That would have meant jobs for the American workers, and it would have meant that we kept a lot of that talent pool, that industrial base capability, in the United States. This would have been a huge win for American workers and it would not have prejudiced the present GAO protest that is underway right now. So I am disappointed that this amendment was not allowed, and I hope at some point down the line the Democrat leadership will allow us to put this amendment up, which will help American workers, help the industrial base, and help to secure the defense of the United States.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of an amendment on American jobs and industrial capability.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
But we are in a different situation now. And so we have an opportunity to come up with a strategy that is focused on meeting these new challenges, not simply trying to avoid more harm.
It is concerning; and, of course, it fits a pattern, a long-term pattern of efforts by China to obtain intellectual property and technology from the United States.
The government needs to be very discriminating about how it approaches and how it invests its R&D dollars.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to talk about duty, honor, and country. Many times, Members of this great body rise to talk about those who wear the uniform of the United States who have fallen in the Iraq or the Afghanistan theater and to recount…





