[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 5, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5355-H5357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2001
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2510) to extend the expiration date of the Defense
Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2510
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Production Act
Amendments of 2001''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.
Section 717(a) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2166(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30,
2001'' and inserting ``September 30, 2004''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 711(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2161(b)) is amended by striking ``1996 through
2001'' and inserting ``2002 through 2004''.
SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
The Defense Production Act of 1950 is amended as follows:
(1) In section 301(a)(1) (50 U.S.C. App. 2091(a)(1)), by
striking ``714(a)(1) of this Act'' and inserting ``702(16)''.
(2) In subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 301(e)(1)
(50 U.S.C. App. 2091(e)(1)), by striking ``industrial
resource shortfall'' each place such term appears and
inserting ``industrial resource or critical technology item
shortfall''.
(3) In sections 301(e)(1)(D)(ii) and 303(a)(7)(B) (50
U.S.C. App. 2091(e)(1)(D)(ii), 2093(a)(7)(B)), by inserting
``item'' after ``critical technology''.
(4) In section 304(b)(1), (50 U.S.C. App. 2094(b)(1)), by
striking ``711(c)'' and inserting ``711(b)''.
(5) In sections 301(e)(2)(B) and 309(a)(1), (50 U.S.C. App.
2091(e)(2)(B), 2099(a)(1)), by striking ``Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House of
Representatives'' and inserting ``Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
General Leave
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2510, the Defense
Production Act Amendments of 2001. As I am sure my colleagues know, the
DPA is an essential element of our national security package. The DPA
uses economic tools to provide uninterrupted supplies of industrial
resources in times of both military crisis and civil emergency.
We are here today because the President's authority under the DPA
expires at the end of the fiscal year. This bill introduced by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King) who chairs the Subcommittee on
Domestic Monetary Policy and his ranking member, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), is a straightforward, 3-year reauthorization
with a handful of purely technical amendments.
Those amendments amount to little more than housekeeping. For
example, one of those changes updates the statute to reflect the
creation of the Committee on Financial Services at the beginning of
this Congress. Others fix errors in section numbering or harmonize
language within the statute.
Madam Speaker, I have with me the administration's statement in
support of this bill along with a letter from Defense Principal Deputy
Undersecretary Michael W. Wynne endorsing this legislation.
{time} 1515
Madam Speaker, I will include these for the Record at this point.
Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, September 4, 2001.
Hon. Michael Oxley,
Chairman, House Financial Services Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to express my strong
supporter of the enactment of H.R. 2510, 107th Congress, an
Act to extend and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of
1950. The legislation gives the Department the ability to use
the authorities of the Act for items and industrial resources
that are essential for national security needs. The District
Production Act authorities remain important elements in our
national defense program.
H.R. 2510 extends and reauthorizes the Defense Production
Act by three years from September 30, 2001 to September 30,
2004.
This legislation provides a number of critical authorities
needed to ensure a strong industrial base capable of meeting
national defense requirements in peacetime as well as in
times of national emergency. Title I of the DPA provides for
priority performance on contracts and orders to meet approved
national defense and emergency preparedness program
requirements. Title I is indispensable in expediting
production to meet the critical needs of US forces engaged in
military operations. Title I authorities were used to ensure
priority production and shipment of numerous items urgently
needed by the coalition forces during Desert Shield/Storm and
more recently Bosnia and Kosovo.
The Title III authorities enable us to establish assured
and affordable production capacity for items essential for
national defense. Title III is an extremely valuable tool
that enables the Department to field technologically superior
systems, upgrade the capabilities of older systems, and
reduce operations and sustainment costs. A recent Title III
project for Discontinuous Reinforced Aluminum (DRA) resulted
in the insertion of components made of DRA in the F-16
fighter that are dramatically reducing life-cycle costs and
improved flight safety.
This legislation does not call for additional spending by
the Government or Department of Defense. A similar letter has
been sent to the Ranking Member, Congressman John LaFalce.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Wynne.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, September 5, 2001.
Statement of Administration Policy
(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the
concerned agencies.)
H.R. 2510--Defense Production Act Amendments of 2001 (Rep. King (R) New
York and Rep. Maloney (D) New York)
The Administration supports H.R. 2510, which would extend
the expiration date and authorization of appropriations for
the Defense Production Act through FY 2004.
The expiration of the Defense Production Act could have a
severe impact on the Nation's ability to respond to national
security threats, both at home and abroad. Thus, passage of
H.R. 2510 would ensure the President's continued ability to
provide for the Nation's security by providing authority to:
(1) establish, expand, or maintain essential domestic
industrial capacity; (2) direct priority performance of
contracts and orders to meet approved national security
requirements; and (3) suspend or prohibit a foreign
acquisition of a U.S. firm when that acquisition would
present a threat to the Nation's security.
Madam Speaker, over the past 3 years, the DPA has been reauthorized
[[Page H5356]]
on a year-to-year basis due to accidents in the legislative calendar.
This authority is far too important to allow uncertainty over the
future of the DPA to continue. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of
1990, when the DPA expired in the middle of the buildup of Operation
Desert Storm.
While the DPA may need to be tweaked in the future, we should ensure
that those important authorities continue uninterrupted and use the
next 3 years to carefully examine proposed improvements to the act.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney) deserve great credit for their bipartisan work on
this bill. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this
legislation.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 3-year reauthorization of the
Defense Production Act of 1950. This is bipartisan legislation that was
reported by the Committee on Financial Services by voice vote.
