Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6448-S6461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2549 which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2549) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Smith (of New Hampshire) amendment No. 3210, to prohibit
granting security clearances to felons.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are prepared to go, but I would like a
few minutes to consult with the proponents of the next amendment,
together with my distinguished ranking member. I propose to have a
quorum call not to exceed 5 minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will momentarily request that we go to
regular order, which would bring up the amendment pending by the
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith. Might I inquire of the Chair if
I am not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I request regular order, that the
amendment be brought up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the hearing the Armed
Services Committee held April 6 on the issue of security clearances
revealed a shocking lack of concern within DOD for protecting our
national security secrets.
As a result of that hearing, I proposed an amendment. My amendment,
again, is simple. It would prevent DOD from granting security
clearances to those who are under indictment for, or have been
convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding 1 year.
It would also disallow a clearance for anyone who is a fugitive from
justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to any controlled
substance; has been adjudicated as a mental defective; or has been
dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
As I said on the floor earlier, in an investigative series by USA
Today, it was reported that DOHA, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals, granted clearances routinely to felons, including a murderer,
individuals with chronic alcohol and drug abuse problems, a pedophile
and an exhibitionist, and a convicted cocaine dealer. All received
security clearances to work for defense contractors. Another individual
was awarded a clearance while on probation for bank fraud, yet another
was allowed to keep his clearance after taking part in a $2 million
fraud against the Navy. Another had a history of criminal sexual
misconduct for which he was still undergoing therapy.
Common sense dictates that one convicted murderer--or one convicted
drug dealer with a security clearance--is one too many.
One individual can wreak havoc on national security. The damaging
legacy of Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, the Walkers, and now suspect
spy, Wen Ho Lee, is well-known to all of us who deal with national
security issues. We simply cannot afford to have loose standards when
it comes to protecting our secrets--and protecting lives.
Let me just add that during the Armed Services Committee hearing on
this issue, the witness from DOD's C3I,

[[Page S6449]]

which oversees the Defense Security Services, said this in response to
my questioning:

I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that one
unqualified person for a clearance is one too many, and
clearly, I think zero defects is the goals for all of us.

Zero defects--that is what DOD said its goal is for security
clearances--well, I agree with that completely, but we have to take
measures to reach that goal--not just talk about it as an ideal.
Realistically, we cannot take all of the risk out of the system, but
we can at least take a practical approach to denying clearances to
those people who have broken the law by serious infractions. And we can
send a message to DOHA that it has been far too lenient in granting
clearances. This amendment sends that message.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to amendment No. 3210.
The amendment (No. 3210) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have had an extensive conference with
Senator Byrd and representatives of Senator Roth's office.

Amendment No. 3767

(Purpose: To provide for annual reporting of the national security
implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between
the United States and the People's Republic of China, and for other
purposes)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk the Byrd-Warner
amendment No. 3767.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Byrd, for
himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Helms, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Campbell, proposes an amendment
numbered 3767.

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

On page 415, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1061. ANNUAL REPORT ON NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF
UNITED STATES-CHINA TRADE RELATIONSHIP.

(a) In General.--Section 127(k) of the Trade Deficit Review
Commission Act (19 U.S.C. 2213 note) is amended to read as
follows:
``(k) United States-China National Security Implications.--
``(1) In general.--Upon submission of the report described
in subsection (e), the Commission shall continue for the
purpose of monitoring, investigating, and reporting to
Congress on the national security implications of the
bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United
States and the People's Republic of China.
``(2) Annual report.--Not later than March 1, 2001, and
annually thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report to
Congress, in both unclassified and classified form, regarding
the national security implications and impact of the
bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United
States and the People's Republic of China. The report shall
include a full analysis, along with conclusions and
recommendations for legislative and administrative actions,
of the national security implications for the United States
of the trade and current balances with the People's Republic
of China in goods and services, financial transactions, and
technology transfers. The Commission shall also take into
account patterns of trade and transfers through third
countries to the extent practicable.
``(3) Contents of report.--The report described in
paragraph (2) shall include, at a minimum, a full discussion
of the following:
``(A) The portion of trade in goods and services that the
People's Republic of China dedicates to military systems or
systems of a dual nature that could be used for military
purposes.
``(B) An analysis of the statements and writing of the
People's Republic of China officials and officially-
sanctioned writings that bear on the intentions of the
Government of the People's Republic of China regarding the
pursuit of military competition with, and leverage over, the
United States and the Asian allies of the United States.
``(C) The military actions taken by the Government of the
People's Republic of China during the preceding year that
bear on the national security of the United States and the
Asian allies of the United States.
``(D) The acquisition by the Government of the People's
Republic of China and entities controlled by the Government
of advanced military technologies through United States trade
and technology transfers.
``(E) Any transfers, other than those identified under
subparagraph (D), to the military systems of the People's
Republic of China made by United States firms and United
States-based multinational corporations.
``(F) The use of financial transactions, capital flow, and
currency manipulations that affect the national security
interests of the United States.
``(G) Any action taken by the Government of the People's
Republic of China in the context of the World Trade
Organization that is adverse to the United States national
security interests.
``(H) Patterns of trade and investment between the People's
Republic of China and its major trading partners, other than
the United States, that appear to be substantively different
from trade and investment patterns with the United States and
whether the differences constitute a security problem for the
United States.
``(I) The extent to which the trade surplus of the People's
Republic of China with the United States is dedicated to
enhancing the military budget of the People's Republic of
China.
``(J) The overall assessment of the state of the security
challenges presented by the People's Republic of China to the
United States and whether the security challenges are
increasing or decreasing from previous years.
``(3) National defense waiver.--The report described in
paragraph (2) shall include recommendations for action by
Congress or the President, or both, including specific
recommendations for the United States to invoke Article XXI
(relating to security exceptions) of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade Act of 1994 with respect to the People's
Republic of China, as a result of any adverse impact on the
national security interests of the United States.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Name of commission.--Section 127(c)(1) of the Trade
Deficit Review Commission Act (19 U.S.C. 2213 note) is
amended by striking ``Trade Deficit Review Commission'' and
inserting ``United States-China Security Review Commission''.
(2) Qualifications of members.--Section 127(c)(3) of such
Act (19 U.S.C. 2213 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(C) Special considerations.--For the period beginning
after December 1, 2000, consideration shall also be given to
the appointment of persons with expertise and experience in
national security matters and United States-China
relations.''.
(3) Period of appointment.--Section 127(c)(3)(A) of such
Act (19 U.S.C. 2213 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Appointment beginning with 107th congress.--Beginning
with the 107th Congress and each new Congress thereafter,
members shall be appointed not later than 30 days after the
date on which Congress convenes. Members may be reappointed
for additional terms of service.
``(ii) Transition.--Members serving on the Commission shall
continue to serve until such time as new members are
appointed.''.
(4) Terminology.--
(A) Section 127(c)(6) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2213 note) is
amended by striking ``Chairperson'' and inserting
``Chairman''.
(B) Section 127(g) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2213 note) is
amended by striking ``Chairperson'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Chairman''.
(5) Chairman and vice chairman.--Section 127(c)(7) of such
Act (19 U.S.C. 2213 note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Chairperson'' and ``vice chairperson'' in
the heading and inserting ``Chairman'' and ``vice chairman'';
(B) by striking ``chairperson'' and ``vice chairperson'' in
the text and inserting ``Chairman'' and ``Vice Chairman'';
and
(C) by inserting ``at the beginning of each new Congress''
before the end period.
(6) Hearings.--Section 127(f)(1) of such Act (19 U.S.C.
2213 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Hearings.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission or, at its direction, any
panel or member of the Commission, may for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this Act, hold hearings, sit
and act at times and places, take testimony, receive
evidence, and administer oaths to the extent that the
Commission or any panel or member considers advisable.
``(B) Information.--The Commission may secure directly from
the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency,
and any other Federal department or agency information that
the Commission considers necessary to enable the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.''.
``(C) Security.--The Office of Senate Security shall
provide classified storage and meeting and hearing spaces,
when necessary, for the Commission.

[[Page S6450]]

``(D) Security clearances.--All members of the Commission
and appropriate staff shall be sworn and hold appropriate
security clearances.''.
(7) Appropriations.--Section 127(i) of such Act (19 U.S.C.
2213 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) Authorization.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Commission for fiscal year 2001, and each fiscal year
thereafter, such sums as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions. Appropriations to the Commission are
authorized to remain available until expended.
``(2) Foreign travel for official purposes.--Foreign travel
for official purposes by members and staff of the Commission
may be authorized by either the Chairman or the Vice
Chairman.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on December 1, 2000.

Amendment No. 3794 to Amendment No. 3767

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), for himself and
Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Helms, Mr. Breaux,
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Wellstone,
proposes an amendment numbered 3794 to amendment numbered
3767.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be laid aside, and that we proceed with other matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 3250 and 3751 Modifications

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
No. 3250 be modified by striking section 3531(a)(1) of the bill, and
that amendment No. 3751 be modified by striking section 3405(e)(1)(b)
of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal
year 1999, as amended by section 3202(b) of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I
understand, the request was that amendment No. 3751 be modified.
Is that correct?
Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3765

(Purpose: To require that the annual report on transfers of militarily
sensitive technology to countries and entities of concern include a
discussion of actions taken on recommendations of inspectors general
contained in previous annual reports)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3765 which
requires that the annual report on transfers of militarily sensitive
technology to countries of concern include a discussion of actions
taken on recommendations of inspectors general contained in previous
annual reports.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other
side.
Mr. LEVIN. It has been cleared.
Mr. WARNER. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Smith of
New Hampshire, proposes an amendment numbered 3765.

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

On page 415, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1061. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR ANNUAL REPORT ON TRANSFERS
OF MILITARILY SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY TO COUNTRIES
AND ENTITIES OF CONCERN.

Section 1402(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 798) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The status of the implementation or other disposition
of recommendations included in reports of audits by
Inspectors General that have been set forth in previous
annual reports under this section.''.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in section 1402 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2000, Congress
required annual reports by the agency Inspectors General on the
transfers of militarily sensitive technology to countries and entities
of concern. The first report was issued this spring and focused on so-
called ``deemed exports'' or the release of technical data to a foreign
national working in or visiting a federal facility in the United
States.
The DOD IG found that Defense Department research centers released
militarily valuable information to foreign visitors without ever
determining whether export licenses were required. For example if
foreign scientists (whether Chinese or Swedish) visit DOD or other
federal labs, export licenses are not being requested before
information is transferred. The IG found that Defense Department
laboratories and research facilities lack procedures for determining
whether export licenses are required, and the auditors found that the
services were not even aware of the concept of ``deemed'' exports.
During FY99, DOD never asked for a deemed export license and out of
783 deemed export license applications to the Department of Commerce,
only five came from the federal government (2 from NASA and 3 from DOE)
despite wide-ranging scientific exchange programs with foreign
nationals coming to our labs. (The 778 other licenses were requested by
industry.)
The IG's report reveals another in a long line of security weaknesses
recently uncovered. Militarily useful technology is leaking out of the
U.S. in many different ways--either by direct commercial sale through
relaxed export controls or by lax security procedures and information
security polices that encourage effective espionage by nations who do
not share U.S. interests. Deemed or knowledge exports are becoming ever
more important to U.S. national security. It makes little sense for the
U.S. to control the sale of weapon systems abroad, if we allow our
potential adversaries to obtain the underlying know-how behind our
weapons systems technology and manufacturing processes through
scientific exchanges and knowledge transfers.
The Inspectors General made a series of recommendations to address
the problems with deemed exports policies and procedures in order to
better protect U.S. technology. It is anticipated that the IGs will
make many more recommendations regarding export control procedures over
the next 7 years. Historically, there is always a problem with
effective implementation of any oversight recommendation. Without
effective follow-up or interest shown by Congress, many IG
recommendations are only partially implemented or not at all. The
amendment I am offering ensures that Congress will receive a record of
the status of agency implementation of recommends made by the
Inspectors General on not only this year's deemed exports report, but
on the next 6 annual export control reports. This will serve as a basis
for possible legislation next year and in the future if agencies are
behind schedule in implementing the IGs' recommendations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3765) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3761

(Purpose: To provide for the concurrent payment to surviving spouses of
disability and indemnity compensation and annuities under the Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP))

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Bryan and Robb, I
call up amendment No. 3761 which would provide for concurrent receipt
by a surviving spouse of survivor benefit plan benefits and VA
dependency and disability compensation.

[[Page S6451]]

I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other side.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. It has been
cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for Mr. Bryan and
Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 3761.

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

On page 236, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

SEC. 646. CONCURRENT PAYMENT TO SURVIVING SPOUSES OF
DISABILITY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION AND
ANNUITIES UNDER SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN.

(a) Concurrent Payment.--Section 1450 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking subsection (c).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--That section is further amended
by striking subsections (e) and (k).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to the payment of annuities
under the Survivor Benefit Plan under subchapter II of
chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code, for months
beginning on or after that date.
(d) Recomputation of Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense
shall provide for the readjustment of any annuities to which
subsection (c) of section 1450 of title 10, United States
Code, applies as of the date before the date of the enactment
of this Act, as if the adjustment otherwise provided for
under such subsection (c) had never been made.
(e) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits shall
be paid to any person by virtue of the amendments made by
this section for any period before the effective date of the
amendments as specified in subsection (c).

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3761) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3770, As Modified

(Purpose: To improve the ability of the National Laboratories to
achieve their missions through collaborations with other institutions)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I call up
amendment No. 3770 to establish the National Laboratories Partnership
Act of 2000, and I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Thompson, Mr.
Frist, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered
3770, as modified.

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

At the appropriate place in Title XXXI, add the following
subtitle:

Subtitle ____. National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act

SECTION 31 ____ 1. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``National Laboratories
Partnership Improvement Act of 2000''.

SEC. 31 ____ 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle--
(1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
(2) the term ``departmental mission'' means any of the
functions vested in the Secretary of Energy by the Department
of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) or other
law;
(3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
(4) the term ``National Laboratory'' means any of the
following institutions owned by the Department of Energy--
(A) Argonne National Laboratory;
(B) Brookhaven National Laboratory;
(C) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory;
(D) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
(E) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
(F) Los Alamos National Laboratory;
(G) National Renewable Energy Laboratory;
(H) Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(I) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; or
(J) Sandia National Laboratory;
(5) the term ``facility'' means any of the following
institutions owned by the Department of Energy--
(A) Ames Laboratory;
(B) East Tennessee Technology Park;
(C) Environmental Measurement Laboratory;
(D) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;
(E) Kansas City Plant;
(F) National Energy Technology Laboratory;
(G) Nevada Test Site;
(H) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory;
(I) Savannah River Technology Center;
(J) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center;
(K) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility;
(L) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
(M) Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; or
(N) other similar organization of the Department designated
by the Secretary that engages in technology transfer,
partnering, or licensing activities;
(6) the term ``nonprofit institution'' has the meaning
given such term in section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703(5));
(7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy;
(8) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632);
(9) the term ``technology-related business concern'' means
a for-profit corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, or small business concern that--
(A) conducts scientific or engineering research,
(B) develops new technologies,
(C) manufactures products based on new technologies, or
(D) performs technological services;
(10) the term ``technology cluster'' means a concentration
of--
(A) technology-related business concerns;
(B) institutions of higher education; or
(C) other nonprofit institutions

that reinforce each other's performance through formal or
informal relationships;
(11) the term ``socially and economically disadvantaged
small business concerns'' has the meaning given such term in
section 8(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(a)(4)); and
(12) the term ``NNSA'' means the National Nuclear Security
Administration established by Title XXXII of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law
106-65).

SEC. 31____ 3. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, through the appropriate
officials of the Department, shall establish a Technology
Infrastructure Pilot Program in accordance with this section.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to
improve the ability of National Laboratories or facilities to
support departmental missions by--
(1) stimulating the development of technology clusters that
can support the missions of the National Laboratories or
facilities;
(2) improving the ability of National Laboratories or
facilities to leverage and benefit from commercial research,
technology, products, processes, and services; and
(3) encouraging the exchange of scientific and
technological expertise between National Laboratories or
facilities and--
(A) institutions of higher education,
(B) technology-related business concerns,
(C) nonprofit institutions; and
(d) agencies of state, tribal, or local governments--

that can support the missions of the National Laboratories
and facilities.
(c) Pilot Program.--In each of the first three fiscal years
after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary
may provide no more than $10,000,000, divided equally, among
no more than ten National Laboratories or facilities selected
by the Secretary to conduct Technology Infrastructure Program
Pilot Programs.
(d) Projects.--The Secretary shall authorize the Director
of each National Laboratory or facility designated under
subsection (c) to implement the Technology Infrastructure
Pilot Program at such National Laboratory or facility through
projects that meet the requirements of subsections (e) and
(f).
(e) Program Requirements.--Each project funded under this
section shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Minimum participants.--Each project shall at a minimum
include--
(A) a National Laboratories or facility; and
(B) one of the following entities--
(i) a business,
(ii) an institution of higher education,
(iii) a nonprofit institution, or
(iv) an agency of a state, local, or tribal government.
(2) Cost sharing.--
(A) Minimum amount.--Not less than 50 percent of the costs
of each project funded under this section shall be provided
from non-Federal sources.
(B) Qualified funding and resources.--
(i) The calculation of costs paid by the non-federal
sources to a project shall include cash, personnel, services,
equipment, and other resources expended on the project.

[[Page S6452]]

(ii) Independent research and development expenses of
government contractors that qualify for reimbursement under
section 31-205-18(e) of the Federal Acquisition Regulations
issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)) may be credited
towards costs paid by non-federal sources to a project, if
the expenses meet the other requirements of this section.
(iii) No funds or other resources expended either before
the start of a project under this section or outside the
project's scope of work shall be credited toward the costs
paid by the non-federal sources to the project.
(3) Competitive selection.--All projects where a party
other than the Department or a National Laboratory or
facility receives funding under this section shall, to the
extent practicable, be competitively selected by the National
Laboratory or facility using procedures determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary or his designee.
(4) Accounting standards.--Any participant receiving
funding under this section, other than a National Laboratory
or facility, may use generally accepted accounting principles
for maintaining accounts, books, and records relating to the
project.
(5) Limitations.--No federal funds shall be made available
under this section for--
(A) construction; or
(B) any project for more than five years.
(f) Selection Criteria.--
(1) Threshold funding criteria.--The Secretary shall
authorize the provision of federal funds for projects under
this section only when the Director of the National
Laboratory or facility managing such a project determines
that the project is likely to improve the participating
National Laboratory or facility's ability to achieve
technical success in meeting departmental missions.
(2) Additional criteria.--The Secretary shall also require
the Director of the National Laboratory or facility managing
a project under this section to consider the following
criteria in selecting a project to receive federal funds--
(A) the potential of the project to succeed, based on its
technical merit, team members, management approach,
resources, and project plan;
(B) the potential of the project to promote the development
of a commercially sustainable technology cluster, one that
will derive most of the demand for its products or services
from the private sector, that can support the missions of the
participating National Laboratory or facility;
(C) the potential of the project to promote the use of
commercial research, technology, products, processes, and
services by the participating National Laboratory or facility
to achieve its departmental mission or the commercial
development of technological innovations made at the
participating National Laboratory or facility;
(D) the commitment shown by non-federal organizations to
the project, based primarily on the nature and amount of the
financial and other resources they will risk on the project;
(E) the extent to which the project involves a wide variety
and number of institutions of higher education, nonprofit
institutions, and technology-related business concerns that
can support the missions of the participating National
Laboratory or facility and that will make substantive
contributions to achieving the goals of the project;
(F) the extent of participation in the project by agencies
of state, tribal, or local governments that will make
substantive contributions to achieving the goals of the
project; and
(G) the extent to which the project focuses on promoting
the development of technology-related business concerns that
are small business concerns or involves such small business
concerns substantively in the project.
(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall limit
the Secretary from requiring the consideration of other
criteria, as appropriate, in determining whether projects
should be funded under this section.
(g) Report to Congress on Full Implementation.--Not later
than 120 days after the start of the third fiscal year after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
report to Congress on whether the Technology Infrastructure
Program should be continued beyond the pilot stage, and, if
so, how the fully implemented program should be managed.
This report shall take into consideration the results of
the pilot program to date and the views of the relevant
Directors of the National laboratories and facilities. The
report shall include any proposals for legislation
considered necessary by the Secretary to fully implement
the program.

