I think the era of general volunteerism has to be over.

We are moving in that direction at the Federal level also. I think it makes sense.

The Chesapeake Bay is also in trouble.

I do not think nutrient trading programs, like any trading program, work unless you have an effective cap.

That seems like a logical help because you can get savings in agriculture.

Yes. And we enforce it.

That would be particularly true on airborne. There is no question about it.

We need to think in terms of a basin approach, not simply a Bay approach.

It is a pleasure to have you before the United States Senate.

This has truly been a commitment in which the States and the District of Columbia have taken on the real responsibility and have brought in the Federal Government as a partner.

I think Director Hawkins raises a very valid point about having uniform standards of expectation using best science so that deals with the non-point sources.

It is a challenge in the Chesapeake Bay how we get a handle on non-point sources.

I think, though, that we want to have the numbers make good science that is achievable.

I want to talk about one additional tool that we are looking into, and that is a nutrient trading program to provide ways in which you can reach the levels by basically underwriting the costs of nutrient reductions in other segments.

I have run a farm, I have owned a farm, I know about farming.

I think that point is very well made, and on enforcement we would have to include non-point sources.

I am not very big on voluntary programs in many ways.

Regulation, in my opinion, is not a four-letter word.