[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7002-H7004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4809) to reauthorize the Defense Production Act, to improve
the Defense Production Act Committee, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4809
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION.
Section 717(a) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2166(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2019''; and
(2) by striking ``on or after the date of enactment of the
Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009''.
SEC. 2. DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT COMMITTEE IMPROVEMENTS.
Section 722 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2171) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``advise the President'' and inserting
``coordinate and plan for''; and
(B) by striking ``the authority'' and inserting ``the
priorities and allocations authorities'';
(2) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (2) to read as
follows:
``(2) The Chairperson of the Committee shall be the head of
the agency to which the President has delegated primary
responsibility for government-wide coordination of the
authorities in this Act.'';
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Coordination of Committee Activities.--The
Chairperson shall appoint one person to coordinate all of the
activities of the Committee, and such person shall--
``(1) be a full-time employee of the Federal Government;
``(2) report to the Chairperson; and
``(3) carry out such activities relating to the Committee
as the Chairperson may determine appropriate.''; and
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``Not later than'' and all that follows
through ``Committee shall submit'' and inserting the
following: ``The Committee shall issue a report each year by
March 31'';
(B) by striking ``each member of the Committee'' and
inserting ``the Chairperson'';
(C) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``a review of the authority under this Act
of'' and inserting ``a description of the contingency
planning by''; and
(ii) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``for
events that might require the use of the priorities and
allocations authorities'';
(D) in paragraph (2), by striking ``authority described in
paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``priorities and allocations
authorities in this Act'';
(E) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) recommendations for legislation actions, as
appropriate, to support the effective use of the priorities
and allocations authorities in this Act;'';
(F) in paragraph (4), by striking ``all aspects of'' and
all that follows through the end of the paragraph and
inserting ``the use of the priorities and allocations
authorities in this Act;''; and
(G) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) up-to-date copies of the rules described under
section 101(d)(1); and
``(6) short attestations signed by each member of the
Committee stating their concurrence in the report.''.
SEC. 3. UPDATED RULEMAKING.
Section 101(d)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2071(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``not later
than'' and all that follows through ``rules'' and inserting
the following: ``issue, and annually review and update
whenever appropriate, final rules''.
SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
(a) In General.--Section 303(a) of the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``determines'' and inserting the following:
``, on a non-delegable basis, determines, with appropriate
explanatory material and in writing,'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) purchases, purchase commitments, or other action
pursuant to this section are the most cost effective,
expedient, and practical alternative method for meeting the
need.''; and
(2) in paragraph (6), by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Limitation.--If the taking of any action or actions
under this section to correct an industrial resource
shortfall would cause the aggregate outstanding amount of all
such actions for such industrial resource shortfall to exceed
$50,000,000, no such action or actions may be taken, unless
such action or actions are authorized to exceed such amount
by an Act of Congress.''.
(b) Exception.--Section 303(a)(6)(C) of the Defense
Production Act of 1950, as added by subsection (a)(2), shall
not apply to a project undertaken pursuant to a determination
made before the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 711 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2161) is amended--
(1) by striking ``are hereby authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary and appropriate'' and inserting
`` is authorized to be appropriated $133,000,000 for fiscal
year 2015 and each fiscal year thereafter''; and
(2) by striking the second and third sentences.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Perlmutter) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and submit extraneous material on H.R. 4809, as amended, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill today, H.R. 4809, is a bill to reauthorize the Defense
Production Act. Simply put, the Defense Production Act is a bill that
is intended to minimize distortions to the economy when it is necessary
for the government to take action to aid speedy recovery from large
natural or man-made disasters or to protect our servicemen and -women
during combat situations. The underlying legislation was used in the
recoveries from Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and used to get new body
armor in a hurry for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan when supplies ran
dangerously low.
Shortly after the outbreak of the Korean war was when Congress first
enacted the Defense Production Act, DPA, granting the President broad
powers to access prompt, adequate, and uninterrupted supplies of
industrial resources to satisfy national security needs. During that
war, the DPA was used to establish a robust national defense
infrastructure which later provided the U.S. strength in the ensuing
cold war.
Since then, the DPA has been used only sparingly. In recent years,
Congress expanded the Executive's use of the DPA to include the
protection of critical infrastructure and needs arising from civil
emergencies, such as
[[Page H7003]]
hurricanes, in addition to its defense purposes. When it was enacted,
the DPA consisted of seven titles, including some controversial wage
and price controls. As the Korean war wound down, four of those titles
were allowed to expire. The remainder of the law, the remaining three
titles, have operated effectively and without much controversy since.
