Re: [CPEO-MEF] Legislation Creates Problematic UXO "Definition"

[Kutak_R@ix.netcom.com]

It is difficult to understand how this Administration can submit
legislative proposals that OSD favors and EPA publicly opposes.   Is there
an Administration position on this issue? If this bill made it past OMB and
it has been submitted to the Congress, then it would appear to reflect the
position of the Administration. This language was in the original DoD
legislative proposal for the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2001. It was
not surreptitiously slipped to Congressional staffers (as was the case for
the attempt to amend the 330 indemnity provision). Rather, it was sent to
Congress as the Administration position. That being the case, this
Administration can take full credit for the consequences. There is no
better time for accountability to the electorate than the next 80 days.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at 

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html.

If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: 

cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics