[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REAUTHORIZING THE DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
MONETARY POLICY AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 113-18
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-753 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman
GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking
Chairman Member
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Emeritus NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
JOHN CAMPBELL, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
KEVIN McCARTHY, California AL GREEN, Texas
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
BILL POSEY, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Pennsylvania ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
ROBERT HURT, Virginia BILL FOSTER, Illinois
MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio PATRICK MURPHY, Florida
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DENNY HECK, Washington
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ANDY BARR, Kentucky
TOM COTTON, Arkansas
Shannon McGahn, Staff Director
James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade
JOHN CAMPBELL, California, Chairman
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan, Vice WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Ranking
Chairman Member
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BILL POSEY, Florida ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York BILL FOSTER, Illinois
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina PATRICK MURPHY, Florida
TOM COTTON, Arkansas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
May 8, 2013.................................................. 1
Appendix:
May 8, 2013.................................................. 21
WITNESSES
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Kaufman, David J., Associate Administrator, Policy, Program
Analysis and International Affairs, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........ 5
Lambert, Brett B., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 7
Wolf, Hon. Kevin J., Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Export
Administration, U.S Department of Commerce..................... 3
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Kaufman, David J............................................. 22
Lambert, Brett B............................................. 25
Wolf, Hon. Kevin J........................................... 36
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Grimm, Hon. Michael G.:
Written responses to questions submitted to Brett B. Lambert. 43
REAUTHORIZING THE DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT
----------
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Monetary
Policy and Trade,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Campbell
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Campbell, Huizenga, Lucas,
Posey, Fincher, Stutzman, Mulvaney, Pittenger, Cotton; Clay,
and Perlmutter.
Chairman Campbell. The subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the committee at any time.
And we now have all three witnesses, so that is just in the
nick of time.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement. Good afternoon, and thank you to our distinguished
panel for appearing today before this subcommittee.
Shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War, the Federal
Government sought powerful authorities to mobilize the U.S.
economy for the war effort in order to enhance military
preparedness and ensure that we have the means to defend this
Nation and its interests.
Congress granted these powers to the President through the
Defense Production Act, which we will probably throughout this
hearing call the DPA for short because we have to have an
acronym for everything.
So for the Defense Production Act or the DPA, many of these
expensive authorities have been abandoned and allowed to expire
over time but others remain essential to providing for national
security and defense, protecting critical infrastructure, and
bolstering disaster relief capabilities.
The three DPA titles that remain active are due to expire
in 2014 and this subcommittee will be considering their
reauthorization. Possessing exclusive jurisdiction over this
statute in the House of Representatives, the Financial Services
Committee can best ensure that these powers are exercised with
the least possible distortions on the broader economy. That is
why we have the jurisdiction over these titles and over the
DPA.
I hope to gain a better understanding from our witnesses'
testimony about how government is using DPA authorities today
and what systems and policies are in place to ensure that they
are only exercised in the circumstances for which they are
truly warranted.
In addition, periodic reauthorizations of statutes provide
Congress the opportunity to review the effectiveness of these
programs and identify problems.
Since the DPA was enacted in 1950, Congress has taken
advantage of this opportunity to strip out provisions that were
no longer relevant and add additional provisions to mitigate
the risk of outsized or unintended consequences.
I will be looking for our panel of witnesses to provide
their expert opinions on what is working and what is not with
regard to the DPA in order to help the committee identify
appropriate solutions that we can implement in this
reauthorization.
Thank you again to the witnesses and the agencies they
represent for appearing before this panel. I look forward to
this thoughtful discussion on the Defense Production Act or
DPA.
I yield back my time, and I would like to yield 5 minutes
now to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, the ranking
member of the subcommittee.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Chairman Campbell, and thank you so
much for conducting this hearing. I will not take the total 5
minutes. The title of the hearing is, ``Reauthorizing the
Defense Production Act.'' And as you stated, it gives the
President broad powers to implement.
There are three titles that need to be reauthorized, and as
you know, Presidents have used the authorities granted under
this Act in many ways.
President George H.W. Bush used the Act during Operation
Desert Storm. President Clinton used his authority under the
Act during the Bosnian conflict.
President George W. Bush used his authority during the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars. Also, Presidents have used their powers
under the Act in the wake of natural disasters.
Congress last reauthorized the Act in 2009, and the Act is
up for reauthorization when it expires at the end of 2014.
So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
the witnesses comments. I yield back.
Chairman Campbell. The gentleman yields back. I would now
like to recognize for an opening statement, also for 5 minutes,
the gentleman from Michigan, the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Huizenga.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Chairman Campbell. I appreciate
that, and I also thank Ranking Member Clay.
I do have a longer statement that I would like to submit
into the record. Nobody wants to sit here through all this, but
I do appreciate us holding this hearing.
The fact that the Financial Services Committee is sort of
one of the places where this resides and has the responsibility
for this reauthorization is really testimony to how strongly
our defense capabilities depend on our Nation's economic
strength, and I think that just underscores how important this
is.
We cannot prepare for war without the private sector. We
simply cannot. Coming from Michigan, being the home of the
arsenal democracy, that is something that was drilled into us
from a very early age, and we still see the remnants of that,
but there have been some very challenging times, and we know
that we have to make sure that we have that robust private
sector.
When it was first passed, this Act empowered the
Administration's ability to force private industry to give
priority to defense and homeland security contracts and to
allocate those resources.
