[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 86 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7334-S7338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             NEXT GENERATION INTERNET RESEARCH ACT OF 1998

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 334, S. 1609.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1609) to amend the High-Performance Computing 
     Act of 1991 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1999 
     and 2000 for the Next Generation Internet program, to require 
     the Advisory Committee on High-Performance Computing and 
     Communications, Information Technology, and the Next 
     Generation Internet to monitor and give advice concerning the 
     development and implementation of the Next Generation 
     Internet program and report to the President and the Congress 
     on its activities, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3054

  (Purpose: To change the authorization levels for the Department of 
 Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and to 
   provide that the FY 1999 DOD authorization is under the National 
            Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999)

  Mr. LOTT. Senators Frist and Rockefeller have an amendment at the 
desk and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Frist, for 
     himself, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3054.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 9, in the matter appearing after line 18--
       (1) strike ``$42,500,000'' in the column headed FY 1999 and 
     insert ``$40,000,000'';
       (2) strike ``$45,000,000'' in the column headed FY 2000 and 
     insert ``$42,500,000'';
       (3) strike ``$5,000,000'' in the column headed FY 1999 the 
     second place it appears and insert ``$10,000,000'';
       (4) strike ``$5,000,000'' in the column headed FY 2000 and 
     insert ``$10,000,000'';
       (5) strike the closing quotation marks at the end of the 
     table; and
       (6) after the table insert the following:

     The amount authorized for the Department of Defense for 
     fiscal year 1999 under this section shall be the amount 
     authorized pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1999.''.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read 
and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3054) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3055

   (Purpose: To authorize the comprehensive independent study of the 
effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders of adding 
     new generic top-level domains and related dispute resolution 
                              procedures.)

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of an amendment offered by Senators Leahy and Ashcroft, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself, and Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3055.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. __. STUDY OF EFFECTS ON TRADEMARKS AND INTELLECTUAL 
                   PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ADDING GENERIC TOP-LEVEL 
                   DOMAINS.

       (a) Study by National Research Council.--Not later than 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Commerce shall request the National Research Council of 
     the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive 
     study, taking into account the diverse needs of domestic and 
     international Internet users, of the short-term and long-term 
     effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders 
     of adding new generic top-level domains and related dispute 
     resolution procedures.
       (b) Matters To Be Assessed In Study.--The study shall 
     assess and, as appropriate, make recommendations for policy, 
     practice, or legislative changes relating to--
       (1) the short-term and long-term effects on the protection 
     of trademark and intellectual property rights and consumer 
     interests of increasing or decreasing the number of generic 
     top-level domains;
       (2) trademark and intellectual property rights clearance 
     processes for domain names, including--
       (A) whether domain name databases should be readily 
     searchable through a common interface to facilitate the 
     clearing of trademarks and intellectual property rights and 
     proposed domain names across a range of generic top-level 
     domains;
       (B) the identification of what information from domain name 
     databases should be accessible for the clearing of trademarks 
     and intellectual property rights; and
       (C) whether generic top-level domain registrants should be 
     required to provide certain information;
       (3) domain name trademark and intellectual property rights 
     dispute resolution mechanisms, including how to--
       (A) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights 
     conflicts associated with the addition of any new generic 
     top-level domains; and
       (B) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights 
     conflicts through new technical approaches to Internet 
     addressing;
       (4) choice of law or jurisdiction for resolution of 
     trademark and intellectual property

[[Page S7335]]

