to the First Amendment right of somebody to deceive and steal money from people. I suppose that is speech when you say give me money. Deceptives we have advertising practices, there should be prohibitions against defrauding people of their political money. Host a quick question . 2020, a decade will have passed since Citizens United. What is the biggest impact from a regulatory standpoint . Chair weintraub it is interesting. People were afraid corporations would be spending a lot of money, but that is not the primary result. The biggest result has been the empowerment of a class of megadoneors spending millions of dollars to what gets enacted. 126he 2016 election, individuals gave over 1 million. 13 gave over 10 million. One family gave 122 million to various political committees. That is only the money we know about. We are not talking about the dark money groups. That has a real impact, not only but people elected, are afraid to support policies that anger these big donors, knowing they can spend unlimited amounts of money to get somebody that will tow their line more easily. For all of us who believe every person deserves an equal voice in our country, the rise of these megadonors has not been a Good Development for democracy. Host do you think the president aed the views the fec as priority . Chair weintraub you will have to ask the president. He made a nomination a long time ago. That person has not gotten so much as a hearing in the senate. The senate has proven they are motivated to confirm people when they are willing to do so. I wish we could have our quorum restored and get back to work. Chatter. E heard about these are often bipartisan conversations on capitol hill about nominating new commissioners. Do you hear about that these days . Chair weintraub i hear a lot of things, but the people in position to affect it is the senate and president. Host Ellen Weintraub, chair of the fec, the federal election commission. We appreciate you being here on newsmakers. We continue our conversation and michelleeverns ye hee lee. This is an agency designed to enforce money in politics, but doesnt have the tools to do so. Michelle it was jarring to hear the chairwoman of the fec acknowledge the agency has lacked investigative powers as we ramp up for the president ial election. This will be the most expensive election ever. Yet, even though the role of money in politics is going to be so great this year, she can investigate. Cant investigate. Now the backlog is going to get greater. Host what do you view as the biggest challenge . Maggie seeing the way Ellen Weintraub talks about her work her job is to chair this commission, but often her answers are about Things Congress and the Justice Department can do. When we talk about disinformation or foreign interference, this huge threat everyone talks about the threat of china or russia in this election. Her answers none of them had to do with what the fec can do, because there is no quorum, and even if there was a quorum, the fec ground to a halt before then. She spends so much of her time talking to the press or sinking of thinking of work around solutions, things to ask angress for, to just be public figure. Host she did not seem too concerned about the i. G. Report. Mentionedas you during the interview, the fec was not always known for its efficiency. She seems like she has embraced the role of a public watchdog and going that path. In sees her agency is halted so many ways. You see these Digital Tools developing around political advertising, methods like scam pacs which solicit donations from people that do not know it is a scam. Yet the agency supposed to enforce these regulations is not caught up to the latest rules and cannot look into those tools in political advertising. Host jimmy carter and federal ford took federal matching dollars. Now we have federal billing errors federal billionaires in the race. As someone who covers money in politics, it seems like those days are gone. Ggie some candidates proposals include bringing back a Public Financing system. That was an astute point from Ellen Weintraub, that the biggest impact from Citizens United is not the money in the campaignfinance system, it is the empowerment of the people funding the system. It is a completely different world. A lot of democrats running for president would like to bring back some kind of system where Congress Puts money into campaign coffers, something to overhaul the system. Appetite for it in washington. Michelle technology and the behavior of donors are evolving so much quicker than agency is equipped to handle. Now they dont even have enough people to move forward. Host we will follow your work at politico and the Washington Post. Thanks for being on newsmakers. Q a, a wallght, on street trader turned photojournalist on his book dignity, about the plight of those living on the margins of society in america. It was a sunday or saturday morning. It was empty because all of the semis were gone. Intelligenceher came right through. We spoke for about an hour, half an hour or so. She told me her life you know, it was a cliche of everything wrong that can happen to somebody. Eventually i asked her what i asked everybody i photographed, what is one sentence how do you want me to describe the . Describe you . A is what i am, a prostitute, mother of six, and child of god. On cspans q a. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. This week on the communicators, president and ceo of Information Technology industry council. Represent . We represent 70 of the worlds most Innovative Technology companies. Thended in 1919 as association of business appliance manufacturers, things like scales and time clocks. Our those 103 years, industry has changed. Host how did you get into this line of work . I have been in d. C. Close to 25 years. I came to work on broadband policies at the federal communications commission. Fourth tradehe association. I ran the payments Technology Industry before joining iti. Host there are several trade associations not represent that represent tech, dell, ado be, microsoft, etc. What do you do differently . Jason like a lot of other industries, there are industry. Egment representatives they deal with semiconductor issues and the like. Iti is the broad crosssection of the tech sector, manufacturers, service providers, a very broad range of the industry. We have the opportunity to represent all segments of the Technology Infrastructure industry. Host to help us delve into those issues iti deals with is Steven Overly of politico. I want to start out talking about privacy. Maria cantwell released