It might be a good time for me to jump in, because I have a very different view of these bills than most people that you probably heard from. How many people in the room are staffers? Okay? Rule number one, just because a bill has the word child in its name doesn't mean it's good for kids. And with all due respect to my co panelists, who I have a lot of respect for, I think one of the reasons these bills haven't passed is because they are. There definitely are too many of them. But in my view, the problem here is that somehow and I went to the Stop CSAM hearing the other day, and I was kind of astonished at the at the at the rhetoric, because everything was framed as empowering big tech victims, and the word that I didn't hear anywhere was criminal or predator, or any discussion of the people who are actually doing The victimizing of the children. And so my big concern is that none of these bills really address the what I would at this point consider, the appalling lack of law enforcement focus on attacking the real underlying issues. So my father was an FBI agent. He spent his whole career working for the Senate racketeering committee. I come at these issues with sort of a combination of law enforcement experience and 30 plus years of child welfare, watching child welfare policy unfold as the Internet became a thing. And from my perspective, we look at this as. Yes, the tech companies are mandated reporters, just like school teachers and school nurses and pastors and mandated reporters are typically accorded immunity from civil liability, not from federal criminal liability at all, but in the meantime, we have, I think, in 2023 36.2 million reports from tech companies of illicit activity on their platforms. They're private companies. They cannot prosecute these people. They can't really even investigate it, other than to identify it and remove it when possible. But my concern has been that the approach to this problem has not prioritized things. So in other words, the house is burning down, but instead of calling the fire department or calling the building inspector and trying to, like, change the electrical codes for the community, meanwhile, the arsonist is running down the street with a book of matches. These are, in many instances, well organized global operations of organized gangsters and criminals victimizing children. There is no question in my mind that as a result of the lack of enforcement of existing law DOJ, lack of focus on this, the FBI is lack of focus on this. And I'll say this is probably the first time in my life that I've ever criticized the FBI publicly. But these bills, in my view, should be called, hey, we really don't like the tech community that much, so we want to regulate them, but I don't really see these bills is protecting children in any kind of meaningful way in the long run, and most importantly, because they are almost like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, saying, you know, we're going to pass a bill that lets us sue the automakers, but we're not really going to take the drunk drivers off the street. And so from my point of view, just from a practical perspective, there are too many different bills, and they each have sort of poison pills that if those poison pills were removed and perhaps the bills were somehow consolidated, we could get to a point where there was something affirmative on the sort of the building inspector side, but if we don't start to attack the criminal aspects of this problem, and it was a global problem, so 94% of the cyber tips are actually referred to foreign governments. The only law enforcement agency that can really look at that is the FBI. And what have we been doing to promote that? Nothing. The only bill that addresses that piece of this is Senator wyden's Invest in Child Safety Act, which will be reintroduced in this session. It was introduced in the last session. It's the only bill that I currently endorse at all. But I think that when you talk about protecting children, a lot of the stuff that's being proposed is really so far removed from the day to day issues that it and by the way, most of them will take years to be implemented, that the immediate effect will not be felt for children, and at the same time, we will be fueling a I mean, we've already fueled a digital crime wave because we really haven't looked at this seriously enough, But at the end of the day, I'm very concerned about the way that the tech companies have been demonized while they are reporting diligently, and I can tell you that a very small number of those reports are actually addressed from a law enforcement perspective. So you know, one of the concerns I have is that, in my view, the last federal agency that should have any law enforcement dominion over this issue is the Federal Trade Commission. And there needs to be, this needs to be the DOJ and the FBI.