     rights disputes relating to domain names, including which 
     jurisdictions should be available for trademark and 
     intellectual property rights owners to file suit to protect 
     such trademarks and intellectual property rights;
       (5) trademark and intellectual property rights infringement 
     liability for registrars, registries, or technical management 
     bodies; and
       (6) short-term and long-term technical and policy options 
     for Internet addressing schemes and the impact of such 
     options on current trademark and intellectual property rights 
     issues.
       (c) Cooperation With Study.--
       (1) Interagency cooperation.--The Secretary of Commerce 
     shall--
       (A) direct the Patent and Trademark Office, the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration, and other 
     Department of Commerce entities to cooperate fully with the 
     National Research Council in its activities in carrying out 
     the study under this section; and
       (B) request all other appropriate Federal departments, 
     Federal agencies, Government contractors, and similar 
     entities to provide similar cooperation to the National 
     Research Council.
       (2) Private corporation cooperation.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall request that any private, not-for-profit 
     corporation established to manage the Internet root server 
     system and the top-level domain names provide similar 
     cooperation to the National Research Council.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the National Research Council shall 
     complete the study under this section and submit a report on 
     the study to the Secretary of Commerce. The report shall set 
     forth the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 
     Council concerning the effects of adding new generic top-
     level domains and related dispute resolution procedures on 
     trademark and intellectual property rights holders.
       (2) Submission to congressional committees.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date on which the report is submitted to 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary shall submit the 
     report to the Committees on Commerce and the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $800,000 for the study conducted under 
     this Act.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, from its origins as a U.S.-based research 
vehicle, the Internet has matured into a democratic, international 
medium for communication, commerce and education. As the Internet 
evolves, the traditional means of organizing its technical functions 
such as the Domain Name System (DNS) need to evolve as well.
  It is for this reason, in part, that I viewed S.1609, legislation to 
authorize the Next Generation Internet (NGI) program, as the 
appropriate vehicle for my domain name amendment. This amendment is 
based on S.1727, legislation I introduced on March 6 to authorize the 
National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to 
conduct a comprehensive study of the effects on trademark and 
intellectual property rights holders of adding new generic top level 
domain names (gTLDs), and related dispute resolution procedures.
  At the outset, I would like to thank Senator Ashcroft, who is a 
cosponsor of this domain name amendment to S. 1609 as well as a 
cosponsor of my original domain name bill, S.1727. I would also like to 
thank Senators Rockefeller, Frist, Hollings and McCain who enabled this 
domain name amendment to be considered along with S.1609.
  On today's Internet, the domain name system (DNS) works through a 
hierarchy of names. At the top of this hierarchy are a set of Top Level 
Domains that can be classified into two categories: generic Top Level 
Domains (gTLD), such as ``.gov,'' ``.net,'' ``.com,'' ``.edu,'' 
``.org,'' ``.int,'' and ``.mil,'' and the country code Top Level Domain 
names, such as ``.us'' and ``.uk''. Before each TLD suffix, is a Second 
Level Domain name.
  Since the Internet is an outgrowth of U.S. government investments 
carried out under agreements with U.S. agencies, major components of 
the DNS are still performed by or subject to agreements with U.S. 
