{ "id": "RL33751", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL33751", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 427954, "date": "2014-02-06", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T23:08:13.762016", "title": "The Specialty Metal Clause: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress", "summary": "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. 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. Specialty metals covered by this provision include certain types of cobalt, nickel, steel, titanium and titanium alloys, zirconium, and zirconium base alloys. \nIn order to preserve and protect the United States industrial base so that it could meet DOD requirements during periods of adversity and war, Congress passed a set of domestic source restrictions which became known as the Berry Amendment. In 1973, specialty metals become one of the items covered under the Berry Amendment. Over three decades later, specialty metals are now covered in a separate citation in the United States Code (U.S.C.). Congress took action in the FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 109-364, to separate specialty metal from the Berry Amendment (Title 10, U.S.C. 2533a). \nSpecialty metal provisions underwent a substantial revision in P.L. 110-181 as part of Congress\u2019s continuing effort to create a procurement environment that promotes efficiency in the DOD acquisition process, while insuring that the United States has a vigorous domestic metals industry capable of meeting defense needs. The revised specialty metal clause made clear the requirement that specific defense articles must be produced using domestic specialty metals; made exemptions for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) articles, electronic articles, and articles containing small amounts of non-compliant specialty metals; and allowed producers of commercially derivative defense articles to treat domestic and foreign specialty metals as fungible materials so that commercial and defense articles may be produced on the same production line without the need to trace the small amounts of metal used in each article. These changes reflected a view in Congress that there are differing rationales for offering domestic source provisions, and that these refinements would promote efficiencies throughout the defense supply chain. \nIn 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.\nThere are at least seven possible options for policy makers 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.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33751", "sha1": "5f54c75d0eb835a0829f7c3ca9af206e159d14f3", "filename": "files/20140206_RL33751_5f54c75d0eb835a0829f7c3ca9af206e159d14f3.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33751", "sha1": "a9432dab10baa886b9c902c56d2aec279d29b844", "filename": "files/20140206_RL33751_a9432dab10baa886b9c902c56d2aec279d29b844.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29685/", "id": "RL33751_2010Oct05", "date": "2010-10-05", "retrieved": "2010-12-04T14:26:25", "title": "The Specialty Metal Provision and the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress", "summary": "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 to move the specialty metal provision from the Berry Amendmgent into a separate section of Title 10. This report examines the specialty metal provision, potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may choose to consider.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20101005_RL33751_fbd1d1fd215fc698a24bc9b527a3b109bc01482f.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20101005_RL33751_fbd1d1fd215fc698a24bc9b527a3b109bc01482f.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Natural resources", "name": "Natural resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Metals", "name": "Metals" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795675/", "id": "RL33751_2008Oct28", "date": "2008-10-28", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "The Specialty Metal Provision and the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report examines the specialty metal provision which was originally part of the Berry Amendment, the potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may wish to consider.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20081028_RL33751_43e2c14c8b10d71d06b7ca5a266d137dc7ee8839.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20081028_RL33751_43e2c14c8b10d71d06b7ca5a266d137dc7ee8839.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Natural resources", "name": "Natural resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Metal trade", "name": "Metal trade" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Metals", "name": "Metals" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National defense", "name": "National defense" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense contracts", "name": "Defense contracts" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462864/", "id": "RL33751_2008Sep02", "date": "2008-09-02", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "The Specialty Metal Provision and the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report examines the specialty metal provision which was originally part of the Berry Amendment; the potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may wish to consider. The debate over the specialty metal provision may also renew interest in the debate over the viability of other domestic source restrictions. There is congressional interest in the specialty metal provision because: (1) the specialty metal restriction affects major defense contractors who produce components for commercial airplanes; (2) some prime defense contractors as well as subcontractors on the second, third, and fourth tiers have stated that they were unable to comply with the Berry Amendment specialty metal requirement; (3) DOD has authorized the use of waivers to purchase non-compliant items (non-compliant specialty metal are metal that do not meet the 100% domestic source requirement of the Berry Amendment); and (4) the long-term impact of the specialty metal provision on the costs of defense equipment and programs, particularly on the requirement that weapon system components be certified as made in the United States.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080902_RL33751_4d1aafdef0055d43b1d721193f87dd5b846c30c1.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080902_RL33751_4d1aafdef0055d43b1d721193f87dd5b846c30c1.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Metals", "name": "Metals" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National defense", "name": "National defense" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Natural resources", "name": "Natural resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense contracts", "name": "Defense contracts" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional oversight", "name": "Congressional oversight" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463034/", "id": "RL33751_2008May14", "date": "2008-05-14", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "The Specialty Metal Provision and the Berry Amendment: Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report examines the specialty metal provision which was originally part of the Berry Amendment; the potential oversight issues for Congress, and options that Congress may wish to consider. The debate over the specialty metal provision may also renew interest in the debate over the viability of other domestic source restrictions. There is congressional interest in the specialty metal provision because: (1) the specialty metal restriction affects major defense contractors who produce components for commercial airplanes; (2) some prime defense contractors as well as subcontractors on the second, third, and fourth tiers have stated that they were unable to comply with the Berry Amendment specialty metal requirement; (3) the Department of Defense (DOD) has authorized the use of waivers to purchase non-compliant items (non-compliant specialty metal are metal that do not meet the 100% domestic source requirement of the Berry Amendment); and (4) the long-term impact of the specialty metal provision on the costs of defense equipment and programs, particularly on the requirement that weapon system components be certified as made in the United States.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080514_RL33751_00171b0d57ff0e83d811091965697472c2c92430.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080514_RL33751_00171b0d57ff0e83d811091965697472c2c92430.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Natural resources", "name": "Natural resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Metals", "name": "Metals" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional oversight", "name": "Congressional oversight" } ] } ], "topics": [ "National Defense" ] }