We need to make sure that we are using those very powerful
authorities to meet those critical needs, but also make sure
that we are doing that in a way that deals with the private
sector. So we are glad that we are going to be able to move
forward on this.
This is a very important element, and clearly these are
worthy priorities, and I look forward to hearing from the
members of the Departments of Homeland Security, Commerce, and
Defense today.
I yield back.
Chairman Campbell. The gentleman yields back.
Are there any further opening statements?
If not, then we will proceed to the witnesses. Each of you
will be recognized for 5 minutes for an oral presentation of
your testimony. Without objection, each of your written
statements will be made a part of the record.
On your table, there is a light. It will start out green,
when it turns yellow you have 1 minute to sum up, and when it
turns red, please suspend.
As I discussed with you all before, we are expecting votes
to be called in about an hour. So I am going to dispense with
your all of your impressive bios and just go straight to each
of you by title because we would like to see if we can get
everybody in before the votes are called in about an hour.
We will begin with the Honorable Kevin Wolf, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration.
Secretary Wolf, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE KEVIN J. WOLF, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE, EXPORT ADMINISTRATION, U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Chairman Campbell,
Congressman Clay, and members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee this afternoon on the important role of the
Defense Production Act, which it continues to play in
supporting our national defense.
The Department of Commerce plays several roles in
implementing DPA related to the defense industrial base. First,
under Title I, the Department administers the Defense
Priorities and Allocations System.
Second, under Title VII, the Department submits an annual
report to Congress in the offsets of defense trade.
Third, also under Title VII, the Department analyzes the
health of the U.S. defense industrial base.
All three DPA authorities need to be reauthorized before
September of 2014. My written remarks go into each of these in
more detail so I will just provide a summary of some of the key
provisions and elements, and I will be happy to discuss them as
you would like.
Title I of the Defense Production Act authorizes the
President to, as you summarized, require acceptance and
priority performance of contracts and orders, other than
contracts for employment, to promote the national defense over
the performance of other contracts or orders and to allocate
materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or
appropriate to promote the national defense.
These authorities to prioritize contracts and require
allocations for industrial resources were most recently
delegated to the Secretary of Commerce by an Executive Order in
2012.
Today, Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security
implements these authorities through the Defense Priorities and
Allocations System regulation, commonly known as the DPAS
regulations, and they establish procedures for the placement,
acceptance, and performance of priority-rated contracts and
orders and for the allocation of materials, services, and
facilities which are regularly used to support the acquisition
of industrial resources needed to support the U.S. national
defense requirements.
The Department of Defense is our primary user of the DPAS.
Our industrial base is well-versed in the DPAS and has more
than 60 years of experience in receiving and placing priority-
rated contracts and orders to support the Department of Defense
requirements.
The private sector also appreciates that the DPA includes a
protection against claims in the event that a contractor is
required to reschedule an unrated order after receipt of a
rated order.
My Department also works closely with the Department of
Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
through the DPAS to support emergency preparedness and critical
infrastructure protection and restoration requirements.
My colleagues will highlight several examples in their
testimony demonstrating how the DPAS is being used to support
our national defense including military and homeland security
requirements.
If the DPA's Title I authority were to lapse, Commerce
would be forced to rely on the limited priority authority it is
delegated under the Selective Service Act of 1948 to administer
the DPAS. The Selective Service Act authority may only be used
to support procurement of products and materials for the
exclusive use of the U.S. Armed Forces and may not be used to
support emergency preparedness homeland security program
requirements.
In addition, the Selective Service Act does not provide
contractors with protection against claims. Under Section 705
of the DPA and the Executive Order, the Department also
conducts survey assessments of defense-related industries and
technologies, and these surveys are routinely requested by the
Department of Defense to help with the analysis and development
and strengthening of our industrial base.
So, in sum, the DPA provides authority for a variety of
programs at the Department of Commerce and is of substantial
importance to U.S. national security. The DPAS continues to
facilitate the timely delivery of industrial resources to
support the Department of Defense, coalition partners, and
increasingly meet Homeland Security requirements. The DPA also
facilitates valuable assessments of the impact of offsets in
defense trade and the health of key sectors of the defense
industrial base.
We look forward to working with the subcommittee on its
reauthorization, and I am ready to answer whatever questions
you may have after the opening statements. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Wolf can be
found on page 36 of the appendix.]
Chairman Campbell. Thank you, Secretary Wolf.
Next, we have Mr. David Kaufman, who is the Associate
Administrator for Policy, Program Analysis and International
Affairs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
Mr. Kaufman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. KAUFMAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, POLICY,
PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Kaufman. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Campbell, Ranking Member Clay, and
members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today
before you, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify in
support of the Defense Production Act and its importance to
homeland security and emergency preparedness and response.
The DPA is the primary source of Presidential authorities
to expedite supply of materials and services needed for both
military and civil emergency preparedness and response.
Expiration of this authority would seriously hinder our
ability to prepare for and respond to natural disasters and
other threats including catastrophic disasters such as a major
earthquake, a major hurricane strike, or an incident involving
a weapon of mass destruction.
As discussed already, the use of DPA authorities has
evolved over time, and while these authorities are used
primarily to support Department of Defense programs, they are
also used today to support disaster preparedness and response,
critical infrastructure protection and restoration, including
physical and cyber-based assets, as well as other homeland
security activities.
