[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 17914]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2001

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2510) to extend the expiration date of 
the Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Page 2, strike out all after line 8 down to and including 
     line 14 and insert ``2002''.

     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 ``2001'' and 
     inserting ``2002''.

  The Clerk read the House amendment to the Senate amendment, as 
follows:

       House amendment to Senate amendment:
       Line 3, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2003''.
       Line 7, strike ``2002'' and insert ``2003''.

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the 
reauthorization of the Defense Production Act and the amendment that 
will be adopted by the House today. As you are aware, the Defense 
Production Act gives the President important emergency powers to ensure 
that industry produces needed material during times of military or 
civil emergencies.
  Unfortunately, with the events of September 11, we find ourselves in 
the midst of both. The President's authority under the DPA expires on 
Sunday, and it is important that we renew these powers during this 
critical period in our Nation's history.
  The House passed a clean 3-year reauthorization on September 5. The 
Senate returned the bill to us late Friday night, limiting the 
President's authority to only one year. With the clock ticking, we 
don't want to be back in this same position next year. Therefore, in 
the best spirit of compromise, we are amending the Senate bill and 
splitting the difference--extending the DPA for 2 years. I know that 
some of my colleagues in the other body have some concerns about the 
powers granted to the President under the DPA, and particularly in how 
they have been used in the past. They have my assurance that we will 
look closely at those concerns in the interim, and make changes where 
they are necessary.
  I want to thank Chairman King, and ranking members LaFalce and 
Maloney for their help in moving this bipartisan legislation forward. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill and this amendment.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for the 
extension of the Defense Production Act for a two-year period. I also 
want to commend the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, as 
well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the subcommittee on Domestic 
Monetary Policy, for their vigilance and bi-partisanship in ensuring 
that these statutes are extended prior to expiration.
  Clearly, this body would have preferred a 3-year extension of the 
Act, as reflected in the earlier legislation already passed in the 
House. However, it is also clear that a 2-year extension is the most 
prudent course of action in order to ensure that reauthorization of the 
Act is signed into law within the next few days.
  As I have argued repeatedly during the past two weeks, the Act 
contains Presidential powers that may well be needed to be called upon 
in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. In fact, we already have 
indications that the DPA will be invoked in the coming weeks. One news 
report from this morning states, ``[The DPA] is one of an array of 
statutes likely to be used frequently in the coming weeks as DOD seeks 
to expedite procurements--especially in the information technology and 
telecommunications sectors.''
  With today's action in this body, I am confident that we will have an 
extension of the DPA signed into law prior to its expiration on 
September 30, and I want to thank my colleagues again for demonstrating 
the wisdom and flexibility that has been necessary to make that happen.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________