SEC. 31____4. SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY AND ASSISTANCE.

(A) Advocacy Function.--The Secretary shall direct the
Director of each National Laboratory, and may direct the
Director of each facility the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, to establish a small business advocacy function
that is organizationally independent of the procurement
function at the National Laboratory or facility. The person
or office vested with the small business advocacy function
shall--
(1) work to increase the participation of small business
concerns, including socially and economically disadvantaged
small business concerns, in procurements, collaborative
research, technology licensing, and technology transfer
activities conducted by the National Laboratory or facility;
(2) report to the Director of the National Laboratory or
facility on the actual participation of small business
concerns in procurements and collaborative research along
with recommendations, if appropriate, on how to improve
participation;
(3) make available to small business concerns training,
mentoring, and clear, up-to-date information on how to
participate in the procurements and collaborative research,
including how to submit effective proposals;
(4) increase the awareness inside the National Laboratory
or facility of the capabilities and opportunities presented
by small business concerns; and
(5) establish guidelines for the program under subsection
(b) and report on the effectiveness of such program to the
Director of the National Laboratory or facility.
(b) Establishment of Small Business Assistance Program.--
The Secretary shall direct the Director of each National
Laboratory, and may direct the Director of each facility the
Secretary determines to be appropriate, to establish a
program to provide small business concerns--
(1) assistance directed at making them more effective and
efficient subcontractors or suppliers to the National
Laboratory or facility; or
(2) general technical assistance, the cost of which shall
not exceed $10,000 per instance of assistance, to improve the
small business concern's products or services.
(c) Use of Funds.--None of the funds expended under
subsection (b) may be used for direct grants to the small
business concerns.

SEC. 31____5. TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS OMBUDSMAN.

(a) Appointment of Ombudsman.--The Secretary shall direct
the Director of each National Laboratory, and may direct the
Director of each facility the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, to appoint a technology partnership ombudsman to
hear and help resolve complaints from outside organizations
regarding each laboratory's policies and actions with respect
to technology partnerships (including cooperative research
and development agreements), patents, and technology
licensing. Each ombudsman shall--
(1) be a senior official of the National Laboratory or
facility who is not involved in day-to-day technology
partnerships, patents, or technology licensing, or, if
appointed from outside the laboratory, function as such a
senior official; and
(2) have direct access to the Director of the National
Laboratory or facility.
(b) Duties.--Each ombudsman shall--
(1) serve as the focal point for assisting the public and
industry in resolving complaints and disputes with the
laboratory regarding technology partnerships, patents, and
technology licensing;
(2) promote the use of collaborative alternative dispute
resolution techniques such as mediation to facilitate the
speedy and low-cost resolution of complaints and disputes,
when appropriate; and
(3) report, through the Director of the National Laboratory
or facility, to the Department annually on the number and
nature of complaints and disputes raised, along with the
ombudsman's assessment of their resolution, consistent
with the protection of confidential and sensitive
information.
(c) Dual Appointment.--A person vested with the small
business advocacy function of section 31____4 may also serve
as the technology partnership ombudsman.

SEC. 31____6. STUDIES RELATED TO IMPROVING MISSION
EFFECTIVENESS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER AT NATIONAL LABORATORIES.

(a) Studies.--The Secretary shall direct the Laboratory
Operations Board to study and report to him, not later than
one year after the date of enactment of this section, on the
following topics--
(1) the possible benefits from and need for policies and
procedures to facilitate the transfer of scientific,
technical, and professional personnel among National
Laboratories and facilities; and
(2) the possible benefits from and need for changes in--
(A) the indemnification requirements for patents or other
intellectual property licensed from a National Laboratory or
facility;
(B) the royalty and fees schedules and types of
compensation that may be used for patents or other
intellectual property licensed to a small business concern
from a National Laboratory or facility;
(C) the licensing procedures and requirements for patents
and other intellectual property;
(D) the rights given to a small business concern that has
licensed a patent or other intellectual property from a
National Laboratory or facility to bring suit against third
parties infringing such intellectual property;
(E) the advance funding requirements for a small business
concern funding a project at a National Laboratory or
facility through a Funds-In-Agreement;
(F) the intellectual property rights allocated to a
business when it is funding a project at a National
Laboratory or facility through a Fund-In-Agreement; and
(G) policies on royalty payments to inventors employed by a
contractor-operated National Laboratory or facility,
including those for inventions made under a Funds-In-
Agreement.
(b) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``Funds-in--Agreement'' means a contract between the
Department

[[Page S6453]]

and non-federal organization where that organization pays the
Department to provide a service or material not otherwise
available in the domestic private sector.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than one month after
receiving the report under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall transmit the report, along with his recommendations for
action and proposals for legislation to implement the
recommendations, to Congress.

SEC. 31____7. OTHER TRANSACTIONS AUTHORITY.

(a) New Authority.--Section 646 of the Department of Energy
Organization (42 U.S.C. 7256) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(g) Other Transactions Authority.--(1) In addition to
other authorities granted to the Secretary to enter into
procurement contracts, leases cooperative agreements, grants
and other similar arrangements, the Secretary may enter into
other transactions with public agencies, private
organizations, or persons or such terms as the Secretary may
deem appropriate in furtherance of basic, (1) In addition to
other authorities granted to the Secretary to enter into
other transactions with public agencies, private
organizations, or persons on such terms as the Secretary may
deem appropriate in furtherance of basic, applied, and
advanced research now or hereafter vested in the Secretary.
Such other transactions shall bet be subject to the
provisions of section 9 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy
Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5908).
``(2)(A) the Secretary of Energy shall ensure that--
``(i) To the maximum extent practicable, no transaction
entered into under paragraph (1) provides for research that
duplicates research being conducted under existing programs
carried out by the Department of Energy; and
``(ii) to the extent that the Secretary determines
practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a
transaction authorized by paragraph (1) do not exceed the
total amount provided by other parties to the transaction.
``(B) A transaction authorized by paragraph (1) may be used
for a research project when the use of a standard contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not
feasible or appropriate.
``(3)(A) The Secretary shall not disclose any trade secret
or commercial or financial information submitted by a non-
federal entity under paragraph (1) that is privileged and
confidential.
``(B) The Secretary shall not disclose, for five years
after the date the information is received, any other
information submitted by a non-federal entity under paragraph
(1), including any proposal, proposal abstract, document
supporting a proposal, business plan, or technical
information that is privileged and confidential.
``(C) The Secretary may protect from disclosure, for up to
five years, any information developed pursuant to a
transaction under paragraph (1) that would be protected from
disclosure under section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States
Code, if obtained from a person other than a federal
agency.''.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than six months after the
date of enactment of this section, the Department shall
establish guidelines for the use of other transactions. Other
transactions shall be made available, if needed, in order to
implement projects funded under section 31____3.

SEC. 31____8. CONFORMANCE WITH NNSA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.

All actions taken by the Secretary in carrying out this
subtitle with respect to National Laboratories and facilities
that are part of the NNSA shall be through the Administrator
for Nuclear Security in accordance with the requirements of
Title XXXII of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000.

