I wrote --- comment, though, on this caveat in the paragraphs you indicate: "(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. ... (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act) .... " Seems to me that it says "the administration can still control xyz under the EAA, TWE, EEP, etc but not if such control extends the controls defined under HR695 SAFE" Looks like language to assuage the powers that be, while it creates AMBIGUITY and the need for interpretation (AKA court intervention) when some administration tries to overstep it's bounds. I don't think that's necessarily bad, since legislation has never existed that is ironclad anyway: it's always subject to some runaway Attorney General getting weird, as we have seen plenty of times. <usual caveats go here> --- but THEN noticed the paragraph is attached to the EAA, not SAFE. Never mind. SAFE looks more ominous ....