The Daily Signal - This Congressman Wants to End US Reliance on Pharmaceutical Products From China. Here's How.

Episode Date: April 8, 2020

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., says he wants to end the United States' dependence on China for pharmaceutical products. Gallagher recently introduced legislation with Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to accomplish that. He joins The Daily Signal Podcast to talk about why it’s so important to end China’s influence or involvement in creating America's pharmaceuticals. We also cover these stories: Gov. Andrew Cuomo announces that 731 more New Yorkers died from COVID-19, bringing the state's total number of coronavirus-related deaths to 5,489. President Trump replaces Glenn Fine, who had the task of supervising the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package.  Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the Senate may approve a quarter-trillion-dollar stimulus bill for small businesses as early as Thursday.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, April 8th. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Rachel Dahl Judis. Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin recently introduced legislation with Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas to end the U.S.'s reliance on pharmaceutical products coming from China. He joins me on the Daily Signal podcast to talk about why it's so important to end China's influence and involvement in the creation of our pharmaceuticals. Don't forget. If you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave it. a review or a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Now, under our top news. President Donald Trump isn't mincing words when speaking about the World Health Organization tweeting Tuesday, but WHO really blew it. For some reason, funded largely by the United States, yet very China-centric. We will be giving that a good look. Fortunately, I rejected their

advice on keeping our borders open to China early on. Why did they give them? give us such a faulty recommendation. The Washington Examiner reported that the WHO repeatedly and vocally opposed any countries imposing travel restrictions against China, but the Trump administration went ahead and placed limitations on travel to and from China at the end of January. Well, we have some sad news from New York today. During a press conference Tuesday, Governor Andrew Cuomo reported that in New York, another 731 people have died from COVID-19. on Monday, bringing the state's total number of coronavirus-related deaths to 5,489. This is the largest single-day increase the state has seen.

The governor assured those watching that this increase does not indicate the virus is worsening, as many of these people contracted COVID-19 several weeks ago and were sick for some time before passing away. Cuomo spoke somewhat optimistically about a projected plateau. in New York and the possibility of soon starting to plan for life after COVID-19. Here's what he had to say via the Hill. We have to start planning, restarting life. We're not there yet. But this is not a light switch that we can just flick one day and everything goes back to normal.

We're going to have to restart that economy. We're going to have to restart a lot of systems that we shut down abruptly. And we need to start to plan. for that, and I spoke to the governors, Governor Murphy and Governor Lamont about coming up with a regional metropolitan tri-state approach to do just that. How do we, when we get to that point, which we're not at, but how do we restart our economy and get everything up and running as quickly as possible? President Trump is replacing Glenn Fine, who was given the task of supervising the

two trillion coronavirus relief package. Fine, formerly the acting Inspector General at the Department of Defense will now return to his post as the principal deputy inspector general and will not lead the coronavirus relief oversight panel, his office said on Tuesday. In an email per the Hill, Derwent Allen, spokesperson at the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General said, Yesterday, the president nominated Mr. Jason Abend for the position of DoD Inspector General. The same day, the president also designated Mr. Sean W. O'Donnell, who is the Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General, to serve as the acting DOD, IG, in addition to his current duties at the EPA. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday that the Senate may approve a quarter trillion dollar stimulus bill for small businesses as early as Thursday. McConnell is working with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass the additional third. funding for the Paycheck Protection Program. The program exists specifically to aid businesses

in making payroll and covering other expenses during the coronavirus. The initial $350 billion given to the program now appears to not be enough to help all the businesses in need of the aid. McConnell said per Politico that it is quickly becoming clear that Congress needs to provide more funding or this crucial program may run dry. That can, cannot happen. Congress needs to act with speed and total focus to provide more money for this uncontroversial bipartisan program. Kaylee McInanini will be leaving her post in President Trump's re-election campaign and will be heading to the White House to serve as President Trump's press secretary, a post previously held by Stephanie Grisham, who is returning to her post as