Title I of the DPA authorizes the priority treatment of
contracts and orders. The priority rating is one that we invoke
rarely in the civil departments but the availability of this
authority is essential to ensure timely delivery of needed
resources
The priorities authority has gained increased importance
for homeland security purposes. As with rated orders in support
of military programs, rated orders for homeland security
programs are used to ensure on-time performance when delays
could place lives and property at greater risk. Ongoing or
recent use of priorities authority for various homeland
security purposes includes: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
program to repair and restore floodwalls and levees after
Hurricane Katrina; Aircraft for the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection; and the emergency preparedness and critical
infrastructure protection activities of the Architect of the
Capitol.
The priorities authority is also used, on an as-needed
basis, to protect and restore critical infrastructure
operations and to respond to and recover from domestic
emergencies and disasters.
Examples of these uses include: thermal imaging camera
systems for perimeter security at both airport and seaport
facilities in the Boston region; equipment to enable the rapid
restoration of rail service in the Gulf Coast region after
Hurricane Katrina; and components of weather satellites that
help detect, monitor, and track severe weather for early
warning to protect lives and property.
While the use of the priorities authority for homeland
security purposes is limited, it is still important. The DPA
priority authority is essential, as we discussed, to ensuring
our ability to respond to disasters, rapidly restore and
protect critical infrastructure, and ensure that timely
development of emergency preparedness and protection measures
to protect lives and property can be enabled.
Along with other FEMA responsibilities to coordinate
Federal emergency preparedness and response activities, FEMA
provides government-wide coordination and guidance for the use
of DPA authorities on behalf of the Secretary of Homeland
Security pursuant to Executive Order 13603
To date, our use of these authorities has been limited
primarily to resources falling under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Commerce. These include most manufactured goods
and services. The Department of Commerce has delegated
authority to DHS to place priority ratings on contracts and
orders to support emergency requirements, critical
infrastructure protection and restoration, and homeland
security programs.
FEMA is continuing to work with all six resource
departments that have been delegated priorities and allocations
authority by the President to ensure the effective use of this
authority, and we will continue to work with the appropriate
Federal departments and agencies to ensure the proper
implementation of DPA authorities and incorporate the DPA as an
important planning tool for emergencies. It is a critical tool
in our toolbox for preparing for, responding to, and recovering
from disasters.
Without the DPA, that critical authority to ensure timely
procurement of materials and services to protect and restore
critical infrastructure operations, whether they are key
transportation capabilities, floodwalls, or levees, would be
lost.
Without the DPA, we would have no authority to prioritize
contracts for resources needed to respond to and recover from a
major natural disaster or act of terrorism.
In closing, I urge Congress to reauthorize the DPA
authorities which remain so critical to our homeland security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear
before you today. And I would also be pleased to answer any
questions that members of the subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaufman can be found on page
22 of the appendix.]
Chairman Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
And last but not least, Mr. Brett B. Lambert is the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy for the U.S. Department of Defense.
Secretary Lambert, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRETT B. LAMBERT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL BASE POLICY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Lambert. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee,
for this opportunity to talk about this very important Defense
Production Act in supporting the Nation's defense needs. I have
a prepared testimony that goes into a lot more details, but I
am sure you want to get to your questions, so I will keep this
brief.
The DPA provides important authorities to the Department,
both to ensure timely delivery of equipment and services
essential to our Armed Forces and to promote domestic
industrial capabilities to produce superior defense systems at
affordable costs.
My testimony today will focus on the priorities authorities
provided in Title I and the business incentives provided in
Title III, but I will also note that Title VII provides a
number of important authorities that support our capabilities
to maintain and strengthen our defense industrial base.
DOD supports the 5-year reauthorization of all the DPA
precisions which are scheduled to expire in September of 2014.
Let's start with Title I. Title I of the Defense Production
Act is vital to ensure timely DOD access to industrial
resources during both peacetime and periods of conflict. It
authorizes the President: one, to require acceptance and
priority performance of contracts and orders; and two, to
allocate materials, services, and facilities, as necessary or
appropriate to promote the national defense.
These Presidential authorities are delegated to the
Department of Commerce with respect to industrial resources.
Commerce has re-delegated to the Department of Defense
authority under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System--
another acronym; DPAS--to place priority-rated contracts and
orders for industrial resources in support of DOD-approved
programs.
DPAS priority ratings help to ensure that rated orders will
be performed on time. For the most part, contractors and
suppliers act on their own to fulfill their obligations under
rated orders, without further action required by the
Government. However, when problems occur that cannot be
resolved by the contractors and suppliers, the DPAS provides
for special priorities assistance, whereby problems can be
resolved with the assistance of DOD or, ultimately, the
Department of Commerce.
Although important in peacetime, DPAS is indispensable in
times of conflict. It provides the authority and flexibility to
address the critical procurement needs to our warfighters. Even
though this authority was first enacted over 60 years ago,
experience with providing direct support to the operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates its continued importance
today.
The DPAS played an important role during these operations
in expediting delivery of equipment needed to counter new
threats and protect the lives of our Armed Forces overseas.
The DPAS, under Title I authorities, was instrumental in
speeding the deployment of new and increased quantities of
personal body armor, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or IED
systems, MRAPs, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, and
ISR platforms, night vision equipment, submarine environmental
controls, weapons targeting systems, and many other items
necessary to support our warfighters.
