Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. The difference is that the original language brought to light the need to recover endangered species, including both anadromous and resident fish species; and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuges.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. conservation programs in the everglades

Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank my Senate colleagues, specifically Chairman Harkin, for their continued attention to a matter of such importance to the people of the Klamath Basin in Oregon and California. I especially want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith, Boxer, and Feinstein, for their initial help in getting Klamath language and money accepted into the farm bill. And I want to recognize the hard work and dedication of the chairman, Senator Daschle, and their staffs for sticking by the Klamath Basin until the bitter end. I also want to thank my friend on the other side of the Capitol, Representative Walden, for his dedication to the Klamath Basin. Thanks to his collective bi-partisan effort, today I can come to the floor to discuss the future for the Klamath Basin with some hope.

Mr. WYDEN. The conference report provides $50,000,000 under section 1240I Ground and Surface Water Conservation. It is important for the legislative history of this section to note that the conference report states. In carrying out the program . . . the Secretary shall promote grounds and surface water conservation by providing cost-share payments, incentive payments, and loans to producers to carry out eligible water conservation activities with respect to the agricultural operations of producers, to--(1) improve irrigation systems; (2) enhance irrigation efficiencies; (3) convert to--(A) the production of less water- intensive agricultural commodities; or (B) dryland farming; (4) improve the storage of water though measures such as water banking and groundwater recharge; (5) mitigate the effects of drought or (6) institute other measures that improve groundwater surface water conservation, as determined by the Secretary, in the agricultural operations of producers. In addition to all those excellent purposes, this section requires that a Secretary may only provide this money to a producer if the net result is ``a new savings in groundwater or surface water resources in the agricultural operation of the producer.'' Chairman Harkin, it appears to me that these purposes coincide with the purposes of the original Klamath language in the Senate farm bill: water conservation and improved agricultural practices; aquatic ecosystem restoration; and improvement of water quality. Do you read it the same way?

Mr. WYDEN. I agree. I am grateful that the other long-term benefits that were to be considered under the original Senate Klamath language will still be considered under this provision: benefits to the agricultural economy through incentives for the use of irrigation efficiency, water conservation, or other agricultural practices; wetland restoration; and improvement of upper Basin watershed and water quality. Due to the cooperative nature of all farm programs, I remain hopeful that this provision will be implemented in a manner that respects and uses the local expertise of the Klamath Basin farmers. In addition, this program should be implemented in the Klamath Basin while the administration considers the long term effects of the water savings. The original Senate Klamath language required the USDA to spend $175 million over 5 years, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency, on Klamath Basin hydrology and wetlands restoration using any applicable USDA program. The particular programs were not noted in order to provide some flexibility for the Department and basin farmers. The current language limits that flexibility, but fills an important purpose in the basin. I am thankful that the President established a cabinet level Klamath Working Group, made up of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, thereby fulfilling another purpose of Senate Klamath language that authorized the creation of a Klamath Basin Interagency Task Force made up of agencies from the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. It is my hope, however, that while the Senate Klamath language required public non-federal notice of work and intended plans by the Interagency Task Force to provide local awareness and the conference report does not, the current Administration Working group would provide such public notice. But there is more work to be done. While the $50,000,000 provided for producers to conserve water in the Klamath Basin is a start, it will not complete the entire hydrological restoration necessary in the basin. The basin requires specific projects such as these I list here to restore the basin: $3,479,000 for feasibility studies by the Bureau of Reclamation, included in the President's funding request for the Klamath Project for FY 2002; $4 million to purchase, one time, 2700 acres at Goose Bay in Upper Klamath Lake (TNC); $25 million over 5 years for the restoration of the Upper Klamath Lake tributaries (such as the Sprague, Williamson, and Wood Rivers); $40 million over 5 years for the restoration of historic Upper Klamath Lake wetlands; $20 million over 5 years for the restoration of Lake Ewauna below Upper Klamath Lake that is essential for sucker habitat; $1 million for riparian fencing, grazing management, stream-bank restoration and revegetation under CRP; $5 million for the purchase of the Barnes property by the Bureau of Reclamation for the whole project to be managed by the Bur Rec, county commissioners, local water irrigation districts, USDA and F&W Service and the Tribes, using