Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 144 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 144 (Wednesday, October 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9416-H9418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT REAUTHORIZATION OF 2003

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the Senate bill (S. 1680) to reauthorize the Defense Production
Act of 1950, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

S. 1680

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
Reauthorization of 2003''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.

(a) In General.--The 1st sentence of section 717(a) of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2166(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``sections 708'' and inserting ``sections
707, 708,''; and
(2) by striking ``September 30, 2003'' and inserting
``September 30, 2008''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 711(b) of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2161(b)) is
amended by striking ``through 2003'' and inserting ``through
2008''.

SEC. 3. RESOURCE SHORTFALL AND RADIATION-HARDENED
ELECTRONICS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the limitation contained
in section 303(a)(6)(C) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
(50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)(6)(C)), the President may take
actions under section 303 of the Defense Production Act of
1950 to correct the industrial resource shortfall for
radiation-hardened electronics, to the extent that such
Presidential actions do not cause the aggregate outstanding
amount of all such actions to exceed $200,000,000.
(b) Report by the Secretary.--Before the end of the 6-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the
House of Representatives describing--
(1) the current state of the domestic industrial base for
radiation-hardened electronics;
(2) the projected requirements of the Department of Defense
for radiation-hardened electronics;
(3) the intentions of the Department of Defense for the
industrial base for radiation-hardened electronics; and
(4) the plans of the Department of Defense for use of
providers of radiation-hardened electronics beyond the
providers with which the Department had entered into
contractual arrangements under the authority of the Defense
Production Act of 1950, as of the date of the enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

Subsection (a) of section 705 of the Defense Production act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2155(a)) is amended by inserting
after the end of the 1st sentence the following new sentence:
``The authority of the President under this section includes
the authority to obtain information in order to perform
industry studies assessing the capabilities of the United
States industrial base to support the national defense.''.

SEC. 5. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION AND RESTORATION.

Section 702 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2152) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (17) as
paragraphs (4) through (18), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Critical infrastructure.--The term `critical
infrastructure' means any systems and assets, whether
physical or cyber-based, so vital to the United States that
the degradation or destruction of such systems and assets
would have a debilitating impact on national security,
including, but not limited to, national economic security and
national public health or safety.''; and
(3) in paragraph (14) (as so redesignated by paragraph (1)
of this section), by inserting ``and critical infrastructure
protection and restoration'' before the period at the end of
the last sentence.

SEC. 6. REPORT ON CONTRACTING WITH MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED
BUSINESSES.

(a) Report Required.--Before the end of the 1-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, this
Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives on the extent to which contracts entered into
during the fiscal year ending before the end of such 1-year
period under the Defense Production Act of 1950 have been
contracts with minority- and women-owned businesses.
(b) Contents of Report.--The report submitted under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) The types of goods and services obtained under
contracts with minority- and women-owned businesses under the
Defense Production Act of 1950 in the fiscal year covered in
the report.
(2) The dollar amounts of such contracts.
(3) The ethnicity of the majority owners of such minority-
and women-owned businesses.
(4) A description of the types of barriers in the
contracting process, such as requirements for security
clearances, that limit contracting opportunities for
minority- and women-owned businesses, together with such
recommendations for legislative or administrative action as
the Secretary of Defense may determine to be appropriate for
increasing opportunities for contracting with minority- and
women-owned businesses and removing barriers to such increase
participation.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``women-owned business'' and ``minority-owned business'' have
the meanings given such terms in section 21A(r) of the
Federal Home Loan Bank Act, and the term ``minority'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1204(c)(3) of the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act
of 1989.

SEC. 7. REPORT ON IMPACT OF OFFSETS ON DOMESTIC CONTRACTORS
AND HIGHER-TIER SUBCONTRACTORS.

(a) Assessment of Impact Required.--In addition to the
information required to be included in the annual report
under section 309 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, the
Secretary of Commerce shall assess the net impact, in the
defense trade, of foreign sales and related foreign contracts
that have been awarded through offsets, industrial
participation agreements, or similar arrangements on domestic
prime contractors and at least the first 3 tiers of domestic
subcontractors during the 5-year period beginning on January
1, 1998.
(b) Report.--Before the end of the 1-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Commerce shall submit a report to the Congress containing
findings and the conclusions of the Secretary with regard to
the assessment made pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) Copies of Report.--Copies of the report prepared
pursuant to subsection (b) shall also be transmitted to the
United States

[[Page H9417]]

Trade Representative and the interagency team established
pursuant to section 123(c) of the Defense Production Act
Amendments of 1992.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