SEC. 31____9. ARCTIC ENERGY.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established within the
Department of Energy an Office of Arctic Energy.
(b) Purpose.--The purposes of the Office of Arctic Energy
are--
(1) to promote research, development and deployment of
electric power technology that is cost-effective and
especially well suited to meet the needs of rural and remote
regions of the United States, especially where permafrost is
present or located nearby; and
(2) to promote research, development and deployment in such
regions of--
(A) enhanced oil recovery technology, including heavy oil
recovery, reinjection of carbon and extended reach drilling
technologies;
(B) gas-to-liquids technology and liquified natural gas
(including associated transportation systems);
(C) small hyroelectric facilities, river turbines and tidal
power;
(D) natural gas hydrates, coal bed methane, and shallow bed
natural gas; and
(E) alternative energy, including wind, geothermal, and
fuel cells.
(c) Location.--The Secretary shall locate the Office of
Arctic Energy at a university with special expertise and
unique experience in the matters specified in paragraphs 1
and 2 of subsection b.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out activities under this section
$1,000,000 for the fiscal year after the date of enactment of
this section.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Domenici, Murray, Gorton, Thompson, Frist, and Murkowski in offering
this amendment. This amendment, which is based on my bill, S. 1756,
will strengthen the ways the Department of Energy's national labs and
facilities can collaborate with industry to achieve their mission--
something that's increasingly important now that industry funds 70
percent of our national R&D. The labs simply cannot stay on the cutting
edge of technology and do their national security and science missions
without rich and effective collaborations with industry.
A key provision of this amendment is a three year pilot program,
called the Technology Infrastructure Program, authorizing the national
labs to promote the development of ``technology clusters''--the
phenomena seen most famously in Silicon Valley--that will help the labs
achieve their national security and science missions. The basic idea is
for the labs to harness the innovative power of technology clusters to
do their missions by strengthening collaboration in the regions around
the labs.
Mr. President, let me explain this a little more. We know from places
like Silicon Valley, or our own states, that a special innovative
process can get started when enough institutions in an industry or
technology come together in one place. For example, if you're
interested in Internet businesses, Northern Virginia is an excellent
place to be. For cars and, I believe, office furniture, you ought to
think about Michigan.
Paradoxically, the Internet makes these regional processes more
important, not less. Why? Because when it's cheap and easy to move
information around, less mobile things like your labor force and
special research facilities and how they interact with each other will
be what makes the difference in how well you turn information into
innovation. Consider how Silicon Valley has not dissipated, despite its
many high costs. And, if companies move from there, they may go to
Austin or Northern Virginia, but not just anywhere they can plug in a
modern.
Now, the Technology Infrastructure Program will support projects that
will help the labs do their missions by strengthening the institutions
and relationships that aid collaborative innovation. Every project
funded under this program must, as a threshold test, show that it will
help a lab ``achieve technical success in meeting'' DOE missions. Here
are some possible example projects: a small business incubator or a
research park by the lab; a special training program for technicians in
a technology used by the lab and local businesses; or a specialized
design and research facility at a local university in a technology of
interest to the lab and local businesses.
I think you can see from my examples that it would be hard to link
these sorts of projects to the labs' missions unless they are done near
the labs. So, that's what will happen in most cases. The money
authorized for the pilot program is modest--no more than $10 million a
year. But, I believe it could well prove to have an immodest result.
Here is another way to think about what we're trying to do with the
Technology Infrastructure Program. Given the mission of the labs, the
reason they exist as organizations with all sorts of sophisticated
equipment and scientists is that they together in one place people
working on related subjects, so they can collaborate with each other
and share special facilities.
Well, the Technology Infrastructure Program will help extend that
collaboration to outside a lab's gates, to firms and other institutions
that are not part of the lab but that can help it do its mission better
because they're nearby. Because the projects will be cost shared. DOE
can save the taxpayer's money while effectively building out the labs
beyond their gates. And, because the projects will help the labs
leverage commercial technology, the labs will get more cutting edge
technology at a lower cost.
In short, the labs' interest in collaborating with industry to
achieve their missions means that they also have an interest in
promoting a strong network of local collaborators.
Other provisions of this amendment will: create a small business
advocate at the labs to get small businesses

[[Page S6454]]

more involved in lab research and procurement; create a ombudsman at
the labs to informally settle disputes over technology partnerships;
establish a series of studies to investigate other ways to improve
collaboration between the labs and industry; give DOE a highly flexible
``other transactions'' research authority like the one DoD has; and
establish a DOE Office of Arctic Energy to focus on the special energy
problems and opportunities in Arctic regions of the United States.
Of course, I'm well aware this amendment would be good for the
communities around the labs. But, just as those of us with labs in our
states have seen that what's good for the labs can be good for our
communities, what's good for our communities can also be good for our
labs.
In summary, this amendment takes the next steps in improving the
ability of DOE's national labs to collaborate with academia and
industry, and I think it will prove of great benefit to our national
security, the labs, and the labs' communities. I greatly appreciate the
support of Senators Warner and Levin for including it in this bill.
Mr. WARNER. The amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3770), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3739, As Modified

(Purpose: To improve the modifications to the counterintelligence
polygraph program of the Department of Energy)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Shelby and
Bryan, I call up amendment No. 3739 to alter the committee provision
regarding the Department of Energy polygraph requirements, and I send a
modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Shelby and
Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 3739, as modified.

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

On page 595, strike line 23 and all that follows through
page 597, line 3, and insert the following:
``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary may, after
consultation with appropriate security personnel, waive the
applicability of paragraph (1) to a covered person--
``(A) if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that the waiver is important
to the national security interests of the United States;
``(ii) the covered person has an active security clearance;
and
``(iii) the covered person acknowledges in a signed writing
that the capacity of the covered person to perform duties
under a high-risk program after the expiration of the waiver
is conditional upon meeting the requirements of paragraph (1)
within the effective period of the waiver;
``(B) if another Federal agency certifies to the Secretary
that the covered person has completed successfully a full-
scope or counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination
during the 5-year period ending on the date of the
certification; or
``(C) if the Secretary determines, after consultation with
the covered person and appropriate medical personnel, that
the treatment of a medical or psychological condition of the
covered person should preclude the administration of the
examination.
``(3)(A) The Secretary may not commence the exercise of the
authority under paragraph (2) to waive the applicability of
paragraph (1) to any covered persons until 15 days after the
date on which the Secretary submits to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report setting forth the criteria to
be utilized by the Secretary for determining when a waiver
under paragraph (2)(A) is important to the national security
interests of the United States. The criteria shall include an
assessment of counterintelligence risks and programmatic
impacts.
``(B) Any waiver under paragraph (2)(A) shall be effective
for not more than 120 days.
``(C) Any waiver under paragraph (2)(C) shall be effective
for the duration of the treatment on which such waiver is
based.
``(4) The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress on a semi-annual basis a report on any
determinations made under paragraph (2)(A) during the 6-month
period ending on the date of such report. The report shall
include a national security justification for each waiver
resulting from such determinations.
``(5) In this subsection, the term `appropriate committees
of Congress' means the following:
``(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
``(B) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.
``(6) It is the sense of Congress that the waiver authority
in paragraph (2) not be used by the Secretary to exempt from
the applicability of paragraph (1) any covered persons in the
highest risk categories, such as persons who have access to
the most sensitive weapons design information and other
highly sensitive programs, including special access programs.
``(7) The authority under paragraph (2) to waive the
applicability of paragraph (1) to a covered person shall
expire on September 30, 2002.''.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand the amendment has been
cleared on both sides.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side.
Mr. WARNER. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3739), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3259, As Modified

(Purpose: To coordinate and facilitate the development by the
Department of Defense of directed energy technologies, systems, and
weapons)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I call up
amendment No. 3259 relating to directed energy research and
development, and I send a modification to the desk which would provide
for the coordination and management of directed energy technologies and
systems in the Department of Defense.
It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on the
other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Domenici,
proposes an amendment numbered 3259, as modified.

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

On page 353, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 914. COORDINATION AND FACILITATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF
DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, SYSTEMS, AND
WEAPONS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Directed energy systems are available to address many
current challenges with respect to military weapons,
including offensive weapons and defensive weapons.
(2) Directed energy weapons offer the potential to maintain
an asymmetrical technological edge over adversaries of the
United States for the foreseeable future.
(3) It is in the national interest that funding for
directed energy science and technology programs be increased
in order to support priority acquisition programs and to
develop new technologies for future applications.
(4) It is in the national interest that the level of
funding for directed energy science and technology programs
correspond to the level of funding for large-scale
demonstration programs in order to ensure the growth of
directed energy science and technology programs and to ensure
the successful development of other weapons systems utilizing
directed energy systems.
(5) The industrial base for several critical directed
energy technologies is in fragile condition and lacks
appropriate incentives to make the large-scale investments
that are necessary to address current and anticipated
Department of Defense requirements for such technologies.
(6) It is in the national interest that the Department of
Defense utilize and expand upon directed energy research
currently being conducted by the Department of Energy, other
Federal agencies, the private sector, and academia.
(7) It is increasingly difficult for the Federal Government
to recruit and retain personnel with skills critical to
directed energy technology development.
(8) The implementation of the recommendations contained in
the High Energy Laser Master Plan of the Department of
Defense is in the national interest.
(9) Implementation of the management structure outlined in
the Master Plan will

[[Page S6455]]

facilitate the development of revolutionary capabilities in
directed energy weapons by achieving a coordinated and
focused investment strategy under a new management structure
featuring a joint technology office with senior-level
oversight provided by a technology council and a board of
directors.
(b) Implementation of High Energy Laser Master Plan.--(1)
The Secretary of Defense shall implement the management and
organizational structure specified in the Department of
Defense High Energy Laser Master Plan of March 24, 2000.
(2) The Secretary shall locate the Joint Technology Office
specified in the High Energy Laser Master Plan at a location
determined appropriate by the Secretary, not later than
October 1, 2000.
(3) In determining the location of the Joint Technology
Office, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology,
evaluate whether to locate the Office at a site at which
occur a substantial proportion of the directed energy
research, development, test, and evaluation activities of the
Department of Defense.
(c) Enhancement of Industrial Base.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall develop and undertake initiatives, including
investment initiatives, for purposes of enhancing the
industrial base for directed energy technologies and systems.
(2) Initiatives under paragraph (1) shall be designed to--
(A) stimulate the development by institutions of higher
education and the private sector of promising directed energy
technologies and systems; and
(B) stimulate the development of a workforce skilled in
such technologies and systems.
(d) Enhancement of Test and Evaluation Capabilities.--The
Secretary of Defense shall consider modernizing the High
Energy Laser Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico, in order to enhance the test and evaluation
capabilities of the Department of Defense with respect to
directed energy weapons.
(e) Cooperative Programs and Activities.--The Secretary of
Defense shall evaluate the feasibility and advisability of
entering into cooperative programs or activities with other
Federal agencies, institutions of higher education, and the
private sector, including the national laboratories of the
Department of Energy, for the purpose of enhancing the
programs, projects, and activities of the Department of
Defense relating to directed energy technologies, systems,
and weapons.
(f) Funding for Fiscal Year 2001.--(1) Of the amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4) for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, up to
$50,000,000 may be available for science and technology
activities relating to directed energy technologies, systems,
and weapons.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures for
the allocation of funds available under paragraph (1) among
activities referred to in that paragraph. In establishing
such procedures, the Secretary shall provide for the
competitive selection of programs, projects, and activities
to be carried out by the recipients of such funds.
(g) Directed Energy Defined.--In this section, the term
``directed energy'', with respect to technologies, systems,
or weapons, means technologies, systems, or weapons that
provide for the directed transmission of energies across the
energy and frequency spectrum, including high energy lasers
and high power microwaves.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3259), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3760, As Modified

(Purpose: To expand and enhance United States efforts in the Russian
nuclear complex to expedite the containment of nuclear expertise that
presents a proliferation threat)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Domenici, Levin,
Lugar, Biden, Bingaman, Craig, Thompson, Hagel, and Conrad, I send
amendment No. 3760 to the desk, which expands and strengthens U.S.
efforts in the Russian nuclear weapons complex, and I send a
modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici,
for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Conrad, proposes
an amendment numbered 3760, as modified.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 610, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

Subtitle F--Russian Nuclear Complex Conversion

SEC. 3191. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Russian Nuclear Weapons
Complex Conversion Act of 2000''.