some portion of the money for a set-aside to match state and private wetland restoration dollars from entities such as OWEB and Oregon Water Trust and designate some portion of the money for scientific work including scientific work by the Klamath Tribe Department of Natural Resources; $4,500,000 of new funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct in-stream flow studies in the basin deemed necessary by the Secretary, including in-stream flow studies below Iron Gate Dam; $20 million for the voluntary lease of water rights; $1 million for the evaluation of intentional winter flooding of volunteer agricultural lands: Dry Year Reserve--to idle basin irrigated acreage--promoted by Water Users through Bur Rec but could be done through shorter contracts in WRP; $15 million for the purchase of water easements; $10 million for the construction of groundwater wells in conjunction with USGS surveys; $5 million authorized for grants to local irrigation districts, through the Rural Development/Utilities accounts to improve irrigation of Klamath Basin practices that will conserve water and improve water quality. In addition to the above concerns, this money will not be available to the native American tribes in the basin, the Klamath, the Yurok, the Kurok, and the Hoopa. This is a shame. These tribes make up an important user group in the basin and no real long-term solution will be achievable without them.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation transferring from Federal to county jurisdiction the West Butte Road, located in the counties of Crook and Deschutes, Oregon. In exchange for the new right- of-way for the West Butte Road, Crook and Deschutes counties will transfer their right-of-way on the George Millican Road to the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, BLM. The right-of-way exchange authorized by this legislation would clear the way for a paved road, pursued for more than 30 years by Prineville, in Crook County, OR, to connect their community with U.S. Highway 20. Such a road would substantially enhance the economic development potential for Prineville, a community suffering from 15 percent unemployment, by providing an alternative route for passenger and commercial traffic traveling between Portland and Boise, ID. It would also encourage commerce in Prineville by efficiently directing traffic to the Prineville/Crook County Industrial Parks, areas set aside for the sole purpose of promoting industrial diversification within Crook County. By increasing the traffic to these areas, the opportunity to promote and increase their occupancy would be greatly improved. In addition to economic advantages, the paved road would provide important environmental benefits. It would reduce traffic congestion on the overloaded highway 97 passing through Bend and Redmond, OR. It would eliminate the prospect of major improvements to the Crooked River Highway. The Crooked River Highway follows the meander of the Crooked River, a tributary of the salmon-bearing Deschutes River. Improvement of that road would entail substantial impacts to riparian areas, expensive bridge maintenance, and likely adverse effects to the river. In contrast, the proposed new road would reclaim a straight section of the old Prineville-Lakeview highway, surveyed in 1915, which crosses flat desert lands and no riparian zones. In addition, the legislation directs the BLM to propose affirmative measures to protect wildlife and game habitat in the area traversed by the new road. Some suggest that this legislation is not necessary because the BLM already has the authority to issue a right-of-way. That may be true, but it is also true that the BLM decided it can make a decision on the county right-of-way application only thought an extended process, which close observers tell me could take anywhere from four to six years, with no guarantee of success. I am not willing to stake Prineville's economic or environmental future on such an uncertainty. Improvement of the Millican/West Butte road is supported by the City of Prineville, Crook County, Deschutes County, the City of Bend, the City of Redmond, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Central Oregon Transportation Commission. They have identified the new right-of-way as a means of reducing environmental impacts associated with the existing road, reducing traffic congestion, improving the northwest-southeast connections between the state's wealthiest and poorest regions, and offering the community the chance to retain its largest employers so as to address some of the economic woes of the region.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation transferring from Federal to county jurisdiction the West Butte Road, located in the counties of Crook and Deschutes, Oregon. In exchange for the new right- of-way for the West Butte Road, Crook and Deschutes counties will transfer their right-of-way on the George Millican Road to the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, BLM. The right-of-way exchange authorized by this legislation would clear the way for a paved road, pursued for more than 30 years by Prineville, in Crook County, OR, to connect their community with U.S. Highway 20. Such a road would substantially enhance the economic development potential for Prineville, a community suffering from 15 percent unemployment, by providing an alternative route for passenger and commercial traffic traveling between Portland and Boise, ID. It would also encourage commerce in Prineville by efficiently directing traffic to the Prineville/Crook County Industrial Parks, areas set aside for the sole purpose of promoting industrial diversification within Crook County. By increasing the traffic to these areas, the opportunity to