Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Grasso, Valerie Bailey" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement to Come from Domestic Sources [May 4, 2011]
From the Summary: "In order to protect the U.S. industrial base during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed domestic source restrictions as part of the 1941 Fifth Supplemental Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. These provisions later became known as the Berry Amendment. The current Berry Amendment (Title 10 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 2533a, Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources; Exceptions) contains a number of domestic source restrictions that prohibit DOD from acquiring food, clothing, fabrics (including ballistic fibers), stainless steel, and hand or measuring tools that are not grown or produced in the United States. [...] Some policymakers believe that policies like the Berry Amendment contradict free trade policies, and that the presence and degree of such competition is the most effective tool for promoting efficiencies and improving quality. On the other hand, some other policymakers believe that key domestic sectors need the protections afforded by the Berry Amendment. The debate over the Berry Amendment raises several questions, among them (1) If the United States does not produce a solely domestic item, or if U.S. manufacturers are at maximum production capability, should DOD restrict procurement from foreign sources, and (2) to what extent do U.S. national security interests and industrial base concerns justify waiver of the Berry Amendment? This report examines the original intent and purpose of the Berry Amendment and legislative proposals to amend the application of domestic source restrictions, as well as potential options for Congress"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2011-05-04
-
Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers [September 21, 2006]
"Military uniforms are procured through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD). DLA is DOD's largest combat support agency, providing worldwide logistics support for the United States (U.S.) military services, civilian agencies, and foreign countries. DLA, with headquarters in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, operates three supply centers to meet the clothing needs of military and civilian customers. In FY2005, DLA managed an inventory of more than 5.2 million items, with sales and services of $31.8 billion. The Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), in Philadelphia, PA, is responsible for nearly all of the food, clothing, and medical supplies used by the military; about 90% of the construction materiel used by troops in the field, as well as repair parts for aircraft, combat vehicles, and other weapons system platforms."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2006-09-21
-
Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers [Updated October 25, 2004]
"Military uniforms are procured through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an
agency of the Department of Defense (DOD) which provides worldwide logistics support
for the United States (U.S.) military services. DLA operates three supply centers to meet
the clothing needs of military and civilian customers. In FY2003, DLA managed an
inventory of more than 4.6 million items and provided about $24 billion in military and
other supplies. Of the 4.6 million items in DLA's inventory, over one million items are
managed through the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), with headquarters in Philadelphia, PA. DSCP serves as the inventory control point and the supply
chain manager in providing customer support, from planning through product delivery,
for almost all of the items used by military personnel including military uniforms,
clothing, food, equipment, and general and industrial supplies. Military uniforms are procured in compliance with the Berry Amendment and the
Buy American Act (BAA), with the purpose of ensuring that United States
(U.S.) troops wore military uniforms wholly produced in the United States and that U.S. troops were fed food products wholly produced in the United States."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2004-10-25
-
Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers [February 23, 2012]
"DLA [Defense Logistics Agency] Troop Support's Clothing and Textile Directorate (C&T) supplies more than 8,000 different items ranging from uniforms and body armor to tents and canteens. Many C&T products, such as battle-dress uniforms (BDUs), are unique to the military. The Directorate collaborates with military service customers and private vendors to design and test uniforms. C&T also identifies, tests, and approves commercial items for military use, including sweatshirts, gloves, and blankets, and supplies special purpose clothing, wet weather clothing, chemical suits, and field packs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2012-02-23
-
Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers [April 14, 2014]
"Military uniforms are procured through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD). DLA is DOD's largest combat support agency, providing worldwide logistics support for the United States military services, civilian agencies, and foreign countries. With headquarters in Fort Belvoir, VA, DLA operates three supply centers: DLA Aviation, DLA Land and Maritime, and DLA Troop Support. Military uniforms are procured through DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia, PA. DLA Troop Support is responsible for procuring nearly all of the food, clothing, and medical supplies used by the military, including about 90% of the construction material used by troops in the field, and repair parts for aircraft, combat vehicles, and other weapons system platforms. According to DLA Troop Support's website, 'Each year, DLA Troop Support supplies and manages over $13.4 billion worth of food, clothing and textiles, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, and construction and equipment supplies in support of America's warfighters worldwide and their eligible dependents.' Within DLA Troop Support, the Clothing and Textile (C&T) Directorate supplies more than 8,000 different items ranging from uniforms to footwear and equipment. According to DLA Troop Support, in FY2012, C&T sales of clothing, textiles, and equipment to military personnel worldwide surpassed $1.9 billion."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2014-04-14
