I mentioned this before, but when politics (no matter if you are "blue" or "red") gets involved in something like creating legislation to regulate a multi-billion dollar industry that influences children the <i>first</i> thing people need to understand is that a bill when it is introduced in committee <b>will</b> be changed as that committee holds hearings, etc.  <b>THEN</b> when and <i>if</i> that bill leaves committee, it will yet again be modified dozens of times until the likelihood that it even resembles it's initial form is <b>highly</b> unlikely. We're talking odds like winning the lottery by purchasing a single random ticket on a random day, and never purchasing another ticket.  In other words, there's a tiny chance the bill goes into law as is - but grain of sand small.   <br><br>Also, it is critical to remember that we are just 3 or 4 months away from Campaign 2020 starting in earnest - and a bill like this looks good on a Senator's resume, especially if that Senator has a very real concern about re-election.  I am not saying politicians are robots or malicious - but they do tend to handle things that make them look good to their constituents around election time - it is just in their job description - like fighting fires is in a fireman's job description.  Compromise <i>is</i> a good method to govern a country like the U.S. where there are so many different viewpoints. Not trying to rain on your parade, just reminding folks - politics is extremely subjective and very apt to changing on a dime as public opinion polls roll in. .. being "pro children" looks good and makes for really nice "positive" ads for an incumbent running for re-election.  "Look how Senator XYZ is protecting you and your children from evil &amp; predatory video games!"<br><br>As for tariffs I am completely blown away by the sheer volume of Americans that do NOT understand it is the American Citizen that pays the tariff not China, not Taiwan, not even Canada. It is YOU the consumer. The companies do NOT pay the tariff either in the end, they simply pass on the cost to the consumer - which is why tariffs are such political nitroglycerin in the long term.  Just ask Great Britain how a tariff on tea worked out for them in 1775-1776 in the American Colonies.