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
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.
The Reid/Bennett amendment would provide overdue relief from the current 180-day waiting period whenever US computer export thresholds are updated. Accordingly, this letter is to inform you and your colleagues that ITI anticipates including votes pertaining to computer exports in our annual High Tech Voting Guide. As you know, the High Tech Voting Guide is used by ITI to measure Members of Congress' support for the information technology industry and policies that ensure the success of the digital economy.
ITI is the leading association of U.S. providers of information technology products and services. ITI members had worldwide revenue of more than $633 billion in 1999 and employ an estimated 1.3 million people in the United States.
As you know, ITI has endorsed your legislation to shorten the Congressionally mandated waiting period to 30 days. While we strongly support our country's security objectives, there seems no rationale for treating business-level computers that are widely available on the world market as inherently more dangerous than items being removed from the nation's munitions list--an act that gives Congress just 30 calendar days to review.
Make no mistake. Computer exports are critical to the continued success of the industry and America's leadership in information technology. Computers today are improved and innovated virtually every quarter. In our view, it does not make sense to have a six-month waiting period for products that are being innovated in three-month cycles. That rapid innovation is what provides America with her valuable advantage in technology, both in the marketplace and ultimately for national security purposes--an argument put forth recently in a Defense Science Board report on this very subject.
As a good-faith compromise, ITI and the Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports (CCRE) backed an amendment to the House-passed defense authorization bill that established a 60-day waiting period and guaranteed that the counting of those days would not be tolled when Congress adjourns sine die. The House passed that amendment last month by an overwhelming vote of 415-8.
We thank you for your leadership in offering the bipartisan Reid/Bennett amendment as a companion to the House-passed compromise provision. We trust that it will pass the Senate with a similar overwhelming majority.
We have been heartened in recent weeks by the bipartisan agreement that the waiting period must be shortened. The Administration has recommended a 30-day waiting period. The House, as mentioned above, endorsed a 60-day waiting period. And Gov. George W. Bush has publicly endorsed a 60-day waiting period in recognition that commodity computers widely available from our foreign competitors cannot be effectively controlled.
We thank you for your strong and vocal leadership in this matter and look forward to working with you and other Senators to achieve a strong, bipartisan consensus on this and other issues critical to continuing America's technological pre-eminence.
Best regards,
Rhett B. Dawson,
President.
Mr. REID. Again, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Utah and look forward to an overwhelming vote tomorrow to send this matter to the House so it can be sent to the President's desk as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their statements. I think they accurately state the conversations we have had. I welcome their commitment to try to work with me toward finding another vehicle in order to alleviate some of the concerns I have had.
I intended to offer a second-degree amendment to this amendment, but I can count the votes. The better part of valor is for me to accept the commitment and assistance from my colleagues in order to try to interject some expertise into the consideration of the MTOP level issues in the future.
What we are seeing with regard to this amendment is a manifestation of a discussion that is going on in this country that is very important. We obviously are leading the world in terms of high technology. We are building supercomputers that no one else has. It is natural that our people want to develop their markets and have an export market. That is important to them from an economic standpoint. Many people in the computer industry are under the impression that if they can build something, it is immediately available worldwide, internationally, by everyone. I respectfully disagree with them on that. But they are of that opinion, and they are moving aggressively in Congress and otherwise to try to raise the level of the computers they can ship without an export license.
Let's keep in mind, that is the issue: What is going to be shipped without a license or with a license. We are not talking about stopping any sales. We are talking about time periods and how fast computers can be sold and what can be sold with or without a license. That is one side of what is going on in the country today in this discussion.
The other side is that all of the statements about our capabilities and our need to market and all those kinds of things may be true.
But there is another side to the story, and that is the danger that sometimes is being interjected into the world by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
We have been told in no uncertain terms by the Cox committee, and others, that the Chinese, for example, are using our technology. They are specifically using our high-performance computers to enhance their own nuclear capabilities. Potentially, they will be used against our own country. We know the Chinese are selling and supplying technology to rogue nations around the world--a big problem. That is a part of the discussion we are going to have over these next few weeks, I hope, in terms of how we address that with the Chinese.
So while it is important to have a viable high-tech market, and while the technological ``genie'' is out of the bottle to a great extent, there are some of us who still believe we should not abrogate all of our export control laws. And on what we are dealing with here tonight, Congress should have an adequate time to consider how much we want to raise the MTOP levels and how liberal we want to be in terms of allowing these computers to be exported--again, mind you, without a license. They can still export them at any level, theoretically. But they have to go through a license process.
Is the congressional review too long? Is 180 days too long? I point out that, I believe as late as a year ago--I think July of last year--while it was not in law, the practice was for the review time for Congress to take between 18 and 24 months. So 6 months kicked in just about a year ago. So we have gone from 18 to 24 months a year ago, and now Congress has 6 months. We narrowed it to 6 months now that we have to review it, when the administration decides it wants to raise the MTOP levels and become more liberal with exports. Now under this bill, we are narrowing the time further to 60 days--from 6 months to 60 days--for Congress to review the raising of a particular MTOP level.
I have a great problem with that. I know there is tremendous momentum in this Congress to accede to those who want Congress to have less and less a part in this process. I agree with colleagues who said Congress has not always done its due diligence, has not always used that process to its best advantage; we have sometimes sat on our hands.
What I am trying to do, and what I was going to do by my second-degree amendment, which I will now, with the help of colleagues, try to do separate and apart, is to say, OK, we will go down to 60 days, although I don't like it; but we will say, within that 60 days, let's have GAO take a look at it; let's have some expertise from the people who are used to analyzing these things because they don't always agree with the administration, as to what the foreign availability is or what the mass marketing for a particular component is. So why do we want to fly blindly on something that is so technical and important? We need to have GAO in this process and then give Congress just 10 days after the GAO does its work, after 50 days, to look at what GAO has come up with, and then we can act if we want to.
[Page: S6460] GPO's PDF
So I think it is a very compressed timeframe. But I understand the momentum for this. I hope we are not making a mistake. I hope we are not placing too much faith in an administration that I think has been entirely too lax in terms of matters of national security, our export laws, the security of our laboratories, and everything else. I hope we are not making that mistake. But I know it is going to happen now. It passed overwhelmingly in the House, and I expect it to tomorrow. I can count as well as the next person. But I am hopeful that within the next few days, as I say, we can interject into this process at least a little bit of extra deliberation by the GAO and those with the expertise to tell us what they think about a particular increase in the MTOP levels.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield back all time for the proponents of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield back all time of the opponents of the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, subject to the leadership, I think I can announce the time of the vote. The vote on this amendment will occur at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to withdraw my amendment to the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill. As the matter between the U.S. Air Force and the New Jersey Forest Fire Service has been resolved, the need for legislative language to rectify this matter is no longer necessary.
At this time, I would like to show my appreciation to the Secretary of the Air Force and his staff for their professionalism and cooperation in helping bring about an expeditious and satisfactory resolution to this matter. I would like to thank the staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in particular Mike McCord, for their assistance in seeing this matter through.
The reimbursement from the Air Force to the New Jersey Forest Service will help enable the men and women of this vital department to continue their important duties in protecting the forests and state parks of New Jersey from disaster.
REDSTONE ARSENAL
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services to discuss a matter of some great interest relating to an Army installation located in my State. As the chairman knows, the Redstone Arsenal is located in Alabama, near the city of Huntsville. Although Redstone is not an arsenal in the traditional sense, there are certain provisions of Title III, Subtitle D, Sections 331 and 332 of the bill that I understand will apply to Redstone Arsenal. Specifically, the provision of the bill which would codify the ARMS Act and its facility use contracts and in-kind consideration provisions, and the provision on Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence that would allow the government owned, government operated industrial facilities to pursue partnerships and arrangements with private sector entities to more fully utilize the plant and equipment at these facilities. In my own state there is interest of at least one private sector entity currently doing business on Redstone Arsenal with others to follow:
By using the Facilities Use and In-Kind Consideration provisions of ARMS, the Logistics Support Facility has been able to establish a presence on Redstone Arsenal. Using these innovative approaches, the Logistical Support Facility has been able to utilize existing Army facilities that might otherwise have been deemed to be excess. This is certainly a win-win situation for both the company and the U.S. Army: a win for the LSF which gets facilities that are close to their customer--the U.S. Army, and a win for Redstone Arsenal, which receives consideration for the use of an otherwise empty facility which it might otherwise have to pay to maintain or demolish.
Am I correct in my belief that Section 332 will allow the Logistical Support Facility and other similarly situated operations to operate on Redstone Arsenal?
Mr. INHOFE. It is exactly the sort of arrangement which you have outlined that the language in Title III is intended to promote. It is the committee's hope that additional government facilities will pursue such initiatives in order to increase their efficiency. The ARMS act was intended to breathe new life into facilities for which the Army might otherwise have less use. It is a model program and we are trying to incorporate those aspects of the ARMS program which make sense in a government owned, government operated industrial facility. This is indeed a win/win situation for business, for the Department of Defense, and for the American taxpayer.
TRANSFER OF LAND ON VIEQUES, PUERTO RICO
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts by the Senator from Oklahoma to facilitate the resumption of critical live-fire training at the Naval training range on the island of Vieques. He has visited the island and has dedicated himself to trying to resolve this important issue.
I believe, given the differences between the provision in the Senate bill and those in the House bill, that this will be a matter of considerable discussion and debate in conference. I look forward to working with Senator INHOFE and other Members of the Senate and House to address these differences and achieve a resolution that maximizes the possibility of resuming live-fire training as soon as possible.
I am concerned that the Senate bill does not authorize the transfer of all the surplus land on the western side of the island, as requested by the President pursuant to his agreement with the Governor of Puerto Rico. I believe that only the full implementation of those directives will restore the Navy's credibility with the local population. Secretary Danzig has emphasized to us the importance of the conveyance of this land as a demonstration of good faith prior to the referendum on the Navy's continued use of Vieques. Therefore to avoid undermining the Navy's position on Vieques, the conference report should adopt the language in the House bill that would authorize this transfer.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of Senator LANDRIEU. I look forward to working with her and others on this important issue in conference. As you noted, as chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee I have spent considerable time looking into this matter and I believe that this facility is essential to the readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps.
I understand the concern raised by some that a failure to transfer the western land as requested by the President would frustrate the long-term goal of rebuilding relations between the Navy and the people of Vieques and resuming live-fire training on the island. However, I recently visited Vieques and spoke with some of the local residents who were not as enthused by the proposed transfer of land as the Governors's office has led us to believe. Furthermore, they asked that if any land is transferred, that it be transferred directly to the people of Vieques rather than to the Commonwealth Government. However, I understand that this may not represent the views of all residents of the island and I will continue to look very seriously at this issue during the conference and will continue to speak with the residents of Vieques before I make a final decision.
I also want to ensure that whatever approach we take, we do not undermine the chances of the resumption of live-fire by providing a reverse incentive. I strongly support the Navy and Marine Corps' goal of resuming live-fire training in Vieques. As stated by the senior officers of the Department of Defense, this training is critical to our readiness. I will continue to speak with these officers on the issue, including the impact of not transferring the western land, as we proceed through
[Page: S6461] GPO's PDF
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?
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