Demilitarization of Significant Military Equipment

Publication Date: October 2006

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Military and defense

Type:

Abstract:

This report examines the process and problems associated with demilitarizing significant military equipment in the United States. The demilitarization of military equipment is an important issue today; evidence has shown that because of some failures in enforcement, potentially harmful weaponry and parts are finding their way into the hands of private citizens, as well as possible enemies of the United States.

The effort to dispose of and demilitarize surplus military equipment dates back to the end of World War II, when the federal government decided to reduce a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by making such equipment available to civilians. The Department of Defense (DOD) identifies and disposes of approximately $20 billion of military surplus/excess materiel annually - items ranging from desks and chairs to full weapons systems. Recently, at a July 2006 hearing before the House Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Bennie Williams, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Director of Logistics Operations, identified four target areas for managing the collection, inventory, and access to surplus and excess military equipment: (1) processing controls for batch lot items and materials requiring demilitarization; (2) processing of items received at the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) coded with Local Stock Numbers; (3) improved controls regarding access to DRMS inventory assets; and (4) reducing the concurrent procurement of items available at DRMS.

Multiple agencies are involved in the control of excess and surplus defense equipment and weapons because DOD does not have the authority to fully enforce all demilitarization standards. Even the DOD demilitarization policy in place is regarded as ineffective and incomplete. There is no centralized federal authority to manage the program as each federal agency has its own policy and internal regulations which govern the acquisition, use, and disposal of demilitarized property.

Proponents who argue for the demilitarization of military equipment say that it is necessary to prevent accidental injury and death, while avoiding the unnecessary transfer of potentially harmful technology or military capability to domestic or foreign sources. Opponents, however, argue that the demilitarization issue is an attempt by the federal government to usurp the legal rights of law-abiding citizens and groups to own or possess firearms.

In the future, Congress may consider several demilitarization options ranging from: (1) permitting selective exemption; (2) appointing one agency as Executive Program Agent for all agencies; (3) convening an independent panel; (4) conducting hearings; or, (5) taking no action. This report will be updated as warranted.