Hi all,
I don't want to get the whole pending FY 2002 US Defense Authorization
bill thing going again, but I got this nice letter back from my Senator
who is (in part) directly responsible for what happens to it now. Just a
recap... The House of Reps passed their version WITH the offending
language, the Senate did not. That means they have to resolve all
differences before it can become law. Here is her take on it:
-----------
Dear Mr. Grammont,
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding a certain
section of S. 1428, the FY 2002 Defense Authorization bill. I appreciate
hearing from you.
I understand your opposition to Section 1062 of this legislation, which
would make it illegal for any individual to possess significant military
equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense that has not been
demilitarized. The FY 2002 Defense Authorization bill has been referred
to a joint House-Senate conference committee, of which I am a member. I
would note that military equipment would be covered by this provision
only if it is specifically designated as such. The conference committee
needs to clarify the language included in Section 1062 so that those
individuals who own military equipment that does not pose a threat to
public safety will not be penalized. Currently, we are working to ensure
that a clarification is included in the final bill.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Susan Collins (signature)
Susan M. Collins
United States Senator
-----------
Honestly, this is about the best we could hope to see in writing at this
point. She is, after all, a politician and it is in her best interests
to keep her cards close to her chest during negotiations. I know we
would all rather have seen a letter saying that 1062 should be removed or
at least specifically stating that military vehicles and such would be
exempt if legally obtained. But that is too much to ask from a letter
such as this. In any case, even if she DID say exactly that it doesn't
mean much because, although a senior member, her view is only one of many
weighing in on the final language.
The good news is that the letter addresses our main concerns we have in
that the language is too vague and it needs to be tightened up (or of
course... removed!). This simple acknowledgement is unquestionably
POSITIVE and could very well result in either the striking of 1062 (like
the last time) or rewording that even the hardest core anti-government
members of this wouldn't have a problem with. Therefore, I say we take
this as a GOOD SIGN since she could have not wrote back at all or told me
was anything wrong with it and not to worry at all.
I say we take a small bit of hope from this letter and await other
information about how the joint committee is doing regarding this matter
before getting excited or bent out of shape about this.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:37:01 PST