First Lady Melania Trump's chief of staff and spokesperson. Macanani was a former spokesperson for the GOP. The test results are back, and Senator Rand Paul no longer has COVID-19. Paul tested positive for COVID-19 on March 22nd, while exhibiting no symptoms of the virus. After spending several weeks in quarantine, the senator tweeted Tuesday, I appreciate all the best wishes I have received. I have been retested and am negative. I have started volunteering at a local hospital to assist those in my community who are in need of medical help,

including coronavirus patients. Together, we will overcome this. Next up, my interview with Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who talks about ending the U.S.'s reliance on pharmaceutical products coming from China. Here at the Daily Signal, your safety is of the utmost importance to us. We want to make sure you have the best information on how you can protect yourself and your family from the coronavirus. Here's an important message from Dr. Deborah Birx,

head of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, explaining how communities across America are successfully flattening the curve. I think all of you can see from the data that is coming out from phones moving around, that there are areas of the countries that are really following this guidelines. The people are staying home.

They're not grouping together. Of course, this does mean that you can't have parties for 10 people even. You need to really stay home, really ensure you're following the guidelines, And when we see people are doing that, like in California and Washington, we're seeing that they haven't had these large outbreaks. So that's what you're preventing.

We know that can happen. And we really appreciate each and every one of you for what you have done. And we're asking you to do it for another 30 days. I'm joined today on the Daily Signal podcast by Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin. Congressman Gallagher, it's a pleasure to have you on the Daily Signal podcast. It's an honor to be with you. Well, you've made news lately because you recently introduced legislation with Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas to end the U.S.'s reliance on pharmaceutical products coming from China. Can you tell us a little bit about the bill to start off?

Well, first, I would say for those who doubt America can come together in a time of crisis, here you have an army guy in the form of Tom Cotton and a Marine in the form of myself working across party lines to introduce this legislation. But we are seeing across the board, you know, as we try and exponentially increase our testing, as we try and ramp up manufacturing of basic personal protective equipment to equip those on the front lines with what they need in order to defeat the disease, we're discovering all these single points of failure in our medical supply chain. And it is an acute expression of something we've known for a while now, which is a while now, is to say in the last two decades at least we've become dangerously dependent on foreign manufacturing in general, but Chinese manufacturing in particular. And perhaps nowhere is that more dangerous

than when it comes to pharmaceuticals. The fact is that most active pharmaceutical ingredients, what are called APIs that are used for drugs in the United States, are in fact made in China. And these aren't just exotic or esoteric drugs. This includes 95% of our imports of of ibuprofen, 40 to 45 percent of penicillin, and the list goes on and on. And it's this situation that allows officials within the Chinese Communist Party in a time of crisis to threaten to shut off exports and, quote, plunge us into a sea of coronavirus. And particularly at a time when we're trying to weather a very dangerous crisis, we cannot be that dependent on a foreign country, potentially a country that, if not a competitor,

is getting increasingly hostile to our interests. And so Senator Cotton and myself proposed to fix that with the protecting our pharmaceutical supply chain act, which beyond banning purchases from China with DHS and the VA and DOD and all other federally qualified health facilities from purchasing products that have APIs in China, we would also try and incentivize this supply chain shift and incentivize more manufacturing in the U.S. by allowing immediate expensing for firms that incur costs associated with expanding pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturing in the United States. And so we set an ambitious timeline, 2024, but if you consider that within the context of China's made it in 2025 initiative, we think it's a necessary but ambitious proposal.

Well, thank you, Congressman Gallagher, for that perspective. And you mentioned this a little bit when you're talking about how dependent we are, on so many drugs from China. But can you talk a little bit about why this is so important, especially given the coronavirus pandemic situation we're currently in right now? Well, I would think of it in a few different levels. The first and most obvious and most immediate is that simply we don't want to allow a foreign country to, as I alluded to before, threaten us in a time of crisis and potentially create chaos

within our own country that could result in death of our own citizens. So I would argue we have an immediate national security imperative to rebalance some of our supply chain and build resiliency into our system. And by the way, I would say this same argument holds for industries beyond pharmaceuticals or medical devices, particularly within the telecommunication space. As we think about the future of the Internet and 5G Internet in particular, the same thing is true. We cannot allow Chinese Communist Party companies like Huawei and ZTE to dominate the future of the Internet. internet because so much of our economy and by extension, our livelihood is dependent upon that. And therefore, we don't want to depend on the largesse of the Chinese Communist Party for our livelihood. But over the long term, I would say, you know, we are still the leader of the free