General Leave

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1680, as amended,
reauthorizing the Defense Production Act of 1950. The language we are
considering today makes some important decisions to the text the
Committee on Financial Services passed last spring. Reflecting input
from the Senate, the legislation adds studies on the effect on the
economy of defense offsets, not only on prime defense industry
contractors but on subcontractors, and on the U.S. capacity to produce
military-grade radiation-hardened electronics. The legislation extends
the DPA authorities for 5 years as requested by the administration.
Mr. Speaker, this Chamber rarely considers legislation as important
as the DPA. In peacetime and in war, it allows for the priority
production of equipment and material necessary for national security
and the public health; and with the addition of the language suggested
by the Senate, now it will specifically authorize the act to be used to
protect our critical infrastructure as well. The act also allows the
careful tightly targeted use of Federal funds to ensure there is an
adequate industrial capacity in this country to produce certain vital
military equipment or material that otherwise would not be available.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the House act swiftly to send this
amended legislation back to the Senate and that the other body quickly
pass this compromise so that the authorities, which expired at the end
of last month, are available to civil and military authorities. It is
inconceivable that the priority production powers in the DPA not be
available if needed for use in the case of a devastating hurricane or
earthquake or in the unthinkable event of a terrorist's biological
weapons attack or to speed up the production of equipment for our
troops in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere in the world. The
authorities were used after the September 11 attacks to speed the
delivery of targeting sensors for the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle
by nearly 2 years, to speed the delivery of equipment for airports that
detected explosives, and to speed up production of new high-tech
bulletproof vests.
Mr. Speaker, this 5-year reauthorization of the DPA will provide the
necessary time for a much-needed study and reform of the DPA so that
Congress may remove obsolete language and clarify or update other
language. It has been impossible for nearly a decade to reform the act
on anything other than a piecemeal basis because the reform efforts
always coincided with reorganization. Decoupling them will finally give
us the breathing room to do some thoughtful work on the act itself.
I ask all Members to join with me to pass S. 1680, as amended, and
then join me in the next couple of years for a thoughtful update of the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 5-year reauthorization of the
Defense Production Act, legislation that is critical to our Nation's
national defense, to the war on terror, and to our ability to respond
to disasters. The Defense Production Act was first enacted in 1950. It
allows the Defense Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency
to procure supplies quickly on an emergency basis. Its authority is
also needed to make sure that the national defense industrial base has
the resources needed for national security. The act expired on
September 30; and given the current situation in Iraq, it is critical
that we move this bill today.
During the current Iraq conflict, the act's authority has been used
to secure computers, chemical warfare protective clothing, and medical
equipment. The legislation we are considering is the product of a year
of bipartisan work and compromise. It was improved during full and
subcommittee markups in the Committee on Financial Services earlier
this year. The Senate Banking Committee passed legislation in
September, and over the last month, Members and staff have worked to
resolve remaining issues.
I am pleased that the final bill contains an amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) requiring reporting on minority
contracting. The bill also contains a compromise worked out between the
committee leadership and Senator Dodd on the issue of offset contracts
with foreign nations. Offset agreements are arrangements where U.S.
domestic defense contractors outsource work to foreign contractors as
part of agreements by foreign countries to purchase U.S. defense
products. The legislation will require the U.S. Commerce Department to
assess the economic impact on U.S. contractors and subcontractors of
these agreements. I am pleased to support this provision with the
understanding that it fulfills Senator Dodd's concerns. We must be as
vigilant in protecting the jobs of American workers as we are in
defending America's national defense.
Finally, the spirit of bipartisanship with which we have worked on
this reauthorization would not have been possible without the
leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), chairman of the
Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Subcommittee. I also wish to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), ranking member, and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Oxley) for their work on this important issue.
This is legislation our troops need today. It is legislation that our
constituents may need in the event of a disaster, and I urge my
colleagues to adopt this bill.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I do support the
gentlewoman's work and the work of the Chair on the Defense Production
Act, and I am particularly grateful for the Meeks amendment on minority
contracting. As we now go abroad, it becomes more relevant around the
world.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King) for his leadership on the reauthorization of this bill.
I think that it is extremely important that we have this particular
reauthorization at this time in the backdrop of the efforts that have
been proposed not only by this administration but by this body as it
relates to the rebuild of Iraq. And as I know the gentlewoman's
leadership on women's issues and women's participation, I think the
Meeks amendment is completely appropriate that we give the involvement
of the minorities and women in contracting.
When I speak to my constituents in the district, they are
particularly concerned about the idea of a rebuild, no matter what
happens ultimately on the floor with this legislation and the fact that
minority and small businesses do not have the opportunity in engaging
in this effort and as well participating in efforts with the Defense
Department, one of the largest budget line items that we have in this
whole budget of the United States; and it is extremely important that
we have this opportunity. So I think this is an instructive piece of
legislation. I think it is very helpful, and I am very glad to rise to
support this legislation. I know that this is not humorous, but it
appears that the Speaker finds it humorous, but in any event I hope
that is not the case, and I support this legislation enthusiastically.

[[Page H9418]]

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1645

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and
International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, I rise today
regarding the authorization of the Defense Production Act and the
legislation that the House of Representatives and Senate have produced.
I wish to make two points.
First, the House of Representatives and the Senate have agreed to
include language that makes clear that all the authorities included
within the DPA may be used for critical infrastructure protection and
restoration purposes. I have been informed that in past administrations
there may have been some confusion regarding the applicability of the
DPA to critical infrastructure. The language included in the
reauthorization legislation ends any debate that may have existed.
Secondly, it is the intent of the House that the DPA be interpreted
to allow the administration to exercise the authorities provided under
Section 101 of the DPA to directly assist a private sector critical
infrastructure owner or operator in furtherance of critical
infrastructure protection or restoration.
The House of Representatives' desired interpretation, however, should
not be construed, in any way, as limiting the applicability of the
DPA's other authorities with respect to critical infrastructure
protection and restoration.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, I
rise today to echo the statements of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
King) regarding the reauthorization of the Defense Production Act and
its applicability to critical infrastructure protection and
restoration. The language that the House of Representatives has agreed
to include in the reauthorizing legislation should leave no doubt that
the Defense Production Act may be used for critical infrastructure
protection and restoration purposes.
Also, it is the intent of the House of Representatives that the
administration refrain from interpreting the Defense Production Act as
limiting the administration's ability to provide direct assistance to
critical infrastructure owners and operators under Section 101 of the
Defense Production Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Senate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1680, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________