EAA Reacts to Defense Authorization Bill Language

[bdk]

2004 - 10/29 - EAA Reacts to Aircraft Salvage Language in Defense Authorization Bill
EAA and its Warbirds of America division are responding to a measure that could end underwater salvage operations of abandoned military aircraft, removing the possibility that some vintage warbirds could be saved and restored instead of lost forever.

The provision, included in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, would ban any U.S. citizen from engaging in any activity "that disturbs, removes or injures any sunken military craft," including airplanes. This would halt attempts, for instance, to pull World War II-era warbirds from waters and restore them to airworthy condition. Although there is language in the provision that allows the Department of Defense to issue permits for salvage operations on a historical or educational basis, EAA and Warbirds of America officials are concerned that such permits may be nearly impossible to obtain or issued in an arbitrary manner.

The provision is listed under Title XIV-Sunken Military Craft, Sections 1401-1408, located on pages 721-728 of the document.

"There are numerous cases of individuals or groups using their own time and money to save aircraft that the U.S. military had abandoned and had no intention of recovering," said Doug Macnair, EAA's vice president of government affairs and Washington Office Director. "These airplanes pose no military threat and had basically been left to rot by the Pentagon. People who want to invest the time and money to resurrect these aircraft and perhaps return them to the air should be encouraged, not banned."

There are examples of individuals restoring such aircraft, then being ordered by the U.S. Navy to return them after having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in restoration, with no recompense by the military.

Although Congress has officially adjourned until the new House and Senate are seated in January, there is always the possibility of a lame-duck session after the Nov. 2 election to finish some legislative business. EAA and Warbirds of America representatives will continue to work on the issue and use the groups' many strong relationships in Washington to ensure no last-minute legislation closes this resource for historical warbird restorations.

[HarvardIV]

Thanks for the info..

[dj51d]

A quick check of Thomas shows the President signed this bill(hr4200) into law on October 28.

[HarvardIV]

Brandon:

Where did you get your statement from? I'll contact the EAA, and find out what the heck is going on.

[dj51d]

Where did you get your statement from? I'll contact the EAA, and find out what the heck is going on.

The article can be found at the eaa site. Unfortunately, it is dated 10/29, the day after the bill was signed into law.

[HarvardIV]

Hey Gentlemen:

I took a look at the National Defense Authorization Act on the THomas Register website, and Sections 1403-1410 were omitted. So it appears that yes it was signed into law, but with omissions made which exclude the anti-warbird junk. Regretfully, I did see some very general language which was somewhat strange and vague. At any rate, I will call the EAA in order to confirm this.

[HarvardIV]

Correction: 1403-1410 were omitted from the 2004 Bill, but the 2005 Bill shows 1407-1410 omitted. No antiwarbird language found. THe general language of the bill concerned restrictions on exports w/ China, and certain specified military technologies. It looks like the EAA won on it already. I salute those who were vigilant enough to catch it soon enough.

[dj51d]

HarvardIV,

Where are you finding that title XIV was omitted? If I'm reading correctly, it appears that title XIV was struck from the second to last version, but reappeard in the version that went to the President's desk.

It's easy no other country is afected by US law,just get someone else to do it.

Hey Everyone:

Go to the Thomas Register and read it. The language is not there.

[HarvardIV]

Hey Everybody, especially Col ROhr:

Actually, I called the EAA today, and they said "yes the bill has passed as a Law. It also still has the language in it. The good news is that the EAA while working w/ congress is going to come out with a new version that omits the anti-warbird junk.

[HarvardIV]

EAA warbirds rep. told me today that congress didn't dream up the Defense Authorization Bill. This puppy is a product of the military folks at the Pentagon.

[Rob Mears]

Hmmm, another wonderful byproduct of the Patriot Act maybe?

[SaxMan]

What's astounding about all this is if the NHC was as zealous about protecting historically significant ships as they were about taking everyone's airplanes away, we'd still have some pretty historic ships still with us.

The most blatant case-in-point in recent history is the USS Cabot debacle in 2001. Here was the sole surviving CVL from World War II, the only aircraft carrier from that era with its original flight deck still intact, yet the NHC sat idly by and let the ship get scrapped in Brownsville, Texas.

Right now the very first supercarrier, the USS Forrestal, is sitting in mothballs. Has it been chosen to become a museum? No, it's slated to be sunk and become an artificial reef! Where's the NHC? They must be too busy chasing people trying to salvage wrecked and abandoned airplanes.

You can go back over the last 50 years and see ships that should not have been scrapped -- the carrier Enterprise, battleship Washington, destroyer Nicholas (15 battle stars, and accompanied the Missouri into Tokyo bay) and the Heerman (the sole surviving destroyer from the Battle off Samar)...all fell to the cutters torch, just to name a few.

It would be nice to see the NHC devote the same kind of energy and enthusiasm in saving their own ships rather than trying to take planes away that are in private hands.

[Owen Miller]

As an aside.....the two stupidest things the USN ever did was
to cut up Enterprise (CV-6) and nuke Saratoga (CV-3).

Owen