world. We want to do everything possible to ensure we remain the leader of the free world and also that we remain the world's dominant power because that is a good investment of our resources and systems where you have a country like that, the United States, unipolar systems tend to be more stable and less violent than balance of power systems. At least that's my own view. And so we can't allow the Chinese Communist Party to dominate industries, whether it's pharmaceuticals, telecoms or medical devices, and thereby force other countries around the world to subscribe to their alternative vision for global order, which is a vision that is inimical to U.S. values, values and interest in those of our free world allies. So I just would say there's both a short-term

imperative here, but also a long-term values-based argument for why we need to think about not only building resiliency into our domestic manufacturing, but figuring out how can we work more closely with like-minded allies, partners, and friends around the world that we might trust a little bit more than we trust China. Well, thank you so much for your leadership on that front. One of the elements in your bill is keeping pharmaceutical companies in China with active products or pharmaceutical ingredients that are created there. Where would you like to see pharmaceutical products made if this were to come to pass and we were successful in ending that production in China? Well, you know, not that I'm parochia at all, but I would love to see it all made in Wisconsin or Northeast Wisconsin in particular. but obviously domestically manufactured in the United States would be preferable.

But I do think there's room to get creative. For example, conservative healthcare expert, Ovik Roy has talked eloquently about how Puerto Rico, which is obviously U.S. territory, can play a key role in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. So that's one creative option as we try and move manufacturing from China closer to home. But even within Asia, I think there are. are manufacturing powerhouses that aren't China that may not be full-fledged allies, but nonetheless are, you know, short-term partners of interest with us in this effort to counterbalance arising China. Vietnam comes to mind. Obviously, we are similarly dependent on India, which is an even

closer friend of ours, but there are dangers to being dependent, dangers to being depending on India as well. So the more we can move closer to home, you know, the more we can concentrate manufacturing within our free world allies and our Five Eyes allies in particular, I think the better off will be. Towards that end, I actually think when we get out of this crisis, one of the most important things we can do. And this isn't a matter of pharmaceutical production. It's just a matter of economic stability and global prosperity is to sign a gold standard trade agreement with the United Kingdom, who has obviously completed their exit from the European Union. And I think our economies, which are both very advanced, their financial hubs, their services hubs,

it should be easy to develop a gold standard agreement. And I think that would have the practical effect of drawing us closer to one of our closest allies. Well, another one of the elements in your legislation is providing economic incentives for manufacturing, drugs, and medical equipment in the U.S. What do you foresee some of those incentives to be? Well, the incentive we put forward is a tax incentive. It's giving businesses the ability to immediately expense the cost that they would incur for moving their supply chain. And again, we put it on, this is the so-called Section 179 immediate expensing. I won't bore everyone on the Daily Signal with that. But basically, you know, we know that we've put forward this ambitious four-year time frame. We know that there are, and by the way, there's a waiver. We initially have it on a two-year time frame, but you can get a waiver. waiver. We know that there are going to be costs associated with this. And we know, quite frankly, that the pharmaceutical industry is going to fight this with tooth and nail, precisely because their costs will go up. And cost to the American people may go up in the short term. But this is just one way

we think that we could potentially offset those costs by giving businesses that have to rebalance a tax break for doing so. Well, speaking of China, and it's not, I mean, we're talking about how you want to change the U.S.'s dependence on China for pharmaceuticals. How do you think the U.S. should change its relationship with China in other respects? Well, I actually think it's remarkable. There's been a tectonic shift in U.S. foreign policy, a reorientation of U.S. foreign policy, the likes of which we haven't seen since the end of Cold War, in the last three years. And what's interesting to me about this is this is actually not a Republican versus Democrat thing. I actually think this is a new bipartisan consensus position. In other words,

the new norm is a more hawkish position on China. And even the president's loudest and most intense critics are not arguing with the fundamental premise of his foreign policy, which is to say, after prioritizing counterterrorism operations in the Middle East for two decades, we now have to prioritize great power competition with China in the Indo-PACOM region. That's a a massive, massive shift. I say that as someone who spent most of the last two decades engaged in wars in the Middle East. Now we are saying something dramatically different, and most Democrats actually agree with that fundamental premise. So that strategic shift is the most important, but it has a host of implications. In the military domain, I would say the most obvious implication

is that we need a larger Navy, and we need that Navy to be more closely integrated with the Marine Corps. And the Marine Corps right now is actually actually been the most forward-leaning service in terms of thinking through a whole new force design construct to align itself with what the national security strategy and the national defense strategy are saying. And I say Navy Marine Corps team, because if you look at the geography of the Pacific, you're struck by the obvious, which is to say there's a lot of water, right? There's a lot of littoral's. So you sort of plan your military strategy based on the geographic realities. There's also implications in other domains.