promote and increase their occupancy would be greatly improved. In addition to economic advantages, the paved road would provide important environmental benefits. It would reduce traffic congestion on the overloaded highway 97 passing through Bend and Redmond, OR. It would eliminate the prospect of major improvements to the Crooked River Highway. The Crooked River Highway follows the meander of the Crooked River, a tributary of the salmon-bearing Deschutes River. Improvement of that road would entail substantial impacts to riparian areas, expensive bridge maintenance, and likely adverse effects to the river. In contrast, the proposed new road would reclaim a straight section of the old Prineville-Lakeview highway, surveyed in 1915, which crosses flat desert lands and no riparian zones. In addition, the legislation directs the BLM to propose affirmative measures to protect wildlife and game habitat in the area traversed by the new road. Some suggest that this legislation is not necessary because the BLM already has the authority to issue a right-of-way. That may be true, but it is also true that the BLM decided it can make a decision on the county right-of-way application only thought an extended process, which close observers tell me could take anywhere from four to six years, with no guarantee of success. I am not willing to stake Prineville's economic or environmental future on such an uncertainty. Improvement of the Millican/West Butte road is supported by the City of Prineville, Crook County, Deschutes County, the City of Bend, the City of Redmond, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Central Oregon Transportation Commission. They have identified the new right-of-way as a means of reducing environmental impacts associated with the existing road, reducing traffic congestion, improving the northwest-southeast connections between the state's wealthiest and poorest regions, and offering the community the chance to retain its largest employers so as to address some of the economic woes of the region.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as the Senate debates the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, ATPEA, I wish to call attention to another issue vital to the long term success of the Andean nations in the world economy. International arbitration was created in order to mitigate the risks of overseas investment due to political consideration and capricious changes that can affect legal institutions. It gives investors and sovereign nations an agreed-upon mechanism to resolve disputes. Arbitration is a key building block to attract foreign investment, promote modernized legal systems, and provide for the kind of legal economy that we are seeking to foster with this legislation. For this reason, Congress stipulated in the recent Andean Trade Promotion Act, ATPA, that beneficiary countries were required to recognize as binding and enforce international arbitral awards in favor of U.S. citizens and companies. I am concerned that the U.S. Government has not done enough to ensure that one beneficiary in particular, Colombia, has lived up to this requirement. Before Congress passes new legislation on this matter, shouldn't we hold countries accountable for violating this criterion under the previous legislation? Unfortunately, Colombia has a disturbing trend of disregarding binding arbitration rulings. The Colombian Government has refused to abide by rulings of arbitration tribunals that are unfavorable, launching aggressive campaigns to undermine arbitration. It has utilized the inefficiencies of its internal legal structures to avoid payment. This blatant disregard for arbitration harms companies that have already invested in Colombia, dissuades others from investing much needed capital, and violates the qualification criteria for ATPA and ATPEA. In one case, a 22-month binding arbitration tribunal, agreed to by the Colombian Government, ruled that Colombia must pay $61 million due to what it defined as reprehensible behavior and breach of contract. Despite concerns raised by Members of Congress, the Colombian Government has refused to even discuss the issue with the American companies. The cost to the Colombia economy in lost international investment due to this lawless behavior may be greater than any aid that we can provide, and indeed, raises questions about U.S. aid. For these reasons, I call on the President of the United States and the U.S. Trade Representative in particular to hold Colombia, and any other country that fails to uphold the qualification criteria for ATPEA, to the letter of the law under consideration today. The administration is seeking expanded trade benefits, but it should first require that Colombia implement the rulings of arbitration panels. To do otherwise would undermine the intended effect of this legislation in lifting these developing nations to the status newly industrial democracies governed by the rule of law.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend an import duty suspension for the Central City Streetcar in the City of Portland, OR. The City of Portland purchases the streetcars from a manufacturer in the Czech Republic. Previous streetcar shipments were duty-free under legislation granting special status to the exporting nation, the Czech Republic. The City has ordered two new streetcars which will be shipped on May 1, 2002. However, that duty- free exemption has expired, adding $130,000 to the price of these streetcars. This legislation will provide duty-free entry for those two streetcars ordered by the City of Portland, thus saving the City of Portland $130,000. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing this bipartisan legislation to provide this duty suspension for the City of Portland's Central City Streetcar. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend an import duty suspension for the Central City Streetcar in the City of Portland, OR. The City of Portland purchases the streetcars from a manufacturer in the Czech Republic. Previous streetcar shipments were duty-free under legislation granting special status to the exporting nation, the Czech Republic. The City has ordered two new streetcars which will be shipped on May 1, 2002. However, that duty- free exemption has expired, adding $130,000 to the price of these streetcars. This legislation will provide duty-free entry for those two streetcars ordered by the City of Portland, thus saving the City of Portland $130,000. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing this bipartisan legislation to provide this duty suspension for the City of Portland's Central City Streetcar. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation whose purpose is to correct a gross injustice that has been carried out for more than two decades by bureaucrats at the International Trade Administration, ITA, and the U.S. Customs Service, Customs, against a small Oregon business, GS Associates, Inc., GS. What has been allowed to happen to this company at the hands of the federal government is a shocking and ultimately disturbing example of what can happen to ordinary, hardworking Americans when an overzealous Federal bureaucracy is allowed to run horribly amok. In 1973, imports of Japanese roller chain, not bicycle chain, potentially became subject to dumping duties, and in 1980, Congress instructed the International Trade Administration, ITA, to conduct complete annual administrative reviews of outstanding dumping findings to determine whether any dumping duties should be assessed. But ITA failed to complete its reviews on a timely basis. In fact, for my small Oregon importer, GS, the ITA wasn't just a day or two late in reporting the findings of its review of the company's Japanese supplier for shipments imported from April 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982, they were nine-and-a-half years late. When ITA finally got around to issuing a notice regarding its administrative review on September 22, 1992, a court challenge was initiated by the Japanese supplier and a court decision was rendered on July 11, 1995. Not surprisingly, ITA failed to publish notice of the court's decision in the Federal Register within ten days, as required by law. That was in 1995. The year is now 2002, and ITA still has not published that notice. And as if all of this ineptitude were not enough, ITA then failed to instruct Customs to begin assessing dumping duties on and to liquidate GS Associates' shipments until the Spring of 2000. When Customs finally began assessing duties, they added on enormous amounts of interest, dating back almost 20 years, in sums that were two to three times greater than the original dumping duty assessments. This outrageous pattern of conduct by the federal government threatens GS with bankruptcy. The level of ineptitude displayed in this case by bureaucrats at ITA and the Customs Service is egregious bordering on negligence. Legitimate small businesses in this country should have the expectation they will be treated fairly and forthrightly by their federal government. ITA and the Customs Service deserve a very strong rebuke. GS Associates deserves to have its case resolved quickly and fairly, and that is the point of my legislation. It will liquidate once and for all the $1.7 million in duties and interest that have accumulated over the past 20 years on these imports because of federal government negligence. I intend to work with the Finance Committee to assure that this measure is included in the legislation the committee is preparing on temporary duty suspensions, and hope that the duty suspension bill will enable this Oregon company to be able to put this terrible experience behind it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation whose purpose is to correct a gross injustice that has been carried out for more than two decades by bureaucrats at the International Trade Administration, ITA, and the U.S. Customs Service, Customs, against a small Oregon business, GS Associates, Inc., GS. What has been allowed to happen to this company at the hands of the federal government is a shocking and ultimately disturbing example of what can happen to ordinary, hardworking Americans when an overzealous Federal bureaucracy is allowed to run horribly amok. In 1973, imports of Japanese roller chain, not bicycle chain, potentially became subject to dumping duties, and in 1980, Congress instructed the International Trade Administration, ITA, to conduct complete annual administrative reviews of outstanding dumping findings to determine whether any dumping duties should be assessed. But ITA failed to complete its reviews on a timely basis. In fact, for my small Oregon importer, GS, the ITA wasn't just a day or two late in reporting the findings of its review of the company's Japanese supplier for shipments imported from April 1, 1981 through March 31, 1982, they were nine-and-a-half years late. When ITA finally got around to issuing a notice regarding its administrative review on September 22, 1992, a court challenge was initiated by the Japanese supplier and a court decision was rendered on July 11, 1995. Not surprisingly, ITA failed to publish notice of the court's decision in the Federal Register within ten days, as required by law. That was in 1995. The year is now 2002, and ITA still has not published that notice. And as if all of this ineptitude were not enough, ITA then failed to instruct Customs to begin assessing dumping duties on and to liquidate GS Associates' shipments until the