2000 CPEO Military List Archive

From: Kutak_R@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-military
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 


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

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

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index