Title III of the Defense Production Act authorizes various
actions by the President to develop, maintain, modernize,
restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic
sources for critical components, critical technology items,
materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution
of our national security strategy in this country.
The Title III authorities were initially used, as was
pointed out, during the Korean War era to establish the
industrial infrastructure needed to transition aircraft
production into the jet age and for other industrial base
needs.
Much of the U.S. processing capabilities for these and
dozens of other key materials can trace their roots to Title
III projects that were undertaken during the 1950s. The
national defense and the U.S. economy overall are still reaping
enormous benefits from these historical Title III actions.
Today, Title III projects continue to support us in the
transition of new and next-generation technologies that are
essential to meeting the national security requirements
identified by government customers.
I suspect most people in this hearing room are carrying a
device, which performs better and is cheaper, due to a Title
III project that was completed several years ago. The project
involved manufacturing capabilities for gallium arsenide
wafers. The primary purpose of the project was to support
defense needs of advanced integrated circuits, but gallium
arsenide integrated circuits are also important components in
your cell phones.
U.S. Title III contractors more than doubled their share of
the world market for gallium arsenide wafers over the course of
the Title III efforts and reduced the wafer price by more than
one-third. So everyone's cell phone is cheaper, performs
better, and is more likely to contain integrated circuits
fabricated and domestically-produced largely as a result of
Title III actions.
Most provisions of the Defense Production Act are now
permanent law but must be renewed periodically by Congress. We
request that the provisions scheduled to expire at the end of
the next fiscal year be extended.
The U.S. industrial base continues to be the cornerstone of
our national defense structure and the Defense Production Act
continues to provide unique and important authorities to
establish, expand, maintain, and modernize critical elements of
the base.
Title I authorities play an important role to allow us
timely access to domestic production. Title III authorities are
important to expedite the transition of new and advanced
technologies into defense systems that also have an economic
benefit overall. While the primary purpose of Title III actions
is to support the national defense, these actions also
contribute, I believe, to a stronger, more competitive U.S.
industrial base.
I am happy to answer any questions you have regarding this
issue.
[The prepared statement of Deputy Assistant Secretary
Lambert can be found on page 25 of the appendix.]
Chairman Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Lambert.
And thank you to the panel.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Lambert, you just mentioned that you request that these
three titles of the DPA be reauthorized as is. Is that the
position of the DOD? Is that the position of the
Administration? Is there an Administration request coming? Are
any of you aware of what the Administration is actually going
to request?
Mr. Lambert. Congressman, I am not. We are working within
the structure we have. We believe that we have the flexibility
within the structure as currently written. I would look forward
to a dialogue of where there may be instances where we could
collectively agree on how to adjust given the changes of time
and effort, but there is nothing I am aware of, a proposal at
this time that would change what we currently have in statute.
Chairman Campbell. Okay.
Are any of the rest of you aware of the Administration's
position on what their request is that we do with the DPA?
Mr. Wolf. I am aware of no other position within any other
department requesting any change other than reauthorization. We
will ask around. There are different parts of the U.S.
Government with equities in this and I will survey them, but as
of now, I am not aware of any.
Chairman Campbell. All right, thanks.
Just for the record, for the Administration, I haven't been
particularly good at sending up formal requests so that we
know, okay here is our request, here is what we want, and so we
would like to have that request. We would prefer to not let
this reauthorization sit until the last minute as I know you
would--you all would not like to see happen either.
Okay. With these--you guys have all talked about when this
thing--each one of you gave an example of when it has been
used, when the DPA has been used, and how it has worked kind of
as intended and so forth.
Can any of you give any examples where you think the DPA
fell short one way or another, either you weren't able to
implement something that you wanted to or where the
implementation didn't go right, or the other way around, where
the implementation went too far or it caused ripple effects
that you didn't anticipate?
Mr. Kaufman?
Mr. Kaufman. For my part, no. I don't have any example that
comes to mind where we feel like the authority fell short.
Chairman Campbell. Okay.
Mr. Wolf. I would have the same answer. I was just checking
with my staff, and we are unaware of any examples that would
meet that definition. It has otherwise operated efficiently as
far as we can tell.
Chairman Campbell. Okay.
Mr. Lambert. I came from business, so I am always looking
back to see what we could do better. Are there examples where
we have executed programs where we could have done better, we
could have implemented better practices, I think the answer to
that should always be yes, and if you can figure out what it
is, you should go back and look again.
I don't know of any examples where we failed. I think we
could have succeeded better in previous examples and we have
incorporated that into our processes.
Chairman Campbell. Okay, and that is because of processes
at the Department of Defense, not because of some weakness
within the DPA itself--
Mr. Lambert. That is correct.
Chairman Campbell. --is what you are saying. Okay.
There has been a lot of controversy lately about Title III
funds being used for biofuels. I am not going to get into that
controversy at the moment. We can deal with that at a later
time or as things go forward, but are there any other
controversial issues in the past where the use of DPA authority
became a controversial issue because of what the authority was
used for?
Mr. Lambert. Sir, not that I am aware of. I think this is
unique. Proposals to DPA come from other government agencies.
We give every agency the same look and review.
We are very meticulous about how we review them. We
restructure them. Just because somebody asks, it doesn't mean
we deliver. We take the same business--everyone has to apply
the same business model and business case.
It is a pretty set standard formula, but I am not aware in
the past of anything being written about--I won't say
controversial, but I will say written about that particular
issue.