First enacted during the Korean War, the DPA has proven a useful tool
in ensuring the delivery of goods and services needed for the defense
of the Nation during times of war and peace. The act was used in
Operation Desert Storm to assist in the massive deployment of forces to
the Gulf.
Most recently it was used by the Clinton and Bush administrations to
maintain the supply of natural gas to California. Without this action,
the administration contended that defense installations in northern and
central California could have faced interrupted natural gas service.
The DPA has played an important role in dealing with recent natural
disasters. Should the country face a major domestic terrorist attack,
the DPA could be valuable in ensuring that emergency supplies are
delivered to those who need them and in a timely manner.
As the representative of a city that has been the target of terrorist
attacks and many terrorist threats, I can attest that, unfortunately,
such a potential use of the DPA is not a mere theoretical possibility.
Given the DPA's relevance to natural disasters, the Federal Emergency
Management Administration, FEMA, has taken the lead in reviewing the
act and requesting its reauthorization, which is set to expire October
12 of this year.
The Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, Technology and Economic
Growth held a hearing on June 13 of this year, a meeting at which
Members were able to raise concerns and have them answered by FEMA and
other agencies. It is after careful review of the act and following
this hearing that I chose to cosponsor the reauthorization.
Finally, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the
gentleman from New York (Chairman King), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for moving quickly on this
legislation. In the past, Congress has often rushed to renew the DPA
under the gun of its pending expiration. I appreciate the fact that we
have followed committee process, culminating with today's vote.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the coauthor of this
legislation.
Mr. KING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2510 and to
associate myself with the remarks of the full committee chairman, the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley). I also want to thank the chairman
for allowing this important reauthorization bill to move quickly
through the committee as we push up against its expiration date. I also
want to thank my subcommittee ranking member, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney), for her bipartisan cosponsorship of this bill.
Madam Speaker, this bill has enjoyed broad support, allowing us to
proceed in a genuinely bipartisan manner.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and I introduced this
DPA reauthorization bill after receiving testimony on June 13 of this
year from the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Energy and FEMA, the
agency responsible for the act's coordinating efforts. By request of
the administration, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and I
have worked together to put forth a clean 3-year reauthorization bill,
recognizing the importance that this act holds for the ability of any
administration to address defense and civil preparedness issues. As
reflected in the committee testimony and debate, a multiyear extension
makes the most sense.
As the chairman stated, and I want to emphasize this, the changes
that are contemplated in DPA are extremely technical in nature. Also,
in closing, let me say that I realize that if used inappropriately, DPA
has the potential to adversely affect our domestic marketplace.
Fortunately, throughout the almost 50 years that it has been in
existence, there has been no such adverse impact.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking members,
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce); and I look forward to the swift non-controversial
adoption of this measure.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, although our effort in the House of
Representatives today to extend the Defense Production Act is
commendable, the House has missed a prime opportunity to make this Act
more effective in ensuring our national security and helping American
workers.
The Defense Production Act, first enacted in 1950, ensures that
products, materials, and services essential to our national security
are available to defense related agencies at all times--but especially
in times of conflict. One material that is especially critical to our
defense needs is steel. Our armed forces would not be able to respond
to a national emergency without an adequate supply of domestically
produced steel.
But at this very moment, the American steel industry is in dire
straits. In recent months a number of steel companies have been driven
into bankruptcy, and others are on the brink. Thousands of jobs are at
risk, as another wave of low-cost steel imports has battered the
domestic industry. In my home district, LTV Steel, which employs
thousands of Cleveland residents, is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings
and has had to idle one of its plants.
A bill I introduced, the Steel and National Security Act, would have
amended the Defense Production Act to enable the President to step in
and aid critical defense industries such as steel. In its findings, the
Steel and National Security Act identifies domestic steel capacity as
an essential part of what a key executive order has called the
``foundation for national defense preparedness'': our domestic
industrial and technological base.
To revive and secure the health of the American steel industry and
thereby ensure adequate domestic capacity, the Steel and National
Security Act would reauthorize the Defense Production Act's Title III,
with a specific allocation of $1 billion in each of the fiscal years
2002, 2003, and 2004 for Department of Defense loans, grants and
purchase commitments. Fifty percent of each year's allocated funds
would be reserved for purchase commitments, to ensure that ailing
industries are given a sharp boost.
The bill would also establish a National Defense Preparedness
Domestic Industrial Base Board. The Board would be responsible, through
one time en masse purchases and other means, for ensuring uninterrupted
availability of defense-related materials. Together, these provisions
would ensure enough demand so that domestic industries critical to our
national security--like steel--can survive tough times.
But that is not all my bill would accomplish. The Steel and National
Security Act would also reauthorize Defense Production Act's Title VII,
with a specific directive ordering the Department of Defense to request
a 45-day period of further investigation for all mergers, acquisitions,
and takeovers involving a foreign steel company. This would ensure that
domestic capacity to produce materials and goods essential to our
national security always exists.
Mr. Speaker, though the House has acted correctly in extending the
Defense Production Act to 2004, it has not acted decisively to aid
those industries most vital to our national security.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2510.
[[Page H5357]]
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________