Date: 1983-10-04
Speaker: SHUM WAY (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speiker. I rise in support of the legislation before us which resolves the lengthy and sometimes controversial debate over the extension of the Defense Production Act by simply extending the act for 2 years. without amendment. As the House is undoubtedly aware. the DPA provides essential authorities for defenserelated Industrial readiness. and for other powers which might prove necessary in time of emergency. While It is clear. In my view. that it is in the national interest that the DPA not expire. substantial controversy exists over the use of those title III authorities which provide for strategic materials projects. Many of us on the minority side. for instance. oppose H.R. 2782. legislation in the form of amendments to title III reported by the. Banking Committee establishing an expensive new assistance program for small- and mediumsized businesses. and for skills training. At the same time. serious questions have been raised by the GAO. CBO. and others about the worthiness of DODs $200 million title III strategic materials budget request for fiscal year 1994. An additional question that has arisen In the context of the DOD:budget request Is whether or not the funding for projects pursuant to DPA title III must l* specifically authorized. I have here two letters from Under Secretary of Defense Dick DeLauer. In his letter of June 9 to subcommittee Chairman LAFALCE. he asserted: "Since we are seeking an appropriation for purchase commitments of critical materials needed to support procurement of military weapons. we believe that -10 U.S.C. 138 requires a specific authorization prior to the appropriation of funds." However. in a letter dated September 27. DeLauer essentially reversed himself. stating that "we request 0 * extension of existing title III authorities and appropriations of $200 million for title III In fiscal year 1984." In view of the serious questions which now exist about the ways In which the Defense Department proposes to utilize title III of the DPA. as well as about the proper role of the Banking Committee in authorizing specific title III projects. the simple 2year extension of the DPA proposed here seems an appropriate course of action. Adoption of this legislation will assure the continuation of the Defense Production Act itself. while allowing the Banking Committee to fully weigh the pros and cons of DODs audget request. as well as the procedures for dealing with it. in a thorough fashion. Although the gentleman from New York may not fully share my concern with this final point. I would also like to alert our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee that the appropriation of $50 million for DPA title III activities. as is now evidently being considered. seems quite premature In view of the problems described a moment ago. Until the Banking Committeethe committee with jurisdlictionhas the opportunity to resolve the questions that now exist with regard to title III. I think It only makes sense that all such appropriations be deferred. Mr. Speaker. the administration. strongly supports S. 1852. 1 urge its adoption.