Chairman Campbell. Okay.
Mr. Wolf. With respect to the areas where the Commerce
Department has a role, there are about 60 years' worth of
practice of experience working with industry on implementing
and working through these authorities, and DOD places an
estimated 300,000 or so rated contracts and orders annually.
And the feedback we have been receiving as long as I have
been in government, and I asked people before I arrived, has
been generally positive, and the Commerce Department is there
to sort of help people understand and work through the
regulations, but we have no indication of a negative reaction
to the way it is administered or to its content. It has been
quite helpful, generally.
Chairman Campbell. Okay. My time has expired.
I will now recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank all of you for your testimony.
Many DPA authorities have not been used by the Federal
Government for years, even decades in some cases, though they
remain in statute. Some of these less frequently used
authorities include the Title III authority to provide loans
and loan guarantees as well as the national defense executive
reserve authority in Title VII.
Could you please identify whether there are any authorities
that you see as no longer needed for the national defense or
perhaps redundant with other laws? I would like to hear from
each one of you.
Mr. Lambert. Yes, I am sorry, sir. I know the answer to
that, but I don't have it in front of me. There is a reason we
have stopped using loan guarantees. As I recall, in preparing
for this, it was in the 1980s, and there was a reason that it
ended, but I will have to get back to you for the record on
that.
Mr. Clay. How about you Mr. Wolf?
Mr. Wolf. The Commerce Department has no role with Title
III, so I have nothing more to add.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Kaufman?
Mr. Kaufman. Thank you, Congressman. FEMA also has no role
with the Title III program. It is not an active program for us;
no request for appropriations.
Mr. Clay. Hopefully, Mr. Lambert, that will be an area
where you come back with recommendations to this committee on
how we can improve on the Act.
Mr. Lambert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. Let me also look at under Title III, once a
determination is made that a critical industrial resource is in
short supply, what steps are taken to rectify the shortcoming,
and is there a transparent competitive bidding process in place
to ensure fairness among private market participants when the
government determines a need for private direct support?
Mr. Kaufman. Yes, sir. It is a very businesslike approach
and here I would give a significant amount of credit to our
executing agent, which is the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL.)
A lot of business people and attorneys who scour--when we
have a request, we go through a very methodical process. Is
there a market out there? We usually go out with a request for
information to determine whether this can be met by commercial
needs.
The request on behalf of the agency making the request or
the service, and if that is not the case, we go through a very
diligent--it is basically a due diligence process. We have laid
it out. It is a format we have used for years and it has been
very effective, but there is a process. Nobody gets special
treatment.
Mr. Clay. Okay. Is that the case, Mr. Wolf?
Mr. Kaufman?
Mr. Wolf. Again, the Commerce Department has no role in
Title III, so we have nothing to add.
Mr. Clay. Okay.
Mr. Kaufman?
Mr. Kaufman. Same for us.
Mr. Clay. All right. The Defense Production Act defines
``domestic source'' as both the United States and Canada. Can
you explain how the authorities of the DPA function in the
context of Canada?
Mr. Lambert. Sir, I believe that is their--part of our
North--it is in the North American, and Syd Pope will correct
me if I am wrong, but North American industrial base.
They are considered a part of our industrial base. They
were instrumental, for instance to give you an example, in
supporting us in this effort to provide MRAPS to servicemembers
as we were trying to build up. So we do consider Canada part of
our North American industrial base.
Mr. Clay. Okay. Any additional comment?
Mr. Wolf?
Mr. Wolf. That is a fair summary.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Kaufman?
Mr. Kaufman. Fair summary. Thank you.
Mr. Clay. Do any intergovernmental agreements or memoranda
of understanding exist to allow the United States to prioritize
contracts with Canadian companies?
Mr. Lambert. Sir, not to my knowledge. I believe Canadian
companies' needs are treated no differently than U.S. companies
for this purpose.
Mr. Clay. Okay. Can you give some examples of where DPA
authorities have been used to provide military or critical
infrastructure assistance to foreign nations in ways that
advance our own self-interest?
Mr. Lambert. Sir, I can give you--quickly, I can give you
an example where DPS Title I authorities that came through our
office--in the not-too-distant past--where we were asked to
provide coalition forces with critical night vision equipment,
and they were in theater, and we needed to work with the
industry to assist them in providing that equipment to our
coalition forces operating alongside of us, and we could not
have done that without the authorities provided by Title I.
Mr. Clay. An essential piece of equipment that helped our
forces.
Mr. Lambert. Absolutely.
Mr. Clay. I thank the witnesses.
And I yield back.
Chairman Campbell. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan, the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Huizenga, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
I think Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Wolf are having an easier time
here than Secretary Lambert.
Mr. Lambert. I brought more people.
Mr. Huizenga. I'm glad, and I hate to break that pattern,
so my apologies to you, but Secretary Lambert and I had a
chance to meet over an issue regarding A123 and its sale to
Wanxiang a number of months ago and the--something called the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS.
So I am just wondering if you can give 30 seconds--just
make sure all my colleagues know exactly, because I did not
know about CFIUS or exactly the role it played until that had
come up. So I wanted you to have an opportunity to describe
that briefly and confirm my understanding that this is not a
part of the reauthorization because it is part of permanent
law, correct?