There are three remaining titles. First, title I, which grants the
President authority to meet urgent defense or disaster recovery
requirements. This authority essentially allows the government to move
to the head of a company's production and delivery schedule and
indemnifies that company against breach of contract lawsuits by
nongovernment entities.
Title III authorizes the President to use loans, purchase
commitments, and grants to encourage contractors to establish or expand
industrial capacity and produce items that are essential to the
national defense that must be domestically produced but are otherwise
not economically attractive enough to have a domestic producer. These
programs are usually small, typically less than $15 million, and in the
history of the DPA, going back to the Korean war, only three have
exceeded $50 million, each of which was specifically authorized by
Congress.
Title VII authorizes the President to provide antitrust exemptions
for voluntary agreements and joint activities among private entities
intended to address production and distribution problems that might
impair defense preparedness.
While the first two titles and the rest of title VII expire at the
end of September, title VII also contains the authorization of the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which scrutinizes
the foreign direct investments process, to ensure that they do not
threaten national security. That authority does not sunset. It did not
before, and it does not in this reauthorization.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us reauthorizes the DPA for 5 years and
reinstates some modest reforms, the reforms that were in place prior,
adds back the guidelines for the use of title III that clarified that
title III must be the most cost-effective solution to the defense
industrial base shortfall, and it has a requirement for a separate
congressional authorization for projects greater than $50 million. As I
just described, all previous projects greater than $50 million since
the Korean war have all received congressional reauthorization, so this
really is not changing what has been existing practice.
The reforms also stipulate that the use of title III may only be
approved by the President and makes some changes to improve the
effectiveness of an interagency coordinating committee on the uses of
the DPA.
Mr. Speaker, this bill preserves the vital and important authorities
of the DPA while preventing any abuse or perception of misuse. It
passed the Financial Services Committee in June by voice vote. I would
urge immediate passage of this bill and its commonsense reforms.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman from California for working on this bill and
getting it reintroduced and, hopefully, today getting it passed. I
thank him, too, for working with a number of us on certain provisions.
When the Defense Production Act was initially enacted in 1950 in the
aftermath of World War II and in the midst of the Korean war, it
contained seven separate titles that granted broad authority to the
President to control national economic policy. Following the Korean
war, three of the Defense Production Act titles remain in effect and
two of the act's titles need to be reauthorized.
First, there is title I of the DPA, which authorizes the priority
treatment of contracts and orders to meet urgent defense or readiness
requirements. It does so by allowing the government to move to the head
of a company's line of production and delivery schedule while
indemnifying the company against breach of contract lawsuits by
nongovernment entities.
Title III is the other key provision of the law that Congress needs
to reauthorize. This title empowers the President to support the
private sector through the use of financial incentives, including
loans, guarantees, purchase commitments, and grants to ensure that the
U.S. domestic industrial base has the production capabilities that the
President has determined are essential to our national security.
Congress has reauthorized the DPA on a bipartisan basis approximately
50 times since its first enactment in 1950. It has been used by all
administrations since President Truman during both peace and times of
conflict to support the national security programs of the United States
of America.
The measure includes several reforms. First, the measure would
restructure and refocus the Defense Production Act Committee, an
interagency advisory body on the priorities and allocation authorities
contained in title I. Agency heads are also required to issue and
review rules that would establish the standards and procedures by which
title I authorities can be used.
In closing on this subject, let's be very clear. The Defense
Production Act is a law of great national significance. It has been
reauthorized many times. It provides powerful authorities for purposes
of our national defense and security. I urge the adoption of the
Defense Production Act as we have modified it.
I would state, Mr. Speaker, we have other bills very similar to this
that need to be acted on by the Republican majority, starting with the
Export-Import Bank, which itself has been reauthorized numerous times
by both parties, whoever was in the majority. Yet the Export-Import
Bank is sitting there holding fire when it is a benefit--a strong
benefit--to this country and to the businesses of this country so that
we can be on even footing with all of the other countries competing for
business around the world.
Secondly, the TRIA, which is the Terrorist Risk Insurance Act, it too
is sitting there without any action having been taken by the Republican
majority of this Congress. It too has been reauthorized on several
occasions, and it benefits this country in many ways and needs to be
acted upon. But instead, the Republican majority has chosen to bring a
lawsuit against the President of the United States, which has
absolutely no merit, and has given their lawyers in the proposed
legislation a blank check to sue the President when we have important
legislation, whether it is the Export-Import Bank, terrorist risk
insurance, looking at immigration issues, comprehensive immigration
reform, transportation, we have many, many items that need to be
addressed. But instead, we are going to take up litigation that is
unheard of in the history of the United States against the President of
the United States because he has taken actions when this Congress has
sat silent.
