Talk about an issue if we may that is before you right now. And it deals with our iPhones. We all have one. And as you know, actually not far from your district in San Bernardino on December 2nd, there was a terrible tragedy. 14 people were killed as a result of radical Islamist terrorists. And right now the federal government is looking to access the cell phone of one of the terrorists. And actually the cell phone was owned by this county of San Bernardino, which is an interesting wrinkle. But be that as it may, Apple, the owner of the cell phone, is reticent to unlock the cell phone. Well, it is a new area for the court and for the Congress. Because in the past, the operating system of those iPhones has had a key to open it up and give information. And where that has happened and where a court warrant has been given, Apple usually has given up the information. But in this particular case, Apple is saying, hey, we don't have a key. So the question is, can the government mandate to a private company to make a key to open that up? But should they have a key? Should they have had a key? Well, they're saying Apple are saying that by not having made a key, we made it so hackers and other people can't get into the system. We can't get into the system, but we've made your phones more secure. So that's where this issue is going to come. And the court looks at one court case in a very narrow basis. And they do not have the funds to investigate and think about policy implications. That is the role of Congress. So what do you think is the key? So I said we need to get it before Congress. We need to investigate it. We need to think about what are the policy implications of telling a private company, make a key, and have that key available so that we can look at information should a court order that some. So a court has ordered it? Yes. And so I'm wondering what do you think? Have you taken an official position on whether Apple should make that key? Well, Apple is, again, that's a whole new base. And I can understand them because there's policy implications. So I said, for example, OK, well, what if we make the US government tells us open it up, make a key? So we make a key. Now we've made that system less safe for our users because now hackers may be able to get in. Now that there is some way to get in. That's one policy implication. The second policy implication is, OK, so the US government says give us. What about if we have iPhones under Chinese jurisdiction in China? Because China wants to go after human rights people. For example, you see what I'm saying? I do. That's the Congress's role. To look at this, to think about the policy implications, and to debate and put in law. She'll be back. She is the Red of Sanchez. Remember the US Congress candidate for the US Senate on Brett Palmer, into the California Democratic Party Convention.