Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Cannan.
It's a good discussion here this morning, gentlemen. I think there are a couple of issues that we're still not quite reaching out and grappling with. We have a number of priorities at the border. I think every nation on the planet has a lot on their plate today, business especially, but every nation and every area.
We're either on the verge of some larger problems or we have an opportunity to settle some very big issues that we already have, and I wonder if we can't hopefully take this as an opportunity. Maybe the slowdown in trade would allow us to go back to a discussion—and I just want some quick comments on this—on a perimeter in North America again. It was an idea that always intrigued me. I've been listening to the discussion here that it was too big an idea at the wrong time, but maybe it's the right idea at the right time.
Quite frankly, I'd say the majority of our companies—anyone who's dealing with Homeland Security or crossing the border today—have fenced compounds. Most of them have secure operations. There's no reason, especially for a number of products—and the first one I would think of is softwood lumber. We realize we have to wait for a turn in the economy before that market really recovers, but certainly there's no threat to softwood lumber. You have your phytosanitary work done, it should be able to leave the mill and cross the border. If they want to stop to check the driver and his papers, fine, but they don't need to check the load.
I'm a little concerned that we're talking about doing pre-clearance on our side of the border instead of doing pre-clearance at the manufacturer, whether that's the sawmill or the factory or wherever it is. I'd just like to have a comment on that.