[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16392-16394]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 16393]]

     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 
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. Madam 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.

[[Page 16394]]

  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.
  Madam 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.
  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.

                          ____________________