This bill, the Defense Production Act, I thank my friend from
California for bringing it. It needs to be passed. I urge its passage.
So many other things need to be passed and not just ignored in the face
of doing something so political as suing the President of the United
States.
I urge my friend from California, I urge the Speaker to dispose of
what we are supposed to take up tomorrow or Thursday in this lawsuit
against the President of the United States for taking steps that we
here in Congress apparently are refusing, and I would say to the
Republican majority, you are refusing to bring up and have heard and
voted on--transportation issues should be a bipartisan matter;
immigration should be bipartisan; the Export-Import Bank which benefits
our companies and our businesses and has been authorized since the
1930s, makes money for the country, that should be brought up. We
should be bringing up the Terrorist Risk Insurance Act so that
companies across the country know in the terrible event of another
attack like we had on 9/11 that there is a backstop for them and their
properties and their people. But, no, we are taking up litigation, not
legislation.
{time} 1430
That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. I can't object to it in any greater
terms. It just makes no sense. It does not advance the ball for
America. It doesn't advance the ball for middle America. People are
looking for jobs and want to see that their kids go to college and
[[Page H7004]]
want to have retirement security. It is just a political statement when
we could be doing a lot more.
This Congress can do so much more. Passage of this Defense Production
Act is doing something, and I thank my friend for that. I urge its
passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, let me thank the gentleman from Colorado and my friends
on the other side of the aisle for their work on and support of this
Defense Production Act, for which I will call the vote in just a
moment.
But as to comments that my friend from Colorado made, first of all, I
think he knows I agree with him on Export-Import Bank and on terrorism
risk insurance, so you are not going to have any debate from me there.
Clearly later this week, the action to sue the President will come on
the floor. There will be plenty of time to debate on that.
Just one comment I would like to make. You mentioned bipartisanship,
and I agree with you, there is not enough around here and there needs
to be. In the end, you can never move the country forward sustainably
without getting something that has support on both sides. So I agree on
that.
But when I first got here almost 10 years ago, George W. Bush was
President, and I saw a number of your colleagues, the Democrats, had a
button that said ``article I.'' I am like, what is that? They said:
Well, this is to show that we, Congress, are article I in the
Constitution, the executive branch is article II, and we believe that
President George W. Bush is treading upon the rights enumerated in the
Constitution that rightly belong to the first branch of government,
Congress.
Now, we, Republicans, believe that the current President, President
Obama, is doing the same thing.
Here is a place where I think maybe we can have some bipartisanship
at some point. When George W. Bush was President you thought he went
too far. Many of us probably did too, but didn't say so because of sort
of party loyalty. Now we believe this President is going too far. I
would wager to guess that some of your side believe that too but aren't
saying so because of party loyalty.
At some point, Republicans and Democrats in this institution, in this
body, need to protect its constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend.
The gentleman from California is absolutely right that to have
sustainable movement of this country forward, it does take both sides
of the aisle--Republican side of the aisle and Democratic side of the
aisle.
I would suggest to my friend that Democrats did not have control of
the House, did not bring legislation, or litigation, if you will,
against President Bush. And I would suggest to my friend, take a look
at the number of executive orders that Ronald Reagan issued, that Bill
Clinton issued, that George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush issued,
compared to President Obama.
I appreciate your willingness to let me speak and just get that in.
Again, I urge the passage of the Defense Production Act.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
I understand the point. Some individual Members, I believe, did
introduce--the House didn't per se--but did introduce some charges, if
you will, against President Bush.
The point I am simply trying to make is, each side of the aisle has
felt that the rights under the Constitution of this institution have
been trodden upon by a President of the other side of the aisle. What
the right response to that is and what the right remedy to that is we
can debate. I am retiring at the end of this year, so I am leaving all
of this for you all. But as we grow the executive branch, as we add
more departments, and we add more things, we continue to concentrate
power there and take it away from here.
This place, for all its faults and foibles, and it has plenty of
them, it is accountable to the people. It is accountable to the people
in a way that the executive branch can't ever be. That is why we on a
bipartisan basis, if it is not with this President then with the next
one, we need to start clawing some of those rights and responsibilities
back to article I of the Constitution.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank again the cooperation and involvement
of my friends on the other side of the aisle for the Defense Production
Act, and I would ask for its passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4809, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________