Mr. Lambert. Correct. I believe it is Section 721. That is
part of permanent law. I should start it out by saying the
Department of Defense does not speak on behalf--this is the
Department of the Treasury, so they are the only official
party, I think by statute, that is allowed to speak on the
matter but it is--
Mr. Huizenga. Can you quickly describe CFIUS?
Mr. Lambert. Sure. The Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States was established to ensure that national
security concerns were resolved prior to any transaction that
involved an international party that could affect national
security.
And it is a committee of government agencies that the
Department of the Treasury is the chair of and is responsible
for. We are one of many members that participate in that review
process along with Commerce and other agencies, but it is truly
at the purview of the Department of the Treasury.
Mr. Huizenga. All right, thank you. And I will get back to
you on another issue.
But Mr. Kaufman, I am curious. Being completely honest and
transparent here, probably of all of the three of you up here
describing your usages of this Act, the DPA, I am probably most
concerned about Homeland Security and I am sorry with FEMA and
what those applications are and it seems to me that there is a
greater chance of sort of wandering outside of the parameters
of what this program is really for, it seems to me, with
application within FEMA.
So if you could just describe exactly how you have been
using it. I know you gave a couple of examples, and one of
those was dealing with railroads post-Katrina, trying to get
equipment and trains running there, but help alleviate my
concern, please.
Mr. Kaufman. I will be happy to, Congressman.
Mr. Huizenga. In about 45 seconds.
Mr. Kaufman. Noted. First off, I would say we use it on a
very limited basis. In homeland security and emergency
management space, something on the order of 16 uses since 2006,
but when we do use it, it is for a very important purpose.
And the purpose statements are accounted for in the
amendments to the Act, or the reauthorization of the Act in
2009, which did expressly include homeland security, emergency
preparedness and response, and critical infrastructure
protection and restoration as part of the scope of the
authority.
So in support of that, in no particular order, but to give
you a couple of other examples, most recently during Hurricane
Sandy, we had a critical need to procure greater interpretive
services, telephonic interpretive services.
There are an awful lot of languages spoken in the New
Jersey and New York region, and so that was something that we
needed to ensure we had available in very short order to
support response recovery operations.
Mr. Huizenga. Just so I am understanding what you are
saying, you basically jumped to the head of the line and said,
sorry, hospitals that may need some of these translation
services or whatever else, the government gets priority?
Mr. Kaufman. Yes. In the case of that Act, and that
disaster where we were in an all-hands-on-deck footing, we said
we need to be able to ensure that we are providing support to
the survivors of that disaster in the most expeditious manner
possible. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Huizenga. All right. And I may want to unpack this a
little more at some other point.
But Mr. Lambert, getting back to you, and I am not trying
to--I firmly believe that every garden party needs a skunk. All
right? So, I am happy to be that skunk today.
I want to read this--shortfall--so--the Title III
expenditures reduced shortfalls of industrial resources,
critical technology items, or essential materials needed for
national defense purposes, and the chairman alluded to this.
I am baffled how under NDAA, where we put a specific
congressional requirement for congressional approval for these
biofuel projects to be moving forward with the funding, how the
DOD has the ability, much less the gumption, to move forward
with that.
Chairman Campbell. And the DOD will have to answer that as
part of another Member's questioning, because the gentleman
from Michigan's time has expired.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Colorado,
Mr. Perlmutter for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. If I could pass, I
just want to listen and understand this a little more, and
maybe it will trigger a question, but I don't have any
questions right now.
Chairman Campbell. Okay, then we will now turn to the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mulvaney, for 5 minutes. The
gentleman from Colorado yields--
Mr. Huizenga. You could have recognized me to get the
answer.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. I will recognize--if I could--I
would recognize my friend from Michigan to finish his question.
Chairman Campbell. All right. If you can hold on just a
moment, Mr. Mulvaney, then the gentleman from Colorado has
recognized the gentleman from Michigan, whom I believe will
allow Mr. Lambert to answer his question.
Mr. Huizenga. I deeply appreciate my friend from Colorado,
my former neighbor, who has moved up to better environs in
Longworth, but thank you for this time.
So, I would love to hear an answer.
Mr. Lambert. I'm sorry, could you repeat the--no, I'm
sorry.
[laughter]
Mr. Huizenga. Okay. Would you like the quote as well? I am
happy to do that.
Mr. Lambert. This is a very serious issue, and we don't
take it lightly. When we reauthorized in 2009, and if you look
back at the legislation, energy was one of the important
components of the Defense Production Act. We have done a lot of
energy activity.
Prior to the biofuels notification that we provided
Congress on this current round, we had provided one in 2010, so
there was a precedent. It was smaller, admittedly, but there is
a precedent and there are are really only two factors by law
that we look at and one is, is it something that--I am
summarizing the language because I don't have it in front of
me, but in my head I say, does it make sense for the Nation? Is
important to national security?
And then the more important question to me is, is this
something the commercial market is not doing for some reason?
And then in my mind, again coming from industry, this shouldn't
be a defense program.
My goal and the goal of the Defense Production Act and
everything that we do is we should be building facilities that
we can utilize and then get out of, so they can be of use to
the overall U.S. economy. Those are kind of the general things
that I--
Mr. Huizenga. Okay. The Department of Energy, the
Department of Agriculture, people that you had previously been
partnering with specifically have not been funded for this.