Spring of 2000. When Customs finally began assessing duties, they added on enormous amounts of interest, dating back almost 20 years, in sums that were two to three times greater than the original dumping duty assessments. This outrageous pattern of conduct by the federal government threatens GS with bankruptcy. The level of ineptitude displayed in this case by bureaucrats at ITA and the Customs Service is egregious bordering on negligence. Legitimate small businesses in this country should have the expectation they will be treated fairly and forthrightly by their federal government. ITA and the Customs Service deserve a very strong rebuke. GS Associates deserves to have its case resolved quickly and fairly, and that is the point of my legislation. It will liquidate once and for all the $1.7 million in duties and interest that have accumulated over the past 20 years on these imports because of federal government negligence. I intend to work with the Finance Committee to assure that this measure is included in the legislation the committee is preparing on temporary duty suspensions, and hope that the duty suspension bill will enable this Oregon company to be able to put this terrible experience behind it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, One of the Senate's most popular procedures cannot be found anywhere in the United States Constitution or in the Senate Rules. It is one of the most powerful weapons that any Senator can wield in this body. And it is even more potent when it is invisible. The procedure is popularly known as the ``hold.'' The ``hold'' in the Senate is a lot like the seventh inning stretch in baseball: there is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it is has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition. The resolution that Senator Grassley and submit today does not in any way limit the privilege of any Senator to place a ``hold'' on a measure or matter. Our resolution targets the stealth cousin of the ``hold,'' known as the ``secret hold.'' It is the anonymous hold that is so odious to the basic premise of our democratic system: that the exercise of power always should be accompanied by public accountability. Our resolution would bring the anonymous hold out of the shadows of the Senate. Senator Grassley and I have championed this idea in a bipartisan manner for six years now. In 1997 and again in 1998, the United States Senate voted unanimously in favor of our amendments to require that a notice of intent to object be published in the Congressional Record within 48 hours. The amendments, however, never survived conference. So we took our case directly to the leadership, and to their credit, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott agreed it was time to make a change. They recognized the significant need for more openness in the way the United States Senate conducts its business so Tom Daschle and Trent Lott sent a joint letter in February 1999 to all Senators setting forth a policy requiring ``all Senators wishing to place a hold on any legislation or executive calender business [to] notify the sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns.'' The letter said that ``written notification should be provided to the respective Leader stating their intentions regarding the bill or nomination,'' and that ``holds placed on items by a member of a personal or committee staff will not be honored unless accompanied by a written notification from the objecting Senator by the end of the following business day.'' At first, this action by the Leaders seemed to make a real difference. Many Senators were more open about their holds, and staff could no longer slap a hold on a bill with a quick phone call. But after six to eight months, the Senate began to slip back towards the old ways. Abuses of the ``holds'' policy began to proliferate, staff- initiated holds-by-phone began anew, and it wasn't too long before legislative gridlock set in and the Senate seemed to have forgotten what Senators Daschle and Lott had tried to do. My own assessment of the situation now, which is not based on any scientific evidence, GAO investigation or CRS study, is that a significant number of our colleagues in the Senate have gotten the message sent by the Leaders, and have refrained from the use of secret holds. They inform sponsors about their objections, and do not allow their staff to place a hold without their approval. My sense is that the legislative gridlock generated by secret holds may be attributed to a relatively small number of abusers. The resolution we are submitting today will not be disruptive for a solid number of Senators, but it will up the ante on those who may be ``chronic abusers'' of the Leaders' policy on holds. Our bipartisan resolution would amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to require that a Senator who notifies his or her leadership of an intent to object shall disclose that objection in the Congressional Record not later than two session days after the date of the notice. The resolution would assure that the awesome power possessed by an individual Senator to stop legislation or a nomination should be accompanied by public accountability. The requirement for public notice of a hold two days after the intent has been conveyed to the leadership may prove to be an inconvenience but not a hardship. No Senator will ever be thrown in jail for failing to give public notice of a hold. Senators routinely place statements in the Congressional Record recognizing the achievements of a local Boys and Girls Club, or congratulating a local sports team on a State championship. Surely the intent of a Senator to block the progress of legislation or a nomination should be considered of equal importance. I have