For example, in the human rights domains, it is true at times, particularly when we were engaged in the Middle East, we had to make very difficult choices between promoting human rights on the one hand and seeking stability on the other hand. When it comes to China, we actually don't have to make that case. In other words, I don't see any disincentive for members of Congress and for members of the executive branch to be hammering the Chinese Communist Party on their abysmal human rights record. And as evidence that this is actually a bipartisan shift, I just would say that even the most progressive or radical members of the Democratic Party have actually voted for legislation to, for example,

condemn the Chinese Communist Party for its treatment of Uyghur Muslims. You can check me on this, but I believe Ilhan Omer voted for the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act that we passed in the House recently. So, again, a huge shift. There are a ton of implications. The final thing I would say is that at the end of the the most difficult part of this is going to be, and this is what our bill is all about, we will have to find ways to economically decouple from China. We don't have to completely cut off trade. Obviously, we're going to want to sell soybeans to China and buy cheap t-shirts from China. But when it comes to pharmaceuticals, when it comes to medical devices, when it comes to 5G and a few other things, we are going to have to decouple. Well, President Trump hasn't

been shy about his criticism of how the World Health Organization has handled the situation. with China. And on Tuesday, he tweeted, the WHO really blew it for some reason, funded largely by the United States, yet very China-centric. We will be giving that a good look. I'm curious if you have any concerns about the World Health Organization and its ties to China. I do. And I commend the president for having the courage to speak up about that. I mean, I mean, just look at the interview that the WHO's mission lead who went to China and returned in February, gave. I think his name was Dr. Aleward, if I'm saying his name correctly. But, you know, he came back praising the Chinese Communist Party's response. He said, if I had COVID-19,

I want to be treated in China. When asked in a subsequent interview about Taiwan's response to coronavirus, he pretended not to hear the question. And then he hung up on the interviewer. She called back and asked the question again about Taiwan. And he said, well, we've already talked about China, thereby implicitly sort of agreeing that with the position that Taiwan belongs to China. So I think both President Trump and Secretary Pompeo have been very clear about this, and particularly for the United States, where we are by far the largest funder of the WHO. At a minimum, we should demand that it do its job better. And I think when the dust settles on all of this, we will see not only significant failures

within the WHO bureaucracy, as we've seen in previous, pandemics. We will also see a significant cover up within China itself, a complete lack of transparency about the outbreak of the disease. And the fact is already we know that that lack of transparency and allowing millions of people to travel to and from Wuhan, which is a major travel hub throughout January and early February, it probably costs millions of lives globally and internationally. And I do think we will have to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for that enormous cost in both blood and treasure. Well, recently the House passed the coronavirus aid package called the CARES Act.

What was your perspective on that legislation? Well, I think it was a mixed bag for sure. I do think if the government has forced your business to shut down, as is the case with many small businesses in northeast Wisconsin, you are entitled to just compensation and helping our small businesses weather this crisis when they can't work is a very critical challenge. And I am incredibly sympathetic to that. I think the attempt to get a bureaucracy-free, small business loan program stood up in very short order is essential. And we need to do it. I also think perhaps the most important part of the bill will be the direct appropriation of money to the health care system, upwards of $100 billion.

