A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee recently determined that phenylephrine, an ingredient commonly used to treat sinus and nasal congestion, is ineffective in treating these symptoms. This was apparent from research for years, yet large...
El senador estadounidense Marco Rubio (R-FL) habló con César Grajales de La Poderosa 670 AM en El Panorama Político, sobre la crisis fronteriza, sobre cómo los hispanoamericanos se ven afectados con la realidad del país, sobre los cargos contra el senador Bob Menéndez...
Pregnant students are sometimes discriminated against by their schools, either intentionally or unintentionally and there is a concerning lack of awareness about the resources and rights available to them. Due to a lack of services and discrimination, these women may...
Currently, intelligence community civilians are subject to certain tax penalties for job-related relocation requirements, but active-duty military servicemembers are not subjected to the same penalties. These tax benefits, including the ability to deduct moving...
Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Marco Rubio (R-FL) delivered opening remarks and questioned witnesses at a hearing on countering China’s influence in the United States. Watch Rubio’s opening remarks here as well as Part I and Part II of...
Approximately 302,000 Americans live with spinal cord injuries. To help these people achieve a better quality of life, there is a need to increase education and invest in research. U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) successfully led a bipartisan...
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined Senators Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Tom Cotton (R-AR), members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in urging Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to seek answers regarding reports that the Department of Defense objected to Department of Commerce regulations that would have made it more difficult for U.S. companies to sell to Huawei.
“Huawei is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party and should be treated as such,” the senators wrote. “It is difficult to imagine that, at the height of the Cold War, the Department of Defense would condone American companies contracting with KGB subsidiaries because Moscow offered a discount. We are concerned that the Defense Department is not appropriately weighing the risks.”
The full text of the letter is below.
Dear Secretary Esper,
We write regarding recent public reports that the Defense Department objected to a proposed change to Commerce Department regulations that would have made it more difficult for U.S. companies to sell to Huawei from their overseas facilities. Given the national security risks surrounding Huawei’s technology and operations, concerns which resulted in the addition of Huawei and its affiliates to the Department of Commerce’s Entity List in May 2019, we respectfully ask for a member-level briefing on the Department’s rationale for its reported objection.
Huawei is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party and should be treated as such. It is difficult to imagine that, at the height of the Cold War, the Department of Defense would condone American companies contracting with KGB subsidiaries because Moscow offered a discount. We are concerned that the Defense Department is not appropriately weighing the risks.
Based on public reporting, pursuant to a Department of Commerce proposal, the Office of Management and Budget circulated a proposed rule change that would reduce the maximum percentage of U.S.-origin content, from 25 percent to 10 percent, in permitted sales to Huawei. This change to the De Minimis Rule for sales to Huawei would have effectively disrupted the supply chain of the Chinese Communist Party’s tech puppet, which depends on valuable contracts with American companies. The Department reportedly objected over concerns about how the rule would affect U.S. companies’ competitiveness and their ability to continue to invest in research and development which allows the United States to maintain a technological edge over our adversaries.
We respectfully request that within 60 days you provide a briefing to discuss the following:
1. Whether the Department issued a nonconcurrence to the proposed change as publicly reported.
2. The rationale for the reported nonconcurrence, including an assessment of the benefits and costs of the Commerce Department proposal on our ability to maintain a technological edge over our adversaries as outlined in either official memoranda and interagency discussion.
3. How the Department’s reported nonconcurrence affects the Department’s simultaneous attempts to persuade allies and partners to bar Huawei from their networks.
Additionally, we respectfully ask that you produce or summarize, either in classified or unclassified form, the conclusions in the official memoranda that informed the Administration’s consideration of this course of action.
Thank you for your consideration of our request and we look forward to this briefing.
Sincerely,