-
Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers [January 9, 2012]
"DLA [Defense Logistics Agency] Troop Support's Clothing and Textile Directorate (C&T) supplies more than 8,000 different items ranging from uniforms and body armor to tents and canteens. Many C&T products, such as battle-dress uniforms (BDUs), are unique to the military and the Directorate teams with military service customers and private vendors to design and test them. C&T also identifies, tests, and approves commercial items for military use, such as sweatshirts, gloves, and blankets, and also supplies special purpose clothing, wet weather clothing, chemical suits, and field packs."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2012-01-09
-
Military Uniform Procurement: Questions and Answers [March 28, 2013]
"Military uniforms are procured through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the Department of Defense (DOD). DLA is DOD's largest combat support agency, providing worldwide logistics support for the United States military services, civilian agencies, and foreign countries. With headquarters in Fort Belvoir, VA, DLA operates three supply centers: DLA Aviation, DLA Land and Maritime, and DLA Troop Support. Military uniforms are procured through DLA Troop Support in Philadelphia, PA. DLA Troop Support is responsible for procuring nearly all of the food, clothing, and medical supplies used by the military, including about 90% of the construction materiel used by troops in the field, and repair parts for aircraft, combat vehicles, and other weapons system platforms. Within DLA Troop Support, the Clothing and Textile (C&T) Directorate supplies more than 8,000 different items ranging from uniforms to footwear and equipment. According to DLA Troop Support's website, sales surpassed $14.5 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2013-03-28
-
Defense Logistical Support Contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan: Issues for Congress [April 28, 2010]
"This report examines Department of Defense (DOD) logistical support contracts for troop support services in Iraq and Afghanistan administered through the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), as well as legislative initiatives which may impact the oversight and management of logistical support contracts for the delivery of troop support services. LOGCAP is an initiative designed to manage the use of civilian contractors that perform services during times of war and other military mobilizations. […] Congress is concerned about the federal oversight and management of DOD contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly under programs like LOGCAP. Recent assessments from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), DOD Office of the Inspector General (DOD-IG), the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), and the Defense Contract Audit Agency reveal a lack of accountability for large sums of money spent for Iraq contracts. According to the congressional testimony of Charles Williams, director of the Defense Contract Management Agency, there are more than 600 oversight positions still vacant in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress is also concerned about the size of contractor insurance premiums through the Defense Base Act (DBA); such premiums comprise significant costs under LOGCAP."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2010-04-28
-
Defense Surplus Equipment Disposal: Background Information [July 22, 2014]
"The Department of Defense (DOD) through a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) component called DLA Disposition Services [formerly the Defense Utilization and Marketing Service (DRMS)] has a policy for disposing of government equipment and supplies considered surplus or deemed unnecessary, or excess to the agency's currently designated mission. DLA Disposition Services is responsible for property reuse (including resale), precious metal recovery, recycling, hazardous property disposal, and the demilitarization of military equipment. The effort to dispose of surplus military equipment dates back to the end of World War II when the federal government sought to reduce a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by making such equipment available to civilians. (The disposal of surplus real property, including land, buildings, commercial facilities, and equipment situated thereon, is assigned to the General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal.)"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2014-07-22
-
Defense Surplus Equipment Disposal: Background Information [April 29, 2014]
"The Department of Defense (DOD) through a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) component called DLA Disposition Services [formerly the Defense Utilization and Marketing Service (DRMS)] has a policy for disposing of government equipment and supplies considered surplus or deemed unnecessary, or excess to the agency's currently designated mission. DLA Disposition Services is responsible for property reuse (including resale), precious metal recovery, recycling, hazardous property disposal, and the demilitarization of military equipment. The effort to dispose of surplus military equipment dates back to the end of World War II when the federal government sought to reduce a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by making such equipment available to civilians. (The disposal of surplus real property, including land, buildings, commercial facilities, and equipment situated thereon, is assigned to the General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal.)"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2014-04-29