agencies. Examples include assignments of numerical addresses to 
Internet users, management of the system of registering names for 
Internet users, operation of the root server system, and protocol 
assignment.
  For the past five years, a company based in Herndon, Virginia, named 
Network Solutions, Inc., has served under a cooperative agreement with 
the National Science Foundation as the exclusive registry of all second 
level domain names in several of the gTLDs (e.g., .com, .net, .org, and 
.edu). This contract ended in March 1998, but the Federal Government 
has exercised an optional ramp-down period that is scheduled to expire 
in September 1998. With this date quickly approaching, many of us have 
been concerned about what would happen at the end of that company's 
exclusive contract. Simply put, how will we avoid chaos on the Internet 
and the potential risk of multiple registrations of the same domain 
name for different computers?
  On January 30, 1998, the Commerce Department released a ``Green 
Paper'', or discussion draft, entitled A Proposal to Improve Technical 
Management of Internet Names and Addresses, proposing privatization of 
the management of the DNS through the creation of a new, not-for-profit 
corporation. The Green Paper suggested that during the period of 
transition to this new, not-for-profit corporation, the U.S. 
Government, in cooperation with IANA, would undertake a process to add 
up to five new gTLDs to the DNS.
  Although adding new gTLDs, as the Green Paper proposed, would allow 
more competition and more individuals and businesses to obtain 
addresses that more closely reflect their names and functions, I was 
concerned as were many businesses, that the increase in gTLDs would 
make the job of protecting their trademarks from infringement or 
dilution more difficult. In addition, increasing the number of gTLDs 
without an efficient dispute resolution mechanism had the potential of 
fueling litigation and the threat of litigation, with an overall 
chilling effect on the choice and use of domain names.
  The Green Paper properly raised the important questions of how to 
protect consumers' interests in locating the brand or vendor of their 
choice on the Internet without being deceived or confused, how to 
protect companies from having their brand equity diluted in an 
electronic environment, and how to resolve disputes efficiently and 
inexpensively. It did not, however, answer these complex and important 
questions. Dictating the introduction of new gTLDs without analyzing 
the impact that these new gTLDs would have on trademark and 
intellectual property rights holders and related dispute resolution 
procedures seemed like putting the cart before the horse.
  The bill that I introduced, S. 1727, was intended to get the horse 
back in front of the cart. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to 
request the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the effects on trademark 
and intellectual property rights holders of adding new gTLDs and 
related dispute resolution procedures. The study shall assess and, as 
appropriate, make recommendations for policy, practice, or legislative 
changes regarding:
  (1) the short-term and long-term effects on the protection of 
trademark and intellectual property rights and consumer interests of 
increasing or decreasing the number of gTLDs;
  (2) trademark and intellectual property rights clearance processes 
for domain names, including whether domain name databases should be 
readily searchable through a common interface to facilitate the 
``clearing'' of trademarks and intellectual property rights and 
proposed domain names across a range of gTLDs; identifying what 
information from domain name databases should be accessible for the 
``clearing'' of trademarks and intellectual property rights; and 
whether gTLDs registrants should be required to provide certain 
information;
  (3) domain name trademark and intellectual property rights dispute 
resolution mechanisms, including how to reduce trademark and 
intellectual property rights conflicts associated with the addition of 
any new gTLDs and how to reduce trademark and intellectual property 
rights conflicts through new technical approaches to Internet 
addressing;

