######
SEC. 262. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY.
(a) Strategic Plan.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this subtitle, the Entity shall—
(1) consult with relevant stakeholders, including representatives from
industry, academia, national labs, the Federal Government, and
international entities, to develop and update, as needed, a consensus
definition of “sustainable chemistry” to guide the activities under this
subtitle;
(2) develop a working framework of attributes characterizing, and
metrics for assessing, sustainable chemistry, as described in subsection
(b);
(3) assess the state of sustainable chemistry in the United States as a
key benchmark from which progress under the activities described in this
title can be measured, including assessing key sectors of the United
States economy, key technology platforms, commercial priorities, and
barriers to innovation;
(4) coordinate and support Federal research, development, demonstration,
technology transfer, commercialization, education, and training efforts
in sustainable chemistry, including budget coordination and support for
public-private partnerships, as appropriate;
(5) identify any Federal regulatory barriers to, and opportunities for,
Federal agencies facilitating the development of incentives for
development, consideration, and use of sustainable chemistry processes
and products;
(6) identify major scientific challenges, roadblocks, and hurdles to
transformational progress in improving the sustainability of the
chemical sciences; and
(7) review, identify, and make effort to eliminate duplicative Federal
funding and duplicative Federal research in sustainable chemistry.
(b) Characterizing and Assessing Sustainable Chemistry.—The Entity shall
develop a working framework of attributes characterizing, and metrics
for assessing, sustainable chemistry for the purposes of carrying out
this subtitle. In developing this framework, the Entity shall—
(1) seek advice and input from stakeholders as described in subsection
(c);
(2) consider existing definitions of, or frameworks characterizing and
metrics for assessing, sustainable chemistry already in use at Federal
agencies;
(3) consider existing definitions of, or frameworks characterizing and
metrics for assessing, sustainable chemistry already in use by
international organizations of which the United States is a member, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and
(4) consider any other appropriate existing definitions of, or
frameworks characterizing and metrics for assessing, sustainable
chemistry.
(c) Consultation.—In carrying out the duties described in subsections
(a) and (b), the Entity shall consult with stakeholders qualified to
provide advice and information to guide Federal activities related to
sustainable chemistry through workshops, requests for information, or
other mechanisms as necessary. The stakeholders shall include
representatives from—
(1) business and industry, including trade associations and small- and
medium-sized enterprises from across the value chain;
(2) the scientific community, including the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, scientific professional
societies, national labs, and academia;
(3) the defense community;
(4) State, tribal, and local governments, including nonregulatory State
or regional sustainable chemistry programs, as appropriate;
(5) nongovernmental organizations; and
(6) other appropriate organizations.
(d) Report to Congress.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Entity shall submit a report to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. In addition
to the elements described in subsections (a) and (b), the report shall
include—
(A) a summary of federally funded sustainable chemistry research,
development, demonstration, technology transfer, commercialization,
education, and training activities;
(B) a summary of the financial resources allocated to sustainable
chemistry initiatives by each participating agency;
(C) an assessment of the current state of sustainable chemistry in the
United States, including the role that Federal agencies are playing in
supporting it;
(D) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and
priorities of this subtitle, and recommendations for future program
activities;
(E) an evaluation of steps taken and future strategies to avoid
duplication of efforts, streamline interagency coordination, facilitate
information sharing, and spread best practices among participating
agencies; and
(F) an evaluation of duplicative Federal funding and duplicative Federal
research in sustainable chemistry, efforts undertaken by the Entity to
eliminate duplicative funding and research, and recommendations on how
to achieve these goals.
(2) SUBMISSION TO GAO.—The Entity shall also submit the report described
in paragraph (1) to the Comptroller General of the United States for
consideration in future Congressional inquiries.
(3) ADDITIONAL REPORTS.—The Entity shall submit a report to Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States that incorporates the
information described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), (E), and (F) of
paragraph (1) every 3 years, commencing after the initial report is
submitted until the Entity terminates.
######
SEC. 283. INDEPENDENT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EFFORTS BY CHINA AND
THE UNITED STATES TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN RESEARCHERS IN NATIONAL
SECURITY-RELATED AND DEFENSE-RELATED FIELDS.
(a) Agreement.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into
an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine to perform the services covered by this section.
(2) TIMING.—The Secretary shall seek to enter into the agreement
described in paragraph (1) not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Review.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under an agreement between the Secretary and the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under this
section, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine shall carry out a comparative analysis of efforts by China
and the United States Government to recruit and retain domestic and
foreign researchers and develop recommendations for the Secretary of
Defense and the heads of other Federal agencies as
appropriate.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The comparative analysis carried out under paragraph
(1) and the recommendations developed under such paragraph shall
include the following:
(A) A list of the “talent programs” used by China and a list of the
incentive programs used by the United States to recruit and retain
researchers in fields relating to national security or defense
research.
(B) The types of researchers, scientists, other technical experts,
and fields targeted by each talent program listed under subparagraph
(A).
(C) The number of researchers in academia, the Department of
Defense Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories, and
national security science and engineering programs of the National
Nuclear Security Administration targeted by the talent programs
listed under subparagraph (A).
(D) The number of personnel currently participating in the talent
programs listed under subparagraph (A) and the number of researchers
currently participating in the incentive programs listed under such
subparagraph.
(E) The incentives offered by each of the talent programs listed
under subparagraph (A) and a description of the incentives offered
through incentive programs under such subparagraph to recruit and
retain researchers, scientists, and other technical experts.
(F) A characterization of the national security, economic, and
scientific benefits China gains through the talent programs listed
under subparagraph (A) and a description of similar gains accrued to
the United States through incentive programs listed under such
subparagraph.
(G) An assessment of the risks to national security and benefits to
the United States of scientific research cooperation between the
United States and China, such as that which is performed under the
agreement between the United States and the People’s Republic of
China known as the “Agreement between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the People’s Republic of
China on Cooperation in Science and Technology”, signed in
Washington on January 31, 1979, successor agreements, and similar
agreements, administered by the Secretary of State and the heads of
other Federal agencies.
(H) A list of findings and recommendations relating to policies
that can be implemented by the United States, especially the
Department of Defense and other appropriate Federal agencies, to
improve the relative effectiveness of United States activities to
recruit and retain researchers, scientists, and other technical
experts relative to China.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of the
execution of an agreement under subsection (a), the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall—
(A) submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
findings National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
with respect to the review carried out under this section and the
recommendations developed under this section; and
(B) make available to the public on a publicly accessible website a
version of report that is suitable for public viewing.
(2) FORM.—The report submitted under paragraph (1)(A) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
######
Subtitle I—Military Family Readiness and Dependents’
Education
SEC. 581. FAMILY READINESS: DEFINITIONS; COMMUNICATION STRATEGY;
REVIEW; REPORT.
(a)
Definitions.—Not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments, shall act on
recommendation one of the report, dated July 2019, of the National
Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, titled
“Strengthening the Military Family Readiness System for a Changing
American Society”, by establishing definitions of “family
well-being”, “family readiness”, and “family resilience” for use by
the Department of Defense.
(b) Communication Strategy.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments, shall—
(1) ensure that the Secretary of Defense has carried out section 561 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (10 U.S.C.
1781 note);
(2) implement a strategy to use of a variety of modes of communication
to ensure the broadest means of communicating with military families;
and
(3) establish a process to measure the effectiveness of the modes of
communication described in paragraph (2).
(c) Review.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of current
programs, policies, services, resources, and practices of the Department
for military families as outlined in recommendation four of the report
described in subsection (a).
(d) Report.—Not later than 60 days after completing the review under
subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report detailing the results of the review and how the Secretary shall
improve programs, policies, services, resources, and practices for
military families, based on the review.
######
“§ 8932. Ocean Policy Committee”.
(B) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter
893 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to section 8932 and inserting the following new item:
“8932. Ocean Policy Committee.”.
(c) Ocean Research Advisory Panel.—Section 8933 of such title is amended
to read as follows:
Ҥ 8933. Ocean Research Advisory Panel
“(a) Establishment.—(1) The Ocean Policy Committee shall establish an
Ocean Research Advisory Panel (in this section referred to as the
‘Advisory Panel’). The Advisory Panel shall consist of not fewer than 10
and not more than 18 members appointed by the co-chairs of the
Committee, including each of the following:
“(A) Three members who represent the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
“(B) Members selected from among individuals who represent the views of
ocean industries, State, tribal, territorial or local governments,
academia, and such other views as the co-chairs consider appropriate.
“(C) Members selected from among individuals eminent in the fields of
marine science, marine technology, and marine policy, or related fields.
“(2) The Committee shall ensure that an appropriate balance of academic,
scientific, industry, and geographical interests and gender and racial
diversity are represented by the members of the Advisory Panel.
“(b) Responsibilities.—The Committee shall assign the following
responsibilities to the Advisory Panel:
“(1) To advise the Committee on policies and procedures to implement the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
“(2) To advise the Committee on matters relating to national
oceanographic science, engineering, facilities, or resource
requirements.
“(3) To advise the Committee on improving diversity, equity, and
inclusion in the ocean sciences and related fields.
“(4) To advise the Committee on national ocean research priorities.
“(5) Any additional responsibilities that the Committee considers
appropriate.
“(c) Meetings.—The Committee shall require the Advisory Panel to meet
not less frequently than two times each year.
“(d) Administrative and Technical Support.—The Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall provide to the
Advisory Panel such administrative and technical support as the Advisory
Panel may require.
“(e) Termination.—Notwithstanding section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Advisory Panel shall terminate on
January 1, 2040.”
######
SEC. 1062. LIMITATION ON PROVISION OF FUNDS TO INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION HOSTING CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES.
(a) Limitation.—Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal
year for the Department of Defense may be provided to an institution of
higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute, other than amounts
provided directly to students as educational assistance.
(b) Waiver.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation
under subsection (a) with respect to an institution of higher
education if the Secretary, after consultation with the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, determines such a
waiver is appropriate.
(2) MANAGEMENT PROCESS.—If the Secretary issues a waiver under paragraph
(1), the academic liaison designated pursuant to subsection (g) of
section 1286 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019 (10 U.S.C. 2358 note), as amended by section 1299C
of this Act, shall manage the waiver process on behalf of the Secretary.
(c) Effective Date.—The limitation under subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is 24
months after the date of the enactment of this Act and to any subsequent
fiscal year.
(d) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “Confucius Institute” means a cultural institute directly
or indirectly funded by the Government of the People’s Republic of
China.
(2) The term “institution of higher education” has the meaning given
such term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002).
######
“SEC. 1286. INITIATIVE TO SUPPORT PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY
ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS FROM UNDUE INFLUENCE AND OTHER SECURITY
THREATS.
“(a) Initiative Required.—The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with other appropriate government organizations, establish
an initiative to work with institutions of higher education who perform
defense research and engineering activities—
“(1) to support protection of intellectual property, controlled
information, key personnel, and information about critical technologies
relevant to national security;
“(2) to limit undue influence, including through foreign talent
programs, by countries to exploit United States technology within the
Department of Defense research, science and technology, and innovation
enterprise; and
“(3) to support efforts toward development of domestic talent in
relevant scientific and engineering fields.
“(b) Institutions and Organizations.—The initiative required by
subsection (a) shall be developed and executed to the maximum extent
practicable with academic research institutions and other educational
and research organizations.
“(c) Requirements.—The initiative required by subsection (a) shall
include development of the following:
“(1) Information exchange forum and information repositories to enable
awareness of security threats and influence operations being executed
against the United States research, technology, and innovation
enterprise.
“(2) Training developed and delivered in consultation with institutions
of higher education and appropriate Government agencies, and other
support to institutions of higher education, to promote security and
limit undue influence on institutions of higher education and personnel,
including Department of Defense financial support to carry out such
activities, that—
“(A) emphasizes best practices for protection of sensitive national
security information;
“(B) includes the dissemination of unclassified materials and resources
for identifying and protecting against emerging threats to institutions
of higher education, including specific counterintelligence information
and advice developed specifically for faculty and academic researchers
based on actual identified threats; and
“(C) includes requirements for appropriate senior officials of
institutions of higher education to receive from appropriate Government
agencies updated and periodic briefings that describe the espionage
risks to academic institutions and associated personnel posed by
technical intelligence gathering activities of near-peer strategic
competitors.
“(3) The capacity of Government agencies and institutions of higher
education to assess whether individuals affiliated with Department of
Defense programs have participated in or are currently participating in
foreign talent programs or expert recruitment programs.
“(4) Opportunities to collaborate with defense researchers and research
organizations in secure facilities to promote protection of critical
information and strengthen defense against foreign intelligence
services.
“(5) Regulations and procedures—
“(A) for Government agencies and academic organizations and personnel to
support the goals of the initiative; and
“(B) that are consistent with policies that protect open and scientific
exchange in fundamental research.
“(6) Policies to limit or prohibit funding provided by the Department of
Defense for institutions or individual researchers who knowingly violate
regulations developed under the initiative, including regulations
relating to foreign talent programs.
“(7) Initiatives to support the transition of the results of institution
of higher education research programs into defense capabilities.
“(8)(A) A list of academic institutions of the People’s Republic of
China, the Russian Federation, and other countries that—
“(i) have a history of improper technology transfer, intellectual
property theft, or cyber or human espionage;
“(ii) operate under
the direction of the military forces or intelligence agency of the
applicable country;
“(iii) are known—
“(I) to recruit foreign individuals for the purpose of transferring
knowledge to advance military or intelligence efforts; or
“(II) to provide misleading information or otherwise attempt to conceal
the connections of an individual or institution to a defense or an
intelligence agency of the applicable country; or
“(iv) pose a serious risk of improper technology transfer of data,
technology, or research that is not published or publicly available.
“(B) The list described in subparagraph (A) shall be developed and
continuously updated in consultation with the Bureau of Industry and
Security of the Department of Commerce, the Director of National
Intelligence, United States institutions of higher education that
conduct significant Department of Defense research or engineering
activities, and other appropriate individuals and organizations.
“(9)(A) A list, developed and continuously updated in consultation
with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
and the appropriate Government agencies, of foreign talent programs
that pose a threat to the national security interests of the United
States, as determined by the Secretary.
“(B) In developing and updating such list, the Secretary shall consider—
“(i) the extent to which a foreign talent program—
“(I) poses a threat to research funded by the Department of Defense; and
“(II) engages in, or facilitates, cyber attacks, theft, espionage,
attempts to gain ownership of or influence over companies, or otherwise
interferes in the affairs of the United States; and
“(ii) any other factor the Secretary considers appropriate.
“(d) Procedures for Enhanced Information Sharing.—
“(1) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—
“(A) DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not later than October
1, 2020, for the purpose of maintaining appropriate security controls
over research activities, technical information, and intellectual
property, the Secretary, in conjunction with appropriate public and
private entities, shall establish streamlined procedures to collect
appropriate information relating to individuals, including United States
citizens and foreign nationals, who participate in defense research and
development activities.
“(B) FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS.—With respect to fundamental research
programs, the academic liaison designated under subsection (g) shall
establish policies and procedures to collect, consistent with the best
practices of Government agencies that fund academic research,
appropriate information relating to individuals who participate in
fundamental research programs.
“(2) PROTECTION FROM RELEASE.—The procedures required by paragraph (1)
shall include procedures to protect such information from release,
consistent with applicable regulations.
“(3) REPORTING TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND REPOSITORIES.—The
procedures required by paragraph (1) may include procedures developed,
in coordination with appropriate public and private entities, to report
such information to existing Government information systems and
repositories.
######
SEC. 1299I. ASSESSMENT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
TERRORISM.