a bill that has democratic support. I am curious what you make of that bill, particularly given it only has democratic support. Jason iti came out with principles to advanced federal privacy legislation over a year ago. We were the first to say we need federal privacy legislation. Components of privacy , we think we need a unified National Privacy law that allows innovators and consumers to know their rights and have the balance of knowing those rights and access to Services Consumers demand. Components tot of federal privacy legislation that the bill will delve into. Our hope is it will be bipartisan because this is a bipartisan issue. The focus needs to be on empowering consumers to know their rights, a focus on transparency, a focuse on control. The passage of federal privacy law has those components. Steven releasing this bill with only democratic support, does hamperuston hasten or it . Jason there is bipartisan support in the house. Shown fromge has both sides of the aisle that there is a broad understanding of this legislation because members have introduced it. Bipartisan support is necessary to move everything through congress. Althoughtation is, legislation will be introduced from a variety of members, we will move something that has provisions everyone agrees with. We have been happy with the eptivity on both severity both sides of the aisle, consumer groups, representatives of government and the state level and internationally. Gdp are in europe has an interesting model. There is a lot to throw into the mix. Say gdpr saw fdpr i is an interesting model. Is that an overstuffed of overstep of iti . Jason no. Two things that led to gdpr. At the time, there were 28 separate privacy regimes that made it impossible for consumers on a europe wide basis to know their rights. Gdpr unified those regimes under one europeanwide regime. On the enforcement side, gdpr empowers National Data protection authorities at the state level, at the nation level, to make sure that the law is enforced. Are importantgs to us as an industry. Host with those different an impedimentthat to growth . We think itjason is an impediment to consumers to understand what they can do with data. We think it is impediment to innovation. If we have companies designing products that have to ascribe to 50 different privacy regimes across the country, it makes it impossible to support the innovation we are looking for. That is why we think federal privacy legislation is so important. Steven now that cantwell has put down a marker, what do you see from republicans . Jason we appreciate that the Ranking Member and Senate Commerce committee has been in dialogue. This is a big week for production. We understand that dialogue will continue. There is a broad recognition from all parties that this happen,ion needs to that federal privacy legislation will not move forward on this there is bipartisan agreement. Steven one provision senator cantwells bill includes is the right of individuals to sue Tech Companies if they break these privacy rules. Mechanism enforcement you can live with . Includeitis principles enforcement. Senator cantwell includes a provision to expand the resources allocated to the bureau, recognizing they need Additional Resources from the federal government. The concern we have about other enforcement regimes in addition advance does that make sure Companies Know to who sosubject to jurisdiction, consumers can get redress in private hands, we think that is less effective than allowing the ft c to do it. We have been focused on moving legislation forward and being part of the discussion. If there were provisions in a bill, we would be happy to provide that in put. Our focus is moving legislation forward, not on identifying any stopsion as one that would things from happening. We think federal privacy legislation needs to happen. Host would your member groups be supportive of a gdprlike structure in the United States . Jason the principles we have published borrow quite a bit from gdpr. We think it is an appropriate framework. The u. S. Is different from europe, so not have a provision translates to the u. S. Market. California has privacy legislation. There are provisions in the california legislation we think should be included as well. Steven i wanted to talk about the trade talks happening. We heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi comment that congress and the Trump Administration are making progress on the u. S. Mexicocanada trade agreement. Ask about is the proposal to expand Liability Protections for intermediaries like google and facebook. Does iti still support those provisions in a usmca trade agreement . Jason this is a replacement for nafta, which is decades old. It has a provision for the telegraph, that is how old it is. The digital provisions are important, because cross border data flows are important to the Technology Industry. It is one of our Top Priorities to do everything we can to encourage passage of the usmca. We think there has been good progress. The administration has done a terrific job of working with congress. We are optimistic it will happen quickly. Host where do those provisions benefit your Member Companies . Jason the biggest area of coverage for digital provisions in the usmca is crossborder data flows, to ensure what are called data localization policies arent adopted by nations. That would require data to never cross borders, particularly with the advent of cloud services. It is important for companies to send data across borders. Is in usmca. We think it is important to move it forward. Jason section 230 of usmca when iti first commented on usmca, it was in favor of those provisions. Some members suggest they should not be part of the trade agreement. Has your support for those provisions changed . Jason section 230 is included in certain trade agreements, because it is u. S. Law. Our advocacy was focused on that that provision was appropriate for inclusion in trade talks. Whether those provisions will be included in talks Going Forward is a hypothetical. It is possible it will be. It is possible to ensure our trade negotiations reflect the priorities of the u. S. Economy. Section 230 has been vital to the development of the internet economy. It is currently federal law. We think it is important we include that in the discussions. Jason trade talks with china have showed some signs of progress. We saw some vague guidelines from beijing around intellectual property theft, which is paramount to your members when it comes to china. Does that give you confidence we might see greater penalties in china for