  (4) choice of law or jurisdiction for resolution of trademark and 
intellectual property rights disputes relating to domain names, 
including which jurisdictions should be available for trademark and 
intellectual property rights owners to file suit to protect their 
trademarks and intellectual property rights;
  (5) trademark and intellectual property rights infringement liability 
for

[[Page S7336]]

registrars, registries, or technical management bodies; and
  (6) short-term and long-term technical and policy options for 
Internet addressing schemes and their impact on current trademark and 
intellectual property issues.
  We should understand the effects on trademark and intellectual 
property rights holders of adding new gTLDs and related dispute 
resolution procedures before we move to quickly to add significant 
numbers of new gTLDs. Since its introduction in March, groups such as 
ATT, Bell Atlantic, Time Warner, the International Trademark 
Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 
have endorsed this legislation reflected in the Leahy-Ashcroft 
amendment.
  The Administration's White Paper, released on June 5, acknowledges 
the concerns to be addressed in the study called for in this 
legislation. The White Paper backed off the Green Paper's earlier 
suggestion to add five new gTLDs. Instead, the White Paper proposes 
that the new corporation would be the most appropriate body to make 
decisions as to how many, if any, new gTLDs should be added once it has 
global input, including from the study called for in the Leahy-Ashcroft 
domain name amendment. Specifically, the White Paper calls upon the 
World Intellectual Property Organization, inter alia, to ``evaluate the 
effects, based on studies conducted by independent organizations, such 
as the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 
of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on 
trademark and intellectual property holders.''
  I commend the Administration for the deliberate approach it has taken 
to facilitate the withdrawal of the U.S. government from the governance 
of the Internet and to privatize the management of Internet names and 
addresses. We should have a Hippocratic Oath for the Internet--that 
before we adopt any new regimen that affects the Internet, we should 
make sure we are doing no harm to this dynamic medium.
  We, in Congress, have not always lived up to the standard of this 
oath. Passage by an overwhelming vote of the unconstitutional 
Communications Decency Act to regulate constitutionally-protected 
online speech on the Internet is an example of wrong-headed legislation 
that Congress still has not lived down. Internet users generally remain 
skeptical about the heavy-headed regulatory actions Congress may take 
based on bumper-sticker politics.
  The experience of the Communications Decency Act demonstrates that we 
should exercise caution in passing new laws for the Internet. This is a 
global phenomenon and its freedom from regulation has been primarily 
responsible for its explosive growth. This principle is important as we 
see increasingly intense disputes over whether or how to regulate this 
medium. Encouraging free markets and private sector self-regulatory 
approaches is a particularly American approach.
  The best way to ``export'' our core American values, to preserve the 
free flow of commerce and individual expression and community self-
governance on the Internet, is not to declare the Internet a U.S. 
territory. Rather, we should be seeking to support the growth of the 
Internet's own self-ordering properties, and fostering mechanisms by 
which policy will be set by groups accountable to all Internet 
participants on a global basis. If we succeed in creating a 
decentralized and truly global policy-making apparatus for the 
Internet, the core values we care most about will in fact propagate 
across the world.
  On a number of issues pertaining to the Internet, from privacy to 
pornography to online gambling, governments are more and more faced 
with the question of when to defer to effective private action, rather 
than regulating in detail in the first instance. The Internet community 
is rapidly developing new technologies and practices that may well 
solve many of these new ``public policy'' problems before we can even 
begin effectively to debate them. For example, new labels for web sites 
will let users know which sites have privacy policies or content they 
can accept. New software standards will even allow the automated 
negotiation of privacy or content preferences. Other technologies will 
allow end users to control what information their web browsers 
surrender to the sites they visit. And many new types of filters and 
private sector practices are being deployed to bring the vice of 
unsolicited commercial E-mail (spam) under control.
  I fully appreciate that we have some way to go before governments can 
declare the private sector self-governance mechanisms of the Internet 
adequate to solve the complex and multi-faceted problems of online 
privacy or protecting children from inappropriate material. But 
progress is being made every day, at a rapid pace, thanks to the 
ingenuity of engineers and concerted actions of public interest 
advocates and system operators.
  We should be trying to persuade other countries to see the virtues of 
free enterprise and community self-governance. We can demonstrate by 
means of the sheer success of electronic commerce, unconstrained by 
heavy-handed top down regulation, that those who allow the market to 
work will be richly rewarded. We can develop new technological means 
and online trade practices to solve the new public policy problems of 
the Internet--demonstrating in the process that it is best to let those 
with the greatest stake in solving those problems and in building 
online commerce and community to attempt to do so in the first 
instance. We can show that diversity works best to fit individual needs 
to community rules--by allowing a diverse Internet to flourish and 
using filters and education and navigational aids to help everyone make 
sure they only go where they want to go and only deal with those they 
are prepared to trust.
  We can, in short, spread the American faith in liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness by avoiding the futile, top-down lawmaking other 
countries are so fond of--and by demonstrating that an unconstrained 
Internet will form its own new kind of order and become the best kind 
of online place for those who participate there. That kind of American 
leadership cannot be justly accused of being a new form of imperialism. 
We'll make converts to our values one at a time, throughout the world, 
by showing the path to greater wealth, and the virtues of greater 
freedom, by example. And we'll be better able to resist 
counterproductive local regulation by other countries if we can show 
that we are not attempting to impose rules of our own on others without 
their consent.
  As we debate new bills that directly or indirectly regulate the 
Internet and impose U.S. laws on a global medium, we should remember 
our core values, and try to export those values--free speech, freedom 
to associate, freedom of the press--to the rest of the world via the 
Internet. But the most effective way to do so is by the leadership of 
our example. By inviting Internet stakeholders to work together and 
form a new, private, not-for-profit corporation to manage the domain 
name and addressing system so critical to the governance of the 
Internet, the Administration has set an excellent example, and I 
commend them for it.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3055) was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read the third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 1609), as amended, was read the third time and passed, 
as follows:

                                S. 1609

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Next Generation Internet 
     Research Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Terms Used in This Act.--For purposes of this Act--
       (1) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 230(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1)).
       (2) Geographic penalty.--The term ``geographic penalty'' 
     means the imposition of costs on users of the Internet in 
     rural or other locations attributable to the distance of the 
     user from network facilities, the low

[[Page S7337]]

