Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The last statement was extraordinary. It is the Republican perception when they talk about American workers, they are talking about the CEO of a multinational company. That, to them, is the embodiment of the average American worker. When they talk about protecting American workers, they are talking also about the CEO of a giant agribusiness pharmaceutical company which produces bovine growth hormones. They think it is great that the American people have to eat meat laced with bovine growth hormone and they will not even allow labeling of that so an American can know whether it is in the milk or in the meat, because there is a very wealthy guy running that company and they give lots of money to the Republican Party. So we cannot even have labeling in this country, and now, what are we going to do? We are going to force the Europeans who have wisely said, we are not quite sure whether this stuff is safe, and we are not quite sure that we want our babies and our children to be ingesting beef and milk from cattle which have been laced with this experimental drug. Now, they have passed a law to say that. We are saying, no, you cannot have those kinds of laws. Where did we go to get their law overturned? The same place where they are going to get our consumer protection laws overturned, our laws to protect American workers: the WTO, a secret tribunal which meets in secret, gives decisions in secret, produces no case, no law, no documents. They just make rulings, no conflict of interest rules at all. Now, is this the American way? When I asked the past American Trade Representative, how can we bind ourselves to that kind of process? He said, well, you have got to understand, these other countries in this organization, they do not believe in our system of jurisprudence, they do not believe in open courts, they do not believe in open arguments, any of that. So, now we have set up a system where the multinationals are always going to win, and sometimes it will be U.S.-based multinational: Chiquita, Monsanto, any other times they will be European-based multinationals. But the losers will always be the consumers and the workers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Aviation Consumer Right To Know Act,'' legislation to give consumers access to important airline industry information. Twenty years after the deregulation of the airline industry a debate is raging about its benefits to consumers. Deregulation proponents tout the benefits of free market competition. However, to truly enjoy any of these benefits, consumers must have access to accurate information so they can make fully informed choices. Although there is much debate about the impact of deregulation, it is quite clear that it is almost impossible for consumers to gain full access to information about the airline industry. The dizzying array of airline prices change constantly and inexplicably. The full selection of fares remains a mystery to consumers. Even travel agents do not have access to all available fares. Many passengers are further bewildered when they book travel on one airline only to find upon boarding that they are actually flying on a totally different airline. Domestic code-sharing agreements, primarily between larger airlines and small regional airlines, allow one airline to book tickets on another without disclosing this information to consumers. To make booking travel easier, many consumers turn to travel agents for help. However, what most consumers do not know is that travel agents often get special incentives to book the majority of air travel sold through their agency on a particular airline. Travel agents are not currently required to disclose this information to customers. Travel agents provide an important service to the flying public by deciphering the baffling airline fare structure but consumers should also be aware that this information is not always unbiased. Another area of frustration to consumers is the lack of accurate, consistent and realistic information about frequent flyer programs. Despite the popularity of frequent flyer programs, consumers find that when they actually choose to redeem awards, the destinations and times they want are not available. Many travelers choose an airline because of its frequent flyer program and it is important to fully disclose this type of information. My bill would give consumers the information they need to make informed choices about what airlines to patronize. The Aviation Consumer Right To Know Act will, (1) require airlines and travel agents to disclose the actual air service carrier if it differs from the carrier issuing the ticket, (2) require travel agents to disclose any special incentives they get for booking travel on a particular airline, (3) require airlines to disclose all available fares, (4) require airlines to keep records on the likelihood of redeeming frequent flyer benefits for specific city-pairs. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative and in opposition to the open-ended Republican resolution of inquiry. Mr. Speaker, the question of impeaching a sitting President has only come before the House of Representatives three times in our nation's history. There's a very good reason this has happened so seldom. Our nation's founders deliberately set very high standards for impeachment in order to spare the nation the trauma of such an inherently divisive debate and to maintain a strong and independent Presidency. At a time like this, we all have a responsibility to rise above party politics and short term political considerations. We are not just debating the fate of this President. We are setting precedents that will have a profound and long-lasting effect on our constitutional system of government. The issue before the House today is whether we will initiate a lengthy and open-ended impeachment inquiry that will paralyze our government and throw this nation into a prolonged constitutional crisis, or whether we will demand a focused and speedy resolution of this matter. After carefully considering the evidence so far produced by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, I have concluded that the nation's interests are best served by an impeachment inquiry that is thorough, but focused--comprehensive, but promptly concluded. This debate is already preventing Congress from addressing important issues facing the