SEC. 3192. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Russian nuclear weapons complex has begun closure
and complete reconfiguration of certain weapons complex
plants and productions lines. However, this work is at an
early stage. The major impediments to downsizing have been
economic and social conditions in Russia. Little information
about this complex is shared, and 10 of its most sensitive
cities remain closed. These cities house 750,000 people and
employ approximately 150,000 people in nuclear military
facilities. Although the Russian Federation Ministry of
Atomic Energy has announced the need to significantly
downsize its workforce, perhaps by as much as 50 percent, it
has been very slow in accomplishing this goal. Information on
the extent of any progress is very closely held.
(2) The United States, on the other hand, has significantly
downsized its nuclear weapons complex in an open and
transparent manner. As a result, an enormous asymmetry now
exists between the United States and Russia in nuclear weapon
production capacities and in transparency of such capacities.
It is in the national security interest of the United States
to assist the Russian Federation in accomplishing significant
reductions in its nuclear military complex and in helping it
to protect its nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and
nuclear secrets during such reductions. Such assistance will
accomplish critical nonproliferation objectives and provide
essential support towards future arms reduction agreements.
The Russian Federation's program to close and reconfigure
weapons complex plants and production lines will address, if
it is implemented in a significant and transparent manner,
concerns about the Russian Federation's ability to quickly
reconstitute its arsenal.
(3) Several current programs address portions of the
downsizing and nuclear security concerns. The Nuclear Cities
Initiative was established to assist Russia in creating job
opportunities for employees who are not required to support
realistic Russian nuclear security requirements. Its focus
has been on creating commercial ventures that can provide
self-sustaining jobs in three of the closed cities. The
current scope and funding of the program are not commensurate
with the scale of the threats to the United States sought to
be addressed by the program.
(4) To effectively address threats to United States
national security interests, progress with respect to the
nuclear cities must be expanded and accelerated. The Nuclear
Cities Initiative has laid the groundwork for an immediate
increase in investment which offers the potential for prompt
risk reduction in the cities of Sarov, Snezhinsk, and
Zheleznogorsk, which house four key Russian nuclear
facilities. Furthermore, the Nuclear Cities Initiative has
made considerable progress with the limited funding
available. However, to gain sufficient advocacy for
additional support, the program must demonstrate--
(A) rapid progress in conversion and restructuring; and
(B) an ability for the United States to track progress
against verifiable milestones that support a Russian nuclear
complex consistent with their future national security
requirements.
(5) Reductions in the nuclear weapons-grade material stocks
in the United States and Russia enhance prospects for future
arms control agreements and reduce concerns that these
materials could lead to proliferation risks. Confidence in
both nations will be enhanced by knowledge of the extent of
each nation's stockpiles of weapons-grade materials. The
United States already makes this information public.
(6) Many current programs contribute to the goals stated
herein. However, the lack of programmatic coordination within
and among United States Government agencies impedes the
capability of the United States to make rapid progress. A
formal single point of coordination is essential to ensure
that all United States programs directed at cooperative
threat reduction, nuclear materials reduction and protection,
and the downsizing, transparency, and nonproliferation of the
nuclear weapons complex effectively mitigate the risks
inherent in the Russian Federation's military complex.
(7) Specialists in the United States and the former Soviet
Union trained in nonproliferation studies can significantly
assist in the downsizing process while minimizing the threat
presented by potential proliferation of weapons materials or
expertise.

SEC. 3193. EXPANSION AND ENHANCEMENT OF NUCLEAR CITIES
INITIATIVE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall, in
accordance with the provisions of this section, take
appropriate actions to expand and enhance the activities
under the Nuclear Cities Initiative in order to--
(1) assist the Russian Federation in the downsizing of the
Russian Nuclear Complex; and
(2) coordinate the downsizing of the Russian Nuclear
Complex under the Initiative with other United States
nonproliferation programs.
(b) Enhanced Use of MINATOM Technology and Research and
Development Services.--In carrying out actions under

[[Page S6456]]

this section, the Secretary of Energy shall facilitate the
enhanced use of the technology, and the research and
development services, of the Russia Ministry of Atomic Energy
(MINATOM) by--
(1) fostering the commercialization of peaceful, non-
threatening advanced technologies of the Ministry through the
development of projects to commercialize research and
development services for industry and industrial entities;
and
(2) authorizing the Department of Energy, and encouraging
other departments and agencies of the United States
Government, to utilize such research and development services
for activities appropriate to the mission of the Department,
and such departments and agencies, including activities
relating to--
(A) nonproliferation (including the detection and
identification of weapons of mass destruction and
verification of treaty compliance);
(B) global energy and environmental matters; and
(C) basic scientific research of benefit to the United
States.
(c) Acceleration of Nuclear Cities Initiative.--(1) In
carrying out actions under this section, the Secretary of
Energy shall accelerate the Nuclear Cities Initiative by
implementing, as soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, programs at the nuclear cities
referred to in paragraph (2) in order to convert significant
portions of the activities carried out at such nuclear cities
from military activities to civilian activities.
(2) The nuclear cities referred to in this paragraph are
the following:
(A) Sarov (Arzamas-16).
(B) Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70).
(C) Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26).
(3) To advance nonproliferation and arms control
objectives, the Nuclear Cities Initiative is encouraged to
begin planning for accelerated conversion, commensurate with
available resources, in the remaining nuclear cities.
(4) Before implementing a program under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall establish appropriate, measurable milestones
for the activities to be carried out in fiscal year 2001.
(d) Plan for Restructuring the Russian Nuclear Complex.--
(1) The President, acting through the Secretary of Energy, is
urged to enter into negotiations with the Russian Federation
for purposes of the development by the Russian Federation of
a plan to restructure the Russian Nuclear Complex in order to
meet changes in the national security requirements of Russia
by 2010.
(2) The plan under paragraph (1) should include the
following:
(A) Mechanisms to achieve a nuclear weapons production
capacity in Russia that is consistent with the obligations of
Russia under current and future arms control agreements.
(B) Mechanisms to increase transparency regarding the
restructuring of the nuclear weapons complex and weapons-
surplus nuclear materials inventories in Russia to the levels
of transparency for such matters in the United States,
including the participation of Department of Energy officials
with expertise in transparency of such matters.
(C) Measurable milestones that will permit the United
States and the Russian Federation to monitor progress under
the plan.
(e) Encouragement of Careers in Nonproliferation.--(1) In
carrying out actions under this section, the Secretary of
Energy shall carry out a program to encourage students in the
United States and in the Russian Federation to pursue a
career in an area relating to nonproliferation.
(2) Of the amounts under subsection (f), up to $2,000,000
shall be available for purposes of the program under
paragraph (1).
(f) Funding for Fiscal Year 2001.--(1) There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Energy
for fiscal year 2001, $30,000,000 for purposes of the Nuclear
Cities Initiative, including activities under this section.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
101(5) for other procurement for the Army is hereby reduced
by $12,500,000, with the amount of the reduction to be
allocated to the Close Combat Tactical Trainer.
(g) Limitation on Availability of Funds for Nuclear Cities
Initiative.--No amount in excess of $17,500,000 authorized to
be appropriated for the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2001 for the Nuclear Cities Initiative may be obligated or
expended for purposes of providing assistance under the
Initiative until 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary of Energy submits to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives the
following:
(1) A copy of the written agreement between the United
States Government and the Government of the Russian
Federation which provides that Russia will close some of its
facilities engaged in nuclear weapons assembly and
disassembly work within five years in exchange for
participation in the Initiative.
(2) A certification by the Secretary that--
(A) project review procedures for all projects under the
Initiative have been established and implemented; and
(B) such procedures will ensure that any scientific,
technical, or commercial project initiated under the
Initiative--
(i) will not enhance the military or weapons of mass
destruction capabilities of Russia;
(ii) will not result in the inadvertent transfer or
utilization of products or activities under such project for
military purposes;
(iii) will be commercially viable within three years of the
date of the certification; and
(iv) will be carried out in conjunction with an appropriate
commercial, industrial, or other nonprofit entity as partner.
(3) A report setting forth the following:
(A) The project review procedures referred to in paragraph
(2)(A).
(B) A list of the projects under the Initiative that have
been reviewed under such project review procedures.
(C) A description for each project listed under
subparagraph (B) of the purpose, life-cycle, out-year budget
costs, participants, commercial viability, expected time for
income generation, and number of Russian jobs created.
(h) Sense of Congress on Funding for Fiscal Years after
Fiscal Year 2001.--It is the sense of Congress that the
availability of funds for the Nuclear Cities Initiative in
fiscal years after fiscal year 2001 should be contingent
upon--
(1) demonstrable progress in the programs carried out under
subsection (c), as determined utilizing the milestones
required under paragraph (4) of that subsection; and
(2) the development and implementation of the plan required
by subsection (d).

SEC. 3194. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR NONPROLIFERATION
MATTERS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) there should be a National Coordinator for
Nonproliferation Matters to coordinate--
(A) the Nuclear Cities Initiative;
(B) the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program;
(C) the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs;
(D) the materials protection, control, and accounting
programs; and
(E) the International Science and Technology Center; and
(2) the position of National Coordinator for
Nonproliferation Matters should be similar, regarding
nonproliferation matters, to the position filled by
designation of the President under section 1441(a) of the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996
(title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2727; 50 U.S.C.
2351(a)).