-
Defense Surplus Equipment Disposal: Including the Law Enforcement 1033 Program [September 5, 2014]
"The effort to dispose of surplus military equipment dates back to the end of World War II when the federal government sought to reduce a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by making such equipment available to civilians. (The disposal of surplus real property, including land, buildings, commercial facilities, and equipment situated thereon, is assigned to the General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal.) The Department of Defense (DOD) through a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) component called DLA Disposition Services has a policy for disposing of government equipment and supplies considered surplus or deemed unnecessary, or excess to the agency's currently designated mission. DLA Disposition Services is responsible for property reuse (including resale), precious metal recovery, recycling, hazardous property disposal, and the demilitarization of military equipment. [...] This report focuses on the disposal of defense surplus property that is delegated to DOD from the General Services Administration. Law enforcement agencies are a recipient of defense surplus property, along with many other recipients. For further information on the 1033 Program, see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R43701, 'The "1033 Program," Department of Defense Support to Law Enforcement', by Daniel H. Else."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2014-09-05
-
Defense Surplus Equipment Disposal: Background Information [August 22, 2013]
"The Department of Defense (DOD) through a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) component called DLA Disposition Services [formerly the Defense Utilization and Marketing Service (DRMS)] has a policy for disposing of government equipment and supplies considered surplus or deemed unnecessary, or excess to the agency's currently designated mission. DLA Disposition Services is responsible for property reuse (including resale), precious metal recovery, recycling, hazardous property disposal, and the demilitarization of military equipment. The effort to dispose of surplus military equipment dates back to the end of World War II when the federal government sought to reduce a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by making such equipment available to civilians. (The disposal of surplus real property, including land, buildings, commercial facilities, and equipment situated thereon, is assigned to the General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal.)"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2013-08-22
-
Defense Surplus Equipment Disposal: Background Information [September 10, 2013]
"The Department of Defense (DOD) through a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) component called DLA Disposition Services [formerly the Defense Utilization and Marketing Service (DRMS)] has a policy for disposing of government equipment and supplies considered surplus or deemed unnecessary, or excess to the agency's currently designated mission. DLA Disposition Services is responsible for property reuse (including resale), precious metal recovery, recycling, hazardous property disposal, and the demilitarization of military equipment. The effort to dispose of surplus military equipment dates back to the end of World War II when the federal government sought to reduce a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by making such equipment available to civilians. (The disposal of surplus real property, including land, buildings, commercial facilities, and equipment situated thereon, is assigned to the General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal.)"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2013-09-10
-
Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement to Come from Domestic Sources [February 24, 2014]
"This report examines the original intent and purpose of the Berry Amendment and legislative proposals to amend the application of domestic source restrictions, as well as potential options for Congress. In order to protect the U.S. industrial base during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed domestic source restrictions as part of the 1941 Fifth Supplemental Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. These provisions later became known as the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment (Title 10 United States Code [U.S.C.] §2533a, Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources; Exceptions) contains a number of domestic source restrictions that prohibit DOD from acquiring food, clothing (including military uniforms), fabrics (including ballistic fibers), stainless steel, and hand or measuring tools that are not grown or produced in the United States. The Berry Amendment applies to DOD purchases only."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2014-02-24
-
Specialty Metal Clause: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress [February 6, 2014]
"This report examines the specialty metal clause, potential oversight issues, and options for Congress. The specialty metal clause in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) prohibits the Department of Defense (DOD) from acquiring end units or components for aircraft, missile and space systems, ships, tank and automotive items, weapon systems, or ammunition unless these items have been manufactured with specialty metals that have been melted or produced in the United States. […] Specialty metals covered by this provision include certain types of cobalt, nickel, steel, titanium and titanium alloys, zirconium, and zirconium base alloys. […] In October 2013, DOD released its Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress in accordance with Section 2504 of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.). The report states that, due to global market forces, the overall demand for rare earth materials has decreased, as prices for most rare earth oxides and metals have declined since 2011. There are at least seven possible options for policymakers to consider: (1) eliminate the specialty metal clause; (2) require an assessment of compliance with new exceptions to the specialty metals clause; (3) require a review of waivers issued under the revised specialty metals clause, including requiring DOD to publicly disclose when waivers are granted; (4) require congressional approval before non-compliant specialty metal can be used in certain defense contracts; (5) require a congressional report for each platform/component where non-compliant specialty metals are used in defense contracts; (6) encourage the use of domestic specialty metal; and (7) appoint a special metals protection board."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2014-02-06