     population density of the area in which the user is located, 
     or other factors, that are disproportionately greater than 
     the costs imposed on users in locations closer to such 
     facilities or on users in locations with significantly 
     greater population density.
       (b) Definition of Network in High-Performance Computing Act 
     of 1991.--Paragraph (4) of section 4 of the High-Performance 
     Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5503) is amended by striking 
     ``network referred to as the National Research and Education 
     Network established under section 102; and'' and inserting 
     ``network, including advanced computer networks of Federal 
     agencies and departments; and''.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       (a) In General.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) United States leadership in science and technology has 
     been vital to the Nation's prosperity, national and economic 
     security, and international competitiveness, and there is 
     every reason to believe that maintaining this tradition will 
     lead to long-term continuation of United States strategic 
     advantages in information technology;
       (2) the United States' investment in science and technology 
     has yielded a scientific and engineering enterprise without 
     peer, and that Federal investment in research is critical to 
     the maintenance of United States leadership;
       (3) previous Federal investment in computer networking 
     technology and related fields has resulted in the creation of 
     new industries and new jobs in the United States;
       (4) the Internet is playing an increasingly important role 
     in keeping citizens informed of the actions of their 
     government; and
       (5) continued inter-agency cooperation is necessary to 
     avoid wasteful duplication in Federal networking research and 
     development programs.
       (b) Additional Findings for the 1991 Act.--Section 2 of the 
     High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5501) is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) A high-capacity, flexible, high-speed national 
     research and education computer network is needed to provide 
     researchers and educators with access to computational and 
     information resources, act as a test bed for further research 
     and development for high-capacity and high-speed computer 
     networks, and provide researchers the necessary vehicle for 
     continued network technology improvement through research.''; 
     and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(7) Additional research must be undertaken to lay the 
     foundation for the development of new applications that can 
     result in economic growth, improved health care, and improved 
     educational opportunities.
       ``(8) Research in new networking technologies holds the 
     promise of easing the economic burdens of information access 
     disproportionately borne by rural users of the Internet.
       ``(9) Information security is an important part of 
     computing, information, and communications systems and 
     applications, and research into security architectures is a 
     critical aspect of computing, information, and communications 
     research programs.''.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to serve as the first authorization in a series of 
     computing, information, and communication technology 
     initiatives outlines in the High-Performance Computing Act of 
     1991 (15 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.) that will include research 
     programs related to--
       (A) high-end computing and computation;
       (B) human-centered systems;
       (C) high confidence systems; and
       (D) education, training, and human resources; and
       (2) to provide for the development and coordination of a 
     comprehensive and integrated United States research program 
     which will--
       (A) focus on the research and development of a coordinated 
     set of technologies that seeks to create a network 
     infrastructure that can support greater speed, robustness, 
     and flexibility than is currently available and promote 
     connectivity and interoperability among advanced computer 
     networks of Federal agencies and departments;
       (B) focus on research in technology that may result in 
     high-speed data access for users that is both economically 
     viable and does not impose a geographic penalty; and
       (C) encourage researchers to pursue approaches to 
     networking technology that lead to maximally flexible and 
     extensible solutions wherever feasible.
       (b) Modification of Purposes of the 1991 Act.--Section 3 of 
     the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5502) 
     is amended by--
       (1) striking the section caption and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 3. PURPOSES.'';

       (2) striking ``purpose of this Act is'' and inserting 
     ``purposes of this Act are'';
       (3) striking ``universities; and'' in paragraph (1)(I) and 
     inserting ``universities;'';
       (4) striking ``efforts.'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``network research and development programs;''; and
       (5) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(3) promoting the further development of an information 
     infrastructure of information stores, services, access 
     mechanisms, and research facilities available for use through 
     the Internet;
       ``(4) promoting the more rapid development and wider 
     distribution of networking management and development tools; 
     and
       ``(5) promoting the rapid adoption of open network 
     standards.''.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Title I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
     U.S.C 5511 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 103. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to its functions under 
     Executive Order 13035 (62 F.R. 7231), the Advisory Committee 
     on High-Performance Computing and Communications, Information 
     Technology, and the Next Generation Internet, established by 
     Executive Order No. 13035 of February 11, 1997 (62 F.R. 7231) 
     shall--
       ``(1) assess the extent to which the Next Generation 
     Internet program--
       ``(A) carries out the purposes of this Act;
       ``(B) addresses concerns relating to, among other matters--
       ``(i) geographic penalties (as defined in section 2(2) of 
     the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998); and
       ``(ii) technology transfer to and from the private sector; 
     and
       ``(2) assess the extent to which--
       ``(A) the role of each Federal agency and department 
     involved in implementing the Next Generation Internet program 
     is clear, complementary to and non-duplicative of the roles 
     of other participating agencies and departments; and
       ``(B) each such agency and department concurs with the rule 
     of each other participating agency or department.
       ``(b) Reports.--The Advisory Committee shall assess 
     implementation of the Next Generation Internet initiative and 
     report, not less frequently than annually, to the President, 
     the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation, and the United States House of 
     Representatives Committee on Science on its findings for the 
     preceding fiscal year. The first such report shall be 
     submitted 6 months after the date of enactment of the Next 
     Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 the last report 
     shall be submitted by September 30, 2000.''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Title I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
     U.S.C 5511 et seq.), as amended by section 5 of this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose 
     of carrying out the Next Generation Internet program the 
     following amounts:


