Re: [CPEO-MEF] ECOS Opposes Section 8149

[themissinglink@eznetinc.com]

I have used these same terms in describing military contributions to 
polluting the environment.  I think
the military would do better to worry about the reality of their lack of 
cleanup credibility than to
worry about what phraseology people and organizations use to describe them.

The military lacks credibility through their own actions, not because of bad 
press.

Steven Pollack

john.hopping@langley.af.mil wrote:

> ECOS should be more careful in their analysis of congressional language and
> not taint their efforts with generalities.  Terms such as "extremely
> judicious", "worst violators", "must live by the same standards", and
> "exempting military from enforcement", are all dubious phrases in my
> opinion, and only serve to worsen relations.  Military installations are
> still subject to fines and penalties as before and most fines go to the
> states.  Military installations are not exempt as stated by ECOS.  8149
> changes the rules but not the end result.  8149 says that congress has to
> approve the funds to pay the fines.  This is my opinion and does not
> represent the views of anyone else.
>
> You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at 
http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> We've got email newsletters galore!  Check 'em out at Topica.
> http://www.topica.com/t/5



You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html.

_____________________________________________________________
We've got email newsletters galore!  Check 'em out at Topica.
http://www.topica.com/t/5