Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in the early stages of the conflict with Iraq, my State of Oregon is already mourning, already forced to count the cost of this war in real and human terms. This morning I expressed my condolences to the families and friends of all of those who have given their lives in this war, but I particularly recognize the brave soldiers being mourned today by the people of Oregon. Army Reserve Specialist Brandon Tobler, who was only 19, lost his life in a humvee accident during a sandstorm. Brandon was the only son of Leo and Gail Tobler of Portland. He grew up there and joined the military to help pay for college. He was in a convoy headed to Baghdad providing engineering support to the combat troops. Private Tobler's death reminds us that a soldier doesn't have to be on the combat line to face tremendous danger and possible death. It reminds us how brave each and every person who puts on a uniform for the United States must be regardless of their particular assignment. Air National Guard MAJ Gregory Stone was a 20-year veteran of military service. He was killed in the grenade attack at the base of the 101st Airborne in Kuwait. He leaves behind two young sons today, Evan and Joshua, as well as his mother in Ontario--who I just spoke with--and others across our State who loved him dearly. Major Stone graduated from Oregon State University, and from Benson High School in my hometown of Portland. He died far from the front lines but, again, called to sacrifice in war. Army SGT Donald Walters is now missing in action after his convoy was ambushed in Southern Iraq. His wife and kids are in Missouri. His parents, Norman and Arlene, are in Salem, OR, awaiting word on his safety. Sergeant Walters comes from a family with a rich tradition of service across the military, including the Army, Navy, and the Air Force. He is a specialist in decontamination. His convoy was moving to support troops in battle when they took a wrong turn into terrible circumstances. The people of Oregon now are praying for his family and his friends. I join with all of them in hoping for his safe return. Each of these very brave Oregonians, in my view, is an example of the best of the American spirit. We mourn the deaths of those killed. We pray for the safe return of Sergeant Walters and, above all, we give thanks for all of those living as well, who still serve so bravely in this time of war. Madam President, the special people who are serving our country cross generations, and they represent every ethnic group. They serve in a wide variety of capacities. Some come from Reserve units or the National Guard. Others are in the permanent services. They are members of very different fighting forces--Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, and Air Force. Amidst all of this diversity, there is so much that they share--especially a deep love for our country, and a common willingness to risk their lives for the lives of others. Together, they stand between the citizens of our Nation and those who would do America harm. They all know that at any time they could be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. Yet, each day, they go in and put their uniform on and charge into harm's way for all of our sakes. Throughout American history, members of our military have made the sacrifices that allow our great Republic to survive. Today, as the pictures of this war play out on television screens across the Nation, people in this country can see as never before just what a war requires of men and women who fight on behalf of all of us. As we watch, it is important to remember these images are not created in Hollywood. They are the actions of real human beings. The soldiers are real people, loved by countless Americans here at home who worry every single hour for their safety, and mourn them when they are lost. I will close today by expressing my gratitude to all of the Americans who serve our great Nation, and take special time today to reflect on the contributions of the Oregonians we have lost. Our concern for the missing people of this country today is great. The people I represent at home in Oregon offer their prayers every day for the success of the mission of those who serve and for their safe and speedy return. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to introduce legislation to improve the management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area in Douglas County, OR. For the small, rural, coastal community of Winchester Bay in Douglas County, OR, this piece of legislation is critical. Hit first in the early 90's with a steep downturn in the timber economy, closely followed by a near shut-down of the fishing industry, this community found itself on the brink of economic ruin. The final blow came in March of 2000 when the major employer, International Paper, closed its paper mill, putting 300 residents out of work and sending an economic shockwave through the community that impacted the city, the school district, the hospital district, and literally every resident in the area. Yet, since that time, Winchester Bay, OR has adopted a ``never give up'' attitude, changed its long term outlook, and focused its efforts on developing a thriving tourist industry. The bill I introduce today directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 68.5 acres from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Douglas County, OR, to Douglas County to be managed for open space and for recreational purposes. The acreage is located just west of tourist and recreational area developments already owned and run by Douglas County. The County will use the land to provide a staging area for off-highway vehicles, thereby improving management of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. The land transfer also facilitates the policing of unlawful camping and parking along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas. This land transfer will improve tourism on Oregon's economically challenged South Coast, as well as improve public safety and reduce traffic congestion along Salmon Harbor Drive. This legislation is supported by the entire Oregon delegation. It is also supported by the BLM, Douglas County Commissioners, and the community of Winchester Bay. An identical bill was introduced in the last Congress by Representative DeFazio, though the 107th Congress ended before both houses could pass it. Representative DeFazio reintroduced this land transfer legislation in the 108th Congress, H.R. 514, in the House of Representatives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to introduce legislation to improve the management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area in Douglas County, OR. For the small, rural, coastal community of Winchester Bay in Douglas County, OR, this piece of legislation is critical. Hit first in the early 90's with a steep downturn in the timber economy, closely followed by a near shut-down of the fishing industry, this community found itself on the brink of economic ruin. The final blow came in March of 2000 when the major employer, International Paper, closed its paper mill, putting 300 residents out of work and sending an economic shockwave through the community that impacted the city, the school district, the hospital district, and literally every resident in the area. Yet, since that time, Winchester Bay, OR has adopted a ``never give up'' attitude, changed its long term outlook, and focused its efforts on developing a thriving tourist industry. The bill I introduce today directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 68.5 acres from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Douglas County, OR, to Douglas County to be managed for open space and for recreational purposes. The acreage is located just west of tourist and recreational area developments already owned and run by Douglas County. The County will use the land to provide a staging area for off-highway vehicles, thereby improving management of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. The land transfer also facilitates the policing of unlawful camping and parking along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas. This land transfer will improve tourism on Oregon's economically challenged South Coast, as well as improve public safety and reduce traffic congestion along Salmon Harbor Drive. This legislation is supported by the entire Oregon delegation. It is also supported by the BLM, Douglas County Commissioners, and the community of Winchester Bay. An identical bill was introduced in the last Congress by Representative DeFazio, though the 107th Congress ended before both houses could pass it. Representative DeFazio reintroduced this land transfer legislation in the 108th Congress, H.R. 514, in the House of Representatives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Digital Consumer Right To Know Act. The thrust of this bill is quite simple. Digital media companies are racing to develop technologies to combat piracy. Some of these anti-piracy measures could have the effect of restricting lawful, legitimate consumer uses as well as unlawful copying. My bill says that if digital content is released in a form that prevents or limits reasonable consumers uses, consumers have a right to be told in advance. The shift from analog to digital technologies carries many potential benefits for all concerned--for technology companies, for producers of music, video, and other content, and above all, for consumers. Digital technologies, together with the rise of the Internet, promise to expand exponentially the possibilities for circulating, marketing, manipulating, and using creative works. There is so much more you can do, and so many fertile fields for innovation. The shift to digital, however, also carries twin risks. The first, and the one on which Congress