Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate moves forward on the Omnibus Appropriations bill, I wish to explain in greater detail the amendment I first discussed the other day. I offered this amendment with Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, and Corzine to establish clear and unambiguous congressional oversight over the Pentagon's Office of Total Information Awareness, TIA. It is an amendment on which I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I want to especially recognize the invaluable guidance Senator Inouye has provided us in crafting this amendment. It is an amendment that would limit the scope of the Office of Total Information Awareness. This is a program that is now being directed by retired Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser to former President Reagan. It is one that raises a number of important issues that have arisen in our country since the horrific events of 9/ 11. Let me be clear. The amendment does not kill the program; rather, the amendment shifts the burden to the executive branch to make the case for the program. The amendment would restrict funding for the program unless the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence send to Congress within 60 days a report answering a series of questions about the TIA program, or the President certifies to Congress in writing that that cessation of TIA's research and development work would endanger U.S. national security. Further, the amendment would prohibit DOD from sharing this technology with any Federal agency that wishes to deploy or implement it until the Secretary of Defense informs Congress about the element of the program's technology that would be deployed and the intended method and scope of the deployment, and an authorization and an appropriations law have been enacted to provide for the specific deployment or implementation. Given the fact that our country is engaged in fighting a war against an enemy without boundaries, clearly we must, as a nation, take steps that constantly strive to balance the rights of our citizens against the need to protect the national security of our Nation. My concern is the program that is being developed by Mr. Poindexter is going forward without congressional oversight and without clear accountability and guidelines. That is why I think it is important for the Senate, as we reflect on the need to fight terrorism while balancing the need to protect the rights of our citizens, to emphasize how important it is that a program like this be subject to congressional oversight, and that there be clear accountability. On the Web site of this particular program, the Total Information Awareness Program, is cited a Latin slogan--``Knowledge is power''-- something we would all agree with, and it states: The total information awareness of translational threats requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit in to models. To this end, this office would seek to develop a way to integrate databases into a ``virtual centralized grand database. The ``centralized grand database'' would enable the federal government to look at the education, financial, travel, medical, and other activities of U.S. citizens, and develop risk profiles for millions of Americans in the quest to examine questionable conduct and certainly suspicious activity that would generate concern for the safety of the American people. Our country must fight terrorists, but America should not unleash virtual bloodhounds to sniff into the personal financial, medical, and other records of millions of Americans. I am of the view the Senate has a special obligation to be vigilant in this area so we do not approve actions or condone actions by this particular office that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation: our Constitution. I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know it is a difficult job to find and maintain the proper balance between constitutional rights and the need to thoroughly track down every valid lead on terrorism, but I will tell you, I think it is critically important that the Senate have oversight over this program, and we make sure there is not a program of what amounts to virtual bloodhounds. We need to make sure there are guidelines and rules so that there has to be, for example, evidence there is activity that could threaten the country before additional intrusive steps are taken and, second, that there are safeguards in place at a time when it is possible, because of modern technology and new databases, to share information very quickly. The fact is much of this information is already being shared in the private sector, and that is why so many Americans are troubled about the prospect of losing privacy right now. What is of concern to many about the Office of Total Information Awareness is it will take the current policies that threaten the privacy of the Americana people and magnify those problems, given the fact we have not been informed as to what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes forward. I am of the view that the Senate must act to suspend this massive data-mining project unless and until the executive branch comes forward to make the case for it and Congress determines whether the proposed benefits of this technology come at too high a price to the privacy and personal liberty of U.S. citizens. Clearly, to fight terrorism, we have to have the confidence of the American people. In doing so, we must protect their rights. My concern is the Office of Total Information Awareness, as it is constituted today, tips that balance against the procedural safeguards that are needed to protect the rights of millions of Americans while fighting terrorism. That is why I and my distinguished colleagues believe Congress must act now to limit the scope of the TIA office. The amendment will ensure that as this program is developed in its early days it is done in a fashion that is sensitive and respectful of constitutional protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our Nation can continue to fight terrorism. In closing, I again thank the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for his generous assistance. amendment no. 59

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, far from the stuff of science fiction, nanotechnology has become a reality in the lives of many Americans. While there is tremendous potential for further study in this field, nanotechnology's current impacts range from the pedestrian to the extraordinary. A TV commercial demonstrates the practicality of nanotechnology through stain-resistant pants. Prosthetic and medical implants have been improved through molecularly designed surfaces that interact with the cells of the body. There is no question that this field will dramatically change the way Americans live. I was pleased that my colleagues in the Commerce Committee in the last Congress recognized the tremendous potential of nanotechnology and passed this bill out of committee with unanimous bipartisan support. Nanotechnology innovations will bring enormous benefits to America's economy and to nearly every aspect of life in the coming decades. My own judgment is the nanotechnology revolution has the potential to change America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology. At present, efforts in the nanotechnology field are strewn across a half-dozen Federal agencies. I want America to marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe Federal support is essential to achieving that goal. Legislation I am introducing today will provide a smart, accelerate, and organized approach to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view, there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest success for its nanotechnology efforts. First, a National nanotechnology Research Program should be established to superintend long-term fundamental nanoscience and engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the development of this discipline. Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a program of research grants, and also through the establishment of nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale projects to succeed and building a network that includes State- supported centers. As these research efforts take shape, educational opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. Through this legislation, I commit to helping students who would enter the field of nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise. Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry, and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can offer. Third, the government should create connections across its agencies to aid in the meshing of various nanotechnology efforts. These could include a national steering office, and a Presidential nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. I also believe that as these organizational support structures are put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the maximum efficiency of our efforts. Personally, I would call for an annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the United States should keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of benchmarking studies. If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with organized, goal-oriented support, this Nation runs the risk of falling behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain- resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national security. America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere molecules. America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State, Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will travel human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today. America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safer. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their wounds. nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment. Moreover, and this is even more important given our struggling economy, America risks missing an economic revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone. It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next 10 years. As nanotechnology grows, the ranks of skilled workers needed to discover and apply its capabilities must grow too. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could become magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for nanotechnology applications--but only if government doesn't miss the boat. Our country's National Nanotechnology Initiative is a step in the right direction. This Nation has already committed substantial funds to nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But funding is not enough. There must be careful planning to make sure that money is used for sound science over the long-term. That is the reason for the legislation I am issuing today. The strategic planning it prescribes will ensure that scientists get the support they need to realize nanotechnology's greatest potential. In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States' scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death. In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it.'' Those principles, so true nearly 60 years ago, are truer still today. I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in promoting and developing nanatechnology. I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by Senators Allen, Lieberman, Mikulski, Hollings, Landrieu, Clinton, and Levin. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be entered in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, far from the stuff of science fiction, nanotechnology has become a reality in the lives of many Americans. While there is tremendous potential for further study in this field, nanotechnology's current impacts range from the pedestrian to the extraordinary. A TV commercial demonstrates the practicality of nanotechnology through stain-resistant pants. Prosthetic and medical implants have been improved through molecularly designed surfaces that interact with the cells of the body. There is no question that this field will dramatically change the way Americans live. I was pleased that my colleagues in the Commerce Committee in the last Congress recognized the tremendous potential of nanotechnology and passed this bill out of committee with unanimous bipartisan support. Nanotechnology innovations will bring enormous benefits to America's economy and to nearly every aspect of life in the coming decades. My own judgment is the nanotechnology revolution has the potential to change America on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology. At present, efforts in the nanotechnology field are strewn across a half-dozen Federal agencies. I want America to marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe Federal support is essential to achieving that goal. Legislation I am introducing today will provide a smart, accelerate, and organized approach to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view, there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest success for its nanotechnology efforts. First, a National nanotechnology Research Program should be established to superintend long-term fundamental nanoscience and engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the development of this discipline. Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a program of research grants, and also through the establishment of nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale projects to succeed and building a network that includes State- supported centers. As these research efforts take shape, educational opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. Through this legislation, I commit to helping students who would enter the field of nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise. Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry, and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can offer. Third, the government should create connections across its agencies to aid in the meshing of various nanotechnology efforts. These could include a national steering office, and a Presidential nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. I also believe that as these organizational support structures are put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the maximum efficiency of our efforts. Personally, I would call for an annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the United States should keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of benchmarking studies. If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with organized, goal-oriented support, this Nation runs the risk of falling behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain- resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national security. America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere molecules. America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State, Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will travel human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today. America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safer. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their wounds. nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment. Moreover, and this is even more important given our struggling economy, America risks missing an economic revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone. It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next 10 years. As nanotechnology grows, the ranks of skilled workers needed to discover and apply its capabilities must grow too. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could become magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for nanotechnology applications--but only if government doesn't miss the boat. Our country's National Nanotechnology Initiative is a step in the right direction. This Nation has already committed substantial funds to nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But funding is not enough. There must be careful planning to make sure that money is used for sound science over the long-term. That is the reason for the legislation I am issuing today. The strategic planning it prescribes will ensure that scientists get the support they need to realize nanotechnology's greatest potential. In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States' scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death. In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it.'' Those principles, so true nearly 60 years ago, are truer still today. I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in promoting and developing nanatechnology. I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by Senators Allen, Lieberman, Mikulski, Hollings, Landrieu, Clinton, and Levin. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be entered in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate moves to the spending bill, I rise to discuss briefly an amendment I will be offering. It is an amendment I discussed with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is an amendment that would limit the scope of the Office of Total Information Awareness. This is a program that is now being directed by retired Admiral John Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser to former President Reagan. It is one that raises a number of important issues that have arisen in our country since the horrific events of 9/ 11. Given the fact that our country is engaged in fighting a war against an enemy without boundaries, clearly we must, as a Nation, take steps that constantly strive to balance the rights of our citizens against the need to protect the national security of our Nation. My concern is the program that has been developed by Mr. Poindexter is going forward without congressional oversight and without clear accountability and guidelines. That is why I think it is important for the Senate, as we reflect on the need to fight terrorism while balancing the need to protect the rights of our citizens, to emphasize how important it is a program such as this be subject to congressional oversight and that there be clear accountability. On the Web site of this particular program, the Total Information Awareness Program, they cite a Latin slogan: ``Knowledge is power''-- something we would all agree with: The total information awareness of transnational threats requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit in to models. To this end, this office would seek to develop a way to integrate databases into a ``virtual centralized grand database.'' They would be in a position to look at education, travel, and medical records, and develop risk profiles for millions of Americans in the quest to examine questionable conduct and certainly suspicious activity that would generate concern for the safety of the American people. I am of the view the Senate has a special obligation to be vigilant in this area so we do not approve actions or condone actions by this particular office that could compromise the bedrock of this Nation--our Constitution. I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know it is a difficult job to find and maintain the proper balance between constitutional rights and the need to thoroughly track down every valid lead on terrorism, but I will tell you, Mr. President, I think it is critically important that the Senate have oversight over this program and we make sure there is not a program of what amounts to virtual bloodhounds. We need to make sure there are guidelines and rules so that there has to be, for example, evidence there is activity that could threaten the country before additional intrusive steps are taken and, second, that there are safeguards in place at a time when it is possible, because of modern technology and new databases, to share information very quickly. The fact is much of this information is already being shared in the private sector, and that is why so many Americans are troubled about the prospect of losing privacy. What is of concern to many about the Office of Total Information Awareness is it will take the current policies that threaten the privacy of the American people and magnify those problems, given the fact we have not been informed as to what safeguards and constitutional protections would be in place when this program goes forward. It is time for the Senate to put some reins on this program before it grows exponentially and tips the balance with respect to privacy rights and the need to protect the national security in a fashion that is detrimental to our Nation. Clearly, to fight terrorism, we have to have the confidence of the American people. In doing so, we are protecting their rights. My concern is the Office of Total Information Awareness, as it is constituted today, tips that balance against the procedural safeguards that are needed to protect the rights of millions of Americans while fighting terrorism. That is why I will be offering an amendment on the spending bill to limit the scope of the office. That amendment will not prevent those in the administration who support the program to come back at a later date and show why additional threats warrant additional action. It will ensure that as this program is developed in its early days it is done in a fashion that is sensitive, with constitutional protections and safeguards, while still ensuring that our Nation can fight terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes this morning.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, predictions that the Internet Tax Freedom Act would topple Western Civilization have not come to pass. Since the moratorium on taxation of out-of-State, online sales was first enacted in October 1998, not a single community, county or state has come forward to prove it is being injured by its inability to impose discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. There is simply no evidence that States have lost revenue by technology-driven commerce. On the contrary, the technology sector itself has been pounded as hard as any sector by the economic downturn. Across the country States are facing tremendous budget pressures. My own State of Oregon is facing a nearly 20 percent budget shortfall, and Oregon has the highest unemployment rate in the Nation. The shift from black ink to red is the result of this Administration's failed economic policies, not the inability of States to impose discriminatory taxes on Internet sales. Adding new taxes on the backs of consumers is not the way to salvage weakened State and local economies. Sales taxes are among the most regressive revenue measures, and imposing new sales taxes at this time could actually make a bad economic situation worse. A number of States seem to be arguing that their economic future is tied to taxing technology entrepreneurs located thousands of miles away with no physical presence in their jurisdiction. I don't share this view. The reason States don't tax remote sellers, as former Massachusetts Governor Celluci has testified before the Senate, is they don't want the political heat. Few of the 45 States that could collect a use tax on all items their residents have purchased out-of-State actually do so. Most States simply chose not to enforce their own laws, preferring to export their tax burden to out of state businesses who get no benefit from the taxing state. Congress will soon be asked again by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project States to take the political heat for new sales taxes. The U.S. Senate has voted three times in recent years on whether to overturn Quill to require remote sellers with no nexus to serve the States as their tax collectors. Every time the Senate has rejected the notion. On January 19, 1995, the Senate voted 73-25 to table the amendment; on October 2, 1998, the Senate voted 66-29 to table the amendment; and most recently, on November 15, 2001, the Senate voted 57-43 to table the amendment. As Congress revisits this issue again this year, we should remember what the Supreme Court said in Quill: ``Congress is . . . free to decide whether, when and to what extent the States may burden mail- order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.'' The authority the Constitution vests in Congress to regulate interstate commerce--online or otherwise--is an enormous power that must be exercised with great care and caution. I believe the moratorium should be extended indefinitely, and that is what the legislation I introduce today would do. I am pleased to be joined once again in this effort by Representative Chris Cox, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the important agreement that my fellow conferees and I achieved in the conference on the Port and Maritime Security bill. For many months, our staffs have worked tirelessly to help us reach an agreement that meets the needs of security while allowing commerce to flourish. This bipartisan legislation strikes a good balance between security and trade, and I'm glad to see that it will be headed for the President's desk. This legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor, aims to protect U.S. ports against terrorist attacks. The safer Oregon's ports are, the more prosperous they will be. I am also pleased to see that many programs important to Oregon will continue to thrive. These programs play a critical role in supporting Oregon's commerce and ports, which support 1 in 7 jobs in the State. The Maritime Fire Safety Association on the Lower Columbia will continue its important work along with the important Coast Guard stations that maintain safety and manage fisheries for communities on the Columbia River and along Oregon's coast. In addition to safeguards for Oregon businesses, I am also pleased that the agreement recognizes the important environmental laws that help maintain our State's environmental treasures and will continue to protect Oregon's ocean and coastal environment. I especially want to commend Chairman Hollings for his perseverance on this legislation, and I thank my fellow conferees for their hard work on this important bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution that spells out what I believe should be the basic rights of consumers to use and enjoy legally acquired copyrighted works. The purpose of this resolution is simple: to establish the principle that as the Nation's copyright system evolves and adapts to new technologies, it must respect and preserve the interests of consumers. I am joined in this effort by my friend and frequent collaborator, Representative Chris Cox, who has already introduced a similar resolution in the House. In today's information age, intellectual property rules are the oil that helps keep the economic engine running smoothly. Digitization and the rise of the Internet have given the engine a big boost by creating new and more efficient ways of circulating, manipulating, and using information. The pace of these developments has left the copyright system scrambling to keep up. Industry working groups have been meeting over the past several years to negotiate new copy protection rules, but consumers have not always had a prominent seat at the table, and there is a real risk that the interests of consumers could get short shift. That is why I believe it is important to affirm that new copyright protection systems must not be allowed to undermine or erode the existing rights and expectations of consumers. Existing copyright laws, under the doctrine of ``fair use,'' permit consumers to make copies of content for limited, non- commercial purposes. A new copyright regime for the digital world must not narrow or limit these rights. It would be a terrible irony if the advances in digital technology were to result in a step backwards for consumers. I expect to see a great deal of activity on this subject during the next Congress--on the legislative front certainly, but also in further negotiations between industry groups and in efforts to devise new technological approaches. To ensure that the scope of ``fair use'' in the digital world will not be any narrower than it has been in the analog world, I believe it would be helpful for Congress to spell out its expectations concerning what legitimate fair use includes. That is what this resolution aims to do. Specifically, it says that consumers of legally acquired content should be permitted to make copies for purposes of using the content later (time-shifting), using it in a different place (space shifting), or making a backup; to use the content on different platforms or devices; to translate the content into different formats; and to use technology to achieve any of these purposes. Copyright law should not give copyright holders the ability to prohibit such legitimate, personal, non-commercial activity. It is clear to me that the content industries face very serious challenges in preventing piracy, and that intellectual property protections must be strong. People and companies that create copyrighted works must be fairly compensated, and piracy must be punished. America's information-based economy depends on it. But efforts to combat piracy must not come at the expense of legitimate consumer uses of intellectual property. That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I understand that the content industries have serious concerns about this resolution. I have listened to them, and I can appreciate theirs fear that, for example, expressing consumer rights in too absolute a fashion could open the door to someone making 1,000 copies of a CD to share with all their friends and acquaintances at no charge. That is not my intention. So the resolution I am introducing specifies that the rights in question must be exercised in a reasonable, personal, and non-commercial manner. The rights are not absolute. Going forward, I intend to continue to listen to both sides of this debate, and to support solutions that do not upset the balance in existing law between commercial use and non-commercial, personal use. I want to protect the interests of both copyright holders and consumers. But the fact is, as of today, nobody in the Senate has stepped forward with legislation on the consumer side of this issue. This resolution helps fill that void. Introducing this resolution now, with the end of this Congress drawing near, Congressman Cox, and I are essentially laying down a marker for next year's debate. I will work closely with my Chairman on the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, and others to move the issue forward. A positive expression affirming the reasonable interests of consumers should be part of this Nation's evolving copyright regime.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution that spells out what I believe should be the basic rights of consumers to use and enjoy legally acquired copyrighted works. The purpose of this resolution is simple: to establish the principle that as the Nation's copyright system evolves and adapts to new technologies, it must respect and preserve the interests of consumers. I am joined in this effort by my friend and frequent collaborator, Representative Chris Cox, who has already introduced a similar resolution in the House. In today's information age, intellectual property rules are the oil that helps keep the economic engine running smoothly. Digitization and the rise of the Internet have given the engine a big boost by creating new and more efficient ways of circulating, manipulating, and using information. The pace of these developments has left the copyright system scrambling to keep up. Industry working groups have been meeting over the past several years to negotiate new copy protection rules, but consumers have not always had a prominent seat at the table, and there is a real risk that the interests of consumers could get short shift. That is why I believe it is important to affirm that new copyright protection systems must not be allowed to undermine or erode the existing rights and expectations of consumers. Existing copyright laws, under the doctrine of ``fair use,'' permit consumers to make copies of content for limited, non- commercial purposes. A new copyright regime for the digital world must not narrow or limit these rights. It would be a terrible irony if the advances in digital technology were to result in a step backwards for consumers. I expect to see a great deal of activity on this subject during the next Congress--on the legislative front certainly, but also in further negotiations between industry groups and in efforts to devise new technological approaches. To ensure that the scope of ``fair use'' in the digital world will not be any narrower than it has been in the analog world, I believe it would be helpful for Congress to spell out its expectations concerning what legitimate fair use includes. That is what this resolution aims to do. Specifically, it says that consumers of legally acquired content should be permitted to make copies for purposes of using the content later (time-shifting), using it in a different place (space shifting), or making a backup; to use the content on different platforms or devices; to translate the content into different formats; and to use technology to achieve any of these purposes. Copyright law should not give copyright holders the ability to prohibit such legitimate, personal, non-commercial activity. It is clear to me that the content industries face very serious challenges in preventing piracy, and that intellectual property protections must be strong. People and companies that create copyrighted works must be fairly compensated, and piracy must be punished. America's information-based economy depends on it. But efforts to combat piracy must not come at the expense of legitimate consumer uses of intellectual property. That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I understand that the content industries have serious concerns about this resolution. I have listened to them, and I can appreciate theirs fear that, for example, expressing consumer rights in too absolute a fashion could open the door to someone making 1,000 copies of a CD to share with all their friends and acquaintances at no charge. That is not my intention. So the resolution I am introducing specifies that the rights in question must be exercised in a reasonable, personal, and non-commercial manner. The rights are not absolute. Going forward, I intend to continue to listen to both sides of this debate, and to support solutions that do not upset the balance in existing law between commercial use and non-commercial, personal use. I want to protect the interests of both copyright holders and consumers. But the fact is, as of today, nobody in the Senate has stepped forward with legislation on the consumer side of this issue. This resolution helps fill that void. Introducing this resolution now, with the end of this Congress drawing near, Congressman Cox, and I are essentially laying down a marker for next year's debate. I will work closely with my Chairman on the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, and others to move the issue forward. A positive expression affirming the reasonable interests of consumers should be part of this Nation's evolving copyright regime.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the Senate's passage of the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act. Americans today live in an increasingly networked world. The spread of the Internet creates lots of great new opportunities. But there is also a downside: security risks. The Internet connects people not just to friends, potential customers, and useful sources of information, but also to would-be hackers, viruses, and cybercriminals. In July 2001, after I became chairman of the Science and Technology Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, I chose cybersecurity as the topic for my first hearing. The message from that hearing was that cybersecurity risks are mounting. And that was before the horrific attacks of September 11 hammered home the point that there are determined, organized enemies of this country who wish to wreak as much havoc as they can. The terrorists are looking for vulnerabilities, and they are not technological simpletons. This legislation is essential to the Nation's effort to address cybersecurity threats. It is a necessary complement to both the homeland security legislation pending in Congress and to the draft cybersecurity strategy released on September 18 by the administration. Because reorganizing the Federal Government to deal more effectively with security threats is only part of the battle. The same goes for many of the steps called for in the Administration's cybersecurity strategy. In the long run, all Government and private sector cybersecurity efforts depend on people--trained experts with the knowledge and skills to develop innovate solutions and respond creatively and proactively to evolving threats. Without a strong