nation--including issues like the future of Social Security, health care reform and improving our educational system. There is no profit to the people of the United States in a drawn-out impeachment debate that could go on for another year or more. We have the information we need to conclude this matter by the end of this year. The Republican leadership should work with Democratic leaders to make that happen. President Clinton's behavior has been outrageous, reckless and morally offensive. He flatly lied to the American people and may have committed perjury in a civil lawsuit. Mr. Starr also alleges that the President obstructed justice and otherwise abused his office. Reasonable people can differ over whether these charges--if true-- constitute the kind of offenses that warrant the national trauma of impeachment. For that reason, if for no other, I believe the Judiciary Committee should consider the evidence brought forward by the Independent Counsel, as well as any new evidence he sees fit to refer to us, and decide without delay whether to forward articles of impeachment to the House. But I strongly disagree with the delay tactics and the blatantly unfair and partisan approach adopted by Republican leaders--a strategy aimed more at improving their party's election prospects than at promoting the national interest. Impeachment of a President is not a matter for Congress to take lightly or use for narrow partisan purposes. By its very nature, impeachment repudiates the will of the people as expressed in a popular election. it severely undermines the separation of powers, which is at the core of our system of government. And in the long term, it would weaken not only the office of the President, but the nation's strength and prestige in international affairs. For those reasons and others, I oppose the Republican leadership's drawn-out and open-ended impeachment inquiry proposal and will vote today in favor of the alternative: a prompt and focused impeachment inquiry aimed at resolving this crisis and putting these issues behind us, one way or another.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to congratulate Pearl Buck Center on 45 years of dedicated service to individuals with developmental disabilities. When Pearl Buck opened in 1953, it was one of the only educational programs in Oregon providing educational services to children with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. Pearl Buck Center has continued this tradition of leadership in the community, the state, and the nation, providing vocational training, employment, education, and case management services to people with developmental disabilities. Annually, Pearl Buck Center provides services to about 400 individuals with developmental disabilities and their children. Since it was founded, Pearl Buck Center has helped thousands of adults and children meet the challenges of their disabilities and find opportunities to succeed in school and on the job; to succeed as parents and as self-sufficient individuals; and to contribute to the community and society. I would like to acknowledge the hard work and spirit of service that characterizes this organization. I hope that all Americans will reflect on the dedication of the staff and volunteers of Pearl Buck Center and on the struggles and successes of the individuals they serve. I extend my deepest appreciation and thanks to Pearl Buck Center for their efforts, past and present, to help individuals with disabilities more fully realize their abilities, potential, and independence. We are all richer for your 45 years of service.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some interesting things. I guess we could call it election year hyperbole. Somehow this legislation, fast track, is going to be the salvation of our failing family farms. Can they hang on for 5 or 10 years until the next hypothetical trade agreements brought forward under fast track? I don't think so. Guess what, the last two agreements that came forward under fast track screwed the farmers in America. They were promised the world, but when it came down to whether the banking sector or the aerospace sector or the computer sector got favorable treatment in those agreements, and something had to be traded off, what got traded off? Agriculture. This is about a process that includes plausible deniability. That means there are a lot of people here who do not want to take responsibility for what is happening in America. They can say, you know, I had concerns about NAFTA. I knew there were problems with some parts of NAFTA. I knew there were problems with labor agreements, they were kind of weak, and we lost a lot of jobs there, and wages have gone down on both sides of the border. Yes, I had some real concerns about those environmental provisions. I really did not think they would clean up the border, which is one of the largest and fastest growing hazardous waste sites in the world. But I had to vote up or down, and I could not sacrifice 2 years of secret negotiations, and we will fix those things later. That is what we hear every time an agreement comes forward under fast track. Are Members going to blow up three years of careful secret negotiations, just because they have a minor concern about their farmers or about the environment or about American workers? No. The herd here most times said, gee, I would have liked to do something, but I could not. Why could they not? Because they gave away that authority at the beginning. Do not give away that authority ever again. Have Members not learned from our past mistakes? Can we not learn from a $200 billion a year trade deficit? Can we not learn from a race to the bottom in terms of wages and the environment? If we cannot learn, then hopefully the election year shenanigans here, this will help family farms, it is not going to do a damned thing for family farms, and the Members know that. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a lot of talk today on the floor of the House about a surplus. Let us get one thing straight. There is no surplus. The so-called surplus, 100 percent of it is the Social Security Trust Fund. We are overcollecting today in Social Security taxes. Seventy-three percent of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes to the United States Government than they do income taxes, with the idea that that money will be available tomorrow and the day after to pay future Social Security benefits. But guess what? The Republicans want to spend that money today. They want to over collect from 73 percent of the American public with the false promise of Social Security being there in the future, and they want to spend that money tomorrow in a new tax cut. That is the worst of bait and switch. At least they could have the guts to do both bills on the same day and say to the American people, ``Yes, we are spending your Social Security and tax cuts that will flow to a different group of people than paying the tax, but we think that's good policy. And don't worry, we'll somehow honor your benefits 10 and 15 years hence.'' This is bad legislation. The Republicans know it is bad. They want to give tax cuts. Yes, actually they are not bad tax cuts for the Republicans, probably the best tax cuts the Republicans have ever proposed because they are trying to hang Democrats out to dry. But we are not going to be hung out on the line here. It is the Republicans that are being hung out because they are spending the Social Security Trust Funds. They are not protecting the Social Security Trust Funds. What a magnanimous gesture. They will only spend 10 percent of them, and they will put the other 90 percent in a phony account in the Treasury that will be immediately borrowed and spent on other things. Mr. Speaker, this provides zero protection for Social Security. What is worse, it spends the Social Security Trust Fund of tomorrow on tax cuts today.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let us get to what we are really debating here today. We are debating the failed trade policy of the United States of America. We are going to run a $200 billion trade deficit this year. That means we are going to export about 4 million jobs. But we were told, ``Don't worry. Those 4 million jobs are those old, dirty, obsolete industrial jobs.'' Even though they were family wages and they paid benefits, not to worry. Those workers will be retrained for the future, the high-tech industry of the United States of America. So as we export the industrial base jobs, the family wage jobs, the jobs with benefits, what are we going to do now? We are going to import people for those jobs of the future. We are going to export our industrial jobs and we are going to import people into the United States to do the jobs of the future. What about those 4 million people? What about the people laid off from the aerospace jobs, from the computer companies and everywhere else? Are you telling us the American people are stupid? They know what you are doing here. You are screwing them going and coming. You are going to bring in people to fill the jobs you promised them when you took away their jobs. Both bills should be rejected, the bill and the substitute.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, to follow on the comments of the person preceding me in the well, there will be much fanfare this September about the looming budget surplus, no end of ideas on how to spend these monies. That side of the aisle is going to promote tax cuts, with the exception of the gentleman who spoke before me. Let us get some facts: 73 percent of the American people pay more in Social Security taxes than income taxes. We all pay this tax, knowing it goes to support our parents, our grandparents, the disabled, and, hopefully, ourselves, when we retire. This year Social Security will have a $90 billion surplus. Guess what? The so-called Federal budget surplus is the future Social Security trust fund. If we spend it today on tax cuts, it will not be there tomorrow for America's retirees. We better step back and think about that before we jam this bill through in an attempt to get reelected and be popular in an election year at the cost of the future of Social Security.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the bill. (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4079 which will authorize Federal and non-Federal projects at the Bureau of Reclamation's Folsom Dam Reservoir. These projects are intended to help and control and monitor the temperature of water released from Folsom Dam so the fish may benefit from the releases of cooler water. The amount authorized by H.R. 4079 for the temperature control devices at Folsom Dam is $5 million, although no specific requirements for reimbursing of these costs are set forth in the bill. It is my understanding the Bureau of Reclamation will consider these costs as capital improvements to the CVP project and will allocate the costs among CVP water and power customers in accordance with current CVP cost allocation procedures. The cost estimate report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office on H.R. 4079 clearly states that, quote, about 4 million, end quote, of the cost of constructing temperature control devices and monitoring apparatus at Folsom Dam would be repaid by the water and power users. With this understanding regarding the reimbursement of costs, the administration has advised us they do not object to this legislation. The control of water temperatures released from dams is a proven and cost-effective method of improving survival of fish. I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for his commitment to this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4079. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2795. In addition to providing for continued water deliveries to irrigators, this legislation will allow work to continue on the environmental impact statement, our plan to improve wildlife habitat in the central Platte region in Nebraska. Endangered Species Act compliance will also continue during the term of the contracted extension. The committee agreed to the amendments suggested by the administration which ensure that the water contracts are not extended indefinitely. It is my understanding the administration has no objection to the enactment of the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources. I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Power for his cooperation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2795.