Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate Banking Committee hears witnesses urge reauthorization and modernization of the Defense Production Act
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses at a Senate Banking Committee hearing urged Congress to reauthorize and modernize the Defense Production Act to shore up critical-mineral supply chains, expand domestic manufacturing capacity, speed permitting, strengthen interagency coordination, and guard against foreign-adversary benefits.
The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs heard experts and industry representatives call for prompt reauthorization and targeted reforms to the Defense Production Act (DPA), citing risks from foreign market manipulation, fragile domestic supply chains, and slow permitting for critical-mineral projects.
Chairman Scott opened the hearing by calling the DPA "a vital tool for protecting the American people and securing the economic foundations of our national defense," and urged the committee to keep the act "tightly tailored to the purposes for which it was created: defense production, emergency preparedness, and the protection of critical domestic supply chains." Ranking Member Warren and other senators described bipartisan support for using the DPA to counter dependency on foreign sources and to rebuild U.S. industrial capacity.
Industry and policy witnesses described specific uses and reform ideas. Mackenzie Lyon, vice president for external affairs at Perpetua Resources, presented the Stibnite Gold Project in Central Idaho as a DPA "success story," saying, "That $59,000,000 kept our permitting process on track," and that the award attracted about $54,000,000 in private investment and put the project "on the precipice of a $2,000,000,000 investment," with hundreds of jobs and substantial tax revenue projected. Lyon warned that long U.S. permitting timelines are a major barrier: she cited an industry-average 29-year timeline from identifying a mineral resource to extraction and said, under optimistic assumptions, Stibnite would take at least 18 years to produce.
Panelists urged Congress to preserve the DPA’s focus on national security while modernizing procedures. John McGinn of the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University recommended keeping the DPA centered on defense and national emergencies, removing the non‑delegable presidential signature requirement that slows some Title 3 determinations, enabling purchase commitments (offtake agreements) to create predictable demand, and raising the DPA fund ceiling (currently cited in testimony as $750,000,000) so Title 3 investments can scale.
Jared Brown, executive director of the nonprofit Global Shield, argued that DPA Title 7 reforms and better pre‑crisis planning with the private sector would improve response capacity for "global catastrophic" events. Rush Doshi of the Council on Foreign Relations framed the issue in strategic terms, saying China’s market tools and industrial scale create leverage that the United States must counter through a mix of DPA investment, cooperation with allies, and updated definitions of national defense.
Committee members pressed witnesses on several implementation risks and safeguards. Senators asked whether current vetting prevents companies with foreign-adversary ties from receiving DPA funds; witnesses said Title 3 projects are governed by Department of Defense management and DFARS-like contracting safeguards, and that CFIUS and FIRRMA remain distinct but complementary authorities for reviewing foreign investment. Senator Moreno asked whether expanding CFIUS to cover greenfield investments (a proposal referenced in the hearing) would help; witnesses said that expansion is within the Senate's prerogative and merits agency deliberation.
Lawmakers also raised pharmaceutical supply-chain resilience and stockpiling. Ranking Member Warren cited Defense Logistics Agency data on pharmaceutical supply risk and asked how Title 3 funding or DPA authorities could be used to onshore active pharmaceutical ingredient capacity or bolster strategic reserves; witnesses noted Title 3 has been used to stand up capacity during COVID and suggested stockpiling and multiyear funding could be revisited.
On the question of politicization, Senator Moreno accused the administration of using DPA authorities beyond congressional intent in areas like green energy; witnesses and other senators urged keeping the statute bipartisan and mission‑focused while clarifying scope and safeguards.
The hearing produced a set of recurring reform proposals: clarify the definition of "national defense" to depoliticize DPA use; allow purchase commitments or offtake to stabilize nascent U.S. producers; raise the Title 3 fund ceiling; streamline interagency coordination and permitting for projects the defense industrial base depends on; and consider targeted CFIUS or FIRRMA adjustments to address foreign ownership risks.
The committee invited further input: senators may submit questions for the record (due one week from the hearing) and witnesses have 45 days to respond. The hearing closed without votes or formal committee action.
The hearing’s testimony and exchanges provide a roadmap of priorities and trade‑offs for legislators drafting reauthorization language: preserve the DPA’s defensive core while modernizing funding mechanisms, oversight, and interagency processes to accelerate domestic capacity for critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and other defense‑relevant supply chains.