(a) Assessment.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Energy, shall enter into an arrangement
with the National Academy of Sciences—
(1) to conduct an assessment of strategies of the United States for
preventing, countering, and responding to nuclear, biological, and
chemical terrorism; an
(2) to make recommendations to improve such strategies.
(b) Matters to Be Included.—The assessment and recommendations
required by subsection (a) shall address the adequacy of strategies
described in such subsection and identify technical, policy, and
resource gaps with respect to—
(1) identifying national and international nuclear, biological, and
chemical risks, and critical emerging threats;
(2) preventing state-sponsored and non-state actors from acquiring
or misusing the technologies, materials, and critical expertise
needed to carry out nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks,
including dual-use technologies, materials, and expertise;
(3) countering efforts by state-sponsored and non-state actors to
carry out such attacks;
(4) responding to nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism
incidents to attribute their origin and help manage their
consequences;
(5) budgets likely to be required to implement effectively such
strategies; and
(6) other important matters that are directly relevant to such
strategies.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report that contains the
assessment and recommendations required by subsection (a).
(2) FORM.—The report required by this subsection shall be submitted
in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.—In this section,
the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—
(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Armed Services,
and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee on Armed
Services, and Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
######
SEC. 1622. NATIONAL ACADEMIES CLIMATE SECURITY
ROUNDTABLE.
(a) In General.—The Director of National Intelligence, in
coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
and Security, shall enter into a joint agreement with the Academies
to create a new “National Academies Climate Security Roundtable” (in
this section referred to as the “roundtable”).
(b) Participants.—The roundtable shall include—
(1) the members of the Climate Security Advisory Council
established under section 120 of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 3060);
(2) senior representatives and practitioners from Federal science
agencies, elements of the intelligence community, and the Department
of Defense, who are not members of the Council; and
(3) key stakeholders in the United States scientific enterprise,
including institutions of higher education, Federal research
laboratories (including the national security laboratories),
industry, and nonprofit research organizations.
(c) Purpose.—The purpose of the roundtable is—
(1) to support the duties and responsibilities of the Climate
Security Advisory Council under section 120(c) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3060(c));
(2) to develop best practices for the exchange of data, knowledge,
and expertise among elements of the intelligence community, elements
of the Federal Government that are not elements of the intelligence
community, and non-Federal researchers;
(3) to facilitate dialogue and collaboration about relevant
collection and analytic priorities among participants of the
roundtable with respect to climate security;
(4) to identify relevant gaps in the exchange of data, knowledge,
or expertise among participants of the roundtable with respect to
climate security, and consider viable solutions to address such
gaps; and
(5) to provide any other assistance, resources, or capabilities
that the Director of National Intelligence or the Under Secretary
determines necessary with respect to the Council carrying out the
duties and responsibilities of the Council under such section
120(c).
(d) Meetings.—The roundtable shall meet at least quarterly, in
coordination with the meetings of the Climate Security Advisory
Council under section 120(c)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 3060(c)(1)).
(e) Reports and Briefings.—The joint agreement under subsection (a)
shall specify that—
(1) the roundtable shall organize workshops, on at least a biannual
basis, that include both participants of the roundtable and persons
who are not participants, and may be conducted in classified or
unclassified form in accordance with subsection (f);
(2) on a regular basis, the roundtable shall produce classified and
unclassified reports on the topics described in subsection (c) and
the activities of the roundtable, and other documents in support of
the duties and responsibilities of the Climate Security Advisory
Council under section 120(c) of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 3060(c));
(3) the Academies shall provide recommendations by consensus to the
Council on both the topics described in subsection (c) and specific
topics as identified by participants of the roundtable;
(4) not later than March 1, 2021, and annually thereafter during
the life of the roundtable, the Academies shall provide a briefing
to the appropriate congressional committees on the progress and
activities of the roundtable; and
(5) not later than September 30, 2025, the Academies shall submit a
final report to the appropriate congressional committees on the
activities of the roundtable.
(f) Security Clearances.—Each participant of the roundtable shall
have a security clearance at the appropriate level to carry out the
duties of the participant under this section. A person who is not a
participant who attends a workshop under subsection (e)(1) is not
required to have a security clearance, and the roundtable shall
ensure that any such workshop is held at the appropriate classified
or unclassified level.
(g) Termination.—The roundtable shall terminate on September 30,
2025.
(h) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “Academies” means the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine.
(2) The term “appropriate congressional committees” means—
(A) the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee
on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(3) The term “Federal science agency” means any agency or
department of the Federal Government with at least $100,000,000 in
basic and applied research obligations in fiscal year 2019.
(4) The term “intelligence community” has the meaning given that
term in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
3003).
(5) The term “national security laboratory” has the meaning given
the term in section 4002 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2501).
######
SEC. 1663. INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION ORDER 20-48.
(a) Agreement.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into
an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine for the National Academies to perform the services
covered by this section.
(2) TIMING.—The Secretary shall seek to enter into the agreement
described in paragraph (1) not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Independent Technical Review.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under an agreement between the Secretary and the
National Academies under subsection (a), the National Academies
shall carry out an independent technical review of the Order and
Authorization adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on
April 19, 2020 (FCC 20-48), to the extent that such Order and
Authorization affects the devices, operations, or activities of the
Department of Defense.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The independent technical review carried out under
paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) Comparison of the two different approaches on which the
Commission relied for the Order and Authorization described in
paragraph (1) to evaluate the potential harmful interference
concerns relating to Global Positioning System devices, with a
recommendation on which method most effectively mitigates risks of
harmful interference with Global Positioning System devices of the
Department, or relating to or with the potential to affect the
operations and activities of the Department.
(B) Assessment of the potential for harmful interference to mobile
satellite services, including commercial services and Global
Positioning System services of the Department, or relating to or
with the potential to affect the operations and activities of the
Department.
(C) Review of the feasibility, practicality, and effectiveness of
the proposed mitigation measures relating to, or with the potential
to affect, the devices, operations, or activities of the
Department.
(D) Development of recommendations associated with the findings of
the National Academies in carrying out the independent technical
review.
(E) Such other matters as the National Academies determines
relevant.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under an agreement between the Secretary and the
National Academies under subsection (a), the National Academies, not
later than 270 days after the date of the execution of such
agreement, shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report on the findings of the National Academies
with respect to the independent technical review carried out under
subsection (b) and the recommendations developed pursuant to such
review.
(2) FORM.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in a publicly releasable and unclassified format, but may
include a classified annex
######
SEC. 3125. CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF APPROACHES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
TREATMENT OF LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE AT HANFORD NUCLEAR
RESERVATION.
(a)
In General.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall—
(1) enter into an arrangement with a federally funded research and
development center to conduct a follow-on analysis to the analysis
required by section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 130 Stat. 2769) with
respect to approaches for treating the portion of low-activity waste
at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, Washington, intended
for supplemental treatment; and
(2) enter into an arrangement with the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the follow-on analysis
conducted under paragraph (1).
(b) Comparison of Alternatives to Aid Decisionmaking.—The analysis
required by subsection (a)(1) shall be designed, to the greatest
extent possible, to provide decisionmakers with the ability to make
a direct comparison between approaches for the supplemental
treatment of low-activity waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation
based on criteria that are relevant to decisionmaking and most
clearly differentiate between approaches.
(c) Elements.—The analysis required by subsection (a)(1) shall
clearly lay out a framework of decisions to be made among the
treatment technologies, waste forms, and disposal locations by
including an assessment of the following:
(1) The most effective potential technology for supplemental
treatment of low-activity waste that will produce an effective waste
form, including an assessment of the following:
(A) The maturity and complexity of the technology.
(B) The
extent of previous use of the technology.
(C) The life cycle
costs and duration of use of the technology.
(D) The
effectiveness of the technology with respect to immobilization.
(E)
The performance of the technology expected under permanent
disposal.
(F) The topical areas of additional study required
for the grout option identified in the analysis required by section
3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017.
(2) The differences among approaches for the supplemental treatment
of low-activity waste considered as of the date of the analysis
required by subsection (a)(1).
(3) The compliance of such approaches with the technical standards
described in section 3134(b)(2)(D) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
(4) The differences among potential disposal sites for the waste
form produced through such treatment, including mitigation of
radionuclides, including technetium-99, selenium-79, and iodine-129,
on a system level.
(5) Potential modifications to the design of facilities to enhance
performance with respect to disposal of the waste form to account
for the following:
(A) Regulatory compliance.
(B) Public acceptance.
(C)
Cost.
(D) Safety.
(E) The expected radiation dose to
maximally exposed individuals over time.
(F) Differences among
disposal environments.
(6) Approximately how much and what type of pretreatment is needed
to meet regulatory requirements regarding long-lived radionuclides
and hazardous chemicals to reduce disposal costs for radionuclides
described in paragraph (4).
(7) Whether the radionuclides can be left in the waste form or
economically removed and bounded at a system level by the
performance assessment of a potential disposal site and, if the
radionuclides cannot be left in the waste form, how to account for
the secondary waste stream.
(8) Other relevant factors relating to the technology described in
paragraph (1), including the following:
(A) The costs and risks in delays with respect to tank performance
over time.
(B) Consideration of experience with treatment
methods at other sites and commercial facilities.
(C) Outcomes
of the test bed initiative of the Office of Environmental Management
at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
(d) Review, Consultation, Submission, and Limitations.—The
provisions of subsections (c) through (f) of section 3134 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 shall apply
with respect to the analysis required by subsection (a)(1) to the
same extent and in the same manner that such provisions applied with
respect to the analysis required by subsection (a) of such section
3134, except that subsection (e) of such section shall be applied
and administered by substituting “the date of the enactment of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021” for “the date of the enactment of this Act” each
place it appears.
######
Subtitle H—Other Matters
SEC. 3171. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
NUCLEAR WAR.
(a) Study.—The Administrator for Nuclear Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence,
shall seek to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under which the National
Academies conduct a study on the environmental effects of nuclear
war.
(b) Matters Included.—The study under subsection (a) shall include
the following:
(1) An evaluation of the non-fallout atmospheric effects of
plausible scenarios for nuclear war, ranging from low-quantity
regional exchanges to large-scale exchanges between major
powers.
(2) An examination of the effects evaluated under paragraph (1)
by—
(A) the yield, type, and number of nuclear weapons;
(B) the types and locations of targets;
(C) the time distribution of the explosions;
(D) the atmospheric conditions; and
(E) other factors that may have a significant impact on the
effects.
(3) An assessment of current models of nuclear explosions,
including with respect to—
(A) the fires such explosions may cause;
(B) the atmospheric transport of the gases from such
explosions;
(C) the radioactive material from such explosions; and
(D) the soot and other debris from such fires and explosions and
the atmospheric, terrestrial, and marine consequences of such
effects, including with respect to changes in weather patterns,
airborne particulate concentrations, stratospheric ozone,
agriculture, and long-term regional ecosystem viability.
(4) Identification of the capabilities and limitations of the
models described in paragraph (3) for assessing the environmental
effects of nuclear war, including—
(A) an evaluation of the relevant uncertainties;
(B) a highlight of the key data gaps; and
(C) recommendations for how such models can be improved to better
inform decision making.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the National Academies shall submit to the
Administrator, the Secretary, the Director, and the congressional
defense committees a report on the study under subsection (a).
(2) FORM.—The report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in
unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
(d) Provision of Information.—
(1) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—The Secretary shall provide to the
National Academies such information of the Department of Defense as
is necessary for the National Academies to conduct the study under
subsection (a), including information relating to relevant scenarios
described in subsection (b).
(2) DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.—The Director shall provide
to the National Academies such information on foreign adversary
capabilities as is necessary for the National Academies to conduct
the study under subsection (a), including information relating to
relevant scenarios described in subsection (b).
SEC. 3172. REVIEW OF FUTURE OF COMPUTING BEYOND EXASCALE AT THE
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.—The Administrator for Nuclear Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy, shall enter into an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences to review the future of computing beyond
exascale computing to meet national security needs at the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
(b) Elements.—The review required by subsection (a) shall address
the following:
(1) Future computing needs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration that exascale computing will not accomplish during
the 20 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Computing architectures that potentially can meet those needs,
including—
(A) classical computing architectures employed as of such date of
enactment;
(B) quantum computing architectures and other novel computing
architectures;
(C) hybrid combinations of classical and quantum computing
architectures; and
(D) other architectures as necessary.
(3) The development of software for the computing architectures
described in paragraph (2).
(4) The maturity of the computing architectures described in
paragraph (2) and the software described in paragraph (3), with key
obstacles that must be overcome for the employment of such
architectures and software.
(5) The secure industrial base that exists as of the date of the
enactment of this Act to meet the unique needs of computing at the
National Nuclear Security Administration, including needs with
respect to—
(A) personnel;
(B) microelectronics; and
(C) other appropriate matters.
(c) Information and Clearances.—The Administrator shall ensure that
personnel of the National Academy of Sciences overseeing the
implementation of the agreement required by subsection (a) or
conducting the review required by that subsection receive, in a
timely manner, access to information and necessary security
clearances to enable the conduct of the review.
(d) Report Required.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on the findings of
the review required by subsection (a).
(2) FORM.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted
in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
(e) Exascale Computing Defined.—In this section, the term “exascale
computing” means computing through the use of a computing machine
that performs near or above 10 to the 18th power floating point
operations per second.
######
SEC. 5104. NATIONAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
(a) In General.—The Secretary of Commerce shall, in consultation with
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State,
the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence
establish an advisory committee to be known as the “National Artificial
Intelligence Advisory Committee”.
(b) Qualifications.—The Advisory Committee shall consist of members,
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, who are representing broad and
interdisciplinary expertise and perspectives, including from academic
institutions, companies across diverse sectors, nonprofit and civil
society entities, including civil rights and disability rights
organizations, and Federal laboratories, who are representing geographic
diversity, and who are qualified to provide advice and information on
science and technology research, development, ethics, standards,
education, technology transfer, commercial application, security, and
economic competitiveness related to artificial intelligence.
(c) Membership Consideration.—In selecting the members of the
Advisory Committee, the Secretary of Commerce shall seek and give
consideration to recommendations from Congress, industry, nonprofit
organizations, the scientific community (including the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, scientific
professional societies, and academic institutions), the defense and
law enforcement communities, and other appropriate
organizations.
(d) Duties.—The Advisory Committee shall advise the President and the
Initiative Office on matters related to the Initiative, including
recommendations related to—
(1) the current state of United States competitiveness and leadership in
artificial intelligence, including the scope and scale of United States
investments in artificial intelligence research and development in the
international context;
(2) the progress made in implementing the Initiative, including a review
of the degree to which the Initiative has achieved the goals according
to the metrics established by the Interagency Committee under section
5103(d)(2);
(3) the state of the science around artificial intelligence, including
progress toward artificial general intelligence;
(4) issues related to artificial intelligence and the United States
workforce, including matters relating to the potential for using
artificial intelligence for workforce training, the possible
consequences of technological displacement, and supporting workforce
training opportunities for occupations that lead to economic
self-sufficiency for individuals with barriers to employment and
historically underrepresented populations, including minorities, Indians
(as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304), low-income populations, and persons with
disabilities.