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman for that. Mr. Chairman, this country has been rocked by the outbreak of violent shootings and the senseless loss of life in our schools this past year. My hometown of Springfield, OR is still struggling with the pain and devastation of one of those shootings. Like my friends and neighbors, I've looked for answers and solutions to these tragic events. It's clear there's no single, or simple, solutions to prevent these acts from re-occurring when school starts in the fall. But the circumstances around the Springfield incident has focused attention on a shortcoming in current law. When a student takes a gun to school, it should set-off alarm bells. Someone should take a look at that student's life and see what would be causing that type of behavior, but instead, police officers are asked to make a judgment call about the youth's state of mind and determine whether, or not, they pose a threat to themselves or the community. But may law enforcement officials don't want that discretion. Many law enforcement officials feel these students should be detained and evaluated by a professional before being released back into the community. Bobby Moody, President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police wrote, ``As recent events have shown, a mechanism must be developed which temporarily pulls children found with guns out of the school system so that a thorough psychological examination can be performed to determine the danger such a child presents to others.'' Paul Barnett, President of the Oregon State Sheriff's Association wrote, ``Oregon's recent tragedy in Springfield has been a devastating and unnecessary reminder of the urgent need for new legislation to address the obvious inadequacies of our current policy regarding school violence. Over 100 Oregon students were caught bringing guns to school last year, each representing the potential for yet another tragedy. Oregon State Sheriff's Association urges the U.S. Congress to act quickly to deliver this important tool to communities and schools throughout the nation by providing incentives to states willing to implement the provisions of the 72 hour hold legislation.'' And Springfield Mayor Bill Morrisette wrote, ``I recently attended a debriefing conference in Memphis, TN convened by Mayor Jimmy Foster of Pearl, MS and attended by representatives of Paduca, KY, Jonesboro and Stgamps, AK, Edinboro, PA and Keokuk, IA. It was the consensus that the 72-hour mandatory holding period for guns on school campuses was a necessary first step. If we don't even allow joking about having a weapon in an airport, why should we give a kid a slap on the wrist for bringing a gun to school.'' Guns in schools is too common. A study of the Department of Education on implementation of the Gun-Free-Schools Act found that more than 6,000 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school in the 1996-97 school year. Thirty-four percent of those students were in junior high school, and nine percent were in elementary school. Communities want and need more tools and resources to deal with these situations. This amendment is not a panacea, and we can't second guess what would have happened if this law had been in effect and Kip Kinkle had been detained and evaluated by a judge rather than released into the community. But, this law would give local law enforcement officials one more tool to use to reduce the incidence of gun violence in our schools.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill which is identical to the amendment the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I had planned to offer. We intended to introduce that amendment as a stand-alone bill before we adjourn this week. However, in light of the recent outbreak of school shootings this year, I ask for the chairman's support as we work to make this bill law, and create new ways to prevent youth violence in our schools and give our communities the tools they need in that effort.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we have been told by the other side that it is absolutely unnecessary to have this amendment because the United States Government has never used the power of the courts to preempt State and local laws, and it will never do that. Well, if that is the case, then why do they not just accept the amendment? This only limits the expenditure of funds for the Federal Government to take local and State governments to court when their laws are found to be inconsistent with NAFTA and GATT, international trade agreements, not the Constitution of the United States. Of course the Federal Government can sue if it violates the Constitution of the United States, but only in the case where their local laws, their local preference, violates the terms of an international trade agreement, which will be decided by secret tribunals overseas. If that is what is before us, they should then accept the amendment. Further, we have the statement in 1986 of the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan concluding that State and local laws and anti-apartheid laws were constitutional under the market participation doctrine. They go on to say, the Supreme Court has distinguished, quite properly, between the exercise of proprietary powers and regulatory powers. The Court has shielded proprietary actions from the strictures of the Commerce Clause. State divestment statutes represent, we believe, an exercise of proprietary power. That goes to the arguments of the gentleman earlier. These are constitutional. This is what our country is all about, it is what it is founded on. Our local and State jurisdictions should be able to express their values in expending the dollars of their taxpayers. That is what this is about. The largest city in my State, Portland, has imposed restrictions on purchases regarding Burma because of the drug smuggling from Burma, because of the oppression in Burma, because of the fact that they had an election which was won by an 80 percent margin and they refused to recognize it. They are saying something must be done. We have a bunch of people in the White House, and apparently even here, unwilling to take stern action against Burma, but at least a few cities will stand up for the rights of those people. And that is the way it should be. We should not be threatening them because they are saying you are violating the WTO. You know, those butchers running Myanmar are in fact compliant with WTO, and you cannot do that to them. They are compliant. That is absurd. What we need to do here tonight is adopt this amendment and just say in one case and one case only the Federal Government cannot spend these funds. But if it is unconstitutional, fine, they can go to court. But if it is to take a local jurisdiction to court merely because the bureaucrats at the WTO or the bureaucrats who are making the decisions in NAFTA, or Charlene Barshefsky, a former foreign agent, now our Trade Representative, says so, that is not the way this country should be run.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I were going to enter an amendment today to create an incentive program for States to implement a 24-hour holding period for a psychological evaluation for juveniles who bring firearms to school. That amendment would have been subject to a point of order and we will not offer it, but I wonder if the chairman would be willing to engage in a brief colloquy.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 2537.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I opposed the form which the--