has focused most of its attention to date, is the risk of piracy. Digital technologies can greatly facilitate unlawful copying and distribution. This is a real problem, because people and companies that create copyrighted works must be fairly compensated. America's information-based economy depends on it. The second, closely related risk is that, in combating piracy, the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. In the name of anti-piracy protections, legitimate consumer uses could be stifled. Encryption or other ``digital rights management'', DRM, schemes could be employed that restrict consumers' ability to take full advantage of the potential of the new digital technologies. In the end, it's not inconceivable that digital media could be more restricted and less flexible than other copyrighted items--an ironic result for a technology that was supposed to represent a great step forward for consumers. The bill I am introducing today focuses on this second risk. Significantly, it would not in any way dictate to content companies what types of copy protection or DRM schemes may or may not be used. Instead, it would ensure that consumers are fully informed of any impact on their ability to use and manipulate the content they buy. Advance notice of technology-based use limitations is a matter of basic fairness. Consumers have developed a number of legitimate expectations concerning how they may use and manipulate content, and are likely to develop new expectations as technology develops. For example, consumers increasingly expect to be able to shift legally purchased content between different devices--to access it on their computers, or in their cars, or using portable devices like MP3 players. They should be told in advance if these expectations won't be met, so that they can factor this information into their purchasing decisions. Consumers should know what they are getting or not getting. In addition, I believe that imposing this kind of notice requirement will help promote the development of solutions that strike an appropriate and acceptable balance between protecting against piracy and preserving utility and flexibility for consumers. Overly restrictive approaches would require disclosures that content providers could find embarrassing, and consumers could be alienated by measures that don't seem to respect the importance of user flexibility. In short, full disclosure would strengthen the market-based incentive to avoid technologies that are too restrictive of consumer flexibility. My bill would also make a clear statement that Congress expects that there will be competition in the retail distribution of copyrighted digital content. This shouldn't be controversial: today, compact discs, books, and movie videos are distributed via many competing retail stores. They also often face competition with stores selling used content, and with rentals and libraries. But what if new DRM technologies permit copyright holders to limit or prevent the ability of unaffiliated entities to sell or distribute content on a secondhand basis? Could the copyright holder sharply reduce competition at the distribution level, and thus increase its market power? My legislation addresses this risk by expressing the sense of the Congress that it is important to retain competition among distribution channels for digital information and entertainment content. As the debate over digital copyright issues continues, I intend to listen to all sides. This country needs balanced approaches that respect the interests of copyright holders and consumers alike. But the bill I introduce today is a significant step that Congress could take now that would protect consumers of digital content and promote market- based solutions, all without rewriting any copyright laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Digital Consumer Right To Know Act. The thrust of this bill is quite simple. Digital media companies are racing to develop technologies to combat piracy. Some of these anti-piracy measures could have the effect of restricting lawful, legitimate consumer uses as well as unlawful copying. My bill says that if digital content is released in a form that prevents or limits reasonable consumers uses, consumers have a right to be told in advance. The shift from analog to digital technologies carries many potential benefits for all concerned--for technology companies, for producers of music, video, and other content, and above all, for consumers. Digital technologies, together with the rise of the Internet, promise to expand exponentially the possibilities for circulating, marketing, manipulating, and using creative works. There is so much more you can do, and so many fertile fields for innovation. The shift to digital, however, also carries twin risks. The first, and the one on which Congress has focused most of its attention to date, is the risk of piracy. Digital technologies can greatly facilitate unlawful copying and distribution. This is a real problem, because people and companies that create copyrighted works must be fairly compensated. America's information-based economy depends on it. The second, closely related risk is that, in combating piracy, the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. In the name of anti-piracy protections, legitimate consumer uses could be stifled. Encryption or other ``digital rights management'', DRM, schemes could be employed that restrict consumers' ability to take full advantage of the potential of the new digital technologies. In the end, it's not inconceivable that digital media could be more restricted and less flexible than other copyrighted items--an ironic result for a technology that was supposed to represent a great step forward for consumers. The bill I am introducing today focuses on this second risk. Significantly, it would not in any way dictate to content companies what types of copy protection or DRM schemes may or may not be used. Instead, it would ensure that consumers are fully informed of any impact on their ability to use and manipulate the content they buy. Advance notice of technology-based use limitations is a matter of basic fairness. Consumers have developed a number of legitimate expectations concerning how they may use and manipulate content, and are likely to develop new expectations as technology develops. For example, consumers increasingly expect to be able to shift legally purchased content between different devices--to access it on their computers, or in their cars, or using portable devices like MP3 players. They should be told in advance if these expectations won't be met, so that they can factor this information into their purchasing decisions. Consumers should know what they are getting or not getting. In addition, I believe that imposing this kind of notice requirement will help promote the development of solutions that strike an appropriate and acceptable balance between protecting against piracy and preserving utility and flexibility for consumers. Overly restrictive approaches would require disclosures that content providers could find embarrassing, and consumers could be alienated by measures that don't seem to respect the importance of user flexibility. In short, full disclosure would strengthen the market-based incentive to avoid technologies that are too restrictive of consumer flexibility. My bill would also make a clear statement that Congress expects that there will be competition in the retail distribution of copyrighted digital content. This shouldn't be controversial: today, compact discs, books, and movie videos are distributed via many competing retail stores. They also often face competition with stores selling used content, and with rentals and libraries. But what if new DRM technologies permit copyright holders to limit or prevent the ability of unaffiliated entities to sell or distribute content on a secondhand basis? Could the copyright holder sharply reduce competition at the distribution level, and thus increase its market power? My legislation addresses this risk by expressing the sense of the Congress that it is important to retain competition among distribution channels for digital information and entertainment content. As the debate over digital copyright issues continues, I intend to listen to all sides. This country needs balanced approaches that respect the interests of copyright holders and consumers alike. But the bill I introduce today is a significant step that Congress could take now that would protect consumers of digital content and promote market- based solutions, all without rewriting any copyright laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Very briefly, amendment No. 328 is a bipartisan amendment that Senator Kyl and I have cosponsored with Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and others. It deals with the national fire plan. Suffice it to say, Senators know that the West over the last few summers has just been an inferno. We expect another very hot summer. This legislation is a bipartisan initiative which would allow us to set aside additional funds for forest restoration, hazardous fuels reduction and fire research, and real on-the-ground collaboration with States and localities to help them improve their environment and protect against catastrophic fire. It is backed by the timber industry and a host of environmental groups. I see my colleague from Arizona on the floor as well. It is a bipartisan amendment on which Western Senators cooperated. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over a year ago the greed of some senior executives at the Enron corporation finally caught up with them. Enron's financial house of cards began to tumble, and along with it went the pensions and retirement dreams of thousands of employees and investors. Among the employees whose pensions were crushed in Enron's accounting avalanche were nearly all of Portland General Electric, or PGE's 2,700 employees in Oregon. Enron took over PGE in June of 1997, and two years later merged the PGE employee 401(k) retirement plan into a single plan. That plan allowed employees to contribute up to 15 percent of their income, with the company matching in Enron stock. When Enron took over PGE in 1997, PGE's stock was trading at $27 a share; three years after the merger, Enron stock was trading at $85 a share, enticing employees to invest 100 percent of their 401(k) money in Enron stock. Enron's stock had begun to slide in August 2001, and it was not until October that real panic set in. At that time the captains of the Enron ship knew it was sinking. In an effort to prevent a massive stock sell- off, senior executives on the deck locked workers in the boiler room, preventing them from selling off 401(k) shares while they dumped their own. By the time the pension lockdown ended, an Enron share was worth less than ten dollars. In early December, Enron filed for bankruptcy. Earlier this year Congress enacted significant corporate accountability legislation so that executives and accountants can no longer use certified financial statements to play a game of financial hide-and-seek. But little was done for the workers who were locked in the boiler room. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today, the ``Catch-Up Retirement Savings Act,'' is to give those PGE employees who were harmed by the greed of Enron executives the opportunity to catch-up on some of their lost retirement. My bill does two things to help workers. First, it allows employees to triple the deductible amount they may otherwise contribute to an IRA, and second, it gives employees a 50 percent tax credit on the amount they contribute to their IRA. The tax incentives would be available for five years to employees whose employer filed for bankruptcy and who was the subject of an indictment or conviction resulting from business transactions related to such case, and whose employer matched at least 50 percent of the employee's contributions to the pension plan. No act of Congress can ever respond fully to the egregious harm that has been caused to thousands of Oregonians by the collapse of Enron. But I believe that something must be done to help recoup some of the lost pension savings. The ``Catch-Up Lost Retirement Savings Act'' is a small but important step that Congress should take to help employees to begin to catch-up on their retirement savings. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over a year ago the greed of some senior executives at the Enron corporation finally caught up with them. Enron's financial house of cards began to tumble, and along with it went the pensions and retirement dreams of thousands of employees and investors. Among the employees whose pensions were crushed in Enron's accounting avalanche were nearly all of Portland General Electric, or PGE's 2,700 employees in Oregon. Enron took over PGE in June of 1997, and two years later merged the PGE employee 401(k) retirement plan into a single plan. That plan allowed employees to contribute up to 15 percent of their income, with the company matching in Enron stock. When Enron took over PGE in 1997, PGE's stock was trading at $27 a share; three years after the merger, Enron stock was trading at $85 a share, enticing employees to invest 100 percent of their 401(k) money in Enron stock. Enron's stock had begun to slide in August 2001, and it was not until October that real panic set in. At that time the captains of the Enron ship knew it was sinking. In an effort to prevent a massive stock sell- off, senior executives on the deck locked workers in the boiler room, preventing them from selling off 401(k) shares while they dumped their own. By the time the pension lockdown ended, an Enron share was worth less than ten dollars. In early December, Enron filed for bankruptcy. Earlier this year Congress enacted significant corporate accountability legislation so that executives and accountants can no longer use certified financial statements to play a game of financial hide-and-seek. But little was done for the workers who were locked in the boiler room. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today, the ``Catch-Up Retirement Savings Act,'' is to give those PGE employees who were harmed by the greed of Enron executives the opportunity to catch-up on some of their lost retirement. My bill does two things to help workers. First, it allows employees to triple the deductible amount they may otherwise contribute to an IRA, and second, it gives employees a 50 percent tax credit on the amount they contribute to their IRA. The tax incentives would be available for five years to employees whose employer filed for bankruptcy and who was the subject of an indictment or conviction resulting from business transactions related to such case, and whose employer matched at least 50 percent of the employee's contributions to the pension plan. No act of Congress can ever respond fully to the egregious harm that has been caused to thousands of Oregonians by the collapse of Enron. But I believe that something must be done to help recoup some of the lost pension savings. The ``Catch-Up Lost Retirement Savings Act'' is a small but important step that Congress should take to help employees to begin to catch-up on their retirement savings. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I cannot allow the Senate to proceed with Mr. Kelliher's nomination to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today or anytime soon. This is a position of enormous importance to my constituents in Oregon who have had their energy prices soar through the roof during the past few years while the Commission has failed to serve as an effective watchdog over energy markets. In the limited time I was able to question Mr. Kelliher at his confirmation hearing, he demonstrated little understanding of the impact on the Northwest of the manipulation of west coast spot markets by Enron using the various strategies described in the Enron memos. These strategies have had a devastating impact on Northwest energy consumers and on long-term contracts that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and many other Northwest utilities subsequently were induced to sign in order to protect themselves from the volatility of the manipulated spot markets. In response to my question about whether the Enron memos provided grounds to get out from overpriced contracts, Mr. Kelliher states: ``As a legal matter, I do not know sir. I thought those memos were designed to manipulate spot markets.'' To date, there has been a total failure on the part of the Commission to make any kind of connection between the manipulation of spot markets and the impact on long-term contracts that have raised rates for Northwest ratepayers. In fact, the Commission currently appears to be pursuing two completely different standards for when ratepayers may be entitled to refunds for manipulation of spot markets as compared to when overpriced, long-term contracts that were a direct result of that manipulation can be voided or reformed. The net effect could be that Northwest ratepayers could be struck in long-term, overpriced contracts even if the rates in those contracts are not considered just and reasonable according to FERC's own standards. What is also of concern to me is that there are a number of critical issues to Northwest energy consumers that will be coming before the Commission in the next several weeks. These include Commission decisions on filings by the Bonneville Power Administration and other Northwest utilities for relief from contracts with Enron and other energy traders, enforcement cases against the marketers accused of manipulating west coast energy markets and the Commission's proposal to create a one-size-fits-all standard market design for transmission systems that would be ill-suited to our region's transmission system and could create new opportunities for manipulation of Northwest energy markets. With these critical issues coming before the Commission, the Northwest needs to be assured our region's interests will be fully and carefully considered. Mr. Kelliher has not convinced me he fully understands the impact of manipulation of west coast energy markets on Northwest ratepayers or the problems the Commission's standard market design proposal could create for the Northwest electric power grid. For these reasons, I would object to a unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up Mr. Kelliher's nomination until my concerns can be addressed.