It seems to me then we inserted language into NDAA that
prohibited DOD to be able to do this, but you are going around
that language under this Title III authority to say well, we
appreciate that, but we are going to use no year funding from
2012 to fund these programs that pretty clearly Congress has
said this isn't a direction we want to go and cellulosic
ethanol plants are not that unusual.
Mr. Perlmutter. If I could reclaim my time from my friend
from Michigan, and I would just help him a little bit and help
the panelists. Section 2(a)(6) of DPAS: ``to further assure the
adequate maintenance of the domestic industrial base to the
maximum extent possible domestic energy supplies should be
augmented through reliance on renewable energy sources
(including solar, geothermal, wind, and biomass sources), more
efficient energy storage and distribution technologies, and
energy conservation measures.'' It is in the law. So for them
to pursue it, I am glad they are, because that is part of the
DPAS as it sits today.
Mr. Huizenga. Okay. Can I ask a question?
Mr. Perlmutter. I would yield to my friend from Michigan.
Mr. Huizenga. All right. I appreciate that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Now, we are getting going.
Mr. Huizenga. Now we are into something--yes, okay. My
understanding is that might be a regulation, not the law. That
is what I am being told. But--
Mr. Perlmutter. ``The Defense Production Act of 1950 as
amended.''
Mr. Huizenga. Okay. ``As amended.'' I guess the question to
me, or I guess the problem I am having that I am trying to sort
out then is it appears that we may have a conflict between what
we have passed and in three different budgets, a DOD budget, an
agriculture budget, and a Department of Energy budget with
specific language in NDAA, so four different places that appear
to be in conflict with that and--
Mr. Perlmutter. Reclaiming my time, we may have a conflict
and we should iron that conflict out. I like this section of
the Defense Production Act of 1950 because I think from the
national security basis we can't just--I would like to see us
rely on a variety of sources of energy, not just petroleum-
based, which we spent $17.3 billion compared to like $46
million or something like that for biofuels.
So, I appreciate the gentleman's questions, and if there is
a conflict, as Members of Congress it is our responsibility to
iron those conflicts out, but this particular section, I
believe, does benefit the national security of the Nation and
it may--and homeland security may be benefited as well if a
bunch of refineries, petroleum refineries were to be attacked
or lost in an earthquake or whatever. So, I appreciate that.
Mr. Huizenga. Will the gentleman--
Mr. Perlmutter. Of course, I will yield to my friend.
Mr. Huizenga. All right. I appreciate that and only to say
this: my reading and understanding, and this is new territory
for a lot of us I think, is that these are for some critical
things that are not being done anywhere else in the economy.
And that a production of something that may have gone out
of production for example only because it has limited military
use, cellulosic ethanol is not just specifically a military use
and there is private sector research and things that are
happening.
Mr. Perlmutter. I thank the chairman. And I will yield
back.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you.
Mr. Perlmutter. I appreciate the opportunity--
Mr. Huizenga. I appreciate my friend.
Chairman Campbell. The gentleman who was not going to use
any of his time has now used all of his time with the help of
the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Perlmutter. I took my 5 minutes. So now, I have had a
chance to prepare for your questions.
Chairman Campbell. Now, we will go back--and I really mean
it this time--to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Mulvaney. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mulvaney. I am not sure how I got dragged into that,
but it was was fun to watch. Thanks, guys.
Gentlemen, I congratulate you. You are actually seeing
something that is rare in this process. I haven't been here
very long, but we are actually having a hearing to find out
information.
Ordinarily, we come into these things with these scripted
questions and we already know what we want to ask, and this has
actually been interesting to me, because I didn't even know
this thing existed until the chairman told us about it at the
beginning of this year.
So you are seeing Members of Congress doing things that
they are not ordinarily comfortable doing, which is asking
questions that they don't know the answers to already. So I
appreciate you participating in the process.
I am going to start with Mr. Kaufman, because I am going
over your testimony, Mr. Kaufman, and help me understand that--
I think I grasp the role of the DPA under emergency or exigent
circumstances.
The examples you give in your testimony about restoring
floodwalls and levees after Hurricane Katrina, and thermal
imaging in Boston, make sense. I can follow them and they seem
to make sense to me.
I think I am having a more difficult time getting my head
around your examples of aircraft for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection and components for weather satellites to help detect
moderate or track severe weather. Can you help me understand
how those last two examples are things that are appropriate
exercises of the DPA authority?
Mr. Kaufman. I will be happy to. In the case of the
aircraft for CBP, for Customs and Border Protection, those are
their P-3 Orion aircraft and they needed critical parts for
maintenance for those aircraft that actually if we hadn't
executed a priority rating for that contract, then they would
have fallen into a lengthy delay because similar ratings were
in place from the Department of Defense. So that is a perfect
example of--
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. Thank you. I am going to cut you off
because--and I want to let you go, but I want to cut you off
there because it raises a really good point. Is that--we have
had these things since what, the 1950s, their DC-6s, I think,
or something like that modified.
Was the lack of spare parts simply lack of planning on
somebody's part and it turned out being--my secretary, when I
first started practicing law, had a sign that said, ``A failure
to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my
part.'' Is that what we saw in that particular circumstance?
Mr. Kaufman. No, I do not believe that is what we saw. I
think what you saw in that circumstance is a small market with
competing demands on that market. And a need to adjudicate what
was most critical at a point in time.