My own simplistic view is that until we control the virus, until we defeat the disease, there simply aren't enough federal dollars to cover the cost. of staying shut down and shut down however necessary in the short term is not a viable long-term strategy. It comes with enormous costs. And so my hope is that money allows us to ramp up testing and defeat the disease. But we will see, I do think you're starting to see some unintended consequences, though, right? There's been some just criticism from senators like Tim Scott and Ben Sass and certainly myself and others in the House that the unemployment provisions, for example, create a disincentive to work, which is obviously bad over the long term. I think there's also a set of optimistic assumptions surrounding the small business administration's

ability to administer a $350 billion loan program in short order when it's just not staffed or resourced or equipped to do that. So no doubt there's going to be some flaws. Perhaps most egregious of all of this was just the pure politics that Nancy Pelosi played with the bill, inserting funding for the Kennedy Center, even as they were laying off their employees, there's a bunch of pork in there that does not need to be there. And my hope is that if Congress comes back to do a 4.0, we do not jam it full of pork items. That just distract from the more important effort here to defeat the disease and get our economy working again. Well, thank you for

unpacking that. And actually, that was my next question. I wanted to ask you how Speaker Nancy Pelosi has talked about having a fourth stimulus package, does Congress need to do any more legislation in the near term? What is your perspective there? Well, my perspective is rather than thinking about a 4.0, when the ink is barely dry on a 3.0, which was the biggest spending bill in American history, we should probably look at 3.0 and figure out what did we get wrong? What did we get right? How can we stop funding failure and reinforce success? And so I mentioned some of the fixes, I think, you know, there are concerns that people who have applied for small business loans are not getting them. There's concerns that, you know, the direct cash payment in the form of a direct deposit from the IRS is not going to arrive for another two months.

That's too late. There are a variety of things in there that need to be technically corrected and substantively corrective. And I think rather than thinking about a 4.0, which inevitably I fear Pelosi would use as a 2020 messaging bill, let's think about perhaps a 3.5. Let's figure out how to fix what we've already started based on the information we've gained in the intervening weeks. And presumably, hopefully, given that we're spending so much money to defeat the disease, we should have more information about what's working and what isn't. Have we slowed to spread? What do we know about the disease that we didn't know a month ago? And we have to be in that process of learning on a daily basis and evolving. And I know Congress isn't constructive. or optimized to be that sort of quick response organization. But this is a situation in which we really need to be careful that we don't cause more harm through our intervention and abide by that Hippocratic oath that legislator should keep in mind. Well, you recently held a personal protective equipment drive to collect donations from locals in your area

and have them donated to medical personnel in northeast Wisconsin. I'm curious, what was the response to that drive? It was overwhelming and positive. I mean, we had a whole room in my office just filled from the floor to the ceiling with supplies. We were able to give that to a local fire station and then the Brown County Health Department, which is my home county where Green Bay is, was able to distribute the rest to our hospital system. And we continue to get inundated with calls just from, you know, manufacturers, small businesses, families who have extra supplies and want to help. And so I know the country's going through a very difficult time right now,

but this is, you know, precisely the type of moments where Americans show what they're made of. And at least in my neck of the woods, people are really stepping up and trying to take care of each other, trying to help out. And that's really inspiring. Yeah, that is beautiful here. Thank you for sharing that. And speaking of medical personnel in Northeast Wisconsin, what have you been hearing from hospitals in your state and do doctors and other medical staff have enough supplies and so forth?

The short answer is no. And you think about that in an area where, you know, we haven't been overwhelmed yet, like New York is right now. There's a few interrelated concerns. One, there is just a basic lack of personal protective equipment in the form of masks and gloves and gowns and, you know, the more high speed N95 masks, things like that. There is a concern that, you know, the stockpile of that equipment is being diverted by FEMA to other higher priority areas, which I understand why FEMA would do that, but we

want to prepare now precisely before we weather the worst part of this virus or a surge of this virus. But I think, you know, the most interesting and concerning thing I hear from the providers is right now they are trying to ramp up testing. In some cases, they're building drive-through testing facilities in a matter of hours. And it's awesome. It's all the stuff you've seen, you know, South Korea do that allow them to handle this disease effectively. The problem is when those tests need to be processed after they're collected and they get sent down to the state labs in Madison and Milwaukee or the private labs that are doing this. And our ability to process those tests is constrained by our lack of certain supplies, in particular testing reagent, which is something you need to process the test. But as we started this

conversation with the discussion of how fragile our pharmaceutical supply chain is. The same is true for our testing supply chain. And we just simply don't have enough reagent right now to process the test. And that's concerning because our hospitals want to do the right thing. They want to test because if you don't test, you don't have data. If you don't have data, you don't have intelligence. And if you don't have intelligence, you can't fight a war effectively. So that's the biggest concern I'm hearing right now.