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the McLoughlin House Preservation Act. Dr. John McLoughlin, a powerful 6'4" man, is known, officially and fondly, as the ``Father of Oregon.'' His compassion played a critical role in the settling of the Northwest by Oregon Trail pioneers. Dr. McLoughlin's generosity to these early pioneers who arrived in the Oregon Territory after their incredible five month journey sick, hungry and without provisions was often the difference between survival and failure during their first winter. This bill is a testimony to the hard work that one community can achieve. Preservation of the McLoughlin House and the nearby Barclay House, located in Oregon City, Oregon, is important to the cultural identity of Oregon. This bill would make them part of the Fort Vancouver National Park Service administrative site, thereby highlighting the interwoven connection between Fort Vancouver, the fur trade and the beginnings of the Oregon Territory. Dr. McLoughlin first came to the Northwest in 1824, arriving at Fort George, now called Astoria, Oregon, to establish a supply center for the Hudson's Bay Company. Within a year, he moved to a more favorable location on the northern side of the Columbia, in what is now Washington State, and built a new trading post and named it Fort Vancouver. As the Post Administrator, the good hearted doctor maintained a very good relationship with neighboring Indians and used his medical skills to tend to the terrible fevers that broke out among them. The Fort belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company that was a rival of American trappers, and although company policy discouraged American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin was not one to refuse a helping hand to any trapper or settler in distress. When frustrated with the Hudson's Bay Company policy opposing American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin resigned and moved to Oregon City on the Willamette Falls. By 1848, Oregon had grown so much that it was officially designated a territory, and by 1859, it became the nation's thirty-third state. McLoughlin remained a vibrant public figure and became the Mayor of Oregon City in 1851. Many of the debates concerning Oregon's statehood are said to have taken place in McLoughlin's living room, and the Oregon State Legislature aptly named him the ``Father or Oregon.'' The McLoughlin House was designated as the National Historic Site, one of the first in the west, in 1941. I thank my constituents in Clackamas County, particularly John Salisbury and the McLoughlin Memorial Association, for all of their hard work to preserve this Oregon treasure. Additionally, I thank Tracy Fortmann with the National Park Service at Fort Vancouver for her advocacy on behalf of the McLoughlin House. Mayor Alice Norris and the former mayors of Oregon City who have worked together to bring this legislation to the attention of the Oregon delegation deserve our thanks as well. Finally, I thank Representative Hooley for having the foresight to introduce this legislation in the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress and again in the 108th.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the McLoughlin House Preservation Act. Dr. John McLoughlin, a powerful 6'4" man, is known, officially and fondly, as the ``Father of Oregon.'' His compassion played a critical role in the settling of the Northwest by Oregon Trail pioneers. Dr. McLoughlin's generosity to these early pioneers who arrived in the Oregon Territory after their incredible five month journey sick, hungry and without provisions was often the difference between survival and failure during their first winter. This bill is a testimony to the hard work that one community can achieve. Preservation of the McLoughlin House and the nearby Barclay House, located in Oregon City, Oregon, is important to the cultural identity of Oregon. This bill would make them part of the Fort Vancouver National Park Service administrative site, thereby highlighting the interwoven connection between Fort Vancouver, the fur trade and the beginnings of the Oregon Territory. Dr. McLoughlin first came to the Northwest in 1824, arriving at Fort George, now called Astoria, Oregon, to establish a supply center for the Hudson's Bay Company. Within a year, he moved to a more favorable location on the northern side of the Columbia, in what is now Washington State, and built a new trading post and named it Fort Vancouver. As the Post Administrator, the good hearted doctor maintained a very good relationship with neighboring Indians and used his medical skills to tend to the terrible fevers that broke out among them. The Fort belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company that was a rival of American trappers, and although company policy discouraged American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin was not one to refuse a helping hand to any trapper or settler in distress. When frustrated with the Hudson's Bay Company policy opposing American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin resigned and moved to Oregon City on the Willamette Falls. By 1848, Oregon had grown so much that it was officially designated a territory, and by 1859, it became the nation's thirty-third state. McLoughlin remained a vibrant public figure and became the Mayor of Oregon City in 1851. Many of the debates concerning Oregon's statehood are said to have taken place in McLoughlin's living room, and the Oregon State Legislature aptly named him the ``Father or Oregon.'' The McLoughlin House was designated as the National Historic Site, one of the first in the west, in 1941. I thank my constituents in Clackamas County, particularly John Salisbury and the McLoughlin Memorial Association, for all of their hard work to preserve this Oregon treasure. Additionally, I thank Tracy Fortmann with the National Park Service at Fort Vancouver for her advocacy on behalf of the McLoughlin House. Mayor Alice Norris and the former mayors of Oregon City who have worked together to bring this legislation to the attention of the Oregon delegation deserve our thanks as well. Finally, I thank Representative Hooley for having the foresight to introduce this legislation in the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress and again in the 108th.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Hydrogen Transportation Wins Over Growing Reliance on Oil, H2 GROW, Act to accelerate getting cars and trucks powered by hydrogen on our roads as a way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. In the House, Congressman Chris Cox will also be introducing the H2 GROW Act, so we will have the first bipartisan, bicameral bill to provide incentives for commercialing hydrogen-powered cars and the fueling stations needed for hydrogen cars to have widespread acceptance. Our legislation has the support of a diverse coalition of interest groups, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the automobile industry. It is not a coalition that naturally flocks together. In fact, on many environmental issues, these groups are skirmishing, not coalescing. Just as these groups have come together, Congressman Cox and I have felt, on a bipartisan basis, that he and I could find common ground on the critical issue of hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike some other proposals to promote hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the H2 GROW Act goes beyond researching hydrogen to kickstart the market for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fueling equipment. Legislation he and I will introduce today, the H2 GROW Act, uses marketplace incentives so that a significant number of fuel cell vehicles can hit American streets in the next decade. In effect, our legislation goes beyond the popular wisdom that you can't do much to actually get these vehicles on the street anytime soon. Our legislation stipulates that when someone opens a fueling station, sells fueling equipment, sells hydrogen fuel for use in vehicles, or buys a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the tax man won't cometh for the next 10 years. By creating incentives this way, our legislation, can catalyze commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. Tax holidays and tax incentives will stimulate a private market for everything from creating the infrastructure needed for fuel cell vehicles, to direct incentives for American consumers. By using this approach, our legislation only pays for performance. It does not subsidize research that may or may not advance the goal of getting hydrogen-powered cars on the road. The tax credits and other incentives only reward actions that actually put cars on the road or fueling equipment in use. Best of all, the price tag is minimal. The government isn't expecting any significant revenue from fuel cell vehicles anyway in the next 10 years--and that's the life of our bill. So there's no enormous cost to the government. Congress has a clear choice between taking 20 years to get a significant number of hydrogen vehicles on the road and making real, measurable progress in the next 10 years. In my view, reducing this country's dependence on foreign oil is a national security priority. At a time when more than half our energy is imported, enacting policies that promote energy independence is a true act of patriotism. Our legislation would promote that energy independence. Here are two examples of how our legislation provides critically needed incentives for the fuel cell market: Congressman Cox and I want to make it worth the consumer's while to buy a fuel cell vehicle in the first place. So a tax credit will help make up the difference between the cost of a gasoline-powered vehicle and a fuel cell car. For example, if in 2009, a consumer buys a fuel cell car for $25,000, the consumer can write $3,750 off his or her taxes to make the fuel cell car more affordable. To help gasoline stations begin to shift to serving consumers with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, our bill provides a 20-percent tax credit for every unit of hydrogen fuel sold equivalent to a gallon of gasoline. The bill also helps taxpayers get the most of the fuel cell vehicle in terms of convenience and ease of use. With hydrogen fuel cells, filling up your car could be something you do at your home or your office as well as a retail filling station. So our bill gives taxpayers who install hydrogen fueling equipment in their homes a tax credit for up to 50 percent of the cost of the refueling equipment. In my view, these are practical steps away from our reliance on foreign oil and toward better, cleaner transportation for all Americans. I also believe this plan is the best, most effective use of taxpayer dollars on this issue. Companies like GM and Toyota--two car companies that are endorsing the H2 GROW Act--are already developing the technology to improve the performance and reduce the cost of fuel cell vehicles with more reliable, affordable materials. These companies are already putting the money and time