 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ``Agency                     FY 1999        FY 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Department of Defense....................  $40,000,000     $42,500,000
``Department of Energy.....................  $20,000,000     $25,000,000
``National Science Foundation..............  $25,000,000     $25,000,000
``National Institutes of Health............   $5,000,000      $7,500,000
``National Aeronautics and Space             $10,000,000     $10,000,000
 Administration............................
``National Institute of Standards and         $5,000,000     $7,500,000.
 Technology................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The amount authorized for the Department of Defense for 
     fiscal year 1999 under this section shall be the amount 
     authorized pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1999.''.

     SEC. 7. STUDY OF EFFECTS ON TRADEMARKS AND INTELLECTUAL 
                   PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ADDING GENERIC TOP-LEVEL 
                   DOMAINS.

       (a) Study by National Research Council.--Not later than 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Commerce shall request the National Research Council of 
     the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive 
     study, taking into account the diverse needs of domestic and 
     international Internet users, of the short-term and long-term 
     effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders 
     of adding new generic top-level domains and related dispute 
     resolution procedures.
       (b) Matters To Be Assessed In Study.--The study shall 
     assess and, as appropriate, make recommendations for policy, 
     practice, or legislative changes relating to--
       (1) the short-term and long-term effects on the protection 
     of trademark and intellectual property rights and consumer 
     interests of increasing or decreasing the number of generic 
     top-level domains;
       (2) trademark and intellectual property rights clearance 
     processes for domain names, including--
       (A) whether domain name databases should be readily 
     searchable through a common interface to facilitate the 
     clearing of trademarks and intellectual property rights and 
     proposed domain names across a range of generic top-level 
     domains;
       (B) the identification of what information from domain name 
     databases should be accessible for the clearing of trademarks 
     and intellectual property rights; and
       (C) whether generic top-level domain registrants should be 
     required to provide certain information;
       (3) domain name trademark and intellectual property rights 
     dispute resolution mechanisms, including how to--
       (A) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights 
     conflicts associated with the addition of any new generic 
     top-level domains; and
       (B) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights 
     conflicts through new technical approaches to Internet 
     addressing;
       (4) choice of law or jurisdiction for resolution of 
     trademark and intellectual property

[[Page S7338]]

     rights disputes relating to domain names, including which 
     jurisdictions should be available for trademark and 
     intellectual property rights owners to file suit to protect 
     such trademarks and intellectual property rights;
       (5) trademark and intellectual property rights infringement 
     liability for registrars, registries, or technical management 
     bodies; and
       (6) short-term and long-term technical and policy options 
     for Internet addressing schemes and the impact of such 
     options on current trademark and intellectual property rights 
     issues.
       (c) Cooperation With Study.--
       (1) Interagency cooperation.--The Secretary of Commerce 
     shall--
       (A) direct the Patent and Trademark Office, the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration, and other 
     Department of Commerce entities to cooperate fully with the 
     National Research Council in its activities in carrying out 
     the study under this section; and
       (B) request all other appropriate Federal departments, 
     Federal agencies, Government contractors, and similar 
     entities to provide similar cooperation to the National 
     Research Council.
       (2) Private corporation cooperation.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall request that any private, not-for-profit 
     corporation established to manage the Internet root server 
     system and the top-level domain names provide similar 
     cooperation to the National Research Council.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the National Research Council shall 
     complete the study under this section and submit a report on 
     the study to the Secretary of Commerce. The report shall set 
     forth the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 
     Council concerning the effects of adding new generic top-
     level domains and related dispute resolution procedures on 
     trademark and intellectual property rights holders.
       (2) Submission to congressional committees.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date on which the report is submitted to 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary shall submit the 
     report to the Committees on Commerce and the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and House of Representatives.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $800,000 for the study conducted under 
     this Act.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will go to the closing script now, unless 
there are any other issues pending. When I get to the close of this, we 
will have a final speaker today, Senator Gorton, and I appreciate his 
patience.

                          ____________________