adhered to a policy of publicly announcing my intent to object to a measure or matter. This practice has not been a burden or inconvenience. On the contrary, my experience with the public disclosure of holds is that my objections are usually dealt with in an expeditious manner, thereby enabling the Senate to proceed with its business. Although the Senate is still several months away from the high season of secret holds, a number of important pieces of legislation have already become bogged down in the swamp of secret holds this year. The day is not far off when any given Senator may be forced to place holds on numerous other pieces of legislation or nominees just to try to ``smoke out'' the anonymous objector. The practice of anonymous multiple or rolling holds is more akin to legislative guerilla warfare than to the way the Senate should conduct its business. It is time to drain the swamp of secret holds. The resolution we submit today will be referred to the Senate Committee on Rules. It is my hope that the Committee will take this resolution seriously, hold public hearings on it and give it a thorough vetting. This is one of the most awesome powers held by anyone in American government. It has been used countless times to stall and strangle legislation. It is time to bring accountability to the procedure and to the American people.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Americans today live in an increasingly networked world. The system of interlinked computer networks known as the Internet, which not so long ago was a platform used only by a relatively narrow group of academic researchers, is today a core medium of communications and commerce for many millions of Americans. According to the Commerce Department, more than half of all Americans were using the Internet by last September, and the numbers are only growing. The spread of the Internet presents great new opportunities for the American society and economy. But there is a downside to an interconnected, networked world: security risks. The Internet connects people not just to friends, potential customers, and sources of information, but also to would-be hackers, viruses, and cybercriminals. Last July, after I became Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, I chose cybersecurity as the topic for my first hearing. The message from that hearing was that cybersecurity risks are mounting. The complexity of computer networks and the breadth of functions handled online are growing faster than the country's computer security capabilities. New technologies, for example, ``always on'' Internet connections and wireless networking technologies, often make the problem worse, not better. The events of September 11 make this matter even more urgent. The fact is, America needs to be prepared for the possibility that future terrorists will try to strike not our buildings, streets, or airplanes, but our critical computer networks. Government can't provide a silver bullet solution to this problem. Ultimately, progress with respect to cybersecurity is going to require the energy and ingenuity of the entire technology sector. But one thing government can and should do is support basic cybersecurity research, so that the country's pool of cybersecurity knowledge and expertise keeps pace with the new and constantly evolving risks. This is an area where government involvement is sorely needed. That is why I am pleased to introduce today the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Sherry Boehlert, this legislation has already passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. I hope the Senate will be able to follow suit soon. This legislation, which has the widespread support of the Nation's technology sector, would significantly increase the amount of cybersecurity research in this country by creating important new research programs at the National Science Foundation, NSF, and National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. The NSF program would 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 would support cutting-edge cybersecurity research, with a special emphasis on promoting cooperative efforts between government, industry, and academia. I believe the stakes are high. In addition to the damage that cyberattacks could cause directly, the mere threat of security breaches can cripple the ongoing development of e-commerce. If the Internet is to reach its full potential, security must be improved. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in making cybersecurity research and development a top priority, and to work with me in moving this bill forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Americans today live in an increasingly networked world. The system of interlinked computer networks known as the Internet, which not so long ago was a platform used only by a relatively narrow group of academic researchers, is today a core medium of communications and commerce for many millions of Americans. According to the Commerce Department, more than half of all Americans were using the Internet by last September, and the numbers are only growing. The spread of the Internet presents great new opportunities for the American society and economy. But there is a downside to an interconnected, networked world: security risks. The Internet connects people not just to friends, potential customers, and sources of information, but also to would-be hackers, viruses, and cybercriminals. Last July, after I became Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, I chose cybersecurity as the topic for my first hearing. The message from that hearing was that cybersecurity risks are mounting. The complexity of computer networks and the breadth of functions handled online are growing faster than