For instance, at various points H.R. 1872 outlines the composition of the privatized Boards of Directors. Otherwise and given the context of the negotiations that I have outlined above, I would ask that the U.S. negotiating team not be tied to details such as this that could force us to attempt to cross a bridge too far, with little reward on the far bank of that river, assuming we could successfully cross it. On broader issues of direct access and multiple signatories, we take the view that if and as the negotiations are successful the concept of multiple signatories would be redundant. If we attempt to introduce multiple signatories in the midst of negotiations or during the transition to privatization the likely result will be chaos or worse. If, on the other hand, the negotiations fail or appear to be failing there will be ample opportunity to institute multiple signatories.
Direct access appears to provide a different opportunity.
In considering direct access, however, we need to examine at least two issues more closely. In sum, while we are fully prepared to consider the potential benefits of access options, we must also be alert to exigencies imposed by the very nature of conducting multilateral negotiations. We look forward to further discussions with the Committee and its staff in the expectation that we can collectively resolve some of the outstanding matters discussed above, and other issues raised by the proposed legislation, and move forward with a needed and effective piece of legislation.