core of cybersecurity experts, no amount of good intentions and no amount of Government reorganizing will be sufficient to keep this country one step ahead of hackers and cyberterrorists. Therefore, this legislation makes a strong commitment to support basic cybersecurity research, so that the country's pool of top-flight cybersecurity experts can keep pace with the evolving risks. Specifically, the bill authorizes $978 million over five years to create new cybersecurity research and development programs at the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. The NSF program will provide funding for innovative research, multidisciplinary academic centers devoted to cybersecurity, and new courses and fellowships to educate the cybersecurity experts of the future. The NIST program likewise will support cutting-edge cybersecurity research, with a special emphasis on promoting cooperative efforts between government, industry, and academia. All of these programs will support advanced cybersecurity research at a basic, non-applied level, some of which may not pay off for a number of years. Nonetheless, it is my strong expectation that as this fundamental research yields results, those results will be made available promptly to the private sector, where they will serve as the foundation for a wide range of practical, tangible cybersecurity improvements, products, and solutions. This kind of commercialization of the results of Federal investment in computer and network security research is consistent with long-standing U.S. technology transfer policy, and will serve the national interest in enhancing the security and reliability of cyberspace for commercial, academic, and individual users, as well as Federal and state governments. I should also note that, in addition to the extramural research grants at NSF and NIST, the bill will support NIST's ongoing cybersecurity research. Americans for Computer Privacy, the Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Software & Information Industry Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted in a recent letter to Senators Lieberman and Thompson that NIST's Computer Security Division's ``job is to improve the security of civilian computer systems through technical standards and cooperation with industry.'' This legislation will provide funding to support NIST in continuing that work. There is broad consensus on the need for this legislation. It has already passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, thanks to the leadership of Congressman Sherry Boehlert. I introduced the Senate version, S. 2182, and the ranking member of the Science and Technology Subcommittee, Senator Allen, joined me in shepherding it through the Commerce Committee. We worked closely with Senator Edwards on provisions to help Federal Government agencies safeguard the security of their computer systems. And we worked closely with businesses and experts in the cybersecurity field, to ensure widespread support within the high tech industry. Specifically, I would like to mention a few changes that have been made to the bill since we reported the bill from the Commerce Committee. The most significant changes to the bill came in working with Senator Edwards and cybersecurity businesses and experts to give federal agencies additional tools to strengthen the security of their computer systems, while at the same time encouraging innovation and allowing agencies the flexibility to adopt a variety of cybersecurity products. In addition, working with our colleagues on the House Science Committee, we adjusted the list of research areas of basic NSF research grants. No list could ever encompass every computer security technology, and for that reason the list is not exclusive. The intention was simply to give some general examples of broad research areas, without naming specific technologies. But obviously, when individual grants are awarded, they may well focus on particular technologies that are not listed by name in the final version of the bill, such as digital watermarking. Another change is the delection of a cost-sharing provision added in committee. Instead, the bill language makes it clear that research grants under the NIST cybersecurity research program will be awarded to institutions of higher education rather than directly funding industry research. I thank my Senate colleague for taking up and approving this timely legislation. The stakes are high, and you can bet that hackers and cyberterrorists won't stand still. So it is important to launch these new cybersecurity research programs as soon as possible. I believe this legislation needs to be enacted into law this fall, and I urge the House and the President to move swiftly to ensure that happens.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me join in the extraordinarily important comments that have been made by Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell. This has been a huge and arduous task that had to be bipartisan. The fact is, you can't get anything done that really is important without it being bipartisan. I take a moment to thank Senator Dodd. He has been extraordinarily patient with me and with all of the Members of this body who come from States that have pioneered innovative approaches. It is fair to say right now with millions of Americans essentially being early voters, there have been estimates that something along the lines of 15 percent of the American people are going to vote early. The legislation that Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell brings to us today protects the wave of the future--this early voting--whether it be by absentee ballot or the pioneering vote-by-mail system. What this legislation does is protect the early voters--the person we are seeing more and more of in the American political process--by, in effect, taking steps to discourage fraud at the front end when people register, and then making sure that people don't face unnecessary barriers and hassles when they actually participate in the fall of even-numbered years. So I commend Senators Dodd and McConnell for their work in this area. Suffice it to say, at various stages in the discussion, I wasn't sure that we were going to make it. Look at how the debate began when this bill first came to the floor of the Senate. It seemed to me and others that millions of Americans would have been turned away from the polls because they didn't have with them a valid photo identification or a copy of a utility bill. It would have disenfranchised millions of Americans. I and others made that point to Chairman Dodd and Senator McConnell, and we began a very lengthy set of negotiations that involved Senators Dodd, McConnell, Bond, Cantwell, Schumer, and I. Together we were able to work out an agreement with respect to the photo identification provision. It protects fully the vote-by-mail system. In fact, it protects all Americans who want to vote early, as I have mentioned. It is outlined in section 303 of the conference report. I thought I would take a minute to describe how this provision would work. Beginning in January 2004, anyone who registers to vote for the first time, let's say in Oregon, has the choice of registering by providing a driver's license number, the last four digits of their Social Security number, a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government document, or a valid photo identification. When they cast their ballot by mail, Oregon's State elections officials will verify the voter's eligibility consistent with State law by signature verification. Under our Oregon election law, an elections official determines voter eligibility by matching the signature on the registration with the signature on the mail-in ballot. Oregon's signature match system would not change. My primary concern throughout this discussion has, of course, been to support our pioneering vote-by-mail system, which I think is the wave of the future. But as we have seen in recent days it is not just Oregon but a variety of other States are going to see millions of people saying they want to take the time, essentially through the fall when people are considering the candidates, to look at the statements put out and reflect on them in a way that is convenient for them. We said at the beginning of this discussion that we wanted to discourage fraud and encourage voters. I think that is what the Dodd- McConnell legislation does. I am particularly pleased that it does so in a way that protects Oregon's pioneering system and all of those around this country who are going to be voting by mail. Senator McConnell just mentioned that this is, in his view, just about as important as it gets for the Senate. I will reaffirm that statement. After all of the problems that we have seen in Florida, after you look at all of the challenges in terms of getting young people excited about politics and excited about the democratic process, what this legislation does is it reaches out and says: We understand those concerns. We understand that the American people feel more strongly about this subject than just about anything else because it is what we are about. It is about our values, our principles; it is what the Senate is all about. So I am very pleased that Senators Dodd and