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      

[Page: S4981]  GPO's PDF

   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

   INDUSTRY COUNCIL,

   Washington, DC, June 13, 2000.
Hon. HARRY REID,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR REID: I am writing to let you know that ITI strongly supports legislative relief addressing the current 180-day waiting period whenever US computer export thresholds are updated. 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.

   We are grateful for your efforts to secure relief in the defense bills currently before the Senate and wanted you and your colleagues to know we anticipate that votes pertaining to computer exports will be included 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 has endorsed your legislation (S. 1483) 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.

   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.

   Further, as you know, the current provision in law was understandably aimed at protecting the highest performing computers from being exported to countries of particular foreign policy concern. Yet, just last year, a late threshold adjustment coupled with the six-month waiting period led to American companies Apple and IBM being effectively denied the ability to sell single-processor personal computers in some markets because technology has advanced so rapidly that yesterday's supercomputers had literally become today's personal computers.

   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 as well 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. Mr. President, they set forth the problem in this letter. Among other things, this letter says:

   .....the current provision in law would understandably be aimed at protecting the highest performing computers from being exported to countries of particular foreign policy concern. Yet just last year, a late threshold adjustment coupled with the 6-month waiting period, led to American companies, Apple and IBM, being effectively denied the ability to sell single-processor personal computers in some markets because technology has advanced so rapidly that yesterday's supercomputers had literally become today's personal computers.

   It wasn't many years ago that I went to the fifth floor of the Clark County Courthouse in Las Vegas. I took a tour of the fifth floor. On the entire fifth floor of this big building was a big computer that handled all of the processing for Clark County. The temperature had to be perfectly controlled. That floor is now gone. It is used for other things. That same processing of information can now be accomplished with a computer the size of a personal computer .

   I was able, fortunately, to work with Congress and obtain a supercomputer for the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. We had a big celebration. At that time, the computer was very large. It was probably the size of two of these Senate desks. That supercomputer is now 10 years old. A supercomputer today is not a big piece of equipment.

   We are living in the Dark Ages. We have to change the law.

   In an effort to compromise, the House established a 60-day waiting period. It passed by a vote of 415-8.

   We worked very hard to get a bill in the Senate. We have been stymied, quite frankly.

   There has been a bipartisan effort by Senator GRAMM of Texas, Senator ENZI, Senator JOHNSON, and I. We worked very hard last year.

   The amendment that I am going to offer today is cosponsored by Senator BENNETT of Utah, a Republican. This is not a partisan issue. It shouldn't be. But it is being held up for reasons that are so antiquated. The cold war is over. There is no need to have this legislation stymied. We are hurting the American manufacturing base.

   We are going to get letters from the Chamber of Commerce. Literally all business in America wants this to pass. But in the Senate, two or three people are holding this up and preventing it from moving forward.

   As I indicated, this amendment has the broad support from the high-tech industry.

   I would bet, if we get a chance to vote on this, that 90 Senators will vote for it.

   This amendment will shorten the congressional review period for high-performance computers from 180 days to 30 days.

   On the Appropriations Committee alone, just to pick out one committee, Senators BENNETT, MURRAY, and GORTON are cosponsors of this legislation introduced in the Senate, and there will probably be more today.

   We are operating, as I have said, under cold-war-era regulations. If we want to remain the world leader in computers and the high-tech arena, we must make this change immediately.

   As I have indicated, I worked for the past year to try to get an amendment up so we could do this. We started debate on one measure. It was pulled from the floor. The congressional review period is six times longer than the review period for munitions.

   If there is a company that wants to sell rockets, tanks, warships, or high-performance aircraft under the foreign military sales program, it requires a 30-day review period. But if you want to sell a laptop computer such as the one I have in my office, you have to wait 6 months. In that period of time, American industry could not meet the demand. We are falling behind. Manufacturing is already beginning in other places. We don't have a lock on how to manufacture computers. We are ahead of the world right now.

   I repeat that 60 percent of the computers we manufacture in the United States are sold outside the United States. The review period for computers is six times longer than for selling to another country a battleship, a high-performance aircraft, or a rocket.

   In February, the President, at the urging of Members of Congress, proposed changes to the controls on high-performance computers, the so-called MTOPS, but because of the 180-day review period, the changes have yet to be implemented. The U.S. companies are losing foreign market share to many different entities. This is a bipartisan effort, and we should pass it. We are stifling U.S. companies' growth.

   Last week, I had a meeting in my office with a number of CEOs of big companies--IBM, Compaq, and others. This is their No. 1 agenda item. It is the base of their business. They make computers, and they want to be able to sell them. 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. Our export regulations are the most stringent in the world, giving foreign competitors a head start, to say the least.

   U.S. industry faces stiff competition as foreign governments allow greater export flexibility, placing America at a greater disadvantage. Many of the manufacturers have no export controls . The current export control system interferes with legitimate U.S. exports because it doesn't keep pace with technology. The MTOPS level of microprocessors increased fivefold from 1998 to 1999. This is the speed of computers for my base description.

   From 1998 to 1999, there has been a fivefold increase. Today's level will

[Page: S4982]  GPO's PDF

   The ability of American defense systems to maintain technological advantages relies increasingly on the U.S. computer industry's ability to be on the cutting edge of technology. We need to move forward with this legislation. Protection of capabilities and technologies readily available in the world market is, at best, unhelpful for maintenance of military dominance and, at worst, counterproductive, according to the final report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization Security that came out in December of last year.

