[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13695-13708]
[From the U.S. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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, 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

[[Page 13696]]

     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.
       ``(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

  (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. 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.

[[Page 13697]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 13698]]

  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.
       (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

[[Page 13699]]

     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 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

[[Page 13700]]

     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 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:


[[Page 13701]]

       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 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

[[Page 13702]]

     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 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).

[[Page 13703]]

       (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.
  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

[[Page 13704]]

     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 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

[[Page 13705]]

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 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

[[Page 13706]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 13707]]

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

[[Page 13708]]

these officers on the issue, including the impact of not transferring 
the western land, as we proceed through 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.

                          ____________________