McConnell had the patience to work with some of us who, I am sure, were fairly prickly and difficult along the way. I don't know how many hours we had in negotiations just looking at the arcane details of some of the vote-by-mail States. But Senator Dodd said we are just not going to give up. We understand that you are doing something very exciting in the Pacific Northwest, and we encourage it. In effect, what Senator Dodd has done is not just protect the Oregon system but allowed this country to build on something that I think is the wave of the future; that is, people voting essentially throughout the fall. We have seen--as reported recently in various States as they innovate with different kinds of systems--a variety of approaches that are being tried. My own sense is that it won't be very long before people start voting online in this country. So what Senator Dodd has done is made it clear that he is going to stand with all of us in the Senate who want to discourage fraud, and we are going to do it at the right time and in the right way, which is essentially at the front end when people come to sign up for the electoral process. But then, after we can ascertain they are who they say they are, they are not going to face innumerable hassles and barriers when they actually show up to vote. So my thanks to Senator Dodd and his staff, Carole Grunberg, who is here. She has championed for us the Oregon vote-by-mail system. But with Senator Dodd in the Chamber, I want him to know how much I appreciate what he is doing. It means a tremendous amount to my constituents and also to this country and to the future of American voting. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the past seven years, Congressman Chris Cox and I have teamed up several times on legislation affecting the Internet. The Global Internet Freedom Act that I will introduce today could be called ``Cox-Wyden V,'' because this is our fifth collaboration. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in introducing this bill in the Senate. This legislation aims to foster the development and deployment of technologies to defeat state-sponsored Internet jamming and censorship, and in turn, to help unleash the potential of the Internet to promote the causes of freedom and democracy worldwide. This is a time when Americans are acutely focused on security threats emanating from sources beyond U.S. borders. The terrorist attacks of September 11 made plain that ignorance, extremism, and hate abroad can have terrible consequences not just in other countries, but right here at home. And the daily drumbeat of debate over Iraq emphasizes that oppressive foreign regimes can pose serious hazards. The world is truly getting smaller. In the field of information technology, Americans have rightly responded with a renewed emphasis on cybersecurity. The interlinked computer networks that make up the Internet, and on which American's critical infrastructure increasingly relies, must be secured against would-be cyberterrorists. This is a matter of top importance, and I have sponsored legislation, as Chairman of the Science and Technology Subcommittee, to promote research and innovation in this area. It is my hope that the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act will be signed by the President in the coming weeks. But it is important to remember that the international nature of the Internet does not just create new threats. It also presents tremendous new opportunities. Openness, transparency, and the unfettered flow of information have always been the allies of freedom and democracy. Over time, nothing erodes oppression and intolerance like the widespread dissemination of knowledge and ideas. And technology has often played a key role in this process. From the printing press to radio, technological advances have revolutionized the spread information and ideas and opened up new horizons for people everywhere. Not surprisingly, the foes of freedom, understanding the threat these technologies pose, have often responded with such steps as censoring the press, jamming radio broadcasts, and putting media outlets under state control. The Internet promises to revolutionize the spread of information yet again. Unlike its predecessor technologies, it offers a truly worldwide network that makes geographic distance irrelevant. It enables any person connected to it to exchange ideas quickly and easily with people and organizations on the other side of the globe. The quantity and variety of information it permits access to are virtually unlimited. So once again, governments that fear freedom are trying to rein in the technology's potential. They block access to websites. They censor websites and email. They interrupt Internet search engines when users try explore the ``wrong'' topics. They closely monitor citizens' Internet usage and make it known that those who visit the ``wrong'' websites will be punished. Or they prevent Internet access altogether, by prohibiting ownership of personal computers. For a confirmed example of this, I would simply call attention to the inaugural report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, issued just last week, October 2. This report, the product of a bipartisan commission with members from the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Administration, finds that ``over the last 18 months, the Chinese government has issued an extensive and still growing series of regulations restricting Internet content and placing monitoring requirements on industry.'' It goes on to cite accounts of the Chinese government using high-tech software and hardware to ``block, filter, and hack websites and e-mail.'' Offshore dissident websites, foreign news websites, search engines, and Voice of America's weekly e-mail to China are all subject to being blocked. Internet users attempting to access foreign web- sites often find themselves redirected to Chinese government-approved websites. Other countries, from Cuba to Burma to Tunisia to Vietnam, engage in similar activity. There are technologies that can help defeat the firewalls and filters that these governments choose to erect. Proxy servers, intermediaries, ``mirrors,'' and encryption may all have useful applications in this regard. But the U.S. Government has done little to promote technological approaches. This country devotes considerable resources to combat the jamming of Voice of America broadcasting abroad. But to date, it has budgeted only about $1 million for technologies to counter Internet jamming and censorship. This country can and should do better. The Internet is too important a communications medium, and its potential as a force for freedom and democracy is too great, to make a second-rate effort in this area. That is why Senator Kyl and I are introducing the Global Internet Freedom Act today. It is time for the U.S. Government to make a serious commitment to support technology that can help keep the Internet open, available, and free of political censorship for people all over the world. This legislation would establish an Office of Global Internet Freedom, with the express mission of promoting technology to combat state-sponsored Internet jamming. The office would be based in the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, to take advantage of NTIA's extensive expertise in international telecommunications and Internet issues. Location within the Department of Commerce will also help ensure close ties with American technology companies, whose active involvement will be essential for any technology-based effort to succeed. Cooperation with the International Broadcasting Bureau will be indispensable as well, and is required in the legislation. Funding for the new office would be authorized at $30 million for each of the next two fiscal years. The office would make an annual report to Congress on its activities, and on the extent of state- sponsored Internet blocking in different countries around the world. Finally, the bill would express the sense of Congress that the United States should denounce the practice of state-sponsored blocking of access to the Internet, should submit a resolution on the topic to the United Nations Human Rights Convention, and should deploy technologies to address the problem as soon as practicable. As I mentioned at the outset, Representatives Chris Cox and Tom Lantos have already introduced companion legislation in the House, and I strongly applaud them for taking the lead on this issue. Here in the Senate, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kyl and myself in this important, bipartisan effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the past seven years, Congressman Chris Cox and I have teamed up several times on legislation affecting the Internet. The Global Internet Freedom Act that I will introduce today could be called ``Cox-Wyden V,'' because this is our fifth collaboration. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl in introducing this bill in the Senate. This legislation aims to foster the development and deployment of technologies to defeat state-sponsored Internet jamming and censorship, and in turn, to help unleash the potential of the Internet to promote the causes of freedom and democracy worldwide. This is a time when Americans are acutely focused on security threats emanating from sources beyond U.S. borders. The terrorist attacks of September 11 made plain that ignorance, extremism, and hate abroad can have terrible consequences not just in other countries, but right here at home. And the daily drumbeat of debate over Iraq emphasizes that oppressive foreign regimes can pose serious hazards. The world is truly getting smaller. In the field of information technology, Americans have rightly responded with a renewed emphasis on cybersecurity. The interlinked computer networks that make up the Internet, and on which American's critical infrastructure increasingly relies, must be secured against would-be cyberterrorists. This is a matter of top importance, and I have sponsored legislation, as Chairman of the Science and Technology Subcommittee, to promote research and innovation in this area. It is my hope that the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act will be signed by the President in the coming weeks. But it is important to remember that the international nature of the Internet does not just create new threats. It also presents tremendous new opportunities. Openness, transparency, and the unfettered flow of information have always been the allies of freedom and democracy. Over time, nothing erodes oppression and intolerance like the widespread dissemination of knowledge and ideas. And technology has often played a key role in this process. From the printing press to radio, technological advances have revolutionized the spread information and ideas and opened up new horizons for people everywhere. Not surprisingly, the foes of freedom, understanding the threat these technologies pose, have often responded with such steps as censoring the press, jamming radio broadcasts, and putting media outlets under state control. The Internet promises to revolutionize the spread of information yet again. Unlike its predecessor technologies, it offers a truly worldwide network that makes geographic distance irrelevant. It enables any person connected to it to exchange ideas quickly and easily with people and organizations on the other side of the globe. The quantity and variety of information it permits access to are virtually unlimited. So once again, governments that fear freedom are trying to rein in the technology's potential. They block access to websites. They censor websites and email. They interrupt Internet search engines when users try explore the ``wrong'' topics. They closely monitor citizens' Internet usage and make it known that those who visit the ``wrong'' websites will be punished. Or they prevent Internet access altogether, by prohibiting ownership of personal computers. For a confirmed example of this, I would simply call attention to the inaugural report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, issued just last week, October 2. This report, the product of a bipartisan commission with members from the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Administration, finds that ``over the last 18 months, the Chinese government has issued an extensive and still growing series of regulations restricting Internet content and placing monitoring requirements on industry.'' It goes on to cite accounts of the Chinese government using high-tech software and hardware to ``block, filter, and hack websites and e-mail.'' Offshore dissident websites, foreign news websites, search engines, and Voice of America's weekly e-mail to China are all subject to being blocked. Internet users attempting to access foreign web- sites often find themselves redirected to Chinese government-approved websites. Other countries, from Cuba to Burma to Tunisia to Vietnam, engage in similar activity. There are technologies that can help defeat the firewalls and filters that these governments choose to erect. Proxy servers, intermediaries, ``mirrors,'' and encryption may all have useful applications in this regard. But the U.S. Government has done little to promote technological approaches. This country devotes considerable resources to combat the jamming of Voice of America broadcasting abroad. But to date, it has budgeted only about $1 million for technologies to counter Internet jamming and censorship. This country can and should do better. The Internet is too important a communications medium, and its potential as a force for freedom and democracy is too great, to make a second-rate effort in this area. That is why Senator Kyl and I are introducing the Global Internet Freedom Act today. It is time for the U.S. Government to make a serious commitment to support technology that can help keep the Internet open, available, and free of political censorship for people all over the world. This legislation would establish an Office of Global Internet Freedom, with the express mission of promoting technology to combat state-sponsored Internet jamming. The office would be based in the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, to take advantage of NTIA's extensive expertise in international telecommunications and Internet issues. Location within the Department of Commerce will also help ensure close ties with American technology companies, whose active involvement will be essential for any technology-based effort to succeed. Cooperation with the International Broadcasting Bureau will be indispensable as well, and is required in the legislation. Funding for the new office would be authorized at $30 million for each of the next two fiscal years. The office would make an annual report to Congress on its activities, and on the extent of state- sponsored Internet blocking in different countries around the world. Finally, the bill would express the sense of Congress that the United States should denounce the practice of state-sponsored blocking of access to the Internet, should submit a resolution on the topic to the United Nations Human Rights Convention, and should deploy technologies to address the problem as soon as practicable. As I mentioned at the outset, Representatives Chris Cox and Tom Lantos have already introduced companion legislation in the House, and I strongly applaud them for taking the lead on this issue. Here in the Senate, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kyl and myself in this important, bipartisan effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. It is a declassified document.

Mr. WYDEN. It is declassified.

Mr. WYDEN. It is declassified.

Mr. WYDEN. I was not, but I will tell the Senator I have probably sat in more briefings, as a Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on this point than just about any Member of this body. I have kept fully abreast of this issue.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I hold the Senate seat of the late Wayne Morse. Senator Morse lost his job in 1968, and many have attributed his loss to his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam war. Wayne Morse's election loss makes his words from that era no less true today. In a 1966 debate on the role of the Senate with respect to the great issues of war and peace, Senator Wayne Morse said: This is what the United States Senate is for. It is what the Founding Fathers created the Senate to do--take the long- range view of actions prompted in national councils that may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest. It is the long-term interest of our country, Madam President, that Wayne Morse so presciently focused on in 1966 that leads me to outline the following conclusion that I have made with respect to the Iraq resolution. Saddam Hussein is the bad actor here and the United States of America is the good actor. I believe the authorization of a unilateral preemptive military attack based on the information now available will cause much of the world, unfortunately, to lose sight of this reality. This perception in a region racked by poverty and already marked by a deep mistrust in American foreign policy could foster decades, possibly even centuries of undeserved hatred of our great Nation that will threaten our children and our grandchildren. Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require a staggering financial commitment from our National Government. Given the pressing financial needs here at home for public safety, for education, for health, where are the funds going to come from after our Nation wins such an engagement with Iraq? Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require an American policy of energy independence--especially independence from Middle East oil. We are a long way from there, and on some issues, such as saving energy and the crucial transportation sector, it seems that now we have been going backward. Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require a plan for rebuilding confidence among many of the countries that stood with us during the gulf war conflict, but do not stand with us today. Many of those countries do not believe diplomatic and other steps have been fully exhausted. If our Government cannot convince them of that, it is certainly going to be tough to restore faith after a unilateral, preemptive attack. For many weeks now, I have waited and listened patiently, I feel, for the administration to make its case for the resolution. I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I followed this issue very closely, and I believe neither partisan politics nor the pressures of an anxious public should be factored into a decision of this magnitude. Instead, I see my duty as an elected representative of the great State of Oregon to listen, to inquire dispassionately, and make the decision I believe to be in the best interest of Oregon and this great country, and leave the judgment to history and the voters as to whether I made that judgment in the right way. In approaching the decision about whether to vote to authorize the military option this measure calls for, I laid out some criteria on which to base my decision. My criteria were: If our security agencies were to provide me with compelling evidence of a significant threat to our domestic security if Hussein's Iraq is not defeated militarily, I would be willing to grant authority for the use of force. But I am unwilling to give my approval for a first-strike, unilateral attack until and unless there is assurance under the resolution that before such an attack, the administration exhausted all other reasonable means to accomplish our goals. Second, I am convinced it is essential to have a workable plan to contain the situation if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel enters the conflict. And third, I am concerned there has to be a showing such an attack will not make our Nation less safe by setting us back in the war on terrorism. The President has made a compelling case--I believe a sincere one-- regarding the danger posed by Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein, but his argument--and I say respectfully--does not meet the criteria I have laid out. First, I am not convinced, regarding a clear and present threat, Saddam Hussein currently imposes a clear and present threat to the domestic security of the Nation. While my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee has left me convinced of Iraq's support of terrorism, suspicious of its ties to al-Qaida, I have seen no evidence, acts, or involvement in the planning or execution of the vicious attacks of 9/11. While Iraq has aided terrorism for many years, there are any number of regimes who have aided terrorism, including some with far more direct links to Osama bin Laden's network of terror. In this regard, I note the first conclusion in the Central Intelligence Agency's declassified letter to Chairman Bob Graham of Florida dated October 7 of this year which states that at present, Iraq does not appear to be planning or sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States. Yet, had the administration met this threshold test, in my view, it has still not met the rest of what I consider to be prudent criteria. While the President has stated his desire to seek alternative means to accomplish his goals before beginning a military strike, to grant the President the authority to conduct a first-strike war before first witnessing the exhaustion of those efforts is to abdicate the obligations of this body in its most sacred role. The Founding Fathers surely envisaged a more challenging inquiry when granting the Congress the responsibility of authorizing armed conflict. On my second point, while I am not privy to the administration's war plans, I am of the belief the administration is satisfactorily preparing for a potential enlargement of the conflict with Israel or other allies. I am concerned this issue has not been adequately addressed. I do believe the administration needs to outline in further detail how they would address issues with respect to the enlargement of the conflict, and I want to make clear I do not believe that point has been addressed clearly and fully to date. The possibility this conflict would be enlarged with an attack on Iraq to one that involves Israel is one I think needs to be laid out and laid out clearly. Finally, and perhaps most importantly for my purposes, I reached the conclusion that pursuit of a first-strike war, absent any credible sign Saddam Hussein is preparing to wage war against our Nation or other nations, will leave this Nation less secure than before. I believe we have to look at greater length at these key questions, and I do not believe that has been done to date. It is the sacred duty of the Senate to focus and act upon the long- term interests of our beloved Nation. Saddam Hussein is an extremely dangerous and extremely despicable man. Time and again, he has demonstrated that to his enemies, as well as his own people. He lives in a part of the world where there is no shortage of dangerous and despicable men who pose a threat to the security of the United States. In my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have not seen satisfactory evidence he is any more despicable than the threat presented by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. In summary, those are the central questions. Making sure we have exhausted all of the diplomatic opportunities before one considers a first strike, making sure we are ready to deal with the region after a first strike and one that, in my judgment, we are clearly going to win, the unanswered questions of what happens when there is an attack on Iraq and the possibility of enlarging the conflict to Israel--these questions have not been addressed, and they have not been addressed fully. There is no question in my mind Saddam Hussein represents a very real threat to this country and to the world, but I do not want to, in the days ahead, compound the problems we already face with Hussein in the region by authorizing a unilateral, preemptive military strike at this time, and that is why I will oppose the resolution. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my distinguished colleague for the chance to further discuss this. My colleague makes a good point that clearly last night in the President's speech, and further today, he made it clear he was interested in trying to mobilize world opinion, and I think all of that is extremely constructive. At the same time, the letter to Senator Graham that now has been declassified--I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee--makes it clear the CIA does not believe, as of October 7 of this year, the threat is imminent. That is why I think we have now reached the point where we are debating whether there is a continuing threat, which clearly Saddam Hussein is, or whether there is an imminent threat. It was the imminent threat I really set out as one of the thresholds I thought was relevant for supporting this resolution. As the Senator could hear from my speech, A, I do not doubt the President's sincerity; B, I thought what he said last night was clearly a step in the right direction, and he elaborated on that further today. On this matter with respect to the nature of the threat, for me what has been dispositive has been the now-declassified letter from the CIA where the CIA did not believe, as of October 7, the threat was imminent. I thank my distinguished colleague because he makes a number of good points, and always does.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator again makes a legitimate point, but what we are talking about now, it seems to me--and this is what the CIA is talking about in their letter of October 7--is an imminent threat to the American people. It is very clear that conflict is a hostile one. It is one that must be countered. It is being countered today. I do not take a backseat to any Member of the Senate in terms of supporting our troops, our military, in terms of countering that conflict. But the question for the Senate then becomes whether a conflict like that should translate into support in this body for a resolution that would authorize a unilateral preemptive strike. In spite of all of the attacks which the distinguished Senator from Virginia has mentioned--and they are very serious ones--as of October 7 of this year, the CIA did not believe there was an imminent threat to our country. I assume in making that judgment before the Intelligence Committee, if they had felt the attacks the Senator was talking about are dispositive, they would not have written that letter.

Mr. WYDEN. Again, I want our people who are in harm's way, as the Senator has outlined, to be able to counter that very hostile attack. They are doing so today under existing law and it is an effort I support. In spite of those attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency stated at present Iraq does not appear to be planning or sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States which, after 9/11, was the stated concern that was vital to our national security.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. It would be possible to do that and have that made a part of the Record. I appreciate the Senator's thoughtfulness. We all have strong views on this. The Senator from Virginia is an expert on national security and military affairs. That happens to be an area where I believe reasonable people may differ. I look forward to working closely with my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN. I have mentioned on several occasions it was declassified. I take my responsibilities as a Member of this committee very seriously.