the country's computer security capabilities. New technologies, for example, ``always on'' Internet connections and wireless networking technologies, often make the problem worse, not better. The events of September 11 make this matter even more urgent. The fact is, America needs to be prepared for the possibility that future terrorists will try to strike not our buildings, streets, or airplanes, but our critical computer networks. Government can't provide a silver bullet solution to this problem. Ultimately, progress with respect to cybersecurity is going to require the energy and ingenuity of the entire technology sector. But one thing government can and should do is support basic cybersecurity research, so that the country's pool of cybersecurity knowledge and expertise keeps pace with the new and constantly evolving risks. This is an area where government involvement is sorely needed. That is why I am pleased to introduce today the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Sherry Boehlert, this legislation has already passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. I hope the Senate will be able to follow suit soon. This legislation, which has the widespread support of the Nation's technology sector, would significantly increase the amount of cybersecurity research in this country by creating important new research programs at the National Science Foundation, NSF, and National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. The NSF program would 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 would support cutting-edge cybersecurity research, with a special emphasis on promoting cooperative efforts between government, industry, and academia. I believe the stakes are high. In addition to the damage that cyberattacks could cause directly, the mere threat of security breaches can cripple the ongoing development of e-commerce. If the Internet is to reach its full potential, security must be improved. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in making cybersecurity research and development a top priority, and to work with me in moving this bill forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on April 9, 2002, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I announced the cancelation of the Mt. Hood National Forest Eagle Creek timber sales. These sales were sold under the salvage rider, enacted in 1996 by the 104th Congress. During my floor speech, I reiterated my opposition to the salvage rider, but also inadvertently referred to salvage sales instead of confining my remarks to salvage rider sales. I have been, and will continue to be, a supporter of salvage sales involving the commercial recovery of dead or dying timber, when such sales make sense for the health of the forest. In fact, I worked very hard to make sure that a salvage sale project went forward in the wake of the 1996 Summit and Tower fires, and I continue to support constructive salvage work being done to improve forest health throughout the National Forests. As I continue to work toward comprehensive forestry legislation which will include both active forest management and old growth protection, I thought it important to correct the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I begin by expressing my thanks to Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell. Both of them worked tirelessly with me and Senator Cantwell and others. This legislation we will vote on will now protect an innovation, a pioneering step forward that I think is going to make a huge difference for the American people; that is, voting by mail. What we saw earlier, as the debate went forward, was various proposals that would have put new hurdles, new obstacles in front of this legislation that has empowered thousands and thousands of Americans. I am very proud that my State has led the way in this innovative approach, but I think it is the wave of the future. There is a reason why millions of older people and disabled people and others enjoy and prefer voting by mail. They like the convenience, and they understand that it meets the test that Senator Bond and others have talked about, which would be a winning combination for the American people. Let's make it easier to vote but not easier to cheat. Voting by mail has proven it is up to that challenge. We have shown in our State that we will come down with a every aggressive effort against those who try to abuse the system, try to exploit it. We have not seen any significant problem with it. It is a bipartisan effort. Senator Smith has joined with me in it. Senator Cantwell has made the case for the State of Washington. I close by saying that over many months Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell, knowing that we were camped out with their staffs, could have said, look, this is an issue that only a couple States care about, but they did not. I think they have showed their commitment not just to protecting people in Oregon or Washington who feel so passionately about this subject, but I think they understand this truly is a pioneering step forward. It is part of the wave of future. It is the next step before we see people voting online. From the beginning of this debate, I have said that this legislation should be about deferring voter fraud and promoting voter participation. Many weeks of negotiations finally have produced an agreement that I believe will do both. If first-time Oregon voter Mabel Barnes had mailed in her ballot under the election reform bill that was on the Senate floor 6 weeks ago, her vote probably would not have counted--even if she were legally registered to vote. Her vote would have been tossed away simply because she failed to include with it a photo ID or other proof of identification. Mabel