Thank you very much, Mr. Manly, for participating in these very important committee meetings.
One of the things we have heard over and over again since I've been at this and right from the get-go, in particular with the section 232 tariffs on steel and whatnot, is that when Trump first positioned this, he wanted it to sunset in five years. We heard loud and clear from businesses and unions that they need certainty and that to constantly be at this would not be good. So, we negotiated, as you know, the 16 years, but there is that review in five years. It was not a bad thing. It was not a full sunset; however, there is that review in five years. When you're reviewing in five years it means you're probably getting ready the year before to review it, so it's constant.
I think Mr. Hoback made an excellent comment. It means that we can review this at any time—in two weeks, not two years, or in two months, if we felt it necessary—and that goes for the Senate as well. There already is that mechanism to review things earlier. If it is seen by any member that it is pertinent, then I think we should.
Therefore, because we heard so much over the last number of years about needing certainty for a certain amount of time and not such a short time, we'll be voting against it.
Thank you very much for your participation. I think this particular NAFTA deal with its green clauses and green parts of it is pretty exciting moving forward.
Again, thank you very much for your amendment, but we will not be supporting it for those reasons.