The law allows a case-by-case waiver anytime we want to give an advantage to our exporter over a competitive exporter from another country that perhaps is being subsidized by that country. The Department of Defense has the authority right now to waive this. The strangest thing in the world, we are coming in the context of trying to balance the budget, our majority would say in 7 years, with massive cuts in all kinds of discretionary programs, with an effort to because they think it is important to expand what we are spending on defense, with major slashes in Medicare and other entitlement programs, and reinstating for the first time since the 1960's in commercial arms sales a subsidy to defense contractors, not just to win the particular sale but whether there is competition or not for that sale. It is not just for NATO countries. It allows that waiver any other time. There is no reason in the world to go with this blanket repeal which will require an offset to make up for the loss of revenue.
Howard Berman: “The law allows a case-by-case waiver anytime we want to give an advantage to our exporter over a competitive exporter…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of arms sales and budget cuts during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Howard Berman
We were appalled at Gurry's lack of accountability and transparency and his lack of judgment at attempts at keeping these illegal transfers secret.
the amount shows in each of the last 3 fiscal years cuts by the Congress from the requested amount, particularly in construction, maintenance, and Embassy security.
I think this kind of 'gotcha politics,' the American people are really turned off by.
I think this is a very historic piece of bipartisan legislation. Just as Jackson-Vanik became a tool to deal with one aspect of a horrible set of policies by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we now, using the Magnitsky legislation…