SEC. 3195. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Nuclear city.--The term ``nuclear city'' means any of
the closed nuclear cities within the complex of the Russia
Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) as follows:
(A) Sarov (Arzamas-16).
(B) Zarechnyy (Penza-19).
(C) Novoural'sk (Sverdlovsk-44).
(D) Lesnoy (Sverdlovsk-45).
(E) Ozersk (Chelyabinsk-65).
(F) Snezhinsk (Chelyabinsk-70).
(G) Trechgornyy (Zlatoust-36).
(H) Seversk (Tomsk-7).
(I) Zhelenznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26).
(J) Zelenogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-45).
(2) Russian nuclear complex.--The term ``Russian Nuclear
Complex'' refers to all of the nuclear cities.

Mr. WARNER. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask
unanimous consent my name be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3760), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to advise the Senate that the
amendment by Senator Bennett and proposed by Senator Thompson will be
initiated at 7:30 this evening.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am advised by the proponents and,
indeed, the opponents of the amendment referred to as the Bennett
amendment, that Senator Bennett from Utah wishes to address the Senate
with regard to this amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 3185

(Purpose: To provide for an adjustment of composite theoretical
performance levels of high performance computers)

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk which I
call up, amendment No. 3185.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S6457]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself and Mr.
Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3185

Mr. BENNETT. 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 462, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1210. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE
LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

(a) Layover Period for New Performance Levels.--Section
1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by striking
``180'' and inserting ``60''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Calculation of 60-Day Period.--The 60-day period
referred to in subsection (d) shall be calculated by
excluding the days on which either House of Congress is not
in session because of an adjournment of the Congress sine
die.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any new composite theoretical performance
level established for purposes of section 1211(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 that
is submitted by the President pursuant to section 1211(d) of
that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion about
this amendment. My understanding is that the order is for an hour
equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the
amendment. I do not believe that time will be necessary. I certainly do
not intend to take the time to explain all of the aspects of the
amendment because I did so in a previous floor speech several weeks
ago. I think, in the interest of moving things along tonight, I should
just say to any who are interested in the issue to go back to my
earlier floor speech, which was complete with charts and visual aids,
and all of the other bells and whistles that we sometimes bring to the
floor, and read that, and you will see how I feel about this amendment.
The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, had great concerns about
the issue we are discussing. This amendment has to do with export
licenses for technical material, most particularly computer material
that might be exported in such a way as to allow some foreign power to
gain a computer capability that would enhance their military power
against the United States.
Senator Thompson and I have been talking about this for weeks, if
maybe not as long as a month or so, in an effort to find some
accommodation to the concerns that he very legitimately raises about
our national security and at the same time recognizes the reality of
the marketplace, which is that these chips, if they are not exported
from the United States, will get to the world market from Japan,
Germany, Holland, and in one instance China itself.
We would like to make sure the international market is as dominated
by American chips as we can possibly get it to be, which is why we are
trying to shorten all of the time connected with this. Senator
Thompson, who has his own concerns about it, has been asking that we
not shorten the period as drastically as this amendment would do.
If I were offering the amendment entirely in a vacuum--that is, a
legislative vacuum--I would like the amount shortened from 180 days to
30 days for the congressional action with respect to these items
because I think 30 days is long enough.
I point out, at the moment, if we are going to export an F-16 to some
foreign government, Congress has only 30 days to comment.
Some of these computers, to put it in the context of how rapidly
things are moving, can be purchased at Toys ``R'' Us right now and be
available for some foreign agent, if he wanted to come into the
country, to tuck under his arm, walk through customs, go home to his
country, and have a computer powerful enough in that toy that could do
things that as recently as 3 years ago would seem miraculous.
So I have abandoned my 30-day desires because of the very significant
legislative situation in which we find ourselves.
The 60-day requirement, which is in my amendment, has passed the
House of Representatives by a vote of 415-8. I am told that if one
comma is changed in the amendment that passes the Senate from the form
in which it passed the House, it will run into problems in conference.
So because I do not want it to run into problems in conference--I want
it done--I have decided, as has the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, that
we will forgo our desire for the 30-day period. We will endorse the 60-
day period because that is in the House bill.
Now, the Senator from Tennessee has some legitimate concerns about
the way this is done. I have discussed with him privately and now
pledge to him publicly that I will work with him to find a way to
inject the General Accounting Office into the congressional review
process, something that is not called for at the moment. It is entirely
haphazard at the moment. GAO gets involved if some Member of Congress
asks them to get involved but not if that request is not made.
I am more than willing to say to the Senator from Tennessee that I
will work with him to try to inject the GAO into the process, but I do
believe that the proper and prudent thing for us to do tonight is to
adopt the amendment in exactly the same language as it passed the House
and thereby make sure it is not a conferenceable item and is something
we will be certain will take place when the conference report is
finally approved.
With that, Mr. President, I have nothing further to say, unless other
Members of this body want to talk about the specific merits of it. I
thank my friend from Tennessee for his willingness to work out the
essential elements of this and pledge to him again publicly, as I have
done privately, that I will work with him to see that we do our very
best to accomplish the goal he seeks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before he does leave the floor, I express my
appreciation to the Senator from Utah. He has been a real leader on
this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him. It seems we have
been working on this for many months, which we have. In fact, it has
been nearly a year. This is a very important time in the history of
this country when this legislation will pass. I hope it will pass
tomorrow.
Based upon that, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment. It is my understanding the vote is going to be set for 11:30
tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Boxer,
Baucus, Kerry, Reid of Nevada--I am already on the amendment--Bennett,
Daschle, Bingaman, Robb, Kennedy, Cleland, and Murray be added as
cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Utah leaves the
floor, I want to tell him how much I appreciate his work on this issue.
The work that has been done is very important.
I say to the Senator from Tennessee, he is a real advocate. He has
worked very hard. He has a different view as to what should happen. He
has formulated these ideas with great study and his staff has been easy
to work with, but in this instance we believe we are right and that he
is not quite right.
Based upon his advocacy, I, along with the Senator from Utah, am
willing to work with the Senator from Tennessee. He has an idea that
doesn't shorten the time whatsoever but would add another element;
namely the General Accounting Office. Senator Bennett has pledged that
he would work with him on this issue, and I do so publicly also. We
will try to find another vehicle to work with him on his legislation.
More than 50 percent of America's companies' revenues come from
overseas sales. Also, more than 60 percent of the market for
multiprocessor systems is outside the United States. What we are
talking about is allowing the United States to maintain its position as
a paramount producer of computers. That is what it amounts to. Things
are changing very rapidly.
I can remember a few years ago I went to Clark County, in Las Vegas,
NV, to the third floor of the courthouse. The entire third floor was
the

[[Page S6458]]

computer processing system for Clark County. Then Clark County was much
smaller than it is now. Today the work that is done on that entire
third floor could be done with a personal computer, a laptop; things
have changed so rapidly. That is why we need to allow changes.
This little computer that I carry around, this ``palm,'' as they call
it, does remarkable things. I can store in this basically the Las Vegas
phonebook. It has a calculator. It has numerous features that were
impossible 2 years ago. It is now possible. That is what this amendment
is all about: to allow the American computer industry to remain
competitive and to allow sales overseas.
I appreciate the work of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. He has worked
on this matter for many months, along with Senator Enzi and Senator
Johnson. I appreciate their support on this legislation.
The amendment, which has broad support from the high-tech industry
and from a majority of the Members of the Senate, simply shortens the
congressional review period for high performance computers from 180
days to 60 days and guarantees that the counting of those days not be
tolled when Congress adjourns sine die.
We are operating under cold war era regulations and if we want to
remain the world leader in computer manufacturing and in the high-tech
arena, we must make this change immediately.
I have worked for the last year and a half with Senators Gramm, Enzi,
and Johnson on the Export Administration Act, but a few members of the
majority have succeeded in blocking its passage. That bill is not
moving and therefore, Senator Bennett and I would like to simply pass
this portion of the Export Administration Act to provide some temporary
relief. The congressional review period for computer exports is six
times longer than the review of munitions.
In February, the President, at my urging and the urging of others,
proposed changes to the export controls on high performance computers,
but because of the 180-day review period, these changes have yet to be
implemented and U.S. companies are losing foreign market share to
Chinese and other foreign competitors as we speak. This is already July
and a February proposed change, which was appropriate at the time, and
is nearly out-dated now, has yet to go into effect.
This amendment is a bipartisan effort and one that we need to pass.
Congress is stifling U.S. companies' growth and we can't stand for it,
I can't stand for it. This underscores another point: the importance of
exports to the U.S. computer industry. More than 50 percent of
America's companies revenues come from overseas sales. If we give the
international market to foreign competition in the short term, we will
never get it back in the long term, and not only our economy, but our
national security will founder.
A strong economy and a strong U.S. military depend on our leadership.
U.S. companies have to be given the opportunity to compete worldwide in
order to continue to lead the world in technological advances.
According to the Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports, U.S.
computer export regulations are the most stringent in the world and
give foreign competitors a head start. More than 60 percent of the
market for multiprocessor systems is outside of the U.S. The U.S.
industry faces stiff competition, as foreign governments allow greater
export flexibility.
The current export control system interferes with legitimate U.S.
exports because it does not keep pace with technology. The MTOPS level
of microprocessors increased nearly 5-fold from 1998 to 1999--and
today's levels will more than double when the Intel Itanium, I-Tanium,
chip is introduced in the middle of this year. New export control
thresholds will not take effect until the completion of the required
six month waiting period--by then, the thresholds will be obsolete and
American companies will have lost considerable market share in foreign
countries.
The current export control system does not protect U.S. national
security. The ability of America's defense system to maintain its
technological advantage relies increasingly on the U.S. computer
industry's ability to be at the cutting edge of technology. It does not
make sense to impose a 180-day waiting period for products that have a
3-month innovation cycle and are widely available in foreign countries.
Right now American companies are forbidden from selling computers in
tier three countries while foreign competitors are free to do so.
As I indicated earlier, the removal of items from export controls
imposed by the Munitions List, such as tanks, rockets, warships, and
high-performance aircraft, requires only a 30-day waiting period. The
sale of sensitive weapons, such as tanks, rockets, warships and high-
performance aircraft, under the Foreign Military Sales program requires
only a 30-day congressional review period. One hundred eighty days is
too long.
The new Intel microprocessor, the Itanium, is expected to be
available sometime this summer with companies such as NEW, Hitachi and
Siemens already signed on to use the microprocessor. The most recent
export control announcement made by the Administration on February 1
will therefore be out of date in less than six months.
Lastly--a review period, comparable to that applied to other export
control and national security regimes, will still give Congress
adequate time to review national security ramifications of any changes
in the U.S. computer export control regime. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment and to allow our country's computer companies to
compete with their foreign competitors and thereby continue to drive
our thriving economy.
I believe that 30 days is the proper amount of time for the review
period, but have agreed, with my colleague from Utah, to offer the
identical language that passed in the House by a vote of 415 to 8. Less
stringent language passed out of committee in the Senate, and there is
no reason that this shouldn't pass with a large majority.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce endorsing this legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, June 13, 2000.
To Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the world's largest business federation,
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector and region, offers our
support of Senator Harry Reid's (D-NV) Amendment 3292 to the
Defense Appropriations FY 2001 bill, which changes the
regulations governing the export of high-speed computers.
This measure will be considered today by the U.S. Senate.
Section 1211 of H.R. 1119, the ``National Defense
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1998'' (Public Law 105-85)
imposed new restrictions on exports of certain mid-level
computers to various countries, even though similar
technology is readily available in the international market
place. (Mid-level is defined as operating at over 2,000
million theoretical operations per second (MTOPS). Section
1211 also authorized the president to establish a different,
higher performance threshold for these restrictions but
required a 180-day delay in the implementation of this new
threshold, pending Congressional review of a report
presenting the justification for the new threshold.
Our concern is that these computers--often mis-labeled
``supercomputers'' or ``high-performance computers''--
incorporate technology that is already in fairly wide use
here and abroad. As with so many other efforts to
unilaterally control the availability of relatively common
technology, the result of this provision was another
competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms in the global
markets.
Earlier this month the House of Representatives approved
similar legislation that reduced from 180 to 60 days the time
frame for Congress to review the administration's
justification for any changes in the performance thresholds
for controlling these computer exports. This is important
because the 180-day period often exceeds the life cycle of
the computers and is longer than the congressional review
period for removing various weapons from a list of defense
items subject to export controls. While allowing time to
address national security issues, this legislation also
reduces the chances that computer transactions will languish
in Congress and become obsolete before they are permitted to
move forward.
In this regard, the U.S. Chamber remains committed to
repeal of section 1211 for the reasons stated above.
Amendment 3292 to the Defense Appropriations for FY 2001 bill
is a major step in the right direction.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
the Information Technology Industry

