[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.

                          ____________________