Barnes would not have been alone. Under the bill that was on the Senate floor then, millions of first-time voters would have been disenfranchised just because they failed to bring a copy of their photo ID to the polls. But Mabel Barnes and millions of other first-time voters won't have to worry about their votes counting now, and they won't have to worry about stopping by a copy center before they vote. That's because over the course of the last few weeks Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell, Murray, and I have worked out an agreement that protects Oregon's vote- by-mail system and the right to have every mail-in-vote by a legally registered first-time voter count. The agreement Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell, Murray, and I worked out gives voters who register by mail more options to verify their identity. Instead of a photo ID or proof of residence, first-time voters in a state may put their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security card on their registration card. This means they won't have to stop by a copy center before they register or before they vote. This will mean business as usual for the petition drives and campus registration efforts in Oregon, where thousands of first-time voters register by mail. The agreement also guarantees that voters who cast their ballots by mail have the same provisional or replacement ballot rights as voters who go to the polls. Under the agreement if a first-time voter in a state fails to supply a driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number when they register, their vote will still count if state election officials determine they are eligible under state law. In Oregon, this means that the vote of every legally registered Oregonian will count if an election official verifies that the signature on the ballot matches the signature on file with the registration. Under the agreement, Oregon's pioneering vote-by-mail system will continue, unchanged. I understand where the photo ID requirement sprang from: a concern that mail-in voter registration and balloting engender fraud. But in Oregon--the only all vote-by-mail state and the state that pioneered motor voter--there is very little fraud. No one has come forward with proof of widespread fraud in Oregon. In fact, I was elected to the United States Senate in the first all vote-by-mail special election. Senator Gordon Smith, my opponent in that race, never raised any questions about fraud. Oregon's penalties for fraud are much tougher than federal law--up to $100,000 in fines and or 5 years in jail. Since Oregonians voted overwhelmingly to use a vote-by-mail system, participation has gone up and fraud has gone down. In fact, in the last federal election, 80 percent of the registered voters cast a ballot. Since the May 1996 primary, 13 cases of fraud have been prosecuted; convictions were won in five and eight are still pending. In the last federal election, only 192 ballots were not counted because they failed the signature verification test. This is a pretty good record. This legislation should be about deterring voter fraud and not voter participation. The agreement Senators Cantwell, Bond, McConnell, Murray, and I have reached does this. The time to fight fraud is at the beginning of the process--at the time of registration. That is what our agreement does. At the same time, I have also said that legislation should not make it harder for legally registered voters to cast a ballot, or discourage people from voting. The agreement will do this as well. This has not been an easy task. I want to commend Senators Bond, Cantwell, McConnell, and Murray for sticking with the negotiations, and I especially want to thank Chairman Dodd for the support he and his staff have given us in reaching the agreement and in including it in the managers' package. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. This agreement follows the right priorities by fighting fraud at the beginning of the process--at the time of registration. That is what our agreement does. At the same time, I have also said that legislation should not make it harder for legally registered voters to cast a ballot, or discourage people from voting. The agreement will do this as well. This has not been an easy task. I want to commend Senators Bond, Cantwell, McConnell, and Murray for sticking with the negotiations, and I especially want to thank Chairman Dodd for the support he and his staff have given us in reaching the agreement and in including it in the managers' package.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is correct. Under the agreement you and I have worked out with Senators Bond, McConnell, Dodd, and Murray, voters who register by mail are given more options to verify their identity. Our agreement protects Oregon's vote-by-mail system, as well as the majority of voters who vote by mail in Washington, and provides protections to make sure that every mail-in vote by a legally registered first-time voter can be counted. Instead of a identification or proof to resident, first-time voters in a state may put their driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security card on their registration card. If that number, along with the name and date of birth of the voter matches another State record, like the Department of Motor Vehicle's, the voter won't be required to provide any further identification. This means they won't have to stop by a copy center before they register or before they vote. This will mean business as usual for the petition drives, the campus registrations and every get-out-the-vote effort in Oregon, where thousands of first-time voters register by mail. Without this compromise, every one of these initiatives to get more citