I think you have it backwards...The Senate version had the 1062 language
and the House didn't. As far as I know they are still in conference over
these provisions. The SME definations are so loose that they could include
anything they wanted and this is the scary part of it.
> [Original Message]
> From: islander <islander@midmaine.com>
> To: <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Date: 11/30/01 4:17:35 PM
> Subject: [MV] S. 1428 response from Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
>
> 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
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
--- HOWARD WRIGHT
--- dvsww2@mindspring.com
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:37:01 PST