Not over unitl the Fat Lady sings

Flight Journal, Oct 2002 by Budde-Jones, Kathryn

TAILVIEW

Maybe you heard the hue and cry last year about the proposed government legislation that would require "demilling" (a nice word for "destroying") all warbirds. Long before September 11, the phrase "In the interest of national security," was used to justify legislation that would require every piece of "significant" military equipment ever sold as surplus to be cut up or returned to the government. As it was originally proposed, the wording covered everything from 1885 Springfield rifles to L-4 Cubs to P-51s. "What is the reason for this?" you may ask, and "Where does that proposal stand today?"

It's widely reported that the "demill bill" is dead; however, that is simply not true. Legislative moves afoot for 2003 may yet come back to haunt the historic aircraft community as well as many military collectors.

This all began when the Department of Defense (DoD) had a "garage sale" and no one noticed that the "stuff" sold included rocket launchers, computers loaded with classified information and many other things that are inappropriate for the public to have. The DoD realized that there was no legal means to rectify the sale, so it asked Congress to enact umbrella legislation that would wipe the egg off the DoD's face. The infamous demill bill is the result, and it has gone through a number of variations.

After the DoD Inspector General discovered that inappropriate military equipment had been sold to the public, the House of Representatives, in 1997, insisted that the Secretary of Defense solve this very embarrassing problem. The House asked the DoD whether legislation was needed to clean up the mess. And there lies the root of the problem: the perceived need for legislation.

Apparently, things moved too slowly for some legislators because the 1999 Strom Thurmond National Defense Act no longer politely suggested but rather required the DoD to develop a plan; and its response was to pass the buck by asking for legislation to solve the problem.

The House quickly jumped on the DoD's request for legislation; members wanted the embarrassing mess behind them. They proposed a provision to the 2001 Defense Authorization Act to require the owners of significant military equipment to demilitarize it or return It to the DoD to be demilled. The provision (HR 4205 Section 361) was ultimately rescinded because, according to the House, the "... provision could have serious unintended consequences for legitimate owners of military equipment." It was strongly suggested that the DoD reassess its approach for the recovery of suspect military equipment.

What the House learned in the fall of 2000 when there was a public outcry against HR 4205 Section 361, the Senate was about to realize in fall 2001. The first volley from the Senate read, "The Committee recommends a provision that would provide authority to ensure demilitarization of significant military equipment formerly owned by the DoD." The soon-to-be-infamous Section 1062 was born.

"Birth announcements" went out quickly, and dire warnings were circulated: "DoD's Draconian Effort to Destroy Your Military Equipment. Moving target alert S1155 Section 921 has morphed into S1416 Section 1062 ... bureaucrats are hiding this unconstitutional legislation on a sort of `shell game/ changing its numbers day by day." This circulated quickly through the "warbird connection" via email, although no official statement from any of the organized special-interest groups had yet been issued.

The lack of formal information only fanned the flames created by the inflammatory language of this new/old bill; the vague nature of Section 1062 caused much of the reaction. What was "significant military equipment?" No list or age of the affected equipment was stated. The only reference to what might be included was near the very end of Section 1062: "Definition of Significant Military Equipment is a defense article listed on the United States Munitions List maintained under Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act..."

If you dig far enough into the catacombs of the government, you will find that the U.S. Munitions List is very specific as to what is considered significant. Category VIII, Aircraft and Associated Equipment, reads: "Aircraft ... which are specifically designed, modified or equipped for military purposes, including: gunnery, bombing, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial mapping and military training ..." (to list only a few). The document also includes aircraft engines, accessories and components, communications systems and electronics.

Letters from Congressman Bob Stump assured me "... that as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I am actively working to eliminate the provision in the bill ... with language so broad as to jeopardize the private ownership of literally any and all military equipment." Congressman Dave Weldon validated my concerns that the Senate's version calling for "... surplus military equipment such as guns, planes, jeeps and radios turned over to the government to be rendered inoperable" was excessive. Now that we had the support of the House, we could concentrate on the Senate.