THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
[Page: S6457] GPO's PDF
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], for himself and Mr. REID, proposes an amendment numbered 3185
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 462, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 1210. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.
(a) LAYOVER PERIOD FOR NEW PERFORMANCE LEVELS.--Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by striking ``180'' and inserting ``60''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) CALCULATION OF 60-DAY PERIOD.--The 60-day period referred to in subsection (d) shall be calculated by excluding the days on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of the Congress sine die.''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to any new composite theoretical performance level established for purposes of section 1211(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 that is submitted by the President pursuant to section 1211(d) of that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion about this amendment. My understanding is that the order is for an hour equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the amendment. I do not believe that time will be necessary. I certainly do not intend to take the time to explain all of the aspects of the amendment because I did so in a previous floor speech several weeks ago. I think, in the interest of moving things along tonight, I should just say to any who are interested in the issue to go back to my earlier floor speech, which was complete with charts and visual aids, and all of the other bells and whistles that we sometimes bring to the floor, and read that, and you will see how I feel about this amendment.
The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. THOMPSON, had great concerns about the issue we are discussing. This amendment has to do with export licenses for technical material, most particularly computer material that might be exported in such a way as to allow some foreign power to gain a computer capability that would enhance their military power against the United States.
Senator THOMPSON and I have been talking about this for weeks, if maybe not as long as a month or so, in an effort to find some accommodation to the concerns that he very legitimately raises about our national security and at the same time recognizes the reality of the marketplace, which is that these chips, if they are not exported from the United States, will get to the world market from Japan, Germany, Holland, and in one instance China itself.
We would like to make sure the international market is as dominated by American chips as we can possibly get it to be, which is why we are trying to shorten all of the time connected with this. Senator THOMPSON, who has his own concerns about it, has been asking that we not shorten the period as drastically as this amendment would do.
If I were offering the amendment entirely in a vacuum--that is, a legislative vacuum--I would like the amount shortened from 180 days to 30 days for the congressional action with respect to these items because I think 30 days is long enough.
I point out, at the moment, if we are going to export an F-16 to some foreign government, Congress has only 30 days to comment.
Some of these computers, to put it in the context of how rapidly things are moving, can be purchased at Toys ``R'' Us right now and be available for some foreign agent, if he wanted to come into the country, to tuck under his arm, walk through customs, go home to his country, and have a computer powerful enough in that toy that could do things that as recently as 3 years ago would seem miraculous.
So I have abandoned my 30-day desires because of the very significant legislative situation in which we find ourselves.
The 60-day requirement, which is in my amendment, has passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 415-8. I am told that if one comma is changed in the amendment that passes the Senate from the form in which it passed the House, it will run into problems in conference. So because I do not want it to run into problems in conference--I want it done--I have decided, as has the Senator from Nevada, Mr. REID, that we will forgo our desire for the 30-day period. We will endorse the 60-day period because that is in the House bill.
Now, the Senator from Tennessee has some legitimate concerns about the way this is done. I have discussed with him privately and now pledge to him publicly that I will work with him to find a way to inject the General Accounting Office into the congressional review process, something that is not called for at the moment. It is entirely haphazard at the moment. GAO gets involved if some Member of Congress asks them to get involved but not if that request is not made.
I am more than willing to say to the Senator from Tennessee that I will work with him to try to inject the GAO into the process, but I do believe that the proper and prudent thing for us to do tonight is to adopt the amendment in exactly the same language as it passed the House and thereby make sure it is not a conferenceable item and is something we will be certain will take place when the conference report is finally approved.
With that, Mr. President, I have nothing further to say, unless other Members of this body want to talk about the specific merits of it. I thank my friend from Tennessee for his willingness to work out the essential elements of this and pledge to him again publicly, as I have done privately, that I will work with him to see that we do our very best to accomplish the goal he seeks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before he does leave the floor, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Utah. He has been a real leader on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him. It seems we have been working on this for many months, which we have. In fact, it has been nearly a year. This is a very important time in the history of this country when this legislation will pass. I hope it will pass tomorrow.
