Bob,
1. Very good post.
a. Could you elaborate who "he" is - the "senior staffer" on the
HASC?
b. Are the individuals in DoD that had this included identified by
name, office within OSD; are they in DTRA, DSCA or another DoD agency of
immed office of SecDef?
2. Thanks again. Good posting.
Rayfield
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D. Brooke [mailto:rdb18@csufresno.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:57 AM
To: mil-veh@skylee.com
Subject: [MV] HR 4205 Update/Status
> Hi guys... I wrote the following this morning, then got interrupted,
> sent it to Drafts, thinking I could get back to it and finish it, but
> for some strange reason, I am unable to add or edit it, so please
> disregard the > indicators, indicating it was sent previously. I wrote
> all of the following, that with the > marks this AM, the balance
> tonight. At any rate:
>
> > Due to vacation and my inability to access E-mail, I have over 1500
> > unopened messages, about 90% of them from you guys. So if the following
> > is not news, and repeats information previously put out here, my
> > apologies.
> >
> > I just got off the phone with a senior majority (Republican)staff
> > member of the House Armed Services Committee. He told me the following:
> >
> > There is a high degree of awareness by Congressmen, Senators, and Staff
> > Members about the concerns expressed by us and others to the dangers of
> > Section 361, as written.
> >
> > The genesis of the "concept" was the Congress' concern, expressed about
> > three years ago to the Defense Department, about mistakes made by the
> > Defense Department, whereby SIGNIFICANT surplus was being sold, without
> > properly being demiliterized. He mentioned a Sixty Minutes program about
> > an fully capable Apache Helicopter, some sensitive computer/electronic
> > equipment, and some fully capable rockets and rocket launchers. (Stuff
> > some of us could have some fun with, but which in the hands of the wrong
> > people would not be good, I'm sure all of us would agree........
>
> Well, I just read some messages which indicate not all of us *would*
> agree. Some apparently think a Cobra is obsolete, and no threat to
> anyone. I would argue that a fully capable Cobra may be no match for an
> Apache, but would be pretty effective against an armored bank vehicle,
> or a police helicopter, or in the hands of terrorists, pretty effective
> against a 747 or an Airbus, etc. So speaking for myself, I don't think
> it is good public policy to have lethal military weapons systems in the
> hands of private individuals.
>
> But I digress from my report on HR 4205.
>
> So it took the Clifton Defense Dept. about three years to come up with
> the wording of Section 361. Whether they are just insensitive to issues
> of eroding freedoms, or had some nefarious anti military/patriotic
> agenda is unclear, but they drafted Section 361, and it was included in
> the Military Appropriations bill in the House. Busy staffers did not
> read the language closely enough, and it got appended to Mr. Spence's
> bill,
> without anyone noticing it could really be subject to governmental
> abuse.
>
> So then somebody noticed it, and the calls, e-mails, and telephone calls
> started coming in. Apparently they have been inundated. So a few good
> Republicans/ conservative Democrats read it more closely, and I am told,
> nearly everybody involved with pushing the bill ( not the section 361)
> through agrees Section 361, as presently written, is very bad.
>
> He told me they are having intense negotiations with Clinton's Defense
> Dept. representatives to get the language significantly amended. But,
> they are having trouble, and he thinks they are running out of time.
> They are trying to get the language cleared up, so it is less broad,
> less subjective, less subject to bureaucratic interpretation, and less
> subject to governmental abuse. They are insisting also that the DOD
> could not act on its own without due process, that each action would be
> subject to a judicial review/hearing, and that nothing could be done
> without a court order, and further that the government would have to pay
> all the costs of a court approved dimil action.
>
> But as I said above, apparently the Administration does not want to
> change the language. So he "promised" me it would be taken out if they
> can't get agreement to modify it as indicated above. He assured me it
> won't be left in as written. He was careful to say he could not
> *GUARANTEE* that, but he mentioned that Spence, Senator Warner, and
> other concerned and (now) aware Republicans won't let it be included,
> unless it is fixed.
>
> He said it is unnecessary to continue to write or call, but when I said
> I did not wish to take any chances, he said we could access the House
> website to determine the actual Congressmen who are on the Conference
> Committee. Go to House Armed Services Committee, then find the pages
> dealing with the Military Appropriations bill, HR4205, and you should
> find the part about the Conference Committee. He further said ALL the
> Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee will be on the
> Conference Committee.
>
> So I am going to write all the Republicans on the Conference committee,
> Congressmen and Senators alike, and urge them once more to strip 361 out
> of the bill, unless *MAJOR* revisions are made to protect our Hobby, and
> to protect everyone against creeping erosion of our rights.
>
> I hope most of you do the same.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob Brooke
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@skylee.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@skylee.com>
To reach a human, contact <help@skylee.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 09:32:38 PDT