Re: Support for SecDef's empowerment via sec. 363

[Don Zweifel <zweifel@chapman.edu>]

(Note: The author is refering to himself in the third person (i.e. 
We're diametrically....).)

Clarification regarding my previous remarks on empowering SecDef via
sec.336 to circumvent federal environmental regulations when it
significantly impacts national security issues.

What would constitute a signicant cause of action on the SecDef's part?

To begin with, let's explain what it isn't.

We're diametrically opposed to tapping the environmental fund till for the
deployment and maintenance of peace-keeping troops to Bosnia, for
example. It certainly would be a stretch to surmise that this operation
had anything to do with the security of the nation, yet our congress
in its infinite wisdom and with the all too eager acquiescence from
Defense decided in FY1997 and probably in '98, to pull millions of $
earmarked for remediation and restoration for this specific purpose.

This unwarranted usurpation is a travesty to the just laws that were
enacted to protect from further degradation and clean-up of our oftentimes
severely polluted military installations.

Defense we have noted, has an obligation to honor the People's mandate to
preserve our nation's boundaries and its spheres of influence, however it
has absolutely no cause to cry wolf when there's no compelling reason to
do so.

Our henhouse probably shouldn't include the Balkan peninsula.

Congress on the other hand, could I believe, by a simple majority null and
void the above mentioned section through a resolution if it found that
Defense was abusing the set-aside right in any appreciable way. 

If the SecDef will stipulate unequivocally that the OSD will not
circumscribe unnecessarily and be willing to consult with Congress a
priori or before the fact then maybe this is something we could live with.
N'est ce-pas? 

 Don Zweifel