(5) how to leverage the resources of the initiative to streamline and
enhance operations in various areas of government operations, including
health care, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and disaster recovery;
(6) the need to update the Initiative;
(7) the balance of activities and funding across the Initiative;
(8) whether the strategic plan developed or updated by the Interagency
Committee established under section 5103(d)(2) is helping to maintain
United States leadership in artificial intelligence;
(9) the management, coordination, and activities of the Initiative;
(10) whether ethical, legal, safety, security, and other appropriate
societal issues are adequately addressed by the Initiative;
(11) opportunities for international cooperation with strategic allies
on artificial intelligence research activities, standards development,
and the compatibility of international regulations;
(12) accountability and legal rights, including matters relating to
oversight of artificial intelligence systems using regulatory and
nonregulatory approaches, the responsibility for any violations of
existing laws by an artificial intelligence system, and ways to balance
advancing innovation while protecting individual rights; and
(13) how artificial intelligence can enhance opportunities for diverse
geographic regions of the United States, including urban, Tribal, and
rural communities.
SEC. 5105. NATIONAL ACADEMIES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACT
STUDY ON WORKFORCE.
(a) In General.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the National Science Foundation shall enter
into a contract with the National Research Council of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study
of the current and future impact of artificial intelligence on the
workforce of the United States across sectors.
(b) Contents.—The study shall address—
(1) workforce impacts across sectors caused by the increased
adoption of artificial intelligence, automation, and other related
trends;
(2) workforce needs and employment opportunities generated by the
increased adoption of artificial intelligence across sectors;
(3) research gaps and data needed to better understand and track
paragraphs (1) and (2); and
(4) recommendations to address the challenges and opportunities
described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(c) Stakeholders.—In conducting the study, the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall seek input from a wide
range of stakeholders in the public and private sectors.
(d) Report to Congress.—The contract entered into under subsection
(a) shall require the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, to—
(1) submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and
the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
Committee on Health, Education, Pension, and Labor of the Senate a
report containing the findings and recommendations of the study
conducted under subsection (a); and
(2) make a copy of such report available on a publicly accessible
website.
SEC. 5106. NATIONAL AI RESEARCH RESOURCE TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment of Task Force.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Science Foundation, in
coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall
establish a task force—
(i) to investigate the feasibility and advisability of establishing and
sustaining a National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource; and
(ii)
to propose a roadmap detailing how such resource should be established
and sustained.
(B) DESIGNATION.—The task force established by subparagraph (A) shall be
known as the “National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Task
Force” (in this section referred to as the “Task Force”).
(2) MEMBERSHIP.—
(A) COMPOSITION.—The Task Force shall be composed of 12 members selected
by the co-chairpersons of the Task Force from among technical experts in
artificial intelligence or related subjects, of whom—
(i) 4 shall be representatives from the Interagency Committee
established in section 5103, including the co-chairpersons of the Task
Force;
(ii) 4 shall be representatives from institutions of higher
education; and
(iii) 4 shall be representatives from private
organizations.
(B) APPOINTMENT.—Not later than 120 days after enactment of this Act,
the co-chairpersons of the Task Force shall appoint members to the Task
Force pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(C) TERM OF APPOINTMENT.—Members of the Task Force shall be appointed
for the life of the Task Force.
(D) VACANCY.—Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Task Force
shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was
made.
(E) CO-CHAIRPERSONS.—The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Director of the National Sciences Foundation,
or their designees, shall be the co-chairpersons of the Task Force. If
the role of the Director of the National Science Foundation is vacant,
the Chair of the National Science Board shall act as a co-chairperson of
the Task Force.
(F) EXPENSES FOR NON-FEDERAL MEMBERS.—
(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), non-Federal Members of the Task
Force shall not receive compensation for their participation on the Task
Force.
(ii) Non-Federal Members of the Task Force shall be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Task Force.
(b) Roadmap and Implementation Plan.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall develop a coordinated roadmap and
implementation plan for creating and sustaining a National Artificial
Intelligence Research Resource.
(2) CONTENTS.—The roadmap and plan required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Goals for establishment and sustainment of a National Artificial
Intelligence Research Resource and metrics for success.
(B) A plan for ownership and administration of the National Artificial
Intelligence Research Resource, including—
(i) an appropriate agency or organization responsible for the
implementation, deployment, and administration of the Resource; and
(ii) a governance structure for the Resource, including oversight and
decision-making authorities.
(C) A model for governance and oversight to establish strategic
direction, make programmatic decisions, and manage the allocation of
resources;
(D) Capabilities required to create and maintain a shared computing
infrastructure to facilitate access to computing resources for
researchers across the country, including scalability, secured access
control, resident data engineering and curation expertise, provision of
curated data sets, compute resources, educational tools and services,
and a user interface portal.
(E) An assessment of, and recommended solutions to, barriers to the
dissemination and use of high-quality government data sets as part of
the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource.
(F) An assessment of security requirements associated with the National
Artificial Intelligence Research Resource and its research and a
recommendation for a framework for the management of access controls.
(G) An assessment of privacy and civil rights and civil liberties
requirements associated with the National Artificial Intelligence
Research Resource and its research.
(H) A plan for sustaining the Resource, including through Federal
funding and partnerships with the private sector.
(I) Parameters for the establishment and sustainment of the National
Artificial Intelligence Research Resource, including agency roles and
responsibilities and milestones to implement the Resource.
(c) Consultations.—In conducting its duties required under subsection
(b), the Task Force shall consult with the following:
(1) The National Science Foundation.
(2) The Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
(3) The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
(4) The National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(5)
The Director of National Intelligence.
(6) The Department of
Energy.
(7) The Department of Defense.
(8) The General
Services Administration.
(9) The Department of Justice.
(10)
The Department of Homeland Security.
(11) The Department of Health
and Human Services.
(12) Private industry.
(13) Institutions
of higher education.
(14) Civil and disabilities rights
organizations.
(15) Such other persons as the Task Force considers
appropriate.
(d) Staff.—Staff of the Task Force shall comprise detailees with
expertise in artificial intelligence, or related fields from the Office
of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, or
any other agency the co-chairs deem appropriate, with the consent of the
head of the agency.
######
TITLE LIV—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES
Sec. 5401. Artificial intelligence research and education.
SEC. 5401. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.
(a) In General.—the Director of the National Science Foundation shall
fund research and education activities in artificial intelligence
systems and related fields, including competitive awards or grants to
institutions of higher education or eligible nonprofit organizations (or
consortia thereof).
(b) Uses of Funds.—In carrying out the activities under subsection (a),
the Director of the National Science Foundation shall—
(1) support research, including interdisciplinary research, on
artificial intelligence systems and related areas, including fields and
research areas that will contribute to the development and deployment of
trustworthy artificial intelligence systems, and fields and research
areas that address the application of artificial intelligence systems to
scientific discovery and societal challenges;
(2) use the existing programs of the National Science Foundation, in
collaboration with other Federal departments and agencies, as
appropriate to—
(A) improve the teaching and learning of topics related to artificial
intelligence systems in K-12 education and postsecondary educational
programs, including workforce training and career and technical
education programs, undergraduate and graduate education programs, and
in informal settings; and
(B) increase participation in artificial intelligence related fields,
including by individuals identified in sections 33 and 34 of the Science
and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a, 1885b);
(3) support partnerships among institutions of higher education, Federal
laboratories, nonprofit organizations, State, local, and Tribal
governments, industry, and potential users of artificial intelligence
systems that facilitate collaborative research, personnel exchanges, and
workforce development and identify emerging research needs with respect
to artificial intelligence systems;
(4) ensure adequate access to research and education infrastructure with
respect to artificial intelligence systems, which may include the
development of new computing resources and partnership with the private
sector for the provision of cloud-based computing services;
(5) conduct prize competitions, as appropriate, pursuant to section 24
of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3719);
(6) coordinate research efforts funded through existing programs across
the directorates of the National Science Foundation;
(7) provide guidance on data sharing by grantees to public and private
sector organizations consistent with the standards and guidelines
developed under section 22A(e) of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Act (as added by section 5301 of this division); and
(8) evaluate opportunities for international collaboration with
strategic allies on artificial intelligence research and development.
(c) Engineering Support.—In general, the Director shall permit
applicants to include in their proposed budgets funding for software
engineering support to assist with the proposed research.
(d) Ethics.—
(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(A) a number of emerging areas of research, including artificial
intelligence, have potential ethical, social, safety, and security risks
that might be apparent as early as the basic research stage;
(B) the incorporation of ethical, social, safety, and security
considerations into the research design and review process for Federal
awards may help mitigate potential harms before they happen;
(C) the National Science Foundation’s agreement with the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study
and make recommendations with respect to governance of research in
computing and computing technologies is a positive step toward
accomplishing this goal; and
(D) the National Science Foundation should continue to work with
stakeholders to understand and adopt policies that promote best
practices for governance of research in emerging technologies at every
stage of research.
(2) REPORT ON ETHICS STATEMENTS.—No later than 6 months after
publication of the study described in paragraph (1)(C), the Director
shall report to Congress on options for requiring an ethics or risk
statement as part of all or a subset of applications for research
funding to the National Science Foundation.
######
SEC. 8108. POLAR SECURITY CUTTER ACQUISITION REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Commandant shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Armed Services of the House of Representatives, and
the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Armed
Services of the Senate a report on—
(1) the extent to which specifications, key drawings, and detail design
for the Polar Security Cutter are complete before the start of
construction;
(2) the extent to which Polar Security Cutter hulls numbers one, two,
and three are science ready; and
(3) what actions will be taken to ensure that Polar Security Cutter
hull number four is science capable, as described in the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on
Polar Icebreaker Cost Assessment letter report entitled “Acquisition
and Operation of Polar Icebreakers: Fulfilling the Nation’s Needs”
and dated July 11, 2017.
######
SEC. 8249. COAST GUARD AUTHORITIES STUDY.
(a) In General.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall seek to enter into an arrangement with the National
Academy of Sciences not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act under which the Academy shall prepare an
assessment of Coast Guard authorities.
(b) Assessment.—The assessment under subsection (a) shall
provide—
(1) an examination of emerging issues that may require Coast Guard
oversight, regulation, or action;
(2) a description of potential limitations and shortcomings of
relying on current Coast Guard authorities to address emerging
issues; and
(3) an overview of adjustments and additions that could be made to
existing Coast Guard authorities to fully address emerging
issues.
(c) Report to the Congress.—Not later than 1 year after entering
into an arrangement with the Secretary under subsection (a), the
National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate the assessment under this section.
(d) Emerging Issues.—In this section, the term “emerging issues”
means changes in the maritime industry and environment that in the
determination of the National Academy of Sciences are reasonably
likely to occur within 10 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, including—
(1) the introduction of new technologies in the maritime
domain;
(2) the advent of new processes or operational activities in the
maritime domain; and
(3) changes in the use of navigable waterways.
(e) Form.—The assessment required under subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified
annex.
######
SEC. 8254. STUDY ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION PROGRAM
WITH RESPECT TO VESSELS THAT CARRY BULK LIQUEFIED GASES AS CARGO AND
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TANK VESSELS.
(a) GAO Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report on the resources, regulations, policies,
protocols, and other actions designed to carry out the Coast Guard
Certificate of Compliance program with respect to liquefied natural gas
tank vessels (including examinations under section 153.808 of title 46,
Code of Federal Regulations) and vessels that carry bulk liquefied gases
as cargo (including examinations under part 154 of title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations) for purposes of maintaining the efficiency of
examinations under that program.
(2) CONTENTS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall include an assessment
of the adequacy of current Coast Guard resources, regulations, policies,
and protocols to maintain vessel examination efficiency while carrying
out the program referred to in paragraph (1) as United States bulk
liquefied gases cargo, liquefied natural gas exports, and associated
vessel traffic at United States ports increase.
(b) National Academies Study.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months after the date on which the
report required under subsection (a) is submitted, the Commandant
shall enter into an agreement with the National Academies under
which the National Academies shall—
(A) conduct an evaluation of the constraints and challenges to
maintaining examination efficiency under the program as United
States bulk liquefied gases cargo, liquefied natural gas exports,
and associated vessel traffic at United States ports increase;
and
(B) issue recommendations for changes to resources, regulations,
policies, and protocols to maintain the efficiency of the program,
including analysis of the following alternatives:
(i) Establishment of a Coast Guard marine examination unit near the
Panama Canal to conduct inspections under the program on liquefied
natural gas tank vessels bound for the United States, similar to
Coast Guard operations carried out by Coast Guard Activities Europe
and Coast Guard Activities Far East, including the effects of the
establishment of such a unit on the domestic aspects of the
program.
(ii) Management of all marine examiners with gas carrier
qualification within each Coast Guard District by a single Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection (as defined in section 50.10-10 of
title 46, Code of Federal Regulations) to improve the efficiency of
their vessel examination assignments.
(iii) Extension of the duration of assignment of marine examiners
with a gas carrier qualification at Coast Guard units that most
frequently inspect vessels that carry bulk liquefied gases as cargo
and liquefied natural gas tank vessels.
(iv) Increase in the use of civilians to conduct and support
examinations under the program.
(v) Extension of the duration of certificates of compliance under
the program for vessels that carry bulk liquefied gases as cargo and
liquefied natural gas tank vessels that are less than 10 years of
age and participate in a Coast Guard vessel quality program.
######
SEC. 8304. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761) is
amended—
######
“(b) Establishment of Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil
Pollution Research.—
“(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established an Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research.
“(2) PURPOSE.—The Interagency Committee shall coordinate a comprehensive
program of oil pollution research, technology development, and
demonstration among the Federal agencies, in cooperation and
coordination with industry, 4-year institutions of higher education and
research institutions, State governments, and other nations, as
appropriate, and shall foster cost-effective research mechanisms,
including the joint funding of research.
######
“(d) Duties of the Interagency Committee.—
“(1) RESEARCH.—The Interagency Committee shall—
“(A) coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution research,
technology development, and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in
cooperation and coordination with industry, 4-year institutions of
higher education and research institutions, States, Indian tribes, and
other countries, as appropriate; and
“(B) foster cost-effective research mechanisms, including the joint
funding of research and the development of public-private partnerships
for the purpose of expanding research.
“(2) OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN.—
“(A) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2020, the Interagency Committee shall submit to Congress a research plan
to report on the state of oil discharge prevention and response
capabilities that—
“(i) identifies current research programs conducted by Federal agencies,
States, Indian tribes, 4-year institutions of higher education, and
corporate entities;
“(ii) assesses the current status of knowledge on oil pollution
prevention, response, and mitigation technologies and effects of oil
pollution on the environment;
“(iii) identifies significant oil pollution research gaps, including an
assessment of major technological deficiencies in responses to past oil
discharges;
“(iv) establishes national research priorities and goals for oil
pollution technology development related to prevention, response,
mitigation, and environmental effects;
“(v) assesses the research on the applicability and effectiveness of the
prevention, response, and mitigation technologies to each class of oil;
“(vi) estimates the resources needed to conduct the oil pollution
research and development program established pursuant to subsection (e),
and timetables for completing research tasks;
“(vii) summarizes research on response equipment in varying
environmental conditions, such as in currents, ice cover, and ice floes;
and
“(viii) includes such other information or recommendations as the
Interagency Committee determines to be appropriate.
“(B) ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.—
“(i) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CONTRACT.—The Chair, through the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall contract
with the National Academy of Sciences to—
“(I) provide advice and guidance in the preparation and development
of the research plan;
“(II) assess the adequacy of the plan as submitted, and submit a
report to Congress on the conclusions of such assessment; and
“(III) provide organization guidance regarding the implementation
of the research plan, including delegation of topics and research
among Federal agencies represented on the Interagency
Committee.
“(ii) NIST ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.—The National Institute of Standards and
Technology shall provide the Interagency Committee with advice and
guidance on issues relating to quality assurance and standards
measurements relating to its activities under this section.
“(C) 10-YEAR UPDATES.—Not later than 10 years after the date of
enactment of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2020, and every 10 years thereafter, the Interagency Committee shall
submit to Congress a research plan that updates the information
contained in the previous research plan submitted under this
subsection.”.