-
Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement to Come from Domestic Sources [July 20, 2012]
"This report examines the original intent and purpose of the Berry Amendment and legislative proposals to amend the application of domestic source restrictions, as well as potential options for Congress. In order to protect the U.S. industrial base during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed domestic source restrictions as part of the 1941 Fifth Supplemental Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. These provisions later became known as the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment [Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 2533a, Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources; Exceptions] contains a number of domestic source restrictions that prohibit DOD from acquiring food, clothing (including military uniforms), fabrics (including ballistic fibers), stainless steel, and hand or measuring tools that are not grown or produced in the United States. The Berry Amendment applies to DOD purchases only."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2012-07-20
-
Specialty Metal Clause in the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress [May 14, 2008]
"Congress took action in the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364) to move the specialty metal provision from the Berry Amendment [Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) 2533a]into a separate section of Title 10 (10 U.S.C. 2533b). Section 843 of P.L. 109-364 directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a Strategic Materials Protection Board to determine, analyze, and recommend strategies to ensure the domestic availability of materials designated as critical to national security. The Board met in July 2007 and issued a report in September 2007. […] Some policymakers believe that the specialty metal provision conflicts with free trade policies and that the presence and degree of such competition is the most effective tool for promoting efficiencies and improving quality. Others believe that domestic specialty metal suppliers need the protections afforded by domestic source provisions, and that keeping a robust, domestic specialty metal industry is a hedge against any future enemy threat. This report examines the specialty metal provision, potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may choose to consider. As events warrant, this report will be updated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2008-05-14
-
Specialty Metal Clause in the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress [March 22, 2007]
"Congress took action in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 National Defense Authorization Act to move the specialty metals provision from the Berry Amendment into a separate section, Title 10, U.S.C. 2533b. The Berry Amendment [Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) 2533a] is an amendment to the 1941 Fifth Supplemental National Defense Appropriations Act, Public Law (P.L.77-29). It is the basis for a 65-year old procurement policy that prohibits the Department of Defense (DOD) from purchasing certain items or components of items, such as specialty metals, from foreign sources. The specialty metals clause has been part of the Berry Amendment since 1972. […] Debate over the specialty metals clause invites renewed debate over the efficacy of the Berry Amendment, and whether the rationale for every restriction under the Berry Amendment represents a balanced and reasonable approach. Some policymakers believe that the specialty metals clause conflicts with free trade policies, and that the presence and degree of such competition is the most effective tool for promoting efficiencies and improving quality. Others believe that domestic specialty metals manufacturers need the protections afforded by the Berry Amendment, and that keeping a robust, domestic specialty metals industry is a hedge against any future enemy threat. This report examines the specialty metals clause, potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may choose to consider. As events warrant, this report will be updated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2007-03-22
-
Specialty Metal Clause in the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress [December 14, 2006]
"The Berry Amendment [Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) 2533a] is an amendment to the 1941 Fifth Supplemental National Defense Appropriations Act, Public Law (P.L.77-29). It is the basis for a 65-year old procurement policy that prohibits the Department of Defense (DOD) from purchasing certain items or components of items, such as specialty metals, from foreign sources. The specialty metals clause has been part of the Berry Amendment since 1972. Congress took action in the Fiscal Year (FY)2007 National Defense Authorization Act to move the specialty metals provision from the Berry Amendment into a separate section, Title 10, U.S.C. 2533b. […] Some policymakers believe that the specialty metals clause conflicts with free trade policies, and that the presence and degree of such competition is the most effective tool for promoting efficiencies and improving quality. Others believe that domestic specialty metals manufacturers need the protections afforded by the Berry Amendment, and that keeping a robust, domestic specialty metals industry is a hedge against any future enemy threat. This report examines the specialty metals clause, potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may choose to consider. As events warrant, this report will be updated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2006-12-14
-
Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement to Come from Domestic Sources [August 7, 2012]
"This report examines the original intent and purpose of the Berry Amendment and legislative proposals to amend the application of domestic source restrictions, as well as potential options for Congress. In order to protect the U.S. industrial base during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed domestic source restrictions as part of the 1941 Fifth Supplemental Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. These provisions later became known as the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment (Title 10 United States Code [U.S.C.] §2533a, Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources; Exceptions) contains a number of domestic source restrictions that prohibit DOD from acquiring food, clothing (including military uniforms), fabrics (including ballistic fibers), stainless steel, and hand or measuring tools that are not grown or produced in the United States. The Berry Amendment applies to DOD purchases only."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2012-08-07
-
Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement to Come from Domestic Sources [November 26, 2013]
"This report examines the original intent and purpose of the Berry Amendment and legislative proposals to amend the application of domestic source restrictions, as well as potential options for Congress. In order to protect the U.S. industrial base during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed domestic source restrictions as part of the 1941 Fifth Supplemental Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act. These provisions later became known as the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment (Title 10 United States Code [U.S.C.] §2533a, Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources; Exceptions) contains a number of domestic source restrictions that prohibit DOD from acquiring food, clothing (including military uniforms), fabrics (including ballistic fibers), stainless steel, and hand or measuring tools that are not grown or produced in the United States. The Berry Amendment applies to DOD purchases only. […] Some policy makers believe that policies like the Berry Amendment contradict free trade policies, and that the presence and degree of such competition is the most effective tool for promoting efficiencies and improving quality. On the other hand, some other policy makers believe that key domestic sectors (like manufacturing) need the protections afforded by the Berry Amendment. The debate over the Berry Amendment raises several questions, among them (1) If the United States does not produce a solely domestic item, or if U.S. manufacturers are at maximum production capability, should DOD restrict procurement from foreign sources; and (2) to what extent do U.S. national security interests and industrial base concerns justify waiver of the Berry Amendment?"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
-
Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress [August 5, 2011]
"Some Members of Congress have expressed concern over U.S. acquisition of rare earth elements used in various components of defense weapon systems. Rare earths consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including 15 elements beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extending through number 71 (lutetium), as well as two other elements having similar properties (yttrium and scandium). These are referred to as 'rare' because although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the United States was the leader in global rare earth production. Since then, production has shifted almost entirely to China, in part due to lower labor costs and lower environmental standards. […] The 'crisis' for many policymakers is not that China has cut its rare earth exports and appears to be restricting the world's access to rare earths, but that the United States has lost its domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical materials. The Department of Defense (DOD) is examining whether there is a supply chain vulnerability issue. No one knows what percentage of rare earths are used for DOD purposes; it has been estimated that DOD uses less than 10% of domestic rare earth consumption. However, no firm estimates are currently available. Congress has mandated that the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 (P.L. 111-383), conduct an assessment of the rare earth supply chain issues and develop a plan to address any vulnerabilities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2011-08-05
-
Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress [April 11, 2012]
"Some Members of Congress have expressed concern over U.S. acquisition of rare earth materials composed of rare earth elements used in various components of defense weapon systems. Rare earth elements consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including 15 elements beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extending through number 71 (lutetium), as well as two other elements having similar properties (yttrium and scandium). These are referred to as 'rare' because although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the United States was the leader in global rare earth production. Since then, production has shifted almost entirely to China, in part due to lower labor costs and lower environmental standards. […] In 2010, a series of events and press reports highlighted what some referred to as the rare earth 'crisis.' Some policymakers were concerned that China had cut its rare earth exports and appeared to be restricting the world's access to rare earths, with a nearly total U.S. dependence on China for rare earth elements, including oxides, phosphors, metals, alloys, and magnets. Additionally, some policymakers had expressed growing concern that the United States had lost its domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical materials, and its implications for U.S. national security."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2012-04-11
-
Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress [April 25, 2012]
"Some Members of Congress have expressed concern over U.S. acquisition of rare earth materials composed of rare earth elements used in various components of defense weapon systems. Rare earth elements consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including 15 elements beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extending through number 71 (lutetium), as well as two other elements having similar properties (yttrium and scandium). These are referred to as 'rare' because although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. […] In 2010, a series of events and press reports highlighted what some referred to as the rare earth 'crisis.' Some policymakers were concerned that China had cut its rare earth exports and appeared to be restricting the world's access to rare earths, with a nearly total U.S. dependence on China for rare earth elements, including oxides, phosphors, metals, alloys, and magnets. Additionally, some policymakers had expressed growing concern that the United States had lost its domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical materials, and its implications for U.S. national security."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2012-04-25
-
Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress [September 5, 2012]
"Some Members of Congress have expressed concern over U.S. acquisition of rare earth materials composed of rare earth elements used in various components of defense weapon systems. Rare earth elements consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including 15 elements beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extending through number 71 (lutetium), as well as two other elements having similar properties (yttrium and scandium). These are referred to as 'rare' because although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. […] Congress may encourage DOD to develop a collaborative, long-term strategy designed to identify any material weaknesses and vulnerabilities associated with rare earths and to protect long-term U.S. national security interests."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2012-09-05
-
Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress [June 8, 2011]
"This report discusses rare earth elements used in Department of Defense (DOD) weapon systems, current problematic oversight issues, and options for Congress to address these issues. Rare earth elements (also referred to by the shorthand term 'rare earths') include the lanthanide series of 15 elements on the periodic table, beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extending through element number 71 (lutetium), as well as yttrium and scandium. These 17 elements are referred to as 'rare' because while they are relatively abundant in quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and economic extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. The United States is a major consumer of products containing rare earth elements. They are incorporated into many sophisticated technologies with both commercial and defense applications. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the United States was the leader in global production of rare earths. Since that time, processing and manufacturing of the world's supply of rare earths and downstream value-added forms such as metals, alloys, and magnets have shifted almost entirely to China, in part due to lower labor costs and lower environmental standards. Today, the United States lacks rare earth mine production, and almost entirely lacks the refining, fabricating, and alloying capacity to process rare earths. However, Molycorp, Inc., a U.S. company with mining operations in Mountain Pass, CA, recently announced that it will restart mining in 2012 and has secured the final permits needed to construct a rare earth manufacturing facility, which is scheduled to open in 2012. "
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2011-06-08
-
Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress [September 15, 2011]
"Some Members of Congress have expressed concern over U.S. acquisition of rare earth materials composed of rare earth elements used in various components of defense weapon systems. Rare earth elements consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including 15 elements beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extending through number 71 (lutetium), as well as two other elements having similar properties (yttrium and scandium). These are referred to as 'rare' because although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. [...] Recently, a series of events and press reports have highlighted what some refer to as the rare earth 'crisis.' Policymakers are concerned with the nearly total U.S. dependence on China for rare earth elements, including oxides, phosphors, metals, alloys, and magnets, and its implications for U.S. national security. The rare earth element supply chain cuts across the manufacturing, defense, and science and technology sectors of the global economy. Because some Members of Congress see a reliable domestic supply chain as critical to maintaining existing and acquiring new defense weapons systems, they support development of a domestic source for rare earth elements. Other policymakers see alternative rare earth sources (outside of China) as a way to mitigate the lack of domestic mining and manufacturing. The 'crisis' for many policymakers is not that China has cut its rare earth exports and appears to be restricting the world's access to rare earths, but that the United States has lost its domestic capacity to produce strategic and critical materials. The Department of Defense (DOD) is examining whether there is a supply chain vulnerability issue for rare earth materials. No one knows what percentage of rare earths are used for DOD purposes; it has been estimated that DOD uses less than 10% of domestic rare earth consumption. However, no firm estimates are currently available."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2011-09-15