   It doesn't make sense to impose a 180 waiting-day period for products with a 3-month innovation period that are available for foreign countries. We have to keep changing.

   Right now, American companies are forbidden from selling computers in tier III countries, while foreign competitors are free to do so.

   The removal of items from export controls imposed by the munitions list, such as tanks, rockets, warships, and high-performance aircraft, requires a 30-day waiting period. We need to put our priorities in order; 180 days is too long. It is way too long.

   The new Intel microprocessor will be available very soon, with companies all over America already signed on to use this microprocessor. Foreign countries have signed on to using it, including Hitachi and Siemens. They will be so far ahead of us in sales to other countries that we will never catch up unless

   we change this law.

   The most recent export controls announcements made by the administration on February 1 will therefore be out of date in less than 6 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 change in the U.S. computer export control regime.

   I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. There is no doubt in my mind that this amendment would pass overwhelmingly. I hope the managers of this bill will allow this amendment to go forward. It would be too bad if we were stymied, once again, from allowing something that has the overwhelming support of the American people, including the American business sector, whether they are in the computer industry or not. It has the total support of the computer industry. It also has the support of Members of Congress, as I have indicated. It passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly. The vote was 415-8. In the Senate, it will get 90 votes. It would be a shame that a point of order, some technicality, would prevent the Senate from going forward on this legislation. This is a Defense appropriations bill. There could be no finer vehicle to consider this amendment. I hope some technicality does not prevent me from having this voted upon.

   AMENDMENT NO. 3292

   Mr. REID. I send the amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators REID and BENNETT.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], for himself and Mr. BENNETT, proposes an amendment numbered 3292.

   Mr. REID. 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:

    At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

   SEC. __. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE.

    Section 1211(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended--

    (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``180'' and inserting ``30''; and

    (2) by adding at the end, the following new sentence: ``The 30-day reporting requirement shall apply to any changes to the composite theoretical performance level for purposes of subsection (a) proposed by the President on or after January 1, 2000.''.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to raise a point of order that this amendment contains legislative matter and therefore is in violation of rule XVI.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is legislation on appropriations and is in violation of rule XVI.

   Mr. STEVENS. Therefore, the amendment is not in order; is that correct?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

   Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. For the information of the Members of the Senate, we have a list now of the amendments that have been reviewed by the Parliamentarian and have an indication of those that violate rule XVI. It is our intention to raise rule XVI for those amendments that are in violation of rule XVI. We do have a list that the staff says we may modify so they are not in violation of rule XVI, which we would then be willing to accept, if the sponsors are willing to accept the modification.

   There are other amendments that have been offered that are not in violation of rule XVI that we intend to oppose. For those, I urge Senators to have their staffs discuss these amendments with the staff of Senator INOUYE and myself. It is my understanding we are in agreement on the position on these amendments that we find unacceptable, even though they are not in violation of rule XVI.

   I do think we can proceed in a very rapid fashion to determine how many votes we will have today if Members will state whether or not they are going to accept our modification. If they accept the modification, we will put them in a managers' package that we will offer around 11:30 as being acceptable under the unanimous consent request we obtained yesterday, to give the managers the right to modify amendments to make them acceptable under rule XVI.

   It is my understanding the Senator from California is now going to offer an amendment. Could I inquire of the Senator if she intends to ask for a vote on this amendment?

   Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I do.

   Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared to accept the amendment of the Senator. Does she still want a vote?

   Mrs. BOXER. On the medical privacy?

   Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

   Mrs. BOXER. I need to think about it for a couple of minutes.

   Mr. REID. If the Senator from Alaska will yield?

   Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to yield.

   Mr. REID. We now have 61 amendments not subjected to rule XVI, 25 Democrat, 36 Republican amendments. We want to make sure the majority understands we will do everything we can to cooperate with the majority. We would like to move this bill along as quickly as possible and get back to the Defense authorization bill at an early time. But I suggest, as I have indicated, there are more Republican amendments than Democratic amendments. We are going to do what we can to work on this side. I have spoken to Senator INOUYE and he has indicated the two managers would accept a number of these amendments. Throughout the day we will work on these to see what we can do to move this bill along. I hope the same will happen on the Senator's side if we are to complete this legislation.

   Mr. STEVENS. I say to my distinguished friend, the Democrat whip, we have reviewed these and there are a series on both sides. It is true there are more on our side than on the Democratic side that we intend to oppose, but the majority of the ones we would oppose are subject to rule XVI.

[Page: S4983]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. REID. None of the 36 are subject to rule XVI, I say to the manager of the bill. Regarding the 36 Republican amendments, the Parliamentarian has preliminarily indicated they are not subject to rule XVI. We, through the efforts of the staffs, working with the Parliamentarian, believe there are some 35 or so amendments that are knocked out because of rule XVI. But we do have 61 remaining, 36 Republican and 25 Democrat.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret to say I have a 5-page list and I didn't have 2 pages in front of me. The Senator is right. We are working on those now, to notify Members on our side that we will oppose the amendments as listed on the basis we do not feel we can accept them because of the provisions of the existing bill and because of the availability of funds.

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