######
Subtitle B—Other Matters
SEC. 9411. ESTABLISHED PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH.
Section 2203(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(b)) is
amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following new
paragraph (3):
“(3) ESTABLISHED PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH.—
######
“(C) OBJECTIVES.—The objectives of EPSCoR shall be—
“(i) to increase the number of researchers in eligible jurisdictions,
especially at institutions of higher education, capable of performing
nationally competitive science and engineering research in support of
the mission of the Department of Energy in the areas of applied energy
research, environmental management, and basic science;
“(ii) to improve science and engineering research and education programs
at institutions of higher education in eligible jurisdictions and
enhance the capabilities of eligible jurisdictions to develop, plan, and
execute research that is competitive, including through investing in
research equipment and instrumentation; and
“(iii) to increase the probability of long-term growth of competitive
funding to eligible jurisdictions.
“(D) ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS.—
######
“(E) GRANTS IN AREAS OF APPLIED ENERGY RESEARCH, ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT, AND BASIC SCIENCE.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—EPSCoR shall make grants to eligible jurisdictions to
carry out and support applied energy research and research in all areas
of environmental management and basic science sponsored by the
Department of Energy, including—
“(I) energy efficiency, fossil energy, renewable energy, and other
applied energy research;
“(II) electricity delivery research;
“(III)
cybersecurity, energy security, and emergency response;
“(IV)
environmental management; and
“(V) basic science research.
“(ii) ACTIVITIES.—EPSCoR shall make grants under this subparagraph for
activities consistent with the objectives described in subparagraph (C)
in the areas of applied energy research, environmental management, and
basic science described in clause (i), including—
“(I) to support research that is carried out in partnership with the
National Laboratories;
“(II) to provide for graduate
traineeships;
“(III) to support research by early career faculty;
and
“(IV) to improve research capabilities through biennial
research implementation grants.
“(iii) NO COST SHARING.—EPSCoR shall not impose any cost-sharing
requirement with respect to a grant made under this subparagraph, but
may require letters of commitment from National Laboratories.
“(F) OTHER ACTIVITIES.—EPSCoR may carry out such activities as may be
necessary to meet the objectives described in subparagraph (C) in the
areas of applied energy research, environmental management, and basic
science described in subparagraph (E)(i).
“(G) PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of the William
M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Energy
and Natural Resources and Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a plan describing how the Secretary shall implement
EPSCoR.
“(ii) CONTENTS OF PLAN.—The plan described in clause (i) shall
include a description of—
“(I) the management structure of EPSCoR, which shall ensure that
all research areas and activities described in this paragraph are
incorporated into EPSCoR;
“(II) efforts to conduct outreach to
inform eligible jurisdictions and faculty of changes to, and
opportunities under, EPSCoR;
“(III) how EPSCoR plans to
increase engagement with eligible jurisdictions, faculty, and State
committees, including by holding regular workshops, to increase
participation in EPSCoR; and
“(IV) any other issues relating to EPSCoR that the Secretary
determines appropriate.
“(H) PROGRAM EVALUATION.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment
of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Secretary shall contract with a
federally funded research and development center, the National
Academy of Sciences, or a similar organization to carry out an
assessment of the effectiveness of EPSCoR, including an assessment
of—
“(I) the tangible progress made towards achieving the objectives
described in subparagraph (C);
“(II) the impact of research
supported by EPSCoR on the mission of the Department of Energy;
and
“(III) any other issues relating to EPSCoR that the
Secretary determines appropriate.
“(ii) LIMITATION.—The organization with which the Secretary
contracts under clause (i) shall not be a National Laboratory.
“(iii) REPORT.—Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment
of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space and
Technology and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report describing the results of the assessment
carried out under clause (i), including recommendations for
improvements that would enable the Secretary to achieve the
objectives described in subparagraph (C).”.
######
SEC. 9903. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Department of Defense Efforts.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations for such
purposes, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary
of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a
public-private partnership through which the Secretary shall work to
incentivize the formation of one or more consortia of companies (or
other such partnerships of private-sector entities, as appropriate) to
ensure the development and production of measurably secure
microelectronics, including integrated circuits, logic devices, memory,
and the packaging and testing practices that support these
microelectronic components by the Department of Defense, the
intelligence community, critical infrastructure sectors, and other
national security applications. Such incentives may include the use of
grants under section 9902, and providing incentives for the creation,
expansion, or modernization of one or more commercially competitive and
sustainable microelectronics manufacturing or advanced research and
development facilities in the United States.
(2) RISK MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.—A participant in a consortium formed
with incentives under paragraph (1)—
(A) shall have the potential to enable design, perform fabrication,
assembly, package, or test functions for microelectronics deemed
critical to national security as defined by the National Security
Advisor and the Secretary of Defense;
(B) may be a fabless company migrating its designs to the facility
envisioned in paragraph (1) or migrating to an existing facility
onshore;
(C) may be companies, including fabless companies and companies that
procure large quantities of microelectronics, willing to co-invest to
achieve the objectives set forth in paragraph (1);
(D) shall include management processes to identify and mitigate supply
chain security risks; and
(E) shall be capable of providing microelectronic components that are
consistent with applicable measurably secure supply chain and
operational security standards established under section 224(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law
116-92).
(3)NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense and the
Director of National Intelligence shall select participants for each
consortium and or partnership formed with incentives under paragraph
(1). In selecting such participants, the Secretary and the Director may
jointly consider whether the companies—
(A) have participated in previous programs and projects of the
Department of Defense, Department of Energy, or the intelligence
community, including—
(i) the Trusted Integrated Circuit program of the Intelligence Advanced
Research Projects Activity;
(ii) trusted and assured
microelectronics projects, as administered by the Department of
Defense;
(iii) the Electronics Resurgence Initiative program of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; or
(iv) relevant
semiconductor research programs of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy;
(B) have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to performing contracts for
the Department of Defense and the intelligence community;
(C) are approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as presenting an
acceptable security risk, taking into account supply chain assurance
vulnerabilities, counterintelligence risks, and any risks presented by
companies whose beneficial owners are located outside the United States;
and
(D) are evaluated periodically for foreign ownership, control, or
influence by a foreign entity of concern.
(4) NONTRADITIONAL DEFENSE CONTRACTORS AND COMMERCIAL
ENTITIES.—Arrangements entered into to carry out paragraph (1) shall be
in such form as the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate to
encourage industry participation of nontraditional defense contractors
or commercial entities and may include a contract, a grant, a
cooperative agreement, a commercial agreement, the use of other
transaction authority under section 2371 of title 10, United States
Code, or another such arrangement.
(5) IMPLEMENTATION.—Subject to the availability of appropriations for
such purposes, the Secretary of Defense—
(A) shall carry out paragraph (1) jointly through the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment; and
(B) may carry out paragraph (1) in collaboration with any such other
component of the Department of Defense as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate.
(6) OTHER INITIATIVES.—
(A) REQUIRED INITIATIVES.—Subject to the availability of appropriations
for such purposes, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, as appropriate, may dedicate initiatives within
the Department of Defense to carry out activities to advance radio
frequency, mixed signal, radiation tolerant, and radiation hardened
microelectronics that support national security and dual-use
applications.
(B) SUPPORT PLAN REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal
Government, shall develop a plan, including assessment of resource
requirements and designation of responsible officials, for the
maintenance of capabilities to produce trusted and assured
microelectronics to support current and legacy defense systems, other
government systems essential for national security, and critical
infrastructure of the United States, especially for items with otherwise
limited commercial demand.
(C) ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES.—In
conjunction with the activities carried out under this section, the
Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement with the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study
to make recommendations and provide policy options for optimal
public-private partnerships and partnership activities, including an
analysis of establishing a semiconductor manufacturing corporation
to leverage private sector technical, managerial, and investment
expertise, and private capital, as well as an assessment of and
response to the industrial policies of other nations to support
industries in similar critical technology sectors, and deliver such
study to the congressional defense committees not later than October
1, 2022.
(7) REPORTS.—
(A) REPORT BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report on the plans of the Secretary to carry out
paragraphs (1) and (6).
(B) BIENNIAL REPORTS BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.—Not
later than one year after the date on which the Secretary submits the
report required by subparagraph (A) and not less frequently than once
every two years thereafter for a period of 10 years, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the
activities carried out under this subsection.
######
**********************************************************************************
HRpt
116-617 - To accompany H.R. 6395 – [T]o authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2021 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes Conference Committee
(12/3/20)
---
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
######
SEC. 262. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY.
(a) Strategic Plan.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this subtitle, the Entity shall—
(1) consult with relevant stakeholders, including representatives from
industry, academia, national labs, the Federal Government, and
international entities, to develop and update, as needed, a consensus
definition of “sustainable chemistry” to guide the activities under this
subtitle;
(2) develop a working framework of attributes characterizing, and
metrics for assessing, sustainable chemistry, as described in subsection
(b);
(3) assess the state of sustainable chemistry in the United States as a
key benchmark from which progress under the activities described in this
title can be measured, including assessing key sectors of the United
States economy, key technology platforms, commercial priorities, and
barriers to innovation;
(4) coordinate and support Federal research, development, demonstration,
technology transfer, commercialization, education, and training efforts
in sustainable chemistry, including budget coordination and support for
public-private partnerships, as appropriate;
(5) identify any Federal regulatory barriers to, and opportunities for,
Federal agencies facilitating the development of incentives for
development, consideration, and use of sustainable chemistry processes
and products;
(6) identify major scientific challenges, roadblocks, and hurdles to
transformational progress in improving the sustainability of the
chemical sciences; and
(7) review, identify, and make effort to eliminate duplicative Federal
funding and duplicative Federal research in sustainable chemistry.
(b) Characterizing and Assessing Sustainable Chemistry.—The Entity shall
develop a working framework of attributes characterizing, and metrics
for assessing, sustainable chemistry for the purposes of carrying out
this subtitle. In developing this framework, the Entity shall—
(1) seek advice and input from stakeholders as described in subsection
(c);
(2) consider existing definitions of, or frameworks characterizing and
metrics for assessing, sustainable chemistry already in use at Federal
agencies;
(3) consider existing definitions of, or frameworks characterizing and
metrics for assessing, sustainable chemistry already in use by
international organizations of which the United States is a member, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and
(4) consider any other appropriate existing definitions of, or
frameworks characterizing and metrics for assessing, sustainable
chemistry.
(c) Consultation.—In carrying out the duties described in subsections
(a) and (b), the Entity shall consult with stakeholders qualified to
provide advice and information to guide Federal activities related to
sustainable chemistry through workshops, requests for information, or
other mechanisms as necessary. The stakeholders shall include
representatives from—
(1) business and industry, including trade associations and small- and
medium-sized enterprises from across the value chain;
(2) the scientific community, including the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, scientific professional
societies, national labs, and academia;
(3) the defense community;
(4) State, tribal, and local governments, including nonregulatory State
or regional sustainable chemistry programs, as appropriate;
(5) nongovernmental organizations; and
(6) other appropriate organizations.
(d) Report to Congress.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Entity shall submit a report to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. In addition
to the elements described in subsections (a) and (b), the report shall
include—
(A) a summary of federally funded sustainable chemistry research,
development, demonstration, technology transfer, commercialization,
education, and training activities;
(B) a summary of the financial resources allocated to sustainable
chemistry initiatives by each participating agency;
(C) an assessment of the current state of sustainable chemistry in the
United States, including the role that Federal agencies are playing in
supporting it;
(D) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and
priorities of this subtitle, and recommendations for future program
activities;
(E) an evaluation of steps taken and future strategies to avoid
duplication of efforts, streamline interagency coordination, facilitate
information sharing, and spread best practices among participating
agencies; and
(F) an evaluation of duplicative Federal funding and duplicative Federal
research in sustainable chemistry, efforts undertaken by the Entity to
eliminate duplicative funding and research, and recommendations on how
to achieve these goals.
(2) SUBMISSION TO GAO.—The Entity shall also submit the report described
in paragraph (1) to the Comptroller General of the United States for
consideration in future Congressional inquiries.
(3) ADDITIONAL REPORTS.—The Entity shall submit a report to Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States that incorporates the
information described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), (E), and (F) of
paragraph (1) every 3 years, commencing after the initial report is
submitted until the Entity terminates.
######
SEC. 283. INDEPENDENT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EFFORTS BY CHINA AND
THE UNITED STATES TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN RESEARCHERS IN NATIONAL
SECURITY-RELATED AND DEFENSE-RELATED FIELDS.
(a) Agreement.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into
an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine to perform the services covered by this section.
(2) TIMING.—The Secretary shall seek to enter into the agreement
described in paragraph (1) not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Review.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under an agreement between the Secretary and the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under this
section, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine shall carry out a comparative analysis of efforts by China
and the United States Government to recruit and retain domestic and
foreign researchers and develop recommendations for the Secretary of
Defense and the heads of other Federal agencies as
appropriate.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The comparative analysis carried out under paragraph
(1) and the recommendations developed under such paragraph shall
include the following:
(A) A list of the “talent programs” used by China and a list of the
incentive programs used by the United States to recruit and retain
researchers in fields relating to national security or defense
research.
(B) The types of researchers, scientists, other technical experts,
and fields targeted by each talent program listed under subparagraph
(A).
(C) The number of researchers in academia, the Department of
Defense Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories, and
national security science and engineering programs of the National
Nuclear Security Administration targeted by the talent programs
listed under subparagraph (A).
(D) The number of personnel currently participating in the talent
programs listed under subparagraph (A) and the number of researchers
currently participating in the incentive programs listed under such
subparagraph.
(E) The incentives offered by each of the talent programs listed
under subparagraph (A) and a description of the incentives offered
through incentive programs under such subparagraph to recruit and
retain researchers, scientists, and other technical experts.
(F) A characterization of the national security, economic, and
scientific benefits China gains through the talent programs listed
under subparagraph (A) and a description of similar gains accrued to
the United States through incentive programs listed under such
subparagraph.
(G) An assessment of the risks to national security and benefits to
the United States of scientific research cooperation between the
United States and China, such as that which is performed under the
agreement between the United States and the People’s Republic of
China known as the “Agreement between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the People’s Republic of
China on Cooperation in Science and Technology”, signed in
Washington on January 31, 1979, successor agreements, and similar
agreements, administered by the Secretary of State and the heads of
other Federal agencies.
(H) A list of findings and recommendations relating to policies
that can be implemented by the United States, especially the
Department of Defense and other appropriate Federal agencies, to
improve the relative effectiveness of United States activities to
recruit and retain researchers, scientists, and other technical
experts relative to China.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of the
execution of an agreement under subsection (a), the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall—
(A) submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
findings National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
with respect to the review carried out under this section and the
recommendations developed under this section; and
(B) make available to the public on a publicly accessible website a
version of report that is suitable for public viewing.
(2) FORM.—The report submitted under paragraph (1)(A) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex
######
SUBTITLE I—MILITARY FAMILY READINESS AND DEPENDENTS’
EDUCATION
SEC. 581. FAMILY READINESS: DEFINITIONS; COMMUNICATION STRATEGY;
REVIEW; REPORT.
(a) Definitions.—Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries
of the military departments, shall act on recommendation one of the
report, dated July 2019, of the National Academies of Science,
Engineering and Medicine, titled “Strengthening the Military Family
Readiness System for a Changing American Society”, by establishing
definitions of “family well-being”, “family readiness”, and “family
resilience” for use by the Department of Defense.
(b) Communication Strategy.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments, shall—
(1) ensure that the Secretary of Defense has carried out section 561 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (10 U.S.C.
