Steve,
I don't want to rain on your parade or burst your bubble or any thing like
that but...
Istook, from Oklahoma said straight up, he is against it and WILL do his
best to get it REMOVED.
He is in the conference and has the swing, at least more so than just a
general member of the Senate.
With the reference to "public safety" that Susan made, and "would be covered
by this provision
only if it is specifically designated as such" she is solidly shining you
on.
Sounds like to me she sees a need of some type for 1062 and will vote for
some version.
Public safety is not the real concern here, the ability to collect equipment
is.
And more importantly the ability to be totally flexible in what the
government can collect.
BTW Public safety can cover both "air emissions" and "poor fuel mileage" if
the government so designates.
If public safety were a concern, there are plenty of laws that can be
applied, and we all (House & Senate included) know it!
I'll say again, Istook in a short 2 sentence paragraph said he would work to
KILL 1062.
Guess who has my vote!
Rikk Rogers - RK Lion LTD.
(580)762-3157 rkltd@swbell.net
http://home.swbell.net/rkltd/
-M35A2- -M38- MVPA -22345-
-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
Behalf Of islander
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 5:18 PM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
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>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 00:37:01 PST