[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 144 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2050-E2051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 DEFENSE PRODUCTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 15, 2003

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one questions the need for the Federal 
Government to obtain the necessary resources to fill its constitutional 
role of providing for the common defense. However, the federal 
government must fulfill this duty in a manner that does not conflict in 
any way with the Constitution or endanger republican government. The 
Defense Production Reauthorization Act (DPA), which gives almost 
unchecked power to the executive to interfere in the economy in the 
name of ``national security,'' fails both of these standards. In fact, 
when I inquired at the sole hearing the House Financial Services 
Committee held on this issue as to which section of the Constitution 
authorized such sweeping grants of power to the Executive, I was 
greeted by silence from the ``expert'' witnesses!
  Under this bill, the President is given authority to void private 
contracts in order to ensure that federal defense priorities, as 
determined by the executive, are met. The only limitation on the 
President's judgment is a requirement that he submits a series of 
``findings'' to Congress. The Executive also has what appears to be 
unchecked authority to use financial incentives such as loan 
guarantees, direct loans, and purchase guarantees to ensure production 
of items he determines are in the national interest.
  Congress appears to have no ability to perform any real oversight of 
a Presidential action under the DPA. In fact, my office has been 
informed by the Congressional Research Service that past Presidents may 
have invoked the DPA without even submitting the required findings to 
Congress!
  The wide grant of unchecked power to the Executive runs counter to 
the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. The Founders carefully 
limited the executive power because they recognized that an executive 
with unfettered power was a threat to liberty. In recent years we have 
seen administrations of both parties undermine the Constitutional 
separation of powers via enhanced reliance on executive orders and 
unilateral decision-making. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act 
provides Constitutional blessing to this usurpation of power, and not 
just in areas clearly related to national defense. For example, the DPA 
has been used to justify federal interference in the energy market. It 
is an open question what other exercise of federal power could be 
justified as related to defense. For example, federal education 
programs has been justified on the grounds that an educated population 
is vital to national defense, so perhaps a future president will use 
DPA to impose a national curriculum!
  I am also concerned that this bill violates the Fifth Amendment's 
takings clause. In particular, DPA allows the government to seize 
private property by interfering with the performance of private 
contracts in order to give priority to military production. This action 
reduces the value of the affected parties' proprietary interests, and 
thus is a taking, requiring the government to provide just compensation 
to the affected party. The Fifth Amendment intends to assure that the 
government does not

[[Page E2051]]

unfairly burden one group of citizens in carrying out its 
constitutional functions. By not providing for just compensation, DPA 
allows the executive to unfairly burden one group of citizens for costs 
that the Constitution requires be shared among the entire population.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Defense Production Act gives the 
executives unchecked power to meddle in the economy, flying in the face 
of the original constitutional structure and endangering the very 
liberty it claims to protect. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

                          ____________________