Based upon that, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. It is my understanding the vote is going to be set for 11:30 tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. CHAFEE). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators BOXER, BAUCUS, KERRY, REID of Nevada--I am already on the amendment--BENNETT, DASCHLE, BINGAMAN, ROBB, KENNEDY, CLELAND, and MURRAY be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Utah leaves the floor, I want to tell him how much I appreciate his work on this issue. The work that has been done is very important.
I say to the Senator from Tennessee, he is a real advocate. He has worked very hard. He has a different view as to what should happen. He has formulated these ideas with great study and his staff has been easy to work with, but in this instance we believe we are right and that he is not quite right.
Based upon his advocacy, I, along with the Senator from Utah, am willing to work with the Senator from Tennessee. He has an idea that doesn't shorten the time whatsoever but would add another element; namely the General Accounting Office. Senator BENNETT has pledged that he would work with him on this issue, and I do so publicly also. We will try to find another vehicle to work with him on his legislation.
More than 50 percent of America's companies' revenues come from overseas sales. Also, more than 60 percent of the market for multiprocessor systems is outside the United States. What we are talking about is allowing the United States to maintain its position as a paramount producer of computers. That is what it amounts to. Things are changing very rapidly.
I can remember a few years ago I went to Clark County, in Las Vegas, NV, to the third floor of the courthouse. The entire third floor was the
[Page: S6458] GPO's PDF
This little computer that I carry around, this ``palm,'' as they call it, does remarkable things. I can store in this basically the Las Vegas phonebook. It has a calculator. It has numerous features that were impossible 2 years ago. It is now possible. That is what this amendment is all about: to allow the American computer industry to remain competitive and to allow sales overseas.
I appreciate the work of Senator PHIL GRAMM of Texas. He has worked on this matter for many months, along with Senator ENZI and Senator JOHNSON. I appreciate their support on this legislation.
The amendment, which has broad support from the high-tech industry and from a majority of the Members of the Senate, simply shortens the congressional review period for high performance computers from 180 days to 60 days and guarantees that the counting of those days not be tolled when Congress adjourns sine die.
We are operating under cold war era regulations and if we want to remain the world leader in computer manufacturing and in the high-tech arena, we must make this change immediately.
I have worked for the last year and a half with Senators GRAMM, ENZI, and JOHNSON on the Export Administration Act, but a few members of the majority have succeeded in blocking its passage. That bill is not moving and therefore, Senator BENNETT and I would like to simply pass this portion of the Export Administration Act to provide some temporary relief. The congressional review period for computer exports is six times longer than the review of munitions.
In February, the President, at my urging and the urging of others, proposed changes to the export controls on high performance computers, but because of the 180-day review period, these changes have yet to be implemented and U.S. companies are losing foreign market share to Chinese and other foreign competitors as we speak. This is already July and a February proposed change, which was appropriate at the time, and is nearly out-dated now, has yet to go into effect.
This amendment is a bipartisan effort and one that we need to pass. Congress is stifling U.S. companies' growth and we can't stand for it, I can't stand for it. This underscores another point: the importance of exports to the U.S. computer industry. More than 50 percent of America's companies revenues come from overseas sales. If we give the international market to foreign competition in the short term, we will never get it back in the long term, and not only our economy, but our national security will founder.
A strong economy and a strong U.S. military depend on our leadership. U.S. companies have to be given the opportunity to compete worldwide in order to continue to lead the world in technological advances.
According to the Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports, U.S. computer export regulations are the most stringent in the world and give foreign competitors a head start. More than 60 percent of the market for multiprocessor systems is outside of the U.S. The U.S. industry faces stiff competition, as foreign governments allow greater export flexibility.
The current export control system interferes with legitimate U.S. exports because it does not keep pace with technology. The MTOPS level of microprocessors increased nearly 5-fold from 1998 to 1999--and today's levels will more than double when the Intel Itanium, I-Tanium, chip is introduced in the middle of this year. New export control thresholds will not take effect until the completion of the required six month waiting period--by then, the thresholds will be obsolete and American companies will have lost considerable market share in foreign countries.
The current export control system does not protect U.S. national security. The ability of America's defense system to maintain its technological advantage relies increasingly on the U.S. computer industry's ability to be at the cutting edge of technology. It does not make sense to impose a 180-day waiting period for products that have a 3-month innovation cycle and are widely available in foreign countries. Right now American companies are forbidden from selling computers in tier three countries while foreign competitors are free to do so.
As I indicated earlier, the removal of items from export controls imposed by the Munitions List, such as tanks, rockets, warships, and high-performance aircraft, requires only a 30-day waiting period. The sale of sensitive weapons, such as tanks, rockets, warships and high-performance aircraft, under the Foreign Military Sales program requires only a 30-day congressional review period. One hundred eighty days is too long.
The new Intel microprocessor, the Itanium, is expected to be available sometime this summer with companies such as NEW, Hitachi and Siemens already signed on to use the microprocessor. The most recent export control announcement made by the Administration on February 1 will therefore be out of date in less than six months.
Lastly--a review period, comparable to that applied to other export control and national security regimes, will still give Congress adequate time to review national security ramifications of any changes in the U.S. computer export control regime. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to allow our country's computer companies to compete with their foreign competitors and thereby continue to drive our thriving economy.
I believe that 30 days is the proper amount of time for the review period, but have agreed, with my colleague from Utah, to offer the identical language that passed in the House by a vote of 415 to 8. Less stringent language passed out of committee in the Senate, and there is no reason that this shouldn't pass with a large majority.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsing this legislation be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Washington, DC, June 13, 2000.
TO MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region, offers our support of Senator Harry Reid's (D-NV) Amendment 3292 to the Defense Appropriations FY 2001 bill, which changes the regulations governing the export of high-speed computers. This measure will be considered today by the U.S. Senate.
Section 1211 of H.R..1119, the ``National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1998'' (Public Law 105-85) imposed new restrictions on exports of certain mid-level computers to various countries, even though similar technology is readily available in the international market place. (Mid-level is defined as operating at over 2,000 million theoretical operations per second (MTOPS). Section 1211 also authorized the president to establish a different, higher performance threshold for these restrictions but required a 180-day delay in the implementation of this new threshold, pending Congressional review of a report presenting the justification for the new threshold.
Our concern is that these computers--often mis-labeled ``supercomputers'' or ``high-performance computers''--incorporate technology that is already in fairly wide use here and abroad. As with so many other efforts to unilaterally control the availability of relatively common technology, the result of this provision was another competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms in the global markets.
Earlier this month the House of Representatives approved similar legislation that reduced from 180 to 60 days the time frame for Congress to review the administration's justification for any changes in the performance thresholds for controlling these computer exports. This is important because the 180-day period often exceeds the life cycle of the computers and is longer than the congressional review period for removing various weapons from a list of defense items subject to export controls . While allowing time to address national security issues, this legislation also reduces the chances that computer transactions will languish in Congress and become obsolete before they are permitted to move forward.
In this regard, the U.S. Chamber remains committed to repeal of section 1211 for the reasons stated above. Amendment 3292 to the Defense Appropriations for FY 2001 bill is a major step in the right direction.
Sincerely,
R. BRUCE JOSTEN.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Information Technology Industry
[Page: S6459] GPO's PDF
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
INDUSTRY COUNCIL,
Washington, DC, July 10, 2000.
Hon. HARRY REID,
United State Senate, Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR REID: I am writing to follow-up on earlier correspondence to reaffirm the fact that ITI strongly supports the bipartisan Reid/Bennett amendment to the defense authorization bill. We urge your colleagues to support your amendment, and also to oppose any efforts to further water down what is already a compromise position for the computer industry.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents