Major Rayfield requested that I pass this along to All Hands if they wanted a
good example of a letter to send to certain elected representatives.
TO ALL HANDS:
1. The below is the letter that I sent to my congressman, Hon Lamar Smith, and
the forwarding of that to my two senators. Also attached is the membership site
to join the MVPA. I encourage this - lets get all of us on board.
2. Use any verbiage or variation there of to write your representative and
especially your Senator. Also
attached is the web page for all to sign up with in the MVPA - it is better
to join, bolster their negotiating power and strenthen the organization.
3 I too have gotten a number from HQ MVPA to call Mr. Lee Holland tonight,
and intend to do so to
(a) understand what is going on with this bill and to see how I can be
enlightened
(b) ask him what more we can do
4. I work extensively with the USML and ITAR, and will help the cause as I
can.
R.S. Rayfield, Jr.
Major, USMC (Ret)
===================================================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: MAJ & MRS R. S. RAYFIELD, JR.
To: senator@hutchison.senate.gov ; Phil_Gramm@gramm.senate.gov
Cc: Joseph.Boessen@mail.house.gov ; Peter.Steffes@mail.house.gov
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:47 PM
Subject: UNCLAS//N05760/N05860//ORG/LEGISLATIVE ACTION HR-4205
<<master6.htm>>
To the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison and Honorable Phil Gramm:
1. The below is the letter I just sent my Congressman, Rep Lamar Smith. I
am sending courtesy
copies to you as well, herein. It sites the bill number, sections that
concern us
and how this equipmehnt is defined on the USML of the ITAR, citing the
code.
In para 2 I list my concerns.
2. Although lengthy, it lays it out. I have asked him to inform
Rep FLoyd Spence (D-SC) that we are concerned with the language in HR-4205,
list a few adverse
consequences of such a bill, and ask him to endorse this letter and send it
to
our you in case this bill makes it to the Senate as is with this language
in it.
Major R. S. Rayfield, Jr.
Texas A&M '75
66 Mission Drive
New Braunfels, TX 78130
(703)588-8059
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -------------------------- ---------------------------- Hon Lamar Smith:1. I have become familiar with HR-4205, Title III, Subtitle G, Sections 361 and 362 which speak to the demilitarization of significant military equipment (SME) or major defense equipment (MDE) as defined by the U.S. Munitions List of the International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR)(22 CFR 120-130) which I paste in as follows:
"SEC. 361. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (a) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION AFTER DISPOSAL- Chapter 153 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2572 the following new section: `Sec. 2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to require demilitarization after disposal `(a) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION- The Secretary of Defense may require any person in possession of significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense-- `(1) to demilitarize the equipment, `(2) to have the equipment demilitarized by a third party; or `(3) to return the equipment to the Government for demilitarization. `(b) COST AND VALIDATION OF DEMILITARIZATION- When the demilitarization of significant military equipment is carried out by the person in possession of the equipment pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the person shall be solely responsible for all demilitarization costs, and the United States shall have the right to validate that the equipment has been demilitarized. `(c) RETURN OF EQUIPMENT TO GOVERNMENT- When the Secretary of Defense requires the return of significant military equipment for demilitarization by the Government, the Secretary shall bear all costs to transport and demilitarize the equipment. If the person in possession of the significant military equipment obtained the property in the manner authorized by law or regulation and the Secretary determines that the cost to demilitarize and return the property to the person is prohibitive, the Secretary shall reimburse the person for the purchase cost of the property and for the reasonable transportation costs incurred by the person to purchase the equipment. `(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation what constitutes demilitarization for each type of significant military equipment. `(e) EXCEPTION FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS- This section does not apply when a person is in possession of significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense for the purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Government contract. `(f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT- In this section, the term `significant military equipment' means-- `(1) an article for which special export controls are warranted under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) because of its capacity for substantial military utility or capability, as identified on the United States Munitions List maintained under section 121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations; and `(2) any other article designated by the Department of Defense as requiring demilitarization before its disposal.'. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2572 the following new item: `2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to require demilitarization after disposal.'. SEC. 362. ANNUAL REPORT ON PUBLIC SALE OF CERTAIN MILITARY EQUIPMENT IDENTIFIED ON UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST. (a) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED- Chapter 153 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: `Sec. 2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions list: annual report of public sales `(a) REPORT REQUIRED- The Secretary of Defense shall prepare an annual report identifying each public sale conducted by a military department or Defense Agency of military items that are-- `(1) identified on the United States Munitions List maintained under section 121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations; and `(2) assigned a demilitarization code of `B' or its equivalent. `(b) ELEMENTS OF REPORT- (1) A report under this section shall cover all public sales described in subsection (a) that were conducted during the preceding fiscal year. `(2) The report shall specify the following for each sale: `(A) The date of the sale. `(B) The military department or Defense Agency conducting the sale. `(C) The manner in which the sale was conducted. `(D) The military items described in subsection (a) that were sold or offered for sale. `(E) The purchaser of each item. `(F) The stated end-use of each item sold."
2. I do not know what has been the catalyst for the introduction of such language in this defense bill, HR-4205 by Rep. Floyd Spence (D-SC) but this language concerns a lot of people who, like me, collect, restore, display, and use historical military equipment to include vehicles, uniforms, rifles, etc., for reenactments of famous military battles, and to present the historical significance of military operations, vehicles and equipment in American history to an increasing larger society who never had the inclination to serve their country but may have some curiosity about those who did, the equipment used and the battles fought. The language of this proposed bill would give some in government the arbitrary power, similiar to that seemingly omnipotent power that the BATF or IRS has over everyone, to determine that one day the collection of military vehicles and associated equipment by veteran military personnel and civilian enthusiasts must be curtailed.
3. Adverse effects of this bill on the historical military vehicle hobby, collectors and reencactors would be (a) deterioration in the historical significance our military has played in our history to a lesser degree than is already taught in public schools (b) degradation in a valuable source of vehicles and equipment for home town parades, demonstrations and shows on patriotic holidays
4. I would also like you to know that there is an organization called the Military Vehicle Preservation Association (MVPA)which is several thousand strong, and communicates via the internet with another 800 non-members, all of which are concerned about this bill and it's language on this subject. See the web site at "www.mvpa.org" to see what people like us are all about. Since you are my representative, I would like to voice my concern to you as one of your constituents, and that the others are voicing their concerns to their constituents, and we would all like for our representatives to (a) vote against that portion of HR-4205 containing sections 361 and 362 (b) inform Rep Floyd Spence of SC that there are a large number of people against this measure.
5. I would appreciate correspondence from you indicating what Rep. Floyd Spence's motivation was behind this bill - was it a specific incident or a personal agenda - that caused him to introduce such legislation. I would also appreciate your endorsing this letter and sending copies to Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Phil Gramm.
Thanks for your time.
R. S. Rayfield, Jr.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 09:32:34 PDT