Mr. DeFAZIO. It is my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would continue. So the point here is we are going to get a report in March of 1999. We will know who is good and who is not. The Forest Service spent 53 percent on administration last year, probably more this year, including law enforcement personnel. A lot of money replacing their newest vandalism, which is the fee signs. The amount of money collected by the Forest Service last year was enough money to meet .06 percent of their backlog. Not 6 percent, not six- tenths of a percent, but 6/100ths of 1 percent of their backlog. At that rate, yes, in 1,600 years of collections we could meet today's backlogs. But of course there would be a few more backlog projects in the 1,600 years. Yes, we do need additional funds. They should be appropriated. They should be requested by the administration and they should be appropriated. Perhaps we should ask the mining companies to pay a small fee for using the public lands, as opposed to dumping it on the back of individual taxpayers. The key thing here is that we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know how well it is working or where the money is going. This is just like the previous debate, the debate on the K-V funds, where the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) was successful. We are creating an unaccountable slush fund. And if I am not successful with this amendment, in 2 or 3 or 4 years we will be back with an amendment because of all the money that cannot be accounted for and all of the moving around within accounts and all of the administrative overhead being paid for by this program. We will be back here. But, no, let us act rationally now. Do not extend it for 2 years. Do not buy a pig in a poke. Let it go on for the next year, get the report in March, and then, even if the authorizing committee is not capable of acting, the Committee on Appropriations could extend the program for another year at that point. If it is so knockdown, drag-out popular, and the money is being spent so well, and it is reflected in a report that we actually receive on this program as opposed to hearsay, then I do not think that will be a problem. But if, indeed, the problems are as bad as a number of us have heard, I think there will be a need for very significant adjustments in this program before we extend it into the next millennium. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, let us revisit where we are at with this amendment. It does not eliminate this demonstration user fee program, but what it does do is say it will not be extended for 2 more years beyond 1999. Beyond October 1st of 1999. What it says is we will receive a report, as required by the original demonstration fee program, on 3\1/2\ years of data in March of 1999. Then we will know. We will know how much is going to overhead, we will know how well this is working, we will know where the money is being spent, and then we can make decisions. If, indeed, the authorizers are incapable of acting, and I would question if it is this popular, knockdown popular as everybody says it is, that people are just thrilled to pay this money and they know it is going to a good cause, why would the authorizing committee have any problem in moving a bill? I know the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) would be happy to do that, if it is so popular.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. We can change the name of the debate to normal trade relations, but we cannot change the issues that are before the Members of this Congress. We can say it is only a debate about trade relations; we must discard our concerns about human rights; we must discard our concerns about Chinese involvement in the proliferation of high-technology to terrorist nations; we must discard other principal concerns of our Nation, this is only about trade. But even the United States Trade Representative and their spin doctors cannot make China's trade policy look good or normal by anybody's means. Sixteen single-spaced pages replete with special tariffs, taxes, written and even, yes, unwritten rules and restrictions against U.S. goods. The goods they want in, the high-technology goods to foster their military or their future economic superiority, they get in, and they do profit a few U.S. corporations. But the goods they want to produce, the industries they want to nurture, the areas where they want to employ their people, those U.S. goods, no matter how much better, no matter how much cheaper, they cannot get in. If they cannot stop them with the tariffs or they cannot stop them with the taxes, or the written rules, they stop them with the unwritten rules, the corruption and the bribery. China is the most unfair trading nation on earth. Now, the proponents say the choice is isolation or engagement. What about reciprocity? What about reciprocity, the American principle, the ideal of a level playing field? No, the proponents of normal trade relations, well, they prefer the doormat policy. We have a doormat trade policy. Anything and everything produced anywhere in the world, no matter how unfairly, no matter by prison labor, child labor, whatever else, it is welcome here. And if we do that, someday, someday those nations might reciprocate and allow our goods into their countries. It is not working too well, folks, and we have to start somewhere. China is the most egregious example. Let us start there. This is the last 3 years of unfair trade policies against U.S. goods. Look, the book is getting thicker every year. It is time to act.