[[Page S6459]]

Council, which is representative of the employment of some 1.3 million
people in the United States, in support of this legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Information Technology

Industry Council,

Washington, DC, July 10, 2000.
Hon. Harry Reid,
United State Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to follow-up on earlier
correspondence to reaffirm the fact that ITI strongly
supports the bipartisan Reid/Bennett amendment to the defense
authorization bill. We urge your colleagues to support your
amendment, and also to oppose any efforts to further water
down what is already a compromise position for the computer
industry.
The Reid/Bennett amendment would provide overdue relief
from the current 180-day waiting period whenever US computer
export thresholds are updated. Accordingly, this letter is to
inform you and your colleagues that ITI anticipates including
votes pertaining to computer exports in our annual High Tech
Voting Guide. As you know, the High Tech Voting Guide is used
by ITI to measure Members of Congress' support for the
information technology industry and policies that ensure the
success of the digital economy.
ITI is the leading association of U.S. providers of
information technology products and services. ITI members had
worldwide revenue of more than $633 billion in 1999 and
employ an estimated 1.3 million people in the United States.
As you know, ITI has endorsed your legislation to shorten
the Congressionally mandated waiting period to 30 days. While
we strongly support our country's security objectives, there
seems no rationale for treating business-level computers that
are widely available on the world market as inherently more
dangerous than items being removed from the nation's
munitions list--an act that gives Congress just 30 calendar
days to review.
Make no mistake. Computer exports are critical to the
continued success of the industry and America's leadership in
information technology. Computers today are improved and
innovated virtually every quarter. In our view, it does not
make sense to have a six-month waiting period for products
that are being innovated in three-month cycles. That rapid
innovation is what provides America with her valuable
advantage in technology, both in the marketplace and
ultimately for national security purposes--an argument put
forth recently in a Defense Science Board report on this very
subject.
As a good-faith compromise, ITI and the Computer Coalition
for Responsible Exports (CCRE) backed an amendment to the
House-passed defense authorization bill that established a
60-day waiting period and guaranteed that the counting of
those days would not be tolled when Congress adjourns sine
die. The House passed that amendment last month by an
overwhelming vote of 415-8.
We thank you for your leadership in offering the bipartisan
Reid/Bennett amendment as a companion to the House-passed
compromise provision. We trust that it will pass the Senate
with a similar overwhelming majority.
We have been heartened in recent weeks by the bipartisan
agreement that the waiting period must be shortened. The
Administration has recommended a 30-day waiting period. The
House, as mentioned above, endorsed a 60-day waiting period.
And Gov. George W. Bush has publicly endorsed a 60-day
waiting period in recognition that commodity computers widely
available from our foreign competitors cannot be effectively
controlled.
We thank you for your strong and vocal leadership in this
matter and look forward to working with you and other
Senators to achieve a strong, bipartisan consensus on this
and other issues critical to continuing America's
technological pre-eminence.
Best regards,
Rhett B. Dawson,
President.

Mr. REID. Again, I express my appreciation to the Senator from
Tennessee and the Senator from Utah and look forward to an overwhelming
vote tomorrow to send this matter to the House so it can be sent to the
President's desk as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
statements. I think they accurately state the conversations we have
had. I welcome their commitment to try to work with me toward finding
another vehicle in order to alleviate some of the concerns I have had.
I intended to offer a second-degree amendment to this amendment, but
I can count the votes. The better part of valor is for me to accept the
commitment and assistance from my colleagues in order to try to
interject some expertise into the consideration of the MTOP level
issues in the future.
What we are seeing with regard to this amendment is a manifestation
of a discussion that is going on in this country that is very
important. We obviously are leading the world in terms of high
technology. We are building supercomputers that no one else has. It is
natural that our people want to develop their markets and have an
export market. That is important to them from an economic standpoint.
Many people in the computer industry are under the impression that if
they can build something, it is immediately available worldwide,
internationally, by everyone. I respectfully disagree with them on
that. But they are of that opinion, and they are moving aggressively in
Congress and otherwise to try to raise the level of the computers they
can ship without an export license.
Let's keep in mind, that is the issue: What is going to be shipped
without a license or with a license. We are not talking about stopping
any sales. We are talking about time periods and how fast computers can
be sold and what can be sold with or without a license. That is one
side of what is going on in the country today in this discussion.
The other side is that all of the statements about our capabilities
and our need to market and all those kinds of things may be true. But
there is another side to the story, and that is the danger that
sometimes is being interjected into the world by the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.

We have been told in no uncertain terms by the Cox committee, and
others, that the Chinese, for example, are using our technology. They
are specifically using our high-performance computers to enhance their
own nuclear capabilities. Potentially, they will be used against our
own country. We know the Chinese are selling and supplying technology
to rogue nations around the world--a big problem. That is a part of the
discussion we are going to have over these next few weeks, I hope, in
terms of how we address that with the Chinese.
So while it is important to have a viable high-tech market, and while
the technological ``genie'' is out of the bottle to a great extent,
there are some of us who still believe we should not abrogate all of
our export control laws. And on what we are dealing with here tonight,
Congress should have an adequate time to consider how much we want to
raise the MTOP levels and how liberal we want to be in terms of
allowing these computers to be exported--again, mind you, without a
license. They can still export them at any level, theoretically. But
they have to go through a license process.
Is the congressional review too long? Is 180 days too long? I point
out that, I believe as late as a year ago--I think July of last year--
while it was not in law, the practice was for the review time for
Congress to take between 18 and 24 months. So 6 months kicked in just
about a year ago. So we have gone from 18 to 24 months a year ago, and
now Congress has 6 months. We narrowed it to 6 months now that we have
to review it, when the administration decides it wants to raise the
MTOP levels and become more liberal with exports. Now under this bill,
we are narrowing the time further to 60 days--from 6 months to 60
days--for Congress to review the raising of a particular MTOP level.
I have a great problem with that. I know there is tremendous momentum
in this Congress to accede to those who want Congress to have less and
less a part in this process. I agree with colleagues who said Congress
has not always done its due diligence, has not always used that process
to its best advantage; we have sometimes sat on our hands.
What I am trying to do, and what I was going to do by my second-
degree amendment, which I will now, with the help of colleagues, try to
do separate and apart, is to say, OK, we will go down to 60 days,
although I don't like it; but we will say, within that 60 days, let's
have GAO take a look at it; let's have some expertise from the people
who are used to analyzing these things because they don't always agree
with the administration, as to what the foreign availability is or what
the mass marketing for a particular component is. So why do we want to
fly blindly on something that is so technical and important? We need to
have GAO in this process and then give Congress just 10 days after the
GAO does its work, after 50 days, to look at what GAO has come up with,
and then we can act if we want to.