Mr. Mulvaney. Right, but again, that is a knowable thing,
isn't it? We have had these things for 60 years--why are you
shaking your head, Mr. Lambert--I am not trying to be
combative. I am just trying to--
Mr. Lambert. No, it is a question about tempo and
priorities, and in this particular case, as I recall, there
were a lot of demands in a short period of time for these
priorities. We were flying them or using them harder than we
were prior and it was a question of how we adjudicated--from a
business model perspective, your option is to build up a huge
inventory of parts that may or may not be obsolete in a few
years, which you pay a lot for, and then you store and manage,
or to work with industry to do just-in-time prioritization,
which the Title I authorities allow us to adjudicate that, that
priority rating.
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay, that helps. Thank you for that. I
appreciate that.
Mr. Lambert, that leads me to another question. You
mentioned in part of your testimony, you said that agencies
apply for DPA treatment. Have you ever turned anybody down?
Mr. Lambert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mulvaney. And what is the--you said there is this two-
part test about whether or not it is important for national
security and whether or not it is something the private sector
would do. Is it basically, fail one of those two tests? Is that
the idea?
Mr. Lambert. No, that is just to get into the gate. That is
to make the application. So any service--first of all, you need
a government customer, so that is the first basis.
The U.S. Government has to be a customer because frankly,
this is U.S. taxpayer money. And so when we go out and look, we
ask, is there a U.S. customer? That is one of the first
internal hurdles we look at.
Is there a private industry willing to match? A really
important part of DPA that people don't appreciate is there
needs to be a private sector contribution to this.
Usually is more than one to one, but we strive to make it
to give them incentive to get some skin in the game from the
private sector. So it is not entitlement.
We really are trying to transition a technology or
capability from the government--something we need that isn't
performing, there is a market error--and we need to help
correct the market, but then the market should take over.
At the end of the day, we don't want to be in this--we need
to transition this to a commercial enterprise. So it needs to
have a government customer. That is the first hurdle.
If we can't find a sponsor for it, we get a lot of people
coming in offering ideas. If there is no customer for it, even
if it meets those first two DPA criteria, we will not fund it.
We won't even put it in our hopper.
Mr. Mulvaney. Can you give me an example of something that
failed the test within recent memory?
Mr. Lambert. Sure, we have had--they tend to be smaller
entrepreneurial companies which have grand ideas. We had one
recently, and I need to go back, because it may have been
something that worked on the classified program, but it seemed
to have great promise but we ran it on to ground, we put
together these IPT's that are--we treat every inquiry very
seriously.
We put together an IPT and it was determined that there
were alternatives--this was a good idea, but there were
alternatives and the commercial market was already addressing
that need for us, and so there was no need for government
support.
Mr. Mulvaney. And Mr. Lambert--one quick question if I may,
Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said earlier that
the agencies make application to you. Are you telling us that
individual companies, private companies come to you and ask for
DPA treatment for the products?
Mr. Lambert. Absolutely. Sometimes through Members.
Historically, Members have provided us information about
companies. Members tend to have a good ground sense of what is
happening in their districts, and we always look and listen to
those inquiries, but they run through the same process that if
a government agency came to us, we would go through the same
screening.
Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Campbell. The gentleman's time has expired.
And next, we have the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Pittenger. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Wolf, Secretary Lambert, and Mr.
Kaufman for your testimony.
I would direct my question, frankly, to any of you. As we
reauthorize any statute in this case, we look for what changes
we could make that would make it more effective, particularly
as it relates to the economy, and I really would like to know
from your experience, as you work with this statute on a daily
basis, what constructive changes you would recommend that we
could make at this time?
Mr. Lambert. Again, it is an incredibly functionable
statute right now. We have a great deal of flexibility as long
as we are informing you and communicating with you about what
we are doing.
We believe we have all the authorities in place to meet the
demands. If we have tweaks on the edges, I believe it is on us
to get back to you and explain what those are, but as a general
rule, we think the Act is quite constructive, particularly the
changes that were made in 2009, which helped us a lot in
cleaning up a lot of the language and streamlining a lot of our
processes.
Mr. Wolf. We have no suggestions to make, either. It works
very efficiently. We have had nothing but good responses in
working with and educating industry about this and have no
recommended changes.
Mr. Kaufman. I would agree. The Administration did put
forward proposals in 2009 that were adopted in the
reauthorization, and we feel that the law works well as
written.
Mr. Pittenger. Let me ask you this: Do you hear complaints
from private industry?
Mr. Wolf. No. In fact before coming here today, in
anticipation of that question, I polled some of my staff. And
other companies have used it and I have not heard any
complaints from anyone in industry who used it. To the
contrary, with the advice and assistance of my staff from the
Commerce Department, it has worked quite efficiently and well.
I have not received any complaints.
Mr. Pittenger. No threats, no challenges--
Mr. Wolf. No, I am unaware of any threats or complaints,
formal or informal.
Mr. Lambert. Sir, I would add from DOD's perspective that
we do get complaints, but it is usually because we are not
funding something. We put everything through the same rigorous
process. Sometimes, we determine it is not in the best interest
of the taxpayer or the warfighter to fund something. That is
when we get complaints, but we have never had a challenge or a
protest.
Mr. Pittenger. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I yield back my time.
Chairman Campbell. All right. The gentleman yields back,
and seeing no other Members who wish to ask questions--I
thought we would run right up against the votes, but we have
managed to complete all questioning without the votes.
So I thank the panel very much for being here today.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
And without objection, this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
May 8, 2013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81753.023