[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21772-21773]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT EXTENSION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF 2008

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6894, which was received 
from the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6894) to extend and reauthorize the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we are acting on House-passed 
legislation which contains a 1-year extension of the Defense Production 
Act, DPA, which I hope will be swiftly approved by the Senate. While I 
am delighted that this extension legislation was passed by the House 
Tuesday night, it is crucial to remember that many of this law's 
authorities, last renewed in 2003, expire on September 30. We have just 
a few legislative days to get this done. As the United Sates continues 
to fight two wars and respond to various natural disasters, it is 
important that we not allow key provisions to expire--provisions 
allowing our Government agencies to ensure that American industry meets 
varying demands of national emergencies. Such measures involve mandates 
to keep industry producing critical resources for our military and 
first responders in times of crisis, and initiatives for maintaining 
crucial investments in strategic technologies.
  During the Korean war, what was then the Senate Banking & Currency 
Committee--the precursor to today's Committee on Banking, Housing and 
Urban Affairs--authored the Defense Production Act to ensure the 
availability of key industrial resources for the Department of Defense, 
DOD. Over time, the Defense Production Act has been amended to include 
energy supply, emergency preparedness, and critical infrastructure 
protections, thereby allowing civilian agencies to respond rapidly to 
crises such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
  In the last several months, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs received two reports mandated by law from the Government 
Accountability Office and Department of Homeland Security. These 
reports highlighted major shortfalls in the administration's 
application of DPA authorities. Furthermore, I have been informed that 
in 2004, FEMA and other Federal agencies conducted their own internal 
review of DPA authorities and made several recommendations to the White 
House's Homeland Security Council. The White House chose not to act on 
those recommendations, and Congress has still not been fully briefed on 
these findings.
  In a perfect world, we would fully analyze and incorporate 
appropriate findings of pertinent reviews. Unfortunately, due to time 
constraints of the current legislative session, including our work on 
measures to address the crisis in our financial system, it is clear 
that a complete assessment now of their conclusions would be 
impossible. But we should not simply reauthorize this act for another 5 
years. The recommendations gathered in these valuable reports should be 
reviewed, considered for legislation in a workable bill, and enacted 
into law in the near future; not 5 years from now.
  Simply put, granting a 1-year extension would provide our agencies 
with the authorities they need in the short term, but will also 
maintain the expectation that in 2009 the Banking Committee and the 
U.S. Senate will conduct a thoughtful review of these recommendations 
in hearings, mark-up, and floor consideration. I look forward

[[Page 21773]]

to working with my colleagues in the Senate, as well as in a new 
administration, to see to it that the DPA is modernized to address the 
challenges of the 21st century. In the meantime, I thank my colleagues 
for working with me to approve this 2009 reauthorization.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements 
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 6894) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.

                          ____________________