[[Page S6460]]

So I think it is a very compressed timeframe. But I understand the
momentum for this. I hope we are not making a mistake. I hope we are
not placing too much faith in an administration that I think has been
entirely too lax in terms of matters of national security, our export
laws, the security of our laboratories, and everything else. I hope we
are not making that mistake. But I know it is going to happen now. It
passed overwhelmingly in the House, and I expect it to tomorrow. I can
count as well as the next person. But I am hopeful that within the next
few days, as I say, we can interject into this process at least a
little bit of extra deliberation by the GAO and those with the
expertise to tell us what they think about a particular increase in the
MTOP levels.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield back all time for the proponents
of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield back all time of the opponents
of the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, subject to the leadership, I think I can
announce the time of the vote. The vote on this amendment will occur at
11:30 a.m. tomorrow.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to withdraw my amendment
to the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill. As the matter
between the U.S. Air Force and the New Jersey Forest Fire Service has
been resolved, the need for legislative language to rectify this matter
is no longer necessary.
At this time, I would like to show my appreciation to the Secretary
of the Air Force and his staff for their professionalism and
cooperation in helping bring about an expeditious and satisfactory
resolution to this matter. I would like to thank the staff members of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, in particular Mike McCord, for
their assistance in seeing this matter through.
The reimbursement from the Air Force to the New Jersey Forest Service
will help enable the men and women of this vital department to continue
their important duties in protecting the forests and state parks of New
Jersey from disaster.

redstone arsenal

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support,
Committee on Armed Services to discuss a matter of some great interest
relating to an Army installation located in my State. As the chairman
knows, the Redstone Arsenal is located in Alabama, near the city of
Huntsville. Although Redstone is not an arsenal in the traditional
sense, there are certain provisions of Title III, Subtitle D, Sections
331 and 332 of the bill that I understand will apply to Redstone
Arsenal. Specifically, the provision of the bill which would codify the
ARMS Act and its facility use contracts and in-kind consideration
provisions, and the provision on Centers of Industrial and Technical
Excellence that would allow the government owned, government operated
industrial facilities to pursue partnerships and arrangements with
private sector entities to more fully utilize the plant and equipment
at these facilities. In my own state there is interest of at least one
private sector entity currently doing business on Redstone Arsenal with
others to follow:
By using the Facilities Use and In-Kind Consideration provisions of
ARMS, the Logistics Support Facility has been able to establish a
presence on Redstone Arsenal. Using these innovative approaches, the
Logistical Support Facility has been able to utilize existing Army
facilities that might otherwise have been deemed to be excess. This is
certainly a win-win situation for both the company and the U.S. Army: a
win for the LSF which gets facilities that are close to their
customer--the U.S. Army, and a win for Redstone Arsenal, which receives
consideration for the use of an otherwise empty facility which it might
otherwise have to pay to maintain or demolish.
Am I correct in my belief that Section 332 will allow the Logistical
Support Facility and other similarly situated operations to operate on
Redstone Arsenal?
Mr. INHOFE. It is exactly the sort of arrangement which you have
outlined that the language in Title III is intended to promote. It is
the committee's hope that additional government facilities will pursue
such initiatives in order to increase their efficiency. The ARMS act
was intended to breathe new life into facilities for which the Army
might otherwise have less use. It is a model program and we are trying
to incorporate those aspects of the ARMS program which make sense in a
government owned, government operated industrial facility. This is
indeed a win/win situation for business, for the Department of Defense,
and for the American taxpayer.

TRANSFER OF LAND ON VIEQUES, PUERTO RICO

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts by the Senator
from Oklahoma to facilitate the resumption of critical live-fire
training at the Naval training range on the island of Vieques. He has
visited the island and has dedicated himself to trying to resolve this
important issue.
I believe, given the differences between the provision in the Senate
bill and those in the House bill, that this will be a matter of
considerable discussion and debate in conference. I look forward to
working with Senator Inhofe and other Members of the Senate and House
to address these differences and achieve a resolution that maximizes
the possibility of resuming live-fire training as soon as possible.
I am concerned that the Senate bill does not authorize the transfer
of all the surplus land on the western side of the island, as requested
by the President pursuant to his agreement with the Governor of Puerto
Rico. I believe that only the full implementation of those directives
will restore the Navy's credibility with the local population.
Secretary Danzig has emphasized to us the importance of the conveyance
of this land as a demonstration of good faith prior to the referendum
on the Navy's continued use of Vieques. Therefore to avoid undermining
the Navy's position on Vieques, the conference report should adopt the
language in the House bill that would authorize this transfer.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of Senator
Landrieu. I look forward to working with her and others on this
important issue in conference. As you noted, as chairman of the
Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee I have spent considerable
time looking into this matter and I believe that this facility is
essential to the readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps.
I understand the concern raised by some that a failure to transfer
the western land as requested by the President would frustrate the
long-term goal of rebuilding relations between the Navy and the people
of Vieques and resuming live-fire training on the island. However, I
recently visited Vieques and spoke with some of the local residents who
were not as enthused by the proposed transfer of land as the
Governors's office has led us to believe. Furthermore, they asked that
if any land is transferred, that it be transferred directly to the
people of Vieques rather than to the Commonwealth Government. However,
I understand that this may not represent the views of all residents of
the island and I will continue to look very seriously at this issue
during the conference and will continue to speak with the residents of
Vieques before I make a final decision.
I also want to ensure that whatever approach we take, we do not
undermine the chances of the resumption of live-fire by providing a
reverse incentive. I strongly support the Navy and Marine Corps' goal
of resuming live-fire training in Vieques. As stated by the senior
officers of the Department of Defense, this training is critical to our
readiness. I will continue to speak with these officers on the issue,
including the impact of not transferring the western land, as we
proceed through

[[Page S6461]]

conference. I am committed to resolving this matter in a way that
maximizes our opportunity to provide our military personnel with the
training they need to ensure they are not unnecessarily put at risk
when they are deployed into harm's way.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his commitment on this matter
and look forward to working with him in the weeks ahead.

acquisition programs at nsa

Mr. SHELBY. I note to the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee an issue in the committee report accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, S. 2549. on
page 126, the report deals with acquisition programs at the National
Security Agency (NSA). I fear that the language of the report could
have unintended consequences for the on-going efforts to modernize the
National Security Agency. The report mandates that the NSA manage its
modernization effort as though it were a traditional major defense
acquisition program. If this mandate were applied to each of the
individual technology efforts within the NSA, such a requirement could
impede NSA's flexibility to modernize and upgrade its capabilities. I
would ask the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee whether this was
the Committee's intent?
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee,
Senator Shelby. I believe we both agree that the National Security
Agency should better address its acquisition issues. However, I note
the concerns you raise and agree that the report should not be read to
mandate treating each individual technology effort within NSA as a
major acquisition program. As the chairman of the Intelligence
Committee knows, the Department of Defense (DoD) has an extensive
effort to develop various technology projects that could ultimately
contribute to one or more major DoD acquisition programs. DoD does not
manage these individual technology projects as major acquisition
programs, despite the fact that they may contribute to successful
fielding of a program being managed as a major acquisition program.
It was the committee's intent to ensure that each of the major
modernization efforts that NSA must undertake will receive appropriate
management attention. it was not the committee's intent that individual
technology projects that are contributing to those broader efforts be
managed as major acquisition programs on a project-by-project basis.
I look forward to working with you to ensure that NSA properly
manages its acquisition programs.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of my distinguished ranking
member and myself, we submit to the Senate the following time
agreement.
I ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, when the
Senate resumes the DOD authorization bill, Senator Byrd be recognized
for up to 30 minutes for debate on his amendment, with a Roth statement
to be inserted at that point following the debate, and following the
disposition of the amendment and notwithstanding the managers' package
of amendments, the following amendments be the only remaining first-
degree amendments in order, that they be limited to 1 hour equally
divided unless otherwise stated, and that with respect to the second-
degree amendments, they be under no time restraints and limited to
relevant second-degree amendments unless otherwise stated. Those
amendments are as follows:
Feingold, re: D5 missile, 40 minutes equally divided; Durbin, re: NMD
testing, 2 hours equally divided with no second-degree amendments;
Harkin, secrecy; Kerry of Massachusetts, environmental fines.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the
pending Byrd amendment and the listed amendments, the bill be advanced
to third reading, and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the
House companion bill, H.R. 4205, all after the enacting clause be
stricken, the text of the Senate bill be inserted, the House bill be
advanced to third reading, and passage occur, all without any
intervening action, and the Senate bill be then placed on the calendar.
I further ask unanimous consent that at the time of the stacked
rollcall votes, there be up to 10 minutes equally divided provided for
closing remarks with respect to only the Kerrey amendment.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its
amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
Finally, I ask the time limit with respect to the Harkin amendment
only be vitiated prior to 12 noon on Wednesday, at or upon the request
of the minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
obviously won't because this is a very good unanimous consent
agreement, I believe in reading the last two lines my good friend from
Virginia left out the word ``may'' so that ``it may be vitiated.''
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague is correct. I shall reread
it.
Finally, I ask that the time limit with respect to the Harkin
amendment only may be vitiated prior to 12 noon on Wednesday, upon the
request of the minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, has that now been adopted?
Mr. WARNER. That has been accepted. This is a momentous occasion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. I thank all who worked so assiduously to make this
possible. As we said in World War II: Praise the Lord and pass the
ammunition. We have this bill on its final track.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Virginia. There has been a lot of
hard work, indeed, that has gone into this agreement. I do want to see
if our understanding is correct on this. It was not explicit in the
unanimous consent agreement. That is that following the disposition of
the Byrd amendment tomorrow evening, and notwithstanding the managers'
package of amendments, that the following amendments be--and then they
are identified.
It is our expectation and intention that that proceed immediately
tomorrow night, to consideration of those listed amendments.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct in that
interpretation, that we will hear from our distinguished former
majority leader, member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Byrd,
for 30 minutes. A statement will then be placed in the Record on behalf
of Senator Roth, and we will proceed immediately to the amendments as
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. After disposition of the Byrd amendment.
Mr. WARNER. After disposition of the Byrd amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. And that will all occur tomorrow night?
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and my good friend from
Virginia.

____________________