into that effort. What Congress needs to do is help the American people and American businesses take advantage of these new products as they're perfected, and help them hit the streets as quickly as possible. I firmly believe the H2 GROW Act is a strong step toward helping consumers to shore up this Nation's economic and environmental stability for future generations. I know Congressman Cox feels the same way, and I encourage my colleagues to support our bipartisan legislation to accelerate commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell cars and help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Hydrogen Transportation Wins Over Growing Reliance on Oil, H2 GROW, Act to accelerate getting cars and trucks powered by hydrogen on our roads as a way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. In the House, Congressman Chris Cox will also be introducing the H2 GROW Act, so we will have the first bipartisan, bicameral bill to provide incentives for commercialing hydrogen-powered cars and the fueling stations needed for hydrogen cars to have widespread acceptance. Our legislation has the support of a diverse coalition of interest groups, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the automobile industry. It is not a coalition that naturally flocks together. In fact, on many environmental issues, these groups are skirmishing, not coalescing. Just as these groups have come together, Congressman Cox and I have felt, on a bipartisan basis, that he and I could find common ground on the critical issue of hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike some other proposals to promote hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the H2 GROW Act goes beyond researching hydrogen to kickstart the market for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fueling equipment. Legislation he and I will introduce today, the H2 GROW Act, uses marketplace incentives so that a significant number of fuel cell vehicles can hit American streets in the next decade. In effect, our legislation goes beyond the popular wisdom that you can't do much to actually get these vehicles on the street anytime soon. Our legislation stipulates that when someone opens a fueling station, sells fueling equipment, sells hydrogen fuel for use in vehicles, or buys a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the tax man won't cometh for the next 10 years. By creating incentives this way, our legislation, can catalyze commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. Tax holidays and tax incentives will stimulate a private market for everything from creating the infrastructure needed for fuel cell vehicles, to direct incentives for American consumers. By using this approach, our legislation only pays for performance. It does not subsidize research that may or may not advance the goal of getting hydrogen-powered cars on the road. The tax credits and other incentives only reward actions that actually put cars on the road or fueling equipment in use. Best of all, the price tag is minimal. The government isn't expecting any significant revenue from fuel cell vehicles anyway in the next 10 years--and that's the life of our bill. So there's no enormous cost to the government. Congress has a clear choice between taking 20 years to get a significant number of hydrogen vehicles on the road and making real, measurable progress in the next 10 years. In my view, reducing this country's dependence on foreign oil is a national security priority. At a time when more than half our energy is imported, enacting policies that promote energy independence is a true act of patriotism. Our legislation would promote that energy independence. Here are two examples of how our legislation provides critically needed incentives for the fuel cell market: Congressman Cox and I want to make it worth the consumer's while to buy a fuel cell vehicle in the first place. So a tax credit will help make up the difference between the cost of a gasoline-powered vehicle and a fuel cell car. For example, if in 2009, a consumer buys a fuel cell car for $25,000, the consumer can write $3,750 off his or her taxes to make the fuel cell car more affordable. To help gasoline stations begin to shift to serving consumers with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, our bill provides a 20-percent tax credit for every unit of hydrogen fuel sold equivalent to a gallon of gasoline. The bill also helps taxpayers get the most of the fuel cell vehicle in terms of convenience and ease of use. With hydrogen fuel cells, filling up your car could be something you do at your home or your office as well as a retail filling station. So our bill gives taxpayers who install hydrogen fueling equipment in their homes a tax credit for up to 50 percent of the cost of the refueling equipment. In my view, these are practical steps away from our reliance on foreign oil and toward better, cleaner transportation for all Americans. I also believe this plan is the best, most effective use of taxpayer dollars on this issue. Companies like GM and Toyota--two car companies that are endorsing the H2 GROW Act--are already developing the technology to improve the performance and reduce the cost of fuel cell vehicles with more reliable, affordable materials. These companies are already putting the money and time into that effort. What Congress needs to do is help the American people and American businesses take advantage of these new products as they're perfected, and help them hit the streets as quickly as possible. I firmly believe the H2 GROW Act is a strong step toward helping consumers to shore up this Nation's economic and environmental stability for future generations. I know Congressman Cox feels the same way, and I encourage my colleagues to support our bipartisan legislation to accelerate commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell cars and help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes on the time the Democrats have with respect to the Estrada nomination.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your courtesy earlier in the morning.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, right now the eyes of the Nation are focused on international crises. The threat of war with Iraq, the conflict at the United Nations, and a diplomatic standoff with North Korea are all critical issues about which this country is concerned. But here at home there is a domestic crisis of massive proportions that affects the lives of millions of Americans each day; that is, the failure of our health care system to work for all Americans. I will take just a few minutes to discuss this because next week I anticipate that thousands of Americans will get together in communities across the Nation as part of the special effort to highlight the concerns of the uninsured. This is under the auspices of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, an organization that works in a nonpartisan fashion. I expect to see thousands of Americans in their communities-- businesspeople, senior citizens, labor organizations, those from charitable groups--so many who are falling between the cracks in our health care system speaking out and calling for congressional action. I think it is very timely because Congress must get at this critical issue. Very shortly, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and I will again go forward with our bipartisan proposal, the Health Care That Works For All Americans Act. Our legislation has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the American Association of Retired Persons--three groups that do not normally flock together-- because I think there is a feeling that what has been tried for the last 57 years, in the effort to create a health care system that works for all, simply has not worked. For 57 years, there has been an effort to write health care legislation in Washington, DC. The American people find these bills illegible, the special interest groups attack, and invariably nothing happens. So what Senator Hatch and I will shortly propose is something fundamentally different, an effort to look outside the beltway here in Washington, DC, to the American people, an effort that will begin with the central questions, and coming up with a system that works for all Americans. Those questions are, first and foremost, what are the essential services Americans want in a comprehensive health reform bill? Second, what will those services cost? And, third, who is going to pay for them? I am of the view that getting the American people involved in those kinds of issues--issues that are central to creating a system that works for all--is the only way Congress is going to break the gridlock on this question. Right now, we are seeing our small businesses getting annual premiums rising more than 20 percent a year. Many health care providers, particularly physicians in rural and urban areas, are leaving the Government programs because of inadequate reimbursement rates. Certainly we have heard from many health care providers about rising insurance costs. And then, of course, for seniors, their prescription drug bills are hitting them just like a wrecking ball. All of this, of course, is happening before the demographic tsunami of millions of baby boomer retirees, as 2010 and 2011 approaches. In those years we are going to start seeing a bow wave of baby boomer retirees that is going to continue for 15 to 20 years, after it begins in 2010 and 2011, and clearly our health care system is not prepared for it. So the question then becomes, what is going to be done to break the gridlock on this issue? You have very powerful interests. And certainly, partisan feelings on these issues run very strongly. If you go to a lot of Republican meetings and talk about the health care cost crisis, they say: Of course it is a problem. We have to