Well, since this bill passed, I guess I'm bashing
everyone who voted for it in Congress.  My particular
objections are below - and they have nothing to do
with better pay for our troops, or being able to fight
terrorists.  >:P

Short list: nukes, marine mammals, environmental
exemptions, missile defense.

[aside: John Kerry and John Edwards did not vote:]
http://congress.nw.dc.us/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=447&chamber=S&congress=1081&tally=1

Elaboration:
They've repealed the prohibitions on low-yield nuclear
arms testing and underground testing...you can't fight
terrorists with nukes, unless you want to take out a
bunch of civilians in the process.  Of course, there's
also money budgeted to stop _others_ from becoming
nuclear powers (which I of course approve) - 

http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.org/new_small_nukes_govt.html
"SEC. 3131. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. 

"(a) REPEAL- Section 3136 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law
103-160; 107 Stat. 1946; 42 U.S.C. 2121 note) is
repealed. 

"(b) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in the repeal made by
subsection (a) shall be construed as authorizing the
testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield
nuclear weapon. 

"(c) LIMITATION- The Secretary of Energy may not
commence the engineering development phase, or any
subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless
specifically authorized by Congress... 

"...SEC. 3132. READINESS POSTURE FOR RESUMPTION BY THE
UNITED STATES OF UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS. 

"(a) 18-MONTH READINESS POSTURE REQUIRED- Commencing
not later than October 1, 2006, the Secretary of
Energy shall achieve, and thereafter maintain, a
readiness posture of 18 months for resumption by the
United States of underground nuclear tests, subject to
subsection (b)... 

"...SEC. 3135. REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION
OF CONGRESS FOR COMMENCEMENT OF ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT PHASE OR SUBSEQUENT PHASE OF ROBUST
NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR. 

"The Secretary of Energy may not commence the
engineering development phase (phase 6.3) of the
nuclear weapons development process, or any subsequent
phase, of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon
unless specifically authorized by Congress..." 
[So at least there's still theoretically some control
over this measure, which seems to me to be a very bad
step -- although it is possible that this is a
'strategic stick' WRT North Korea et. al...?]

Missile defense gets 9.1 billion - do I recall
correctly that such proposed systems and the tests
thus far have been critiqued on-list, with
corroborating evidence/links?  [This is roughly 1/5 of
the way down-page -- and I had *fits* trying to find
this information!  :P ]
http://armedservices.house.gov/pressreleases/2003/03-11-07conferencesummary.htm
"H.R. 1588 supports the Administration's budget
request for ballistic missile defense programs. 
However, in recognition of more immediate concerns,
the legislation shifts funding from activities with
longer term pay-off to near-term requirements, and
adds additional funds for theater missile defense.

"The conferees commend the President�s commitment to
missile defense, and recommend $9.1 billion for the
continued development of ballistic missile defense
(BMD)..."  [lists provisions individually on-site]


Then there's the exemption from provisions of the
Endangered Species and Marine Mammal Protection Acts,
in the name of military readiness:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/news/headline.cfm?newsid=582

[This gives a selected and very tiny summary of the
bill.]
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/rollcall2003/111603%5Frollcall%5F2003.shtml
"2004 defense budget: Senators on Wednesday approved,
95 for and three against, the conference report on a
$400.5 billion defense authorization bill (HR 1588)
for fiscal 2004, a 4.5 percent increase over the
comparable 2003 bill. The figure is in addition to $65
billion in new emergency spending for military
actions, mainly in Iraq.  The bill funds pay hikes
averaging 4.1 percent, ends a ban on the underground
testing of nuclear weapons under five kilotons,
increases combat pay and family separation allowances,
extends a ban on privately financed abortions at U.S.
military hospitals abroad and advances a new round of
base closings in 2005. 

"It partially repeals a requirement that disabled
veterans deduct disability benefits from their
military pensions and allows the Air Force to proceed
with a disputed plan to lease Boeing aircraft for
mid-air refueling.

"The bill reduces civil service protections for some
civilian Pentagon employees, exempts bases from
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act
and allows the Navy to conduct deepwater operations
harmful to marine mammals..."


Additional hits on our environment (not just in the
military budget bill):
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/11/we_603_05c.html
"1) Congress just approved an amendment to the defense
authorization bill that effectively means the Navy can
ignore federal protection for whales, dolphins, and
other ocean mammals that get in the way of military
operations and maneuvers. The 2004 Interior Department
spending bill, which was enacted last week, does away
with a 14-year moratorium on oil exploration in
Alaska's Bristol Bay. The bill also contains
provisions that make it easier for commercial loggers
to chop down trees in the Tongass National Forest in
Alaska. 

"2) A series of amendments proposed by Ted Stevens of
Alaska would undercut the efforts of Alaska's regional
fishing managers to preserve fish habitats and species
by giving control of the market to processors, not
fishermen. 

"3) An amendment written by Missouri Senator
Christopher Bond aims to strip California of its
authority to set its own air quality standards.
California recently adopted a new set of standards for
lawn and garden equipment that would require Briggs &
Stratton (an engine maker in, guess where? Missouri)
to make cleaner engines. The amendment would not only
roll back the California rule but also pre-empt the
right of other states to adopt California's standards,
a basic right under the Clean Air Act..." 

Re: that last, now there are states suing the EPA!
[This is the entire article.]
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/11170000aaa0158a.upi&Sys=cmikelis&Fid=NATIONAL&Type=News&Filter=National%20News
"WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 (UPI) -- A coalition of 14 states
and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Monday to
stop the Environmental Protection Agency from
introducing new rules.

"The legal action, filed in the District of Columbia,
claims the regulations would seriously weaken the
Clean Air Act, send more pollutants into the
atmosphere and damage public health.

"The New York Times reported 12 states sued the EPA
Oct. 27. Those states were joined Monday by California
and Illinois in seeking an order blocking the new
regulations from becoming effective Dec. 26 in 12
states that do not administer such rules themselves.
The 38 other states are being given three years to
decide whether to adopt the new rules.

"New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said: "It is
a sad day in America when a coalition of states must
go to federal court to defend the Clean Air Act
against the misguided actions of the federal agency
created to protect the environment.

"But in this matter, the EPA is standing with
polluters instead of with the people it is supposed to
protect, and the states have no choice but to take
this action." 


For those who want a quick scan of pending and past
legislation, this site is somewhat helpful, although I
had to hunt much longer to get better delineation of
the military budget bill (maybe that's just my
inexperience in navigating - I can pull up relevent
medical sites in short order, but I hunted for nearly
an hour to get the sites in this post!):
http://congress.org/congressorg/home/

If someone knows a better shortcut, I'd appreciate the
link (s). 

Debbi

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to