1781 note);
(2) implement a strategy to use of a variety of modes of communication
to ensure the broadest means of communicating with military families;
and
(3) establish a process to measure the effectiveness of the modes of
communication described in paragraph (2).
(c) Review.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of current
programs, policies, services, resources, and practices of the Department
for military families as outlined in recommendation four of the report
described in subsection (a).
(d) Report.—Not later than 60 days after completing the review under
subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report detailing the results of the review and how the Secretary shall
improve programs, policies, services, resources, and practices for
military families, based on the review.
######
“§ 8932. Ocean Policy Committee”.
(B) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter
893 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to section 8932 and inserting the following new item
“8932. Ocean Policy Committee.”.
(c) Ocean Research Advisory Panel.—Section 8933 of such title is amended
to read as follows:
Ҥ 8933. Ocean Research Advisory Panel
“(a) Establishment.—(1) The Ocean Policy Committee shall establish an
Ocean Research Advisory Panel (in this section referred to as the
‘Advisory Panel’). The Advisory Panel shall consist of not fewer than 10
and not more than 18 members appointed by the co-chairs of the
Committee, including each of the following:
“(A) Three members who represent the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
“(B) Members selected from among individuals who represent the views of
ocean industries, State, tribal, territorial or local governments,
academia, and such other views as the co-chairs consider appropriate.
“(C) Members selected from among individuals eminent in the fields of
marine science, marine technology, and marine policy, or related fields.
“(2) The Committee shall ensure that an appropriate balance of academic,
scientific, industry, and geographical interests and gender and racial
diversity are represented by the members of the Advisory Panel.
“(b) Responsibilities.—The Committee shall assign the following
responsibilities to the Advisory Panel:
“(1) To advise the Committee on policies and procedures to implement the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
“(2) To advise the Committee on matters relating to national
oceanographic science, engineering, facilities, or resource
requirements.
“(3) To advise the Committee on improving diversity, equity, and
inclusion in the ocean sciences and related fields.
“(4) To advise the Committee on national ocean research priorities.
“(5) Any additional responsibilities that the Committee considers
appropriate.
“(c) Meetings.—The Committee shall require the Advisory Panel to meet
not less frequently than two times each year.
“(d) Administrative and Technical Support.—The Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall provide to the
Advisory Panel such administrative and technical support as the Advisory
Panel may require.
“(e) Termination.—Notwithstanding section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Advisory Panel shall terminate on
January 1, 2040.”
######
SEC. 1062. LIMITATION ON PROVISION OF FUNDS TO INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION HOSTING CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES.
(a) Limitation.—Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal
year for the Department of Defense may be provided to an institution of
higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute, other than amounts
provided directly to students as educational assistance.
(b) Waiver.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation
under subsection (a) with respect to an institution of higher
education if the Secretary, after consultation with the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, determines such a
waiver is appropriate.
(2) MANAGEMENT PROCESS.—If the Secretary issues a waiver under paragraph
(1), the academic liaison designated pursuant to subsection (g) of
section 1286 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019 (10 U.S.C. 2358 note), as amended by section 1299C
of this Act, shall manage the waiver process on behalf of the Secretary.
(c) Effective Date.—The limitation under subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is 24
months after the date of the enactment of this Act and to any subsequent
fiscal year.
(d) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “Confucius Institute” means a cultural institute directly
or indirectly funded by the Government of the People’s Republic of
China.
(2) The term “institution of higher education” has the meaning given
such term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002).
######
“SEC. 1286. INITIATIVE TO SUPPORT PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY
ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS FROM UNDUE INFLUENCE AND OTHER SECURITY
THREATS.
“(a) Initiative Required.—The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with other appropriate government organizations, establish
an initiative to work with institutions of higher education who perform
defense research and engineering activities—
“(1) to support protection of intellectual property, controlled
information, key personnel, and information about critical technologies
relevant to national security;
“(2) to limit undue influence, including through foreign talent
programs, by countries to exploit United States technology within the
Department of Defense research, science and technology, and innovation
enterprise; and
“(3) to support efforts toward development of domestic talent in
relevant scientific and engineering fields.
“(b) Institutions and Organizations.—The initiative required by
subsection (a) shall be developed and executed to the maximum extent
practicable with academic research institutions and other educational
and research organizations.
“(c) Requirements.—The initiative required by subsection (a) shall
include development of the following:
“(1) Information exchange forum and information repositories to enable
awareness of security threats and influence operations being executed
against the United States research, technology, and innovation
enterprise.
“(2) Training developed and delivered in consultation with institutions
of higher education and appropriate Government agencies, and other
support to institutions of higher education, to promote security and
limit undue influence on institutions of higher education and personnel,
including Department of Defense financial support to carry out such
activities, that—
“(A) emphasizes best practices for protection of sensitive national
security information;
“(B) includes the dissemination of unclassified materials and resources
for identifying and protecting against emerging threats to institutions
of higher education, including specific counterintelligence information
and advice developed specifically for faculty and academic researchers
based on actual identified threats; and
“(C) includes requirements for appropriate senior officials of
institutions of higher education to receive from appropriate Government
agencies updated and periodic briefings that describe the espionage
risks to academic institutions and associated personnel posed by
technical intelligence gathering activities of near-peer strategic
competitors.
“(3) The capacity of Government agencies and institutions of higher
education to assess whether individuals affiliated with Department of
Defense programs have participated in or are currently participating in
foreign talent programs or expert recruitment programs.
“(4) Opportunities to collaborate with defense researchers and research
organizations in secure facilities to promote protection of critical
information and strengthen defense against foreign intelligence
services.
“(5) Regulations and procedures—
“(A) for Government agencies and academic organizations and personnel to
support the goals of the initiative; and
“(B) that are consistent with policies that protect open and scientific
exchange in fundamental research.
“(6) Policies to limit or prohibit funding provided by the Department of
Defense for institutions or individual researchers who knowingly violate
regulations developed under the initiative, including regulations
relating to foreign talent programs.
“(7) Initiatives to support the transition of the results of institution
of higher education research programs into defense capabilities.
“(8)(A) A list of academic institutions of the People’s Republic of
China, the Russian Federation, and other countries that—
“(i) have a history of improper technology transfer, intellectual
property theft, or cyber or human espionage;
“(ii) operate under
the direction of the military forces or intelligence agency of the
applicable country;
“(iii) are known—
“(I) to recruit foreign individuals for the purpose of transferring
knowledge to advance military or intelligence efforts; or
“(II) to provide misleading information or otherwise attempt to conceal
the connections of an individual or institution to a defense or an
intelligence agency of the applicable country; or
“(iv) pose a serious risk of improper technology transfer of data,
technology, or research that is not published or publicly available.
“(B) The list described in subparagraph (A) shall be developed and
continuously updated in consultation with the Bureau of Industry and
Security of the Department of Commerce, the Director of National
Intelligence, United States institutions of higher education that
conduct significant Department of Defense research or engineering
activities, and other appropriate individuals and organizations.
“(9)(A) A list, developed and continuously updated in consultation
with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
and the appropriate Government agencies, of foreign talent programs
that pose a threat to the national security interests of the United
States, as determined by the Secretary.
“(B) In developing and updating such list, the Secretary shall consider—
“(i) the extent to which a foreign talent program—
“(I) poses a threat to research funded by the Department of Defense; and
“(II) engages in, or facilitates, cyber attacks, theft, espionage,
attempts to gain ownership of or influence over companies, or otherwise
interferes in the affairs of the United States; and
“(ii) any other factor the Secretary considers appropriate.
“(d) Procedures for Enhanced Information Sharing.—
“(1) COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.—
“(A) DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not later than October
1, 2020, for the purpose of maintaining appropriate security controls
over research activities, technical information, and intellectual
property, the Secretary, in conjunction with appropriate public and
private entities, shall establish streamlined procedures to collect
appropriate information relating to individuals, including United States
citizens and foreign nationals, who participate in defense research and
development activities.
“(B) FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS.—With respect to fundamental research
programs, the academic liaison designated under subsection (g) shall
establish policies and procedures to collect, consistent with the best
practices of Government agencies that fund academic research,
appropriate information relating to individuals who participate in
fundamental research programs.
“(2) PROTECTION FROM RELEASE.—The procedures required by paragraph (1)
shall include procedures to protect such information from release,
consistent with applicable regulations.
“(3) REPORTING TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND REPOSITORIES.—The
procedures required by paragraph (1) may include procedures developed,
in coordination with appropriate public and private entities, to report
such information to existing Government information systems and
repositories.
######
SEC. 1299I. ASSESSMENT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
TERRORISM.
(a) Assessment.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Energy, shall enter into an arrangement
with the National Academy of Sciences—
(1) to conduct an assessment of strategies of the United States for
preventing, countering, and responding to nuclear, biological, and
chemical terrorism; and
(2) to make recommendations to improve such strategies.
(b) Matters to Be Included.—The assessment and recommendations
required by subsection (a) shall address the adequacy of strategies
described in such subsection and identify technical, policy, and
resource gaps with respect to—
(1) identifying national and international nuclear, biological, and
chemical risks, and critical emerging threats;
(2) preventing state-sponsored and non-state actors from acquiring
or misusing the technologies, materials, and critical expertise
needed to carry out nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks,
including dual-use technologies, materials, and expertise;
(3) countering efforts by state-sponsored and non-state actors to
carry out such attacks;
(4) responding to nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism
incidents to attribute their origin and help manage their
consequences;
(5) budgets likely to be required to implement effectively such
strategies; and
(6) other important matters that are directly relevant to such
strategies.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report that contains the
assessment and recommendations required by subsection (a).
(2) FORM.—The report required by this subsection shall be submitted
in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.—In this section,
the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—
(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Armed Services,
and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee on Armed
Services, and Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
######
SEC. 1622. NATIONAL ACADEMIES CLIMATE SECURITY
ROUNDTABLE.
(a) In General.—The Director of National Intelligence, in
coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
and Security, shall enter into a joint agreement with the Academies
to create a new “National Academies Climate Security Roundtable” (in
this section referred to as the “roundtable”).
(b) Participants.—The roundtable shall include—
(1) the members of the Climate Security Advisory Council
established under section 120 of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 3060);
(2) senior representatives and practitioners from Federal science
agencies, elements of the intelligence community, and the Department
of Defense, who are not members of the Council; and
(3) key stakeholders in the United States scientific enterprise,
including institutions of higher education, Federal research
laboratories (including the national security laboratories),
industry, and nonprofit research organizations.
(c) Purpose.—The purpose of the roundtable is—
(1) to support the duties and responsibilities of the Climate
Security Advisory Council under section 120(c) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3060(c));
(2) to develop best practices for the exchange of data, knowledge,
and expertise among elements of the intelligence community, elements
of the Federal Government that are not elements of the intelligence
community, and non-Federal researchers;
(3) to facilitate dialogue and collaboration about relevant
collection and analytic priorities among participants of the
roundtable with respect to climate security;
(4) to identify relevant gaps in the exchange of data, knowledge,
or expertise among participants of the roundtable with respect to
climate security, and consider viable solutions to address such
gaps; and
(5) to provide any other assistance, resources, or capabilities
that the Director of National Intelligence or the Under Secretary
determines necessary with respect to the Council carrying out the
duties and responsibilities of the Council under such section
120(c).
(d) Meetings.—The roundtable shall meet at least quarterly, in
coordination with the meetings of the Climate Security Advisory
Council under section 120(c)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 3060(c)(1)).
(e) Reports and Briefings.—The joint agreement under subsection (a)
shall specify that—
(1) the roundtable shall organize workshops, on at least a biannual
basis, that include both participants of the roundtable and persons
who are not participants, and may be conducted in classified or
unclassified form in accordance with subsection (f);
(2) on a regular basis, the roundtable shall produce classified and
unclassified reports on the topics described in subsection (c) and
the activities of the roundtable, and other documents in support of
the duties and responsibilities of the Climate Security Advisory
Council under section 120(c) of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 3060(c));
(3) the Academies shall provide recommendations by consensus to the
Council on both the topics described in subsection (c) and specific
topics as identified by participants of the roundtable;
(4) not later than March 1, 2021, and annually thereafter during
the life of the roundtable, the Academies shall provide a briefing
to the appropriate congressional committees on the progress and
activities of the roundtable; and
(5) not later than September 30, 2025, the Academies shall submit a
final report to the appropriate congressional committees on the
activities of the roundtable.
(f) Security Clearances.—Each participant of the roundtable shall
have a security clearance at the appropriate level to carry out the
duties of the participant under this section. A person who is not a
participant who attends a workshop under subsection (e)(1) is not
required to have a security clearance, and the roundtable shall
ensure that any such workshop is held at the appropriate classified
or unclassified level.
(g) Termination.—The roundtable shall terminate on September 30,
2025.
(h) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “Academies” means the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine.
(2) The term “appropriate congressional committees” means—
(A) the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee
on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(3) The term “Federal science agency” means any agency or
department of the Federal Government with at least $100,000,000 in
basic and applied research obligations in fiscal year 2019.
(4) The term “intelligence community” has the meaning given that
term in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
3003).
(5) The term “national security laboratory” has the meaning given
the term in section 4002 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2501).
######
SEC. 1663. INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION ORDER 20-48.
(a) Agreement.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall seek to enter into an agreement with
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for
the National Academies to perform the services covered by this
section.
(2) TIMING.—The Secretary shall seek to enter into the agreement
described in paragraph (1) not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Independent Technical Review.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under an agreement between the Secretary and the
National Academies under subsection (a), the National Academies
shall carry out an independent technical review of the Order and
Authorization adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on
April 19, 2020 (FCC 20-48), to the extent that such Order and
Authorization affects the devices, operations, or activities of the
Department of Defense.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The independent technical review carried out under
paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) Comparison of the two different approaches on which the
Commission relied for the Order and Authorization described in
paragraph (1) to evaluate the potential harmful interference
concerns relating to Global Positioning System devices, with a
recommendation on which method most effectively mitigates risks of
harmful interference with Global Positioning System devices of the
Department, or relating to or with the potential to affect the
operations and activities of the Department.
(B) Assessment of the potential for harmful interference to mobile
satellite services, including commercial services and Global
Positioning System services of the Department, or relating to or
with the potential to affect the operations and activities of the
Department.
(C) Review of the feasibility, practicality, and effectiveness of
the proposed mitigation measures relating to, or with the potential
to affect, the devices, operations, or activities of the
Department.
(D) Development of recommendations associated with the findings of
the National Academies in carrying out the independent technical
review.
(E) Such other matters as the National Academies determines
relevant.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Under an agreement between the Secretary and the
National Academies under subsection (a), the National Academies, not
later than 270 days after the date of the execution of such
agreement, shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report on the findings of the National Academies
with respect to the independent technical review carried out under
subsection (b) and the recommendations developed pursuant to such
review.
(2) FORM.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in a publicly releasable and unclassified format, but may
include a classified annex.
######
SEC. 3125. CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF APPROACHES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
TREATMENT OF LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE AT HANFORD NUCLEAR
RESERVATION.
(a) In General.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall—
(1) enter into an arrangement with a federally funded research and
development center to conduct a follow-on analysis to the analysis
required by section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328; 130 Stat. 2769) with
respect to approaches for treating the portion of low-activity waste
at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, Washington, intended
for supplemental treatment; and
(2) enter into an arrangement with the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the follow-on analysis
conducted under paragraph (1).
(b) Comparison of Alternatives to Aid Decisionmaking.—The analysis
required by subsection (a)(1) shall be designed, to the greatest
extent possible, to provide decisionmakers with the ability to make
a direct comparison between approaches for the supplemental
treatment of low-activity waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation
based on criteria that are relevant to decisionmaking and most
clearly differentiate between approaches.