act on this. It is just the trial lawyers' fault. Let's go and take them on, and things will get better. Then if you go to a lot of Democratic meetings and talk about health care costs and the health care crisis, they will say: You bet it is the insurance companies. If you take them on, everything is going to get better. What Senator Hatch and I have said, in this essentially unprecedented, bipartisan effort, that really would involve the American people in creating a new health care system, is that we realize so many of these powerful organizations are going to have to look at changes that have been resisted in the past. My sense is it is time for the Congress to act, and to begin by ensuring there will be congressional action on these issues. If you look, for example, at the last time the Congress debated significant health reform, back in 1993 and 1994, there were not even any votes on this issue. After all of the debate and all of the controversy surrounding those proposals in 1993 and 1994, there were not even votes in the Congress on fundamental reforms. So what Senator Hatch and I have done is ensure that after the public is given an opportunity to weigh in--in community meetings, on line, and across the country--on the kind of health care system that would work for all Americans, we guarantee a vote on the floor of the Senate and a vote in the House of Representatives on this issue. I think by involving the public, and then following up promptly with an assurance there will actually be votes in the Congress on these issues, we have a chance to move this debate forward in a fashion we have not seen in the past. What seems unfortunate is there are lots of ideas with respect to how to move forward on comprehensive health reform but no vehicle for bringing together the American people and a way for Congress to follow up on those initiatives. That is why I have believed, with Senator Hatch, we can take a fresh approach that could really break with the past. I was struck, in preparing this legislation, how similar the efforts were over the last 58 years. If you look at what Harry Truman proposed in 1945, in the 81st Congress, it was remarkably similar, in terms of how the debate unfolded, to what President Clinton proposed in 1993 and 1994. In both cases, you began with bills written in Washington, DC. The American people found the proposals incomprehensible. They were attacked by interest groups. And the legislation died at that point. I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Chamber. I know he is going to begin discussion on the Estrada nomination very shortly. Since he is in the Chamber, I express my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has been working with me for a substantial amount of time on our bipartisan health reform proposal. Because next week will involve thousands of Americans at the grassroots level talking about these issues, I thought it was important to come to the floor today and say that the Senate is now listening because the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has been willing to work with me on these issues, because he shares my view that it is critically important that we break the gridlock on the health care issue. I announce to the Senate that very shortly Senator Hatch and I will be going forward with our proposal, the Health Care that Works for All Americans Act. We have gotten a formal endorsement from the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the AARP--three groups that do not exactly flock together on a regular basis. To a great extent, those organizations have been involved because of the prestige and stature of the senior Senator from Utah. He is, of course, the author of the CHIP legislation, which was a tremendous breakthrough in terms of health care coverage for young people. He has worked with me extensively on community health center legislation. At a time when the eyes of our Nation are focused on international crises, I want to draw some attention to the incredible crisis at home with respect to health care. We have millions of citizens who are not old enough for Medicare. They are not poor enough for Medicaid. Small businesses are being crushed by annual premiums. Physicians are leaving the system. Older people are not able to afford their medicine. This Congress, with the ingenuity and the talent in this Chamber, can come up with a health care system that works for all Americans. Toward that end, I have been very gratified that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the senior Senator from Utah, has joined me for a substantial time. We are going to stay at it until we get our proposal on the floor and the Congress breaks with this 57-year gridlock on the health care issue, gridlock that dates back to the days of Harry Truman. We can do it with some bipartisanship, which is what the Senator from Utah and I have tried to offer. I will talk more about this next week when Coverage for the Uninsured Week begins across the country. I thank again the Senator from Utah and yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, gasoline prices are soaring through the stratosphere, and the Federal Trade Commission, which is supposed to be standing up for the consumer, ought to stop playing footsie with the oil companies and take steps to protect the American people. I have been trying to get the Federal Trade Commission to do its job now for several years. In fact, I have supplied them with detailed reports outlining anticompetitive practices in the oil industry in hopes that I could get their attention. Unfortunately, they are still sitting on the sidelines. This morning I will outline what some of those anticompetitive practices are that the oil companies are now using to victimize the American consumer. The oil companies are redlining. What they have sought to do is keep independent wholesalers known as ``jobbers'' from competing in markets by refusing to let independent dealers buy better priced gasoline from the local jobbers. This is a technique to wall off whole communities from competition. Redlining is going on today. The oil companies are also zone pricing. They charge different prices for the same gas at their own branded stores in adjacent neighborhoods, pricing it as high as the market will bear. They have also charged independent dealers higher wholesale prices than they charge the company stores. The end result, the independents cannot compete. So what we have in communities across the country is two stations that are located next to each other, and because of a Supreme Court decision, oil companies are required to treat those companies similarly situated in the same way. But what the oil companies do very cleverly is divide that community into different zones. Then they can stick it to one of the stations. That station goes out of business. There is a local monopoly and the consumer gets hosed once again. A third area I have outlined for the Federal Trade Commission is that the oil companies keep the market to themselves. In the past, they have kept down refineries that could have increased supply and introduced new competition. We have given this information to the Federal Trade Commission and, again, they sit on their hands. Finally, of particular importance to west coast consumers, where up and down the west coast of the United States prices have soared, people are paying $2 a gallon and close to it in many communities. What we have seen in the past is the oil companies have exported gasoline to Asia at a discount and then more than made up for it by sticking consumers with higher prices in the tight west coast market. The oil companies today would say they are no longer doing this, but the fact of the matter is that oil company representatives told my Oregon colleague, Senator Smith, who has worked with me so cooperatively on many of these issues, in an open hearing in the Commerce Committee that they would export to Asia once again whenever it was in their commercial interest. So hypothetically, if they were allowed to drill for oil in the national wildlife refuge in Alaska, apart from the environmental considerations, based on the testimony in the Senate Commerce Committee, the oil companies would be taking that oil from the wildlife refuge, selling it to Asia at a discount and sticking it to people in Oregon, Washington, and California. It seems to me the Federal Trade Commission ought to be taking steps to stand up for the consumer. If they do not think they have the authority to stand up for the consumer at this point, they ought to come to the Senate and tell us what authority they actually need in order to protect the consumer and the gas-buying public. The unfortunate response from the Federal Trade Commission has been to simply sit this issue out. For example, on July 17, 2002, in a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, I outlined once again for the Federal Trade Commission these anticompetitive practices. I went through with them the impact of redlining, of zone pricing, of the pressure that has been put on independent gasoline stations. I asked them to furnish for the record any set of concrete steps they have actually taken to protect the consumer. We cannot find anything. We cannot find any specific action the Federal Trade Commission took, either before July 17, 2002, when I asked them that question, or since then. I am very troubled because I think the problems we are seeing today, and they are long-term problems, cry out for someone in the Federal Government to stand up for the consumer. It is the job of the Federal Trade Commission to deal with anticompetitive practices. These are long-term, anticompetitive practices that are siphoning the competition out of the gasoline markets in the United States. I hope the Federal Trade Commission will either do its job under existing law--I think they have the authority to deal with these anticompetitive practices--or if they do not believe they do have the authority they need to protect the consumer, they should come to the Senate and outline what powers they need in order to stand up for the American people. Essentially, both of the reports that I did and have submitted to the Federal Trade Commission found the very same thing. They found that the oil companies were engaging in anticompetitive practices. I hope now, given the enormous impact these huge gasoline price spikes are having on consumers, the ramifications for business--we had scores of businesses and business associations contact us in the past--that we can get the Federal Trade Commission off the side lines. They have a job to do. They are not doing it with respect to protecting the American people from anticompetitive practices in the gasoline businesses. I intend to keep coming to the floor and the Senate Commerce Committee until the Federal Trade Commission is prepared to do its job. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who really is a role model for so many of us. I thank him. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the provisions in the omnibus spending bill, adopted unanimously by the Senate earlier, that will protect the privacy and civil liberties of each and every law-abiding American citizen. I am going to discuss this over the next few minutes. I see the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, in the Chamber. Before I begin my remarks, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He and his staff have been so gracious and so kind with respect to this issue. The program I am going to discuss, the Total Information Awareness Program, is the most far-reaching and most expansive program of surveillance ever proposed. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, in particular, with the help of Senator Byrd and Senator Feinstein, and Senator Grassley, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, worked very closely with me. But we simply would not have this amendment in the legislation, it would not be bipartisan, if Senator Stevens had not been working with us. Because he is in the Chamber, I particularly thank my colleague for all his help. Mr. President, and colleagues, the amendment I am going to discuss tonight would prohibit spending for technology research and development in the Total Information Awareness Program, or TIA, unless the Department of Defense reports to the Congress on its plans for the technology. The provision also establishes proper congressional oversight of this surveillance program by requiring explicit congressional approval for deployment of any Total Information Awareness technology that would be used to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The Defense Department itself has had a virtual database--and I will quote--that was described as ``a new kind of extremely large, omnimedia, virtually centralized and semantically rich information repository.'' In my mind, such a novel and broadly proposed program--a program that has fingers snaking into so many areas of Americans' lives--is a textbook case of a program that needs vigorous congressional oversight. In recent days, the Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, have announced the formation of two oversight boards for the TIA Program--one within the Total Information Awareness Program and another Federal advisory board. In my view, this is a positive development. It indicates that they understand the growing concern of the American people about the Total Information Awareness Program. But I am very pleased that Chairman Stevens and the conferees shared my view, and that is that the establishment of these panels in no way reduces the need for congressional oversight of the Total Information Awareness Program. The conferees understood that these oversight boards, while useful, are not an argument for abdicating the responsibility of the Congress on this issue. As I mentioned, this has been a bipartisan effort with Senators Feinstein and Reid--the distinguished Senator from Nevada is in the Chamber, Mr. Reid--who have been very helpful. Suffice it to say, not one Member of Congress--no one in the Senate, no one in the other body, Democrat or Republican--has disagreed with the proposition of our amendment, and that is that it is the responsibility--indeed, the duty--of this Congress to insist on oversight of the Total Information Awareness Program. Not one Senator said: Look, Congress does not need to put brakes on the most far-reaching Government surveillance effort ever proposed. On the contrary, what Congress said was: We are going to insist that this program is not going to be allowed to grow unchecked and unaccountable. In fact, it is the duty of the Congress to protect the civil liberties and privacy of the people we represent. The call for strong safeguards has come through loud and clear, and that call has been recognized in the conference. One publication in my home State, the Newport News-Times, put it very well. I will quote it. That publication said: Just visiting the web site of what is affectionately billed as [the Total Information Awareness Program] is a trip into a future we hope not to meet. If our government still believes in the sanctity of the constitution this week, let's hope for the President's signature. All across the Nation, Americans have said that while a vigorous response to terror is necessary, a system designed to spy on Americans in America is not. It is not only unnecessary, it is contrary to the freedoms that the war on terror aims to protect. The total information awareness concept requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models. For instance, does a seemingly innocent individual conduct himself or herself according to a pattern that terrorists have exhibited in the past? To find out whether any current U.S. citizens fit the model of a terrorist living among us, the Total Information Awareness Program would develop a way to integrate the databases that already track our daily lives--bank records, online purchases, and travel plans, for instance. Once integrated, these disparate databases would serve as one giant repository of information on most or all of the computer-linked transactions an individual makes. Then you run the models, then you make a judgment of who looks like a terrorist. TIA's technology would give any Federal agency the capability to develop risk profiles for millions of Americans as they look for questionable conduct. When I first heard about this program--I am sure there are many others who came to think this as well--when you hear this initially, you say, this sounds like a good idea. If you snoop on everybody all the time, you are more likely to spot a few criminal someones at the moment they are up to no good. But the fact is, the police can't just stop someone on the street and frisk them for no reason. Current privacy law is supposed to prohibit private companies and the Government from rummaging through your online records. Unfortunately--and this is what you learn when you look at the total information proposal in depth--as it stands, the Total Information Awareness Program would use technology to pick regular Americans up by the ankles and shake them to see if anything funny falls out. Now, I understand that terrorists are not going to hang a shingle outside their hideaways announcing they have set up shop. They are not technological simpletons. And I know, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that extraordinary times such as this call for extraordinary measures to track down these terrorists. I do not take a back seat to anyone with respect to tracking down terrorists. I believe one of the most important things I have been able to do as a Member of this body is to write the Terrorist Identification Classification System, a bipartisan effort, that became law in the last session, that allows us, on an ongoing basis, to watchdog terrorists, the Mohammed Attas of the world. But there is a clear line between something that allows for tracking individuals where there is a known track record of terrorist activity--suspicious activity linked to terrorism--and, in effect, standing by while the Government shines an indiscriminate spotlight into the private lives and dealings of law- abiding Americans in this country on their own soil. It is a question of striking a balance. The Terrorist Identification Classification System is an appropriate approach for the Government to take in seeking to weed out terrorism. The Total Information Awareness Program is over the line. It is invading the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans on U.S. soil. That is why the conferees have wisely chosen to impose checks on it. The intention of the Total Information Awareness Program and those who support it is undoubtedly to protect the America that we love. But the reality is that the program as proposed encroaches on the freedoms that make us love America in the first place. Millions of Americans understand that. They have made it clear that they don't want this program to move forward unchecked and unaccountable, and that is why there has been such an outcry about it. A few weeks ago I stood with a coalition in a room not far from this sacred Chamber that does not flock together all that often: Americans for Tax Reform, the Eagle Forum two groups that are certainly conservative by anybody's calculus stood with the American Civil Liberties Union and a variety of groups that would be considered liberal, as they supported efforts to put vigorous oversight in place over this program. Suffice it to say, in my time in the Congress, I have never seen a program that has generated more ideological concern across the political spectrum. We have seen Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives all saying this is a program that warrants vigorous oversight and scrutiny by elected officials. Just because the administration has promised in recent days to institute oversight panels and to not use their awesome power for nefarious purposes, does not mean that future leaders would not abuse this program. So what we have said is that we are not going to let this program move forward without first ensuring permanent safeguards and protections that without them would threaten Americans not just today but many years in the future. Some who advocate this program will say that the concerns of Members of Congress and others are overblown. Some say the program will not do what I described and it doesn't threaten the privacy of American citizens in the way that first appears. I hope that is the case. If that is the case, if in fact the Total Information Awareness Program does not threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of the American people, then the folks over at the Defense Department need to come to the Congress and make that clear. They need to do what they have not done to date, and that is to explain more about what this program will do and how it will do it. The fact is, this body is in the dark about the Total Information Awareness Program, the most expansive and far-reaching surveillance program ever proposed. Congress has not been informed as to what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes forward. Therefore, my view is this Congress has no choice but to pursue answers and explanations before allowing the program to proceed. That is what our amendment to the omnibus spending bill does, and that is what the conferees have wisely chosen to do. My view is that these are reasonable provisions. The amendment calls on the Department of Defense to explain in a report to be delivered to the Congress within 90 days what technology they intend to develop and what they intend to do with it. Then the amendment further states that when any technology is developed for this program, it may not be developed without the express approval of the Congress. If the Total Information Awareness Program is something that is less invasive or smaller in scope or different than I have described, then the administration will have an opportunity to tell us. This amendment does not prevent those who support the program as initially outlined to have the chance to come back and show why additional threats warrant additional action. What this amendment does is ensure that if this program moves forward, it does so in a fashion that is sensitive to American freedoms, sensitive to constitutional protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our country can fight terrorism. Finally, it all comes down to how we come forward and address a special task. What we must do now is to be vigilant, to make sure we are doing what is necessary to fight terrorism, but not approve actions or condone actions that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation-- our Constitution. I thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Stevens, Inouye, Feinstein, Grassley, Reid, and others, who said repeatedly that Congress should not shirk its obligation. The conferees who were appointed to reconcile this spending bill had a unique opportunity to defend the Constitution and the United States. That is what we are elected to do. That is what we get election certificates for. They answered that call. For that, I offer the thanks of Oregonians and all Americans for whom civil liberties remain so special and precious tonight. I yield the floor. Telecommunications Training Institute

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for an excellent statement and associate myself with his remarks. They were extremely well put.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In the same way, a journey of a million miles must be completed with one final step. It was at the moment of that ultimate step on February 1, 2003, that the Space Shuttle Columbia could go no further. In its last moments, America's first shuttle took with it the brave souls of its crew. It is those seven heroes and human beings I honor today, on behalf of every Oregonian who mourns them. In recent years, the names of shuttle astronauts have seldom been known by most Americans. Now, the names of the Columbia Seven have entered the nation's consciousness through the floodgates of our shared grief: Flight Commander Rick Husband; Pilot William ``Willie'' McCool; Payload Commander Michael Anderson; Mission Specialist Kalpana ``K.C.'' Chawla; Mission Specialist David Brown; Mission Specialist Laurel Clark; and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon. As the recent chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, I came to know firsthand that America's astronaut corps, and indeed the teams of engineers and experts that support them, are the best this country has to offer. It seems that this particular group of astronauts was the best of the best. And they were not only America's finest, they were India's finest and Israel's finest as well. Many of this crew were devoted husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. They leave a dozen children behind them who deserve this nation's sympathy and gratitude for the sacrifice their parents' final mission required. But the Columbia crew also leaves behind their ideals of persistence and patriotism, the humility and humor that called so many people to love them so much, and above all their love of learning and life. Each brought a different background and unique experience to this mission. All defeated great odds and exhibited enormous courage in becoming the astronauts they hoped to be. From childhood, Rick Husband, Willie McCool and David Brown cherished dreams of liftoff and landing, of spaceships and spirits aloft. Laurel Clark dove to the depths of the sea in her naval career before reaching the heights of heaven on Columbia. Michael Anderson was able to break even the barrier of sound, even the barrier of Earth's atmosphere as one of the nation's few African American astronauts. Kalpana Chawla's mother reportedly had hoped for a son 41 years ago in India. She now says with pride that this daughter did better than any boy could, coming to America less than 20 years ago and twice being chosen as her adopted nation's envoy to space. Ilan Ramon had led his nation into battle many times. On this expedition, he envisioned Israel at peace. Looking down from the windows of Columbia, he imagined that the quiet and calm of the heavens would someday find his country men and women on Earth. As President Bush said on Saturday, Columbia is lost. But the optimism of Ilan Ramon and the visions Columbia's crew embodied never need pass away. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said this: ``Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. It was given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing.'' Today I say that it was the great good fortune of every American, of every citizen of the world, that these seven hearts were touched in youth with fire--that it became their profound passion to reach into the skies and grasp the knowledge that lies beyond our planet. Even as our hearts grieve, there is reason to rejoice. The United States of America and the nations of the world are still called to farther frontiers by these seven, so deserving of our respect.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. We suggest that the Congress approve $4 million for continued development and validation of advanced P-E-M fuel cells and metal membrane fuel purification technologies in the Energy & Water appropriations measure.

Mr. WYDEN. Senator Smith and I appreciate the Senator's consideration of our request. We thank him for the opportunity for this exchange, and his continued leadership for the advancement of energy technologies important to our Nation. southeast louisiana flood control project

Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. However, at the current pace of development it will be at least a decade before fuel cell systems are available in any significant numbers for large markets. Meanwhile, Japan and the European countries are investing more in fuel cell development than the U.S. is investing, and we are losing our leadership in this area. Japan's investment last year alone was three times that of the DOE. Senator Smith and I agree that U.S. fuel cell companies are ready to demonstrate P-E-M fuel cell powerplants that will serve the niche markets, and can accelerate the introduction of fuel cells to markets in the near term and the larger markets in the mid term. Would the Senator agree that there is an exciting opportunity here?

Mr. WYDEN. Senator Gordon Smith and I would like to discuss an important element of the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Program. This program is preparing the country for the next energy revolution--what many refer to as the ``hydrogen economy.'' It will establish an energy infrastructure for America based on abundant and domestically produced hydrogen, which will be used to fuel our powerplants, our homes, and our automobiles. The Senator's leadership, and that of the Congress as a whole, has strengthened the program over the past few years. However, there is one area on which the House and Senate have not yet achieved a consensus, an area that Senator Smith and I believe is important for establishing one early element of the hydrogen economy. I am referring to fuel cells, and specifically the Proton Exchange Membrane, or P-E-M fuel cell. Is the Senator aware that this technology is being developed by American companies for widespread applications, including homes and automobiles, but that before it may be used broadly in these applications, the fuel cell must be greatly improved and made affordable?