-
Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress [December 23, 2013]
"Some Members of Congress have expressed concern over U.S. acquisition of rare earth materials composed of rare earth elements (REE) used in various components of defense weapon systems. Rare earth elements consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including 15 elements beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum) and extending through number 71 (lutetium), as well as two other elements having similar properties (yttrium and scandium). These are referred to as 'rare' because although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth's crust and extraction and processing is both difficult and costly. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the United States was the leader in global rare earth production. Since then, production has shifted almost entirely to China, in part due to lower labor costs and lower environmental standards. Some estimates are that China now produces about 90- 95% of the world's rare earth oxides and is the majority producer of the world's two strongest magnets, samarium cobalt (SmCo) and neodymium iron boron (NeFeB) permanent, rare earth magnets. In the United States, Molycorp, a Mountain Pass, CA mining company, recently announced the purchase of Neo Material Technologies. Neo Material Technologies makes specialty materials from rare earths at factories based in China and Thailand. Molycorp also announced the start of its new heavy rare earth production facilities, Project Phoenix, which will process rare earth oxides from ore mined from the Mountain Pass facilities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2013-12-23
-
Defense Surplus Equipment Disposal: Background Information [October 6, 2010]
"The Department of Defense (DOD) through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) component called DLA Disposition Services [formerly the Defense Utilization and Marketing Service (DRMS)] has a policy for disposing of government equipment and supplies considered surplus or deemed unnecessary, or excess, to the agency's currently designated mission. DLA Disposition Services is responsible for property reuse (including resale), precious metal recovery, recycling, hazardous property disposal, and the demilitarization of military equipment. The effort to dispose of surplus military equipment dates back to the end of World War II when the Federal government sought to reduce a massive inventory of surplus military equipment by making such equipment available to civilians. (Note: disposal of surplus real property, including land, buildings, commercial facilities, and equipment situated thereon, is assigned to the General Services Administration's Office of Property Disposal.) On September 22, 2010, DLA published a pre-solicitation notice, to be reissued as a Request for Proposal (RFP) after October 1, 2010, for the contract to manage the receipt, storage, marketing, and disposition of all excess property, including the reutilization, transfer, and donation of useable surplus property generated by DOD installations throughout the United States. The RFP will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, http://www.fbodaily.com."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2010-10-06
-
Specialty Metal Provision and the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress [October 5, 2010]
"In order to protect the U.S. industrial base during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed a set of domestic source restrictions which became known as the Berry Amendment. Specialty metal represented one of fourteen items previously covered under the Berry Amendment. Congress took action in the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364) to move the specialty metal provision from the Berry Amendment (Title 10, United States Code [U.S.C.] 2533a) into a separate section of Title 10 (10 U.S.C. 2533b). Specialty metals are defined in Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 2533b, and the definition is restated in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regular Supplement (DFARS). The range of specialty metals include steel, metal alloys, titanium and titanium alloys, and zirconium and zirconium base alloys. Thousands of products used for defense, aerospace, automotive, and renewable energy technologies rely on specialty metals for which there are often few, if any, substitutes. The availability of sources of supply of some specialty metals, particularly the access to rare earth metals, is an issue raised in recent news reports and congressional hearings. [...] The specialty metal provision raises several questions, among them: (1) to what extent do United States national security interests and industrial base concerns justify waiver of the specialty metal provision, (2) if the United States does not produce a 100% domestic specialty metal, should DOD [Department of Defense] restrict procurement from foreign sources, and (3) what factors should drive the determination of which specialty metals should fall under the specialty metal provision? Debate over the specialty metal provision invites and renews a debate over the efficacy of domestic source restrictions and whether the rationale for every restriction represents a balanced and reasonable approach. This report examines the specialty metal provision, potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may choose to consider."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Grasso, Valerie Bailey
2010-10-05
