|Date:||Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT)|
|Subject:||Re: [CPEO-MEF] Legislation Creates Problematic UXO "Definition"|
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: email@example.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
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Comments on EPA's Draft FUDS Policy|
Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] SFAAP: Where's the Beef?
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Legislation Creates Problematic UXO "Definition"|
Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Schofield Barracks taken off EPA list