Well, thanks for sharing that. And it is heartening to hear how many people have stepped up when you're talking about Wisconsin and Wisconsin people in your area that is very hopeful to hear how generous people have been. Something else you've talked about is the top priority is defeating coronavirus, but that doesn't mean that we should shy away from planning how to reopen the economy when it's time. I'm curious, what your thoughts on how that should take place when it is appropriate to start reopening the economy. Well, I recently wrote an op-ed for a Wisconsin publication where I try to put out a framework for what I called face, two would look like. In other words, I don't think, you know, come Easter or even at the end of April,

we're going to flip a switch and it's going to go back to normal. I suspect we'll have to be in an interim phase for a while. And to me, what makes sense for that phase, too, that interim phase would be a few things. One, I think you continue a strict but strategic quarantine of the most vulnerable based on what we know now. That's the elderly population. That's those with preexisting conditions. I think we should do everything in our power to protect them, to isolate them, and make sure they have the support that we need. But ultimately, and secondarily, I think we're going to need to trust our businesses, our nonprofits, to figure out what does social distancing look like within the unique context of your organization? Because the reality is no president, no governor, and certainly no member

of Congress can design a one-size-fits-all solution that makes sense for every state, let alone every county and every city within those states. And so I think we have to ship to a bottom-up approach where we put some trust in our local communities. Related to that, I think we need to require or governors need to require every local school district to come up with a plan for how our kids can finish the school year, even if it requires bleeding into the summer because they simply can't afford to fall further behind. But I would also say we still need to continue to use data, as I mentioned before, to fight smarter. You know, I think, you know, forward-leaning governor should think about providing what I in the military would have called a, you know, battle update brief.

We have the technology and we have amazing companies that can track this stuff in terms of how we're doing with infection rates, deaths, supply chain in near real time. Let's be fully transparent with the American people. Let's get that out there. And I think that's how you best mobilize the American people to support what you're asking them to do. So I do think we need to think about that interim phase, and we can't let that become a politicized issue. Well, thank you for your perspective on how a one-size-fits-all approach probably isn't best. As we close out, one more question. You recently tweeted about how the world should know the full scope of the Chinese Communist Party's role in what we're in right now with the coronavirus pandemic. How do you think the Chinese Communist

Party should be held accountable? Well, in a few ways. I think the most obvious thing to do is an international investigation, similar to how we've done this in the past. For example, the North Korean sunk a South Korean vessel, I believe in 2009 or 2010. And there was an international investigation that determined North Korea's culpability. Similarly, we could have an international investigation, one called for by my colleague Elise Daphonic and Senator Josh Howley, a resolution that I fully support in order just to figure out what happened. You know, where were they deficient, where were they not, et cetera, et cetera. Once having established that, I do think we should consider sanctioning officials that covered this up and thereby endangered the global economy. I think related to that and perhaps most ambitiously, we could think about amending, for example, the Foreign Sovereignty's Immunities Act to allow individuals, families, governments to sue the Chinese Communist Party if indeed they were determined, it was determined they were culpable. And there's already been persuasive arguments,

in different publications like War on the Rocks, for example, that suggests China is in violation of things they agreed to when they joined various international health for us. So there's a lot of different things that we can do. But I think, you know, perhaps at the most basic level, we just need to stick with the premise of President Trump's national security strategy and national defense strategy. We need to continue to figure out how can we deter bad Chinese behavior in Indo-Pacom and around the world. And that is going to be a question that we're going to be debating and answering for at least the next decade. That is the question of our time. I think we are in the early stages of a new Cold War with China. And in some ways, it's more difficult than the Cold War

with the Soviet Union because our economies are so intertwined. So it's very difficult for us to disentangle our economy from that of China. Well, Congressman Gallagher, thank you so much for joining the Daily Signal podcast today. It's been a pleasure to have you on. Well, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. We do appreciate your patience as we record remotely during these weeks. Please be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or Spotify. And please leave us a review or a rating on Apple Podcasts and give us your feedback. Stay healthy and we back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation.

It is executive produced by Kate Shrinco and Rachel Del Judas. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Fulia Rampersad, Mark Geinie, and John Pop. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.