Mike Thompson: “We have had extensive conversations on this over the past, I guess, year and a half. My desire would be that--this has…”

“We have had extensive conversations on this over the past, I guess, year and a half. My desire would be that--this has been off the table now for some time. Until yesterday, I did not know it was going to be brought back up. But now that it has been brought back up, it is back on the table, as we all knew it would be and should be, that we would sit down again on some proposed amendments to see if we could agree on some. We might be able to. As I say, I think they have improved the bill. It is all in the eye of the beholder. The thinking was it was a bill right where it ought to be. The administration came along and made 20-some-odd suggestions. I understand they were adopted. Presumably, it is a better bill. Maybe it can be even a better bill. Up until yesterday, the negotiations did not go the way I would have liked for them to go, frankly, but I cannot complain about not having been included in discussions. We have had a lot of discussions. What I would like to do is address the question of the Senator, though, a little bit more directly, the other question he asked. The question is: Why? I think the answer would be that for some of these items, there is foreign availability. If they are out there and France or someone, or Russia, let's say, is supplying China with these items, why shouldn't we?”