ip theft . Jason it is a huge priority. Trumpwhy we think the administration is doing a good job on pressure on china to change the fundamental flaws in which they do business. Intellectual property theft is important, but china has other policies that make it difficult for u. S. Companies to compete. Financial services companies. Crossborder data flows are restricted in china. China imposes restrictions on businesses to do mobile without a partner. The Chinese Government can take information out will. These fundamental issues need to be addressed in the context of a trade agreement. We remain optimistic we can get the trade agreement done. We have seen promises of reform. Those announcements have been made before. We are happy the administration is looking for an actual concrete agreement. Steven what should enforcement of these issues look like . That is part of the concerns of the past, that agreements are made, but there is no backing that up. If you were to draft a trade deal with china, what enforcement would be in place . Particular,china in this has been in issue. Even with its entry into the wto, we have seen enforcement challenges. Our view is the Trump Administration is on the right path. That is one of the holdups, chinas unwillingness to include concrete Enforcement Mechanisms in the agreement. China tohat caused walk away is the u. S. s insistence on including those provisions in the trade agreement. We are looking forward to china recognizing its importance. Host to build on what steven was talking about, intellectual property theft, the Chinese Governments involvement in the tech sector. Are we getting to where the World Wide Web and internet is bifurcated . Jason i hope not. We saw china take steps in that direction. Russia expressed a desire to create a russian internet. That moves us in the wrong direction. We are a global people. The Technology Industry is focused on Deployment Services deploying services that connect us all. I fear we are moving in that direction. I hope we dont end up there, but the risk of that is very real. Doven a lot of your members business in china. Has it become harder under this administration to do business with china because of the concerns with National Security . Jason u. S. Companies pay close attention to National Security issues. T iss not a u. S. Issue, i an issue around the world. What we see from the Trump Administration that is laudable is moving the trade agreement to address these issues. It should address the issues related to trade, supply chain. You do have a Global Supply chain. That Global Supply chain means u. S. Manufacturers rely on components manufactured around the world. We want to contribute to the flow of services around the world. 95 of the worlds consumers live outside of the United States. For technology companies, it is important to have a global market. On National Security issues, that is an Important Role of government. The trumpouraged by administration, having factbased analysis to ensure if action is taken on National Security grounds, it is because there is a National Security threat. Steven we have seen announcements from the Commerce Department that they want to see this on a casebycase basis. Some have suggested some penalties these administration has imposed are more motivated by economic interests than National Security. Jason i think that is why we support the way the Trump Administration moved this forward. The announcement you reference this week implements the may executive order. Put into place a rigorous factbased analysis, reflecting that National Security concerns are what we should be examining, not ancillary issues. It provides opportunity for comment from other stakeholders to address those National Security concerns. This is what government does. It protects citizens. Time,before we run out of i want to turn to antitrust. There is talk of breaking up the facebooks, googles of the world. Jason antitrust is an important body of law used over 100 years to address serious marketplace failures. Back at where government has stepped in to address market issues, the breakup of at t that was to address a monopoly telecom market. We all benefited. The consumer industry and the government itself from the opening of local Telecom Markets to competition. That was a rare case. It was close to 40 years ago. Antitrust matters are Law Enforcement matters. Facts. T have a lot of to remember the primary goal is to ensure consumers can benefit from the most robust technology. The Technology Industry generates 2 trillion in economic activity. More than 12 million americans work in the tech industry. That is important to remember as Law Enforcement does its work. Host when facebook buys instagram or whatsapp, isnt that quashing a petition . Competition . Jason the government did approve those applications. We broader issue is that need to remember that antitrust is a Law Enforcement matter, and those investigations play out over decades. Many companies in history have years that have no interaction from the government. Look at important to that. It is important to remember that antitrust carries a big weight. People think of it as a heavy action, and indeed it is. As with National Security issues, a casebycase basis is the way we should be looking at these things. Steven we have been to china. Now i would like to take us to france. France is looking at a digital likeces tax on Companies Google and facebook. I know that is a concern of your association. Have you heard any developments on how talks between the u. S. And france are going on that issue . Jason the French Digital Services tax has been fairly widely reported, only applying to a small number of u. S. Companies. We were concerned about the impact of the tax on innovation. Be view is they shouldnt country specific solutions. If we need an updated tax structure, it should be done on an international basis. The oecd has been looking into these issues. We believe that is the proper venue. The United States government did open an investigation under section 301. That investigation is still pending. The u. S. And france have been france has indicated they are interested in allowing the odc resolve this issue. The w te use looking at their own moratorium on ecommerce set to expire next month. Do you have any expectations about whether that could be renewed . That is an important parallel discussion. Interesting, it is a worldwide body. They have the ability to adopt policies multiple nations will address. The multinational solution we are looking for, we think is best out of the oecd. Almost every in country