(c) Elements.—The analysis required by subsection (a)(1) shall
clearly lay out a framework of decisions to be made among the
treatment technologies, waste forms, and disposal locations by
including an assessment of the following:
(1) The most effective potential technology for supplemental
treatment of low-activity waste that will produce an effective waste
form, including an assessment of the following:
(A) The maturity and complexity of the technology.
(B) The
extent of previous use of the technology.
(C) The life cycle
costs and duration of use of the technology.
(D) The
effectiveness of the technology with respect to immobilization.
(E)
The performance of the technology expected under permanent
disposal.
(F) The topical areas of additional study required
for the grout option identified in the analysis required by section
3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017.
(2) The differences among approaches for the supplemental treatment
of low-activity waste considered as of the date of the analysis
required by subsection (a)(1).
(3) The compliance of such approaches with the technical standards
described in section 3134(b)(2)(D) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
(4) The differences among potential disposal sites for the waste
form produced through such treatment, including mitigation of
radionuclides, including technetium-99, selenium-79, and iodine-129,
on a system level.
(5) Potential modifications to the design of facilities to enhance
performance with respect to disposal of the waste form to account
for the following:
(A) Regulatory compliance.
(B) Public acceptance.
(C)
Cost.
(D) Safety.
(E) The expected radiation dose to
maximally exposed individuals over time.
(F) Differences among
disposal environments.
(6) Approximately how much and what type of pretreatment is needed
to meet regulatory requirements regarding long-lived radionuclides
and hazardous chemicals to reduce disposal costs for radionuclides
described in paragraph (4).
(7) Whether the radionuclides can be left in the waste form or
economically removed and bounded at a system level by the
performance assessment of a potential disposal site and, if the
radionuclides cannot be left in the waste form, how to account for
the secondary waste stream.
(8) Other relevant factors relating to the technology described in
paragraph (1), including the following:
(A) The costs and risks in delays with respect to tank performance
over time.
(B) Consideration of experience with treatment
methods at other sites and commercial facilities.
(C) Outcomes
of the test bed initiative of the Office of Environmental Management
at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
(d) Review, Consultation, Submission, and Limitations.—The
provisions of subsections (c) through (f) of section 3134 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 shall apply
with respect to the analysis required by subsection (a)(1) to the
same extent and in the same manner that such provisions applied with
respect to the analysis required by subsection (a) of such section
3134, except that subsection (e) of such section shall be applied
and administered by substituting “the date of the enactment of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021” for “the date of the enactment of this Act” each
place it appears.
######
Subtitle H—Other Matters
SEC. 3171. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
NUCLEAR WAR.
(a) Study.—The Administrator for Nuclear Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence,
shall seek to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under which the National
Academies conduct a study on the environmental effects of nuclear
war.
(b) Matters Included.—The study under subsection (a) shall include
the following:
(1) An evaluation of the non-fallout atmospheric effects of
plausible scenarios for nuclear war, ranging from low-quantity
regional exchanges to large-scale exchanges between major
powers.
(2) An examination of the effects evaluated under paragraph (1)
by—
(A) the yield, type, and number of nuclear weapons;
(B) the types and locations of targets;
(C) the time distribution of the explosions;
(D) the atmospheric conditions; and
(E) other factors that may have a significant impact on the
effects.
(3) An assessment of current models of nuclear explosions,
including with respect to—
(A) the fires such explosions may cause;
(B) the atmospheric transport of the gases from such
explosions;
(C) the radioactive material from such explosions; and
(D) the soot and other debris from such fires and explosions and
the atmospheric, terrestrial, and marine consequences of such
effects, including with respect to changes in weather patterns,
airborne particulate concentrations, stratospheric ozone,
agriculture, and long-term regional ecosystem viability.
(4) Identification of the capabilities and limitations of the
models described in paragraph (3) for assessing the environmental
effects of nuclear war, including—
(A) an evaluation of the relevant uncertainties;
(B) a highlight of the key data gaps; and
(C) recommendations for how such models can be improved to better
inform decision making.
(c) Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the National Academies shall submit to the
Administrator, the Secretary, the Director, and the congressional
defense committees a report on the study under subsection (a).
(2) FORM.—The report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in
unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
(d) Provision of Information.—
(1) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—The Secretary shall provide to the
National Academies such information of the Department of Defense as
is necessary for the National Academies to conduct the study under
subsection (a), including information relating to relevant scenarios
described in subsection (b).
(2) DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.—The Director shall provide
to the National Academies such information on foreign adversary
capabilities as is necessary for the National Academies to conduct
the study under subsection (a), including information relating to
relevant scenarios described in subsection (b).
SEC. 3172. REVIEW OF FUTURE OF COMPUTING BEYOND EXASCALE AT THE
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.—The Administrator for Nuclear Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall enter into an
agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to review the future
of computing beyond exascale computing to meet national security
needs at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
(b) Elements.—The review required by subsection (a) shall address
the following:
(1) Future computing needs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration that exascale computing will not accomplish during
the 20 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Computing architectures that potentially can meet those needs,
including—
(A) classical computing architectures employed as of such date of
enactment;
(B) quantum computing architectures and other novel computing
architectures;
(C) hybrid combinations of classical and quantum computing
architectures; and
(D) other architectures as necessary.
(3) The development of software for the computing architectures
described in paragraph (2).
(4) The maturity of the computing architectures described in
paragraph (2) and the software described in paragraph (3), with key
obstacles that must be overcome for the employment of such
architectures and software.
(5) The secure industrial base that exists as of the date of the
enactment of this Act to meet the unique needs of computing at the
National Nuclear Security Administration, including needs with
respect to—
(A) personnel;
(B) microelectronics; and
(C) other appropriate matters.
(c) Information and Clearances.—The Administrator shall ensure that
personnel of the National Academy of Sciences overseeing the
implementation of the agreement required by subsection (a) or
conducting the review required by that subsection receive, in a
timely manner, access to information and necessary security
clearances to enable the conduct of the review.
(d) Report Required.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on the findings of
the review required by subsection (a).
(2) FORM.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted
in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
(e) Exascale Computing Defined.—In this section, the term “exascale
computing” means computing through the use of a computing machine
that performs near or above 10 to the 18th power floating point
operations per second.
######
SEC. 5104. NATIONAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
(a) In General.—The Secretary of Commerce shall, in consultation with
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State,
the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence
establish an advisory committee to be known as the “National Artificial
Intelligence Advisory Committee”.
(b) Qualifications.—The Advisory Committee shall consist of members,
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, who are representing broad and
interdisciplinary expertise and perspectives, including from academic
institutions, companies across diverse sectors, nonprofit and civil
society entities, including civil rights and disability rights
organizations, and Federal laboratories, who are representing geographic
diversity, and who are qualified to provide advice and information on
science and technology research, development, ethics, standards,
education, technology transfer, commercial application, security, and
economic competitiveness related to artificial intelligence.
(c) Membership Consideration.—In selecting the members of the
Advisory Committee, the Secretary of Commerce shall seek and give
consideration to recommendations from Congress, industry, nonprofit
organizations, the scientific community (including the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, scientific
professional societies, and academic institutions), the defense and
law enforcement communities, and other appropriate
organizations.
(d) Duties.—The Advisory Committee shall advise the President and the
Initiative Office on matters related to the Initiative, including
recommendations related to—
(1) the current state of United States competitiveness and leadership in
artificial intelligence, including the scope and scale of United States
investments in artificial intelligence research and development in the
international context;
(2) the progress made in implementing the Initiative, including a review
of the degree to which the Initiative has achieved the goals according
to the metrics established by the Interagency Committee under section
5103(d)(2);
(3) the state of the science around artificial intelligence, including
progress toward artificial general intelligence;
(4) issues related to artificial intelligence and the United States
workforce, including matters relating to the potential for using
artificial intelligence for workforce training, the possible
consequences of technological displacement, and supporting workforce
training opportunities for occupations that lead to economic
self-sufficiency for individuals with barriers to employment and
historically underrepresented populations, including minorities, Indians
(as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304), low-income populations, and persons with
disabilities.
(5) how to leverage the resources of the initiative to streamline and
enhance operations in various areas of government operations, including
health care, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and disaster recovery;
(6) the need to update the Initiative;
(7) the balance of activities and funding across the Initiative;
(8) whether the strategic plan developed or updated by the Interagency
Committee established under section 5103(d)(2) is helping to maintain
United States leadership in artificial intelligence;
(9) the management, coordination, and activities of the Initiative;
(10) whether ethical, legal, safety, security, and other appropriate
societal issues are adequately addressed by the Initiative;
(11) opportunities for international cooperation with strategic allies
on artificial intelligence research activities, standards development,
and the compatibility of international regulations;
(12) accountability and legal rights, including matters relating to
oversight of artificial intelligence systems using regulatory and
nonregulatory approaches, the responsibility for any violations of
existing laws by an artificial intelligence system, and ways to balance
advancing innovation while protecting individual rights; and
(13) how artificial intelligence can enhance opportunities for diverse
geographic regions of the United States, including urban, Tribal, and
rural communities.
SEC. 5105. NATIONAL ACADEMIES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACT
STUDY ON WORKFORCE.
(a) In General.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the National Science Foundation shall enter
into a contract with the National Research Council of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study
of the current and future impact of artificial intelligence on the
workforce of the United States across sectors.
(b) Contents.—The study shall address—
(1) workforce impacts across sectors caused by the increased
adoption of artificial intelligence, automation, and other related
trends;
(2) workforce needs and employment opportunities generated by the
increased adoption of artificial intelligence across sectors;
(3) research gaps and data needed to better understand and track
paragraphs (1) and (2); and
(4) recommendations to address the challenges and opportunities
described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(c) Stakeholders.—In conducting the study, the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall seek input from a wide
range of stakeholders in the public and private sectors.
(d) Report to Congress.—The contract entered into under subsection
(a) shall require the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act, to—
(1) submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and
the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
Committee on Health, Education, Pension, and Labor of the Senate a
report containing the findings and recommendations of the study
conducted under subsection (a); and
(2) make a copy of such report available on a publicly accessible
website.
SEC. 5106. NATIONAL AI RESEARCH RESOURCE TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment of Task Force.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Science Foundation, in
coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall
establish a task force—
(i) to investigate the feasibility and advisability of establishing and
sustaining a National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource; and
(ii)
to propose a roadmap detailing how such resource should be established
and sustained.
(B) DESIGNATION.—The task force established by subparagraph (A) shall be
known as the “National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Task
Force” (in this section referred to as the “Task Force”).
(2) MEMBERSHIP.—
(A) COMPOSITION.—The Task Force shall be composed of 12 members selected
by the co-chairpersons of the Task Force from among technical experts in
artificial intelligence or related subjects, of whom—
(i) 4 shall be representatives from the Interagency Committee
established in section 5103, including the co-chairpersons of the Task
Force;
(ii) 4 shall be representatives from institutions of higher
education; and
(iii) 4 shall be representatives from private
organizations.
(B) APPOINTMENT.—Not later than 120 days after enactment of this Act,
the co-chairpersons of the Task Force shall appoint members to the Task
Force pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(C) TERM OF APPOINTMENT.—Members of the Task Force shall be appointed
for the life of the Task Force.
(D) VACANCY.—Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Task Force
shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was
made.
(E) CO-CHAIRPERSONS.—The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Director of the National Sciences Foundation,
or their designees, shall be the co-chairpersons of the Task Force. If
the role of the Director of the National Science Foundation is vacant,
the Chair of the National Science Board shall act as a co-chairperson of
the Task Force.
(F) EXPENSES FOR NON-FEDERAL MEMBERS.—
(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), non-Federal Members of the Task
Force shall not receive compensation for their participation on the Task
Force.
(ii) Non-Federal Members of the Task Force shall be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Task Force.
(b) Roadmap and Implementation Plan.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall develop a coordinated roadmap and
implementation plan for creating and sustaining a National Artificial
Intelligence Research Resource.
(2) CONTENTS.—The roadmap and plan required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Goals for establishment and sustainment of a National Artificial
Intelligence Research Resource and metrics for success.
(B) A plan for ownership and administration of the National Artificial
Intelligence Research Resource, including—
(i) an appropriate agency or organization responsible for the
implementation, deployment, and administration of the Resource; and
(ii) a governance structure for the Resource, including oversight and
decision-making authorities.
(C) A model for governance and oversight to establish strategic
direction, make programmatic decisions, and manage the allocation of
resources;
(D) Capabilities required to create and maintain a shared computing
infrastructure to facilitate access to computing resources for
researchers across the country, including scalability, secured access
control, resident data engineering and curation expertise, provision of
curated data sets, compute resources, educational tools and services,
and a user interface portal.
(E) An assessment of, and recommended solutions to, barriers to the
dissemination and use of high-quality government data sets as part of
the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource.
(F) An assessment of security requirements associated with the National
Artificial Intelligence Research Resource and its research and a
recommendation for a framework for the management of access controls.
(G) An assessment of privacy and civil rights and civil liberties
requirements associated with the National Artificial Intelligence
Research Resource and its research.
(H) A plan for sustaining the Resource, including through Federal
funding and partnerships with the private sector.
(I) Parameters for the establishment and sustainment of the National
Artificial Intelligence Research Resource, including agency roles and
responsibilities and milestones to implement the Resource.
(c) Consultations.—In conducting its duties required under subsection
(b), the Task Force shall consult with the following:
(1) The National Science Foundation.
(2) The Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
(3) The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
(4) The National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(5)
The Director of National Intelligence.
(6) The Department of
Energy.
(7) The Department of Defense.
(8) The General
Services Administration.
(9) The Department of Justice.
(10)
The Department of Homeland Security.
(11) The Department of Health
and Human Services.
(12) Private industry.
(13) Institutions
of higher education.
(14) Civil and disabilities rights
organizations.
(15) Such other persons as the Task Force considers
appropriate.
(d) Staff.—Staff of the Task Force shall comprise detailees with
expertise in artificial intelligence, or related fields from the Office
of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, or
any other agency the co-chairs deem appropriate, with the consent of the
head of the agency.
######
TITLE LIV—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES
Sec. 5401. Artificial intelligence research and education.
SEC. 5401. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION.
(a) In General.—the Director of the National Science Foundation shall
fund research and education activities in artificial intelligence
systems and related fields, including competitive awards or grants to
institutions of higher education or eligible nonprofit organizations (or
consortia thereof).
(b) Uses of Funds.—In carrying out the activities under subsection (a),
the Director of the National Science Foundation shall—
(1) support research, including interdisciplinary research, on
artificial intelligence systems and related areas, including fields and
research areas that will contribute to the development and deployment of
trustworthy artificial intelligence systems, and fields and research
areas that address the application of artificial intelligence systems to
scientific discovery and societal challenges;
(2) use the existing programs of the National Science Foundation, in
collaboration with other Federal departments and agencies, as
appropriate to—
(A) improve the teaching and learning of topics related to artificial
intelligence systems in K-12 education and postsecondary educational
programs, including workforce training and career and technical
education programs, undergraduate and graduate education programs, and
in informal settings; and
(B) increase participation in artificial intelligence related fields,
including by individuals identified in sections 33 and 34 of the Science
and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a, 1885b);
(3) support partnerships among institutions of higher education, Federal
laboratories, nonprofit organizations, State, local, and Tribal
governments, industry, and potential users of artificial intelligence
systems that facilitate collaborative research, personnel exchanges, and
workforce development and identify emerging research needs with respect
to artificial intelligence systems;
(4) ensure adequate access to research and education infrastructure with
respect to artificial intelligence systems, which may include the
development of new computing resources and partnership with the private
sector for the provision of cloud-based computing services;
(5) conduct prize competitions, as appropriate, pursuant to section 24
of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3719);
(6) coordinate research efforts funded through existing programs across
the directorates of the National Science Foundation;
(7) provide guidance on data sharing by grantees to public and private
sector organizations consistent with the standards and guidelines
developed under section 22A(e) of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Act (as added by section 5301 of this division); and
(8) evaluate opportunities for international collaboration with
strategic allies on artificial intelligence research and development.
