Just along those lines, you indicated in your opening remarks that Norway--which is a country we're very concerned about because the subsidies in their program allowed the shipbuilders not only to become competitive but to gain an added advantage in the international community--indicated in March 2005 that they no longer had a subsidy program. Subsequent to that, I believe the ambassador came before committee and reiterated the same remarks here.
My concern is that if a country subsidizes and continues to pump money into a particular sector—in this case we have shipbuilders—and allows them to purchase equipment, gain synergies and efficiencies, and really gain a competitive advantage to market access, and then says they want to do free trade and they want a level playing field, is that really levelling the playing field? A lot of the concern shipbuilders have presently is specifically with a country such as Norway. Up until 2005 they heavily subsidized the shipbuilding sector, and now that they are at an advantage, they want a level playing field.
So the question I have is, do you genuinely believe—we've had many sticking points in the negotiations—that this particular issue has been addressed? You've talked about the tariff reduction, a phase-out of 15 years, and then again a bridge, another 10 years. Those have been mentioned as a means to address this issue. But do you think it's been sufficiently addressed, specifically vis-à-vis concerns that shipbuilders have expressed regarding Norway?