I think the White House is going to have to make a commitment to spending some, in order to get these over the goal line. Unlike many European countries where it's now become sort of embedded in their legal system that domestic law must defer, is trumped by international law, this is something that doesn't come very naturally in our American legal system. And especially with regard to questions like human rights law or international law governing the activity of states within their territories or with respect to their own citizens, right? If one looks at the history of international law, human rights law is a relatively new innovation within the last half-century. Prior to that, for the most part, what went on within your own country was your own business, was not a matter of international law. And even more recently, I think it's dawned on most Americans that these international human rights treaties may actually come and constrain us. We're used to thinking about international human rights law as directed at other countries; this is law that should apply to Saudi Arabia or China or Zimbabwe. This isn't law that was meant to apply to us. And I think the Medellin case is a perfect example of where this is now -- the spotlight, the international law spotlight has been turned on us. It is in our interest to comply, even at the expense, I think, of some of our own domestic political flexibility. But that takes some