(c) Engineering Support.—In general, the Director shall permit
applicants to include in their proposed budgets funding for software
engineering support to assist with the proposed research.
(d) Ethics.—
(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(A) a number of emerging areas of research, including artificial
intelligence, have potential ethical, social, safety, and security risks
that might be apparent as early as the basic research stage;
(B) the incorporation of ethical, social, safety, and security
considerations into the research design and review process for Federal
awards may help mitigate potential harms before they happen;
(C) the National Science Foundation’s agreement with the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study
and make recommendations with respect to governance of research in
computing and computing technologies is a positive step toward
accomplishing this goal; and
(D) the National Science Foundation should continue to work with
stakeholders to understand and adopt policies that promote best
practices for governance of research in emerging technologies at every
stage of research.
(2) REPORT ON ETHICS STATEMENTS.—No later than 6 months after
publication of the study described in paragraph (1)(C), the Director
shall report to Congress on options for requiring an ethics or risk
statement as part of all or a subset of applications for research
funding to the National Science Foundation.
######
SEC. 8108. POLAR SECURITY CUTTER ACQUISITION REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Commandant shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Armed Services of the House of Representatives, and
the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Armed
Services of the Senate a report on—
(1) the extent to which specifications, key drawings, and detail design
for the Polar Security Cutter are complete before the start of
construction;
(2) the extent to which Polar Security Cutter hulls numbers one, two,
and three are science ready; and
(3) what actions will be taken to ensure that Polar Security Cutter
hull number four is science capable, as described in the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on
Polar Icebreaker Cost Assessment letter report entitled “Acquisition
and Operation of Polar Icebreakers: Fulfilling the Nation’s Needs”
and dated July 11, 2017.
######
SEC. 8249. COAST GUARD AUTHORITIES STUDY.
(a) In General.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall seek to enter into an arrangement with the National
Academy of Sciences not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act under which the Academy shall prepare an
assessment of Coast Guard authorities.
(b) Assessment.—The assessment under subsection (a) shall provide—
(1) an examination of emerging issues that may require Coast Guard
oversight, regulation, or action;
(2) a description of potential limitations and shortcomings of
relying on current Coast Guard authorities to address emerging
issues; and
(3) an overview of adjustments and additions that could be made to
existing Coast Guard authorities to fully address emerging
issues.
(c) Report to the Congress.—Not later than 1 year after entering
into an arrangement with the Secretary under subsection (a), the
National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate the assessment under this section.
(d) Emerging Issues.—In this section, the term “emerging issues”
means changes in the maritime industry and environment that in the
determination of the National Academy of Sciences are reasonably
likely to occur within 10 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, including—
(1) the introduction of new technologies in the maritime
domain;
(2) the advent of new processes or operational activities in the
maritime domain; and
(3) changes in the use of navigable waterways.
(e) Form.—The assessment required under subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified
annex.
######
SEC. 8254. STUDY ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION PROGRAM
WITH RESPECT TO VESSELS THAT CARRY BULK LIQUEFIED GASES AS CARGO AND
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TANK VESSELS.
(a) GAO Report.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report on the resources, regulations, policies,
protocols, and other actions designed to carry out the Coast Guard
Certificate of Compliance program with respect to liquefied natural gas
tank vessels (including examinations under section 153.808 of title 46,
Code of Federal Regulations) and vessels that carry bulk liquefied gases
as cargo (including examinations under part 154 of title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations) for purposes of maintaining the efficiency of
examinations under that program.
(2) CONTENTS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall include an assessment
of the adequacy of current Coast Guard resources, regulations, policies,
and protocols to maintain vessel examination efficiency while carrying
out the program referred to in paragraph (1) as United States bulk
liquefied gases cargo, liquefied natural gas exports, and associated
vessel traffic at United States ports increase.
(b) National Academies Study.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 months after the date on which the
report required under subsection (a) is submitted, the Commandant
shall enter into an agreement with the National Academies under
which the National Academies shall—
(A) conduct an evaluation of the constraints and challenges to
maintaining examination efficiency under the program as United
States bulk liquefied gases cargo, liquefied natural gas exports,
and associated vessel traffic at United States ports increase;
and
(B) issue recommendations for changes to resources, regulations,
policies, and protocols to maintain the efficiency of the program,
including analysis of the following alternatives:
(i) Establishment of a Coast Guard marine examination unit near the
Panama Canal to conduct inspections under the program on liquefied
natural gas tank vessels bound for the United States, similar to
Coast Guard operations carried out by Coast Guard Activities Europe
and Coast Guard Activities Far East, including the effects of the
establishment of such a unit on the domestic aspects of the
program.
(ii) Management of all marine examiners with gas carrier
qualification within each Coast Guard District by a single Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection (as defined in section 50.10-10 of
title 46, Code of Federal Regulations) to improve the efficiency of
their vessel examination assignments.
(iii) Extension of the duration of assignment of marine examiners
with a gas carrier qualification at Coast Guard units that most
frequently inspect vessels that carry bulk liquefied gases as cargo
and liquefied natural gas tank vessels.
(iv) Increase in the use of civilians to conduct and support
examinations under the program.
(v) Extension of the duration of certificates of compliance under
the program for vessels that carry bulk liquefied gases as cargo and
liquefied natural gas tank vessels that are less than 10 years of
age and participate in a Coast Guard vessel quality program.
######
SEC. 8304. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761) is
amended—
######
“(b) Establishment of Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil
Pollution Research.—
“(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established an Interagency Coordinating
Committee on Oil Pollution Research.
“(2) PURPOSE.—The Interagency Committee shall coordinate a comprehensive
program of oil pollution research, technology development, and
demonstration among the Federal agencies, in cooperation and
coordination with industry, 4-year institutions of higher education and
research institutions, State governments, and other nations, as
appropriate, and shall foster cost-effective research mechanisms,
including the joint funding of research.
######
“(d) Duties of the Interagency Committee.—
“(1) RESEARCH.—The Interagency Committee shall—
“(A) coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution research,
technology development, and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in
cooperation and coordination with industry, 4-year institutions of
higher education and research institutions, States, Indian tribes, and
other countries, as appropriate; and
“(B) foster cost-effective research mechanisms, including the joint
funding of research and the development of public-private partnerships
for the purpose of expanding research.
“(2) OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN.—
“(A) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2020, the Interagency Committee shall submit to Congress a research plan
to report on the state of oil discharge prevention and response
capabilities that—
“(i) identifies current research programs conducted by Federal agencies,
States, Indian tribes, 4-year institutions of higher education, and
corporate entities;
“(ii) assesses the current status of knowledge on oil pollution
prevention, response, and mitigation technologies and effects of oil
pollution on the environment;
“(iii) identifies significant oil pollution research gaps, including an
assessment of major technological deficiencies in responses to past oil
discharges;
“(iv) establishes national research priorities and goals for oil
pollution technology development related to prevention, response,
mitigation, and environmental effects;
“(v) assesses the research on the applicability and effectiveness of the
prevention, response, and mitigation technologies to each class of oil;
“(vi) estimates the resources needed to conduct the oil pollution
research and development program established pursuant to subsection (e),
and timetables for completing research tasks;
“(vii) summarizes research on response equipment in varying
environmental conditions, such as in currents, ice cover, and ice floes;
and
“(viii) includes such other information or recommendations as the
Interagency Committee determines to be appropriate.
“(B) ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.—
“(i) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CONTRACT.—The Chair, through the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall contract
with the National Academy of Sciences to—
“(I) provide advice and guidance in the preparation and development
of the research plan;
“(II) assess the adequacy of the plan as submitted, and submit a
report to Congress on the conclusions of such assessment; and
“(III) provide organization guidance regarding the implementation
of the research plan, including delegation of topics and research
among Federal agencies represented on the Interagency
Committee.
“(ii) NIST ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.—The National Institute of Standards and
Technology shall provide the Interagency Committee with advice and
guidance on issues relating to quality assurance and standards
measurements relating to its activities under this section.
“(C) 10-YEAR UPDATES.—Not later than 10 years after the date of
enactment of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2020, and every 10 years thereafter, the Interagency Committee shall
submit to Congress a research plan that updates the information
contained in the previous research plan submitted under this
subsection.”.
######
Subtitle B—Other Matters
SEC. 9411. ESTABLISHED PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH.
Section 2203(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(b)) is
amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following new
paragraph (3):
“(3) ESTABLISHED PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH.—
######
“(C) OBJECTIVES.—The objectives of EPSCoR shall be—
“(i) to increase the number of researchers in eligible jurisdictions,
especially at institutions of higher education, capable of performing
nationally competitive science and engineering research in support of
the mission of the Department of Energy in the areas of applied energy
research, environmental management, and basic science;
“(ii) to improve science and engineering research and education programs
at institutions of higher education in eligible jurisdictions and
enhance the capabilities of eligible jurisdictions to develop, plan, and
execute research that is competitive, including through investing in
research equipment and instrumentation; and
“(iii) to increase the probability of long-term growth of competitive
funding to eligible jurisdictions.
“(D) ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS.—
######
“(E) GRANTS IN AREAS OF APPLIED ENERGY RESEARCH, ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT, AND BASIC SCIENCE.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—EPSCoR shall make grants to eligible jurisdictions to
carry out and support applied energy research and research in all areas
of environmental management and basic science sponsored by the
Department of Energy, including—
“(I) energy efficiency, fossil energy, renewable energy, and other
applied energy research;
“(II) electricity delivery research;
“(III)
cybersecurity, energy security, and emergency response;
“(IV)
environmental management; and
“(V) basic science research.
“(ii) ACTIVITIES.—EPSCoR shall make grants under this subparagraph for
activities consistent with the objectives described in subparagraph (C)
in the areas of applied energy research, environmental management, and
basic science described in clause (i), including—
“(I) to support research that is carried out in partnership with the
National Laboratories;
“(II) to provide for graduate
traineeships;
“(III) to support research by early career faculty;
and
“(IV) to improve research capabilities through biennial
research implementation grants.
“(iii) NO COST SHARING.—EPSCoR shall not impose any cost-sharing
requirement with respect to a grant made under this subparagraph, but
may require letters of commitment from National Laboratories.
“(F) OTHER ACTIVITIES.—EPSCoR may carry out such activities as may be
necessary to meet the objectives described in subparagraph (C) in the
areas of applied energy research, environmental management, and basic
science described in subparagraph (E)(i).
“(G) PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Energy
and Natural Resources and Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a plan describing how the Secretary shall implement
EPSCoR.
“(ii) CONTENTS OF PLAN.—The plan described in clause (i) shall include a
description of—
“(I) the management structure of EPSCoR, which shall ensure that all
research areas and activities described in this paragraph are
incorporated into EPSCoR;
“(II) efforts to conduct outreach to
inform eligible jurisdictions and faculty of changes to, and
opportunities under, EPSCoR;
“(III) how EPSCoR plans to increase
engagement with eligible jurisdictions, faculty, and State committees,
including by holding regular workshops, to increase participation in
EPSCoR; and
“(IV) any other issues relating to EPSCoR that the Secretary determines
appropriate.
“(H) PROGRAM EVALUATION.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the William
M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021, the Secretary shall contract with a federally funded
research and development center, the National Academy of Sciences,
or a similar organization to carry out an assessment of the
effectiveness of EPSCoR, including an assessment of—
“(I) the tangible progress made towards achieving the objectives
described in subparagraph (C);
“(II) the impact of research
supported by EPSCoR on the mission of the Department of Energy;
and
“(III) any other issues relating to EPSCoR that the
Secretary determines appropriate.
“(ii) LIMITATION.—The organization with which the Secretary
contracts under clause (i) shall not be a National Laboratory.
“(iii) REPORT.—Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment
of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space and
Technology and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report describing the results of the assessment
carried out under clause (i), including recommendations for
improvements that would enable the Secretary to achieve the
objectives described in subparagraph (C).”.
######
SEC. 9903. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Department of Defense Efforts.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations for such
purposes, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary
of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a
public-private partnership through which the Secretary shall work to
incentivize the formation of one or more consortia of companies (or
other such partnerships of private-sector entities, as appropriate) to
ensure the development and production of measurably secure
microelectronics, including integrated circuits, logic devices, memory,
and the packaging and testing practices that support these
microelectronic components by the Department of Defense, the
intelligence community, critical infrastructure sectors, and other
national security applications. Such incentives may include the use of
grants under section 9902, and providing incentives for the creation,
expansion, or modernization of one or more commercially competitive and
sustainable microelectronics manufacturing or advanced research and
development facilities in the United States.
(2) RISK MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.—A participant in a consortium formed
with incentives under paragraph (1)—
(A) shall have the potential to enable design, perform fabrication,
assembly, package, or test functions for microelectronics deemed
critical to national security as defined by the National Security
Advisor and the Secretary of Defense;
(B) may be a fabless company migrating its designs to the facility
envisioned in paragraph (1) or migrating to an existing facility
onshore;
(C) may be companies, including fabless companies and companies that
procure large quantities of microelectronics, willing to co-invest to
achieve the objectives set forth in paragraph (1);
(D) shall include management processes to identify and mitigate supply
chain security risks; and
(E) shall be capable of providing microelectronic components that are
consistent with applicable measurably secure supply chain and
operational security standards established under section 224(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law
116-92).
(3)NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense and the
Director of National Intelligence shall select participants for each
consortium and or partnership formed with incentives under paragraph
(1). In selecting such participants, the Secretary and the Director may
jointly consider whether the companies—
(A) have participated in previous programs and projects of the
Department of Defense, Department of Energy, or the intelligence
community, including—
(i) the Trusted Integrated Circuit program of the Intelligence Advanced
Research Projects Activity;
(ii) trusted and assured
microelectronics projects, as administered by the Department of
Defense;
(iii) the Electronics Resurgence Initiative program of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; or
(iv) relevant
semiconductor research programs of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy;
(B) have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to performing contracts for
the Department of Defense and the intelligence community;
(C) are approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as presenting an
acceptable security risk, taking into account supply chain assurance
vulnerabilities, counterintelligence risks, and any risks presented by
companies whose beneficial owners are located outside the United States;
and
(D) are evaluated periodically for foreign ownership, control, or
influence by a foreign entity of concern.
(4) NONTRADITIONAL DEFENSE CONTRACTORS AND COMMERCIAL
ENTITIES.—Arrangements entered into to carry out paragraph (1) shall be
in such form as the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate to
encourage industry participation of nontraditional defense contractors
or commercial entities and may include a contract, a grant, a
cooperative agreement, a commercial agreement, the use of other
transaction authority under section 2371 of title 10, United States
Code, or another such arrangement.
(5) IMPLEMENTATION.—Subject to the availability of appropriations for
such purposes, the Secretary of Defense—
(A) shall carry out paragraph (1) jointly through the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment; and
(B) may carry out paragraph (1) in collaboration with any such other
component of the Department of Defense as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate.
