I was just thinking very recently, in fact, just a few days ago, we were able to get an amendment in the defense bill that would require that any steel used in the military apparatus that would be purchased with funds in that bill would have to be American-made steel. I remember as we were discussing and debating that possibility, there were those who said, well, this would be acceptable, because there is an exemption for these kinds of decisions that relate specifically to national security. But what the gentleman is saying, I believe, is that in most cases there could be a decision made by this House of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, legislation signed into law by the President, and if it was interpreted to be in violation of these trade agreements as providing perhaps protections to our citizens that under the international trade laws would be deemed inappropriate or inconsistent with those laws, that there could actually be legal action taken against our government by a foreign corporation to try to force a change in the domestic law of this land. Is that a correct interpretation?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment in the defense bill regarding American-made steel and its implications for trade agreements.
Share
More from Marilyn Strickland
Excluding BAH makes a member appear artificially impoverished and diminishes the value of a member's hard-earned military compensation and the value of the member's military service.
Thank you and your Department for all the work that you have been doing to successfully deploy infrastructure funding.
Congresswoman Scholten, thank you for that question. As you have pointed out, there are things that it will take companies some time to move forward with.
Thank you, Chairman Webster. Thank you, Rear Admiral Phillips. And thank you, Mr. Maffei, for your incredible testimony today and answering our questions.





