I have heard it referred to again that the agencies apparently do not want this, and it may be politically incorrect for me to say this, but it is quite obvious the administration has passed the word they want this bill passed without amendments, even to the point where they do not want agencies to be given the opportunity to ask for another 60 days, even in a matter of national security. I think that is extremely unfortunate. It is surprising to me, but apparently that is the case. However, it does not make it right. I ask my colleagues, in light of the proliferation concerns that this country has, in light of the developing technology, the fact that it is being proliferated around the world and posing a danger to us, that certainly in this export licensing process we can afford to give our agencies, such as the Department of Defense, a little additional time if they have a national security concern.
Mike Thompson: “I have heard it referred to again that the agencies apparently do not want this, and it may be politically incorrect for…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns over a bill related to export licensing and national security.
Share
More from Mike Thompson
In the wake of losing their homes and livelihoods, it is wrong to tax survivors on settlement money that is meant to help them rebuild their lives. Survivors can't afford to wait around for retroactive relief.
Additionally, I would further state the following understanding with respect to the ability to offer listed derivatives products on payment stablecoins. By excluding 'payment stablecoins' from the definition of 'commodity' in Sec. 1a(9) of…
The supremacy clause always prevails. And I will redraft SB 254 and introduce it again next session.
The one that really worries me is the Congressional Review Act. It has the potential to completely undermine the franchise business model.