(6) OTHER INITIATIVES.—
(A) REQUIRED INITIATIVES.—Subject to the availability of appropriations
for such purposes, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, as appropriate, may dedicate initiatives within
the Department of Defense to carry out activities to advance radio
frequency, mixed signal, radiation tolerant, and radiation hardened
microelectronics that support national security and dual-use
applications.
(B) SUPPORT PLAN REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal
Government, shall develop a plan, including assessment of resource
requirements and designation of responsible officials, for the
maintenance of capabilities to produce trusted and assured
microelectronics to support current and legacy defense systems, other
government systems essential for national security, and critical
infrastructure of the United States, especially for items with otherwise
limited commercial demand.
(C) ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES.—In
conjunction with the activities carried out under this section, the
Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement with the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study
to make recommendations and provide policy options for optimal
public-private partnerships and partnership activities, including an
analysis of establishing a semiconductor manufacturing corporation
to leverage private sector technical, managerial, and investment
expertise, and private capital, as well as an assessment of and
response to the industrial policies of other nations to support
industries in similar critical technology sectors, and deliver such
study to the congressional defense committees not later than October
1, 2022.
(7) REPORTS.—
(A) REPORT BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report on the plans of the Secretary to carry out
paragraphs (1) and (6).
(B) BIENNIAL REPORTS BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.—Not
later than one year after the date on which the Secretary submits the
report required by subparagraph (A) and not less frequently than once
every two years thereafter for a period of 10 years, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report on the
activities carried out under this subsection.
######
Independent comparative analysis of efforts by China and the United
States to recruit and retain researchers in national
security-related and defense-related fields (sec. 283)
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 232) that would
require the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine to conduct a study comparing methods for recruiting and
retaining technology researchers, including financial incentives and
academic opportunities, currently used by the U.S. and Chinese
governments. The study would focus on incentives employed by China
to bring researchers in American academic and government
laboratories into Chinese talent programs and how these incentives
diverge from those offered by the United States.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House recedes with an amendment that would clarify elements of
the study and provide technical changes.
######
Traineeships for American leaders to excel in national technology
and science
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 279) that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, to establish a traineeship program to expand
Department of Defense access to domestic scientific and technological
talent in areas of strategic importance to national security.
The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
The House recedes.
The conferees direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, in consultation with the Director of the National Science
Foundation, to provide a comparison and cost benefit analysis not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act of the value,
impact, and success of different training and educational models aimed
at expanding Department of Defense access to domestic scientific and
technological talent in areas of strategic importance to national
security, including the core modernization priorities derived from the
most recent national defense strategy provided under section 113(g) of
title 10, United States Code.
The analysis should: (1) Consider the findings and recommendations
in the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine’s
2018 report on Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century, and
other relevant studies; (2) Assess various forms of scientific or technical educational
assistance available to students; (3) Evaluate the value of educational
cohorts in supporting educational missions; (4) Assess models that can
best support and attract minority and lower income students, students at
minority institutions, students underrepresented in STEM fields, and
students from diverse regions of the country; and (5) Develop
recommendations supportive of defense workforce and educational goals,
including training and education of a high quality workforce in
disciplines of strategic importance to national security.
######
SUBTITLE I—MILITARY FAMILY READINESS AND DEPENDENTS’
EDUCATION
Family readiness: definitions; communication strategy; review;
report (sec. 581)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 561) that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the
military departments, to define “military family readiness” and
“military family resiliency” as well as implement a communications
strategy to communicate with military families. The provision would also
require a report on implementing recommendations from: (1) Chapter 3 of
the report of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2020, “Ensuring Wellness and Wellbeing of Service-Members
and their Families;”
and (2) The report, dated July 2019, of the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, titled “Strengthening the
Military Family Readiness System for a Changing American
Society.”
The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the
military departments, to: (1) Act on recommendation one of the
report, by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and
Medicine, dated July 2019, titled “Strengthening the Military Family
Readiness System for a Changing American Society,” by establishing
definitions of “family well-being,” “family readiness,” and “family
resilience;” and (2) Develop a communications strategy to ensure the
broadest means of communicating with military families. The
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
review of current programs, policies, services, resources, and
practices of the Department of Defense for military families, as
outlined in recommendation four of the previously cited report
conducted by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and
Medicine, and submit a report on the findings of that review to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
######
Study on the incidence of cancer diagnosis and mortality among
military aviators and aviation support personnel (sec. 750)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 739) that would require
the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct
a study on the incidence of cancer diagnosis and mortality among
military aviators and aviation support personnel and to provide a
report to the appropriate congressional committees within 2 years of
the date of such agreement.
The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 754) that would
require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a two-phased study, in
conjunction with the National Institutes of Health and the National
Cancer Institute, on cancer among aviators and aviation support
personnel who served in the Armed Forces on or after February 28, 1961,
and who receive benefits under chapter 55, United States Code. The
Secretary would submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees on the findings of phase 1 of the study within 1 year of the
date of the enactment of this Act. Finally, the Secretary would submit a
report on phase 2 of the study, if conducted, to the same committees
within 1 year of the date of submission of the first report.
The House recedes with a technical amendment.
######
Limitation on provision of funds to institutions of higher
education hosting Confucius Institutes (sec. 1062)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1797) that would
prohibit an institution of higher education or other postsecondary
educational institution from being eligible to receive federal funds
from the Department of Defense, other than educational assistance
funds that are provided directly to students, unless the institution
submits any contract or agreement between the institution and a
Confucius Institute to the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, and the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine issues a written determination that the
contract or agreement includes clear provisions that protect
academic freedom at the institution, prohibit the application of any
foreign law on any campus of the institution, and grant full
managerial authority of the Confucius Institute to the institution,
including full control over what is being taught, the activities
carried out, the research grants that are made, and who is employed
at the Confucius Institute.
The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 1090).
The Senate recedes with a clarifying amendment.
The conferees believe that the academic liaison established in this
section should manage the waiver process. The waivers should include
that the institution of higher education has taken steps to:
(1) Protect academic freedom at the institution;
(2) Prohibit the application of any foreign law on any campus of the
institution;
(3) Grant full managerial authority of the Confucius Institute to the
institution, including full control over what is being taught, the
activities carried out, the research grants that are made, and who is
employed at the Confucius Institute; and
(4) Engage with the Academic Liaison Officer in the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, and take appropriate measures to
safeguard defense-funded fundamental research activities.
The Department of Defense academic liaison should work with academic
stakeholders to the extent possible in implementing this provision and
in the creation of a certification process.
The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional
defense committees on the establishment of the waiver process, including
the institutions for which the waiver has been invoked, within 180 days
after the enactment of this Act.
######
Assessment of weapons of mass destruction terrorism (sec.
1299I)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1299J) that would make it the
policy of the United States to prevent the acquisition and use of
weapons of mass destruction by malicious non-state actors. The provision
would also express the sense of Congress that various means of
international outreach are essential to the completion of this important
mission. The provision would require the President, acting through the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy,
and the Director of National Intelligence, to prepare a report on the
risks associated with weapons of mass destruction terrorism and provide
a 5-year strategy for reducing said risks. The provision would further
express the sense of Congress that the United States should expand
international nuclear security programs as far as practicable.
The provision would also require a separate report from the
National Academy of Sciences on the prevention of weapons of mass
destruction terrorism and authorize to be appropriated an additional
$1.0 million for the conduct of such a report.
Finally, the provision would require the President to provide a report
on all ongoing United States Government cooperative threat reduction
programs.
The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would strike the
statement of policy, both senses of Congress, the reporting
requirement on weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and the
reporting requirement on ongoing cooperative threat reduction
programs. The National Academy of Sciences reporting requirement
would be retained without the additional funding and with
modifications to the timing of said reporting requirement.
The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Energy and State and in further consultation with the
Director of National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the
appropriate congressional committees, no later than June 30, 2021, on
efforts to implement the policies described in subsection (a) of the
House provision as well as the approximate budget required to implement
each such line of effort effectively over the next 5 years.
The briefing should consider an assessment of nuclear, radiological,
biological, and chemical terrorism and foreign state risks and other
emerging risks facing the United States and its allies by foreign state,
state-affiliated, and non-state actors efforts. In particular, the
briefing should consider the risk of biological threats, including the
proliferation of biological weapons and the risk of accidental release
of dangerous pathogens due to unsafe practices and facilities, as well
as the risk of uncontrolled, naturally occurring disease outbreaks that
may pose a threat to the United States or its Armed Forces or allies.
The briefing shall address the status of national efforts to meet
obligations to provide effective security and accounting for nuclear
weapons and for all weapons-useable nuclear materials in foreign states
that possess such weapons and materials.
The briefing shall propose a strategy to reduce the risk of nuclear,
radiological, biological, and chemical terrorism over the next 5 years
including a plan to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons, and
expertise, which shall include activities that facilitate detection and
reporting of highly pathogenic diseases or other diseases that are
associated with or that could be used as an early warning mechanism for
disease outbreaks.
The conferees note that the United States, to the extent practicable,
should continue to work with international partners to reduce:
(1) Terrorist organization and other violent non-state actor access to
the agents, precursors, and materials needed to produce weapons of mass
destruction;
(2) The number of foreign states that possess weapons of mass
destruction; and
(3) The global quantity of weapons of mass destruction.
######
Sense of Congress regarding biological threat reduction and
cooperative biological engagement of the cooperative threat
reduction program
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1302) that would express the
sense of Congress that biological threats are a critical emerging
threat; continuing to use cooperative threat reduction programs to
counter these threats is in the national security interest of the United
States; and the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State should
make every effort to prioritize and advance these processes in the
future.
The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
The House recedes.
The conferees note that:
(1) Keeping Americans safe means ensuring that global health security is
prioritized as a national security issue;
(2) As highlighted by the 2017 National Security Strategy of the United
States, biological threats, whether “deliberate attack, accident, or a
natural outbreak,” are growing threats and “require actions to address
them at their source” through programs carried out by cooperative
engagement, such as working “with partners to ensure that laboratories
that handle dangerous pathogens have in place safety and security
measures;”
(3) The 2017 National Security Strategy of the United States
appropriately affirms the importance of supporting advancements in
biomedical innovation while mitigating harm caused by advanced
bioweapons and capabilities;
(4) The intrinsically linked nature of biological threats, whether
naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate, underscores the
relationship between the Global Health Security Strategy of the United
States and the National Biodefense Strategy, and the national security
tools used to prevent and mitigate these threats must be similarly
connected;
(5) Biological threats are a critical emerging threat against the United
States and addressing these threats through cooperative programs is an
opportunity to achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals;
(6) Cooperative programs to address biological threats through improved
global capacity in the areas of biosafety, biosecurity,
bio-surveillance, research oversight, and related legislative and
regulatory frameworks have become even more important as the world faces
increasing availability of and advancements in biotechnology, which has
broad dual use and proliferation implications;
(7) Under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program of the Department of
Defense established under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction Act (50 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), the Congress authorized the
Secretary of Defense to address such threats through activities to
prevent, detect, and report on highly pathogenic diseases or other
diseases, “regardless of whether such diseases are caused by biological
weapons;”
(8) In 2014, President Obama declared the Ebola virus disease epidemic a
national security priority and exercised the authority under such
Program to build capacity that mitigated the imminent threat posed by
the Ebola virus disease and established capabilities required to prevent
future outbreaks;
(9) Many of the prevention, detection, and response capacities built in
response to the Ebola virus disease epidemic are also those used to
prevent, detect, and respond to the use of biological weapons abroad;
(10) Continuing to use cooperative engagement programs is in the
national security interests of the United States because of the
important relationships established between the United States and
partner countries, which are based on ideals such as transparency,
information sharing, and a shared responsibility in advancing global
security;
(11) The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has
illustrated the dire consequences resulting from a single disease that
knows no boundaries, impacting the United States economy and the health
of United States citizens and members of the Armed Forces, both
domestically and abroad;
(12) In light of the impacts caused by COVID-19, and following two
congressionally-mandated reports that call for better implementation
of the biological cooperative engagement programs of the United
States and the National Biodefense Strategy (the report published by
the Government Accountability Office on March 11, 2020, titled
“National Biodefense Strategy: Opportunities and Challenges with
Early Implementation” and the report published by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on April 14, 2020,
titled “A Strategic Vision for Biological Threat Reduction: The U.S.
Department of Defense and Beyond”), it is of utmost importance that
such programs are given due and increased prioritization for
national security purposes; and
(13) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State should make
every effort to prioritize and advance the determination, concurrence,
and notification processes under the Department of Defense Cooperative
Threat Reduction Act to provide for necessary new country determinations
in a timely manner and be responsive to emerging biological threats.
######
National Academies Climate Security Roundtable (sec. 1622)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1613) that would require
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, in
coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to enter
into a joint agreement with the National Academies of Sciences to
create a new “National Academies Climate Security Roundtable” for
the purpose of establishing best practices for identifying and
disseminating climate indicators and warnings to ensure that
environmental security is included in operational planning and
intelligence analysis. This roundtable would support the work of the
Climate Security Advisory Council.
The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with a technical amendment.
######
Independent technical review of Federal Communications Commission
Order 20-48 (sec. 1663)
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 234) that would
require the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the
National Academies to undertake an independent technical review of
Federal Communications Commission Order 20-48 insofar as the order
may impact Department of Defense equipment and operations.
The House bill contains no similar provision.
The House recedes.
######
Continued analysis of approaches for supplemental treatment of
low-activity waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation (sec. 3125)
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3144) that would
require the Secretary of Energy to enter into a contract with a
federally funded research and development center to conduct a follow-on
study of the analysis required by section 3134 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) on
approaches to treating low-activity waste at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation in eastern Washington.
The provision would require the Secretary to submit this study,
along with a review conducted by the National Academy of Sciences,
to the congressional defense committees not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House recedes with an amendment that would modify the timeline
for the provision and include an additional element for the required
analysis.
######
SUBTITLE H—OTHER MATTERS
Independent study on potential environmental effects of nuclear war
(sec. 3171)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3117) that would require
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to
enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study on the non-fallout
atmospheric effects of nuclear explosions. The study would assess
the strengths and weaknesses of existing models in the areas of fire
effects, soot generation and transport, radioactivity, and the
atmospheric transfer of gasses. The provision would require the
National Academies to submit a report on the study to the
Administrator and the congressional defense committees no later than
18 months after the enactment of this Act. The provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense to provide to the National
Academies such information as necessary for the conduct of the
study.
The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the study
to be conducted in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and
the Director of National Intelligence and would require the Director
to provide to the National Academies such information as necessary
for the conduct of the study.
Review of future of computing beyond exascale at the National
Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3172)
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3156) that would
require the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to enter into an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of the future of advanced
computing at the NNSA. The review would cover alternative computing
architectures, including quantum computing, and would require the
Administrator to ensure that the personnel of the National Academy
of Sciences receive access to necessary information and security
clearances in a timely manner. The provision would require the
National Academy to provide to the congressional defense committees
a report on the findings of the review not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The House recedes.
######
Modifications to Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High
Yield Program
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3163) that would
require the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Program
of the National Nuclear Security Administration to provide certain
capabilities required to validate the safety and effectiveness of the
nuclear weapons stockpile.
The provision would also require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to establish a working group to identify and implement
recommendations issued by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine as required by section 3137 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law
116-92).
The provision would further require the Administrator to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 31, 2021,
on the timelines for completing implementation of these recommendations.
The House bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes.
The conferees believe that the Administrator for Nuclear Security
should establish a working group to identify and implement any
recommendations issued by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine as required by section 3137 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.
The conferees direct the Administrator to provide to the
congressional defense committees a briefing on the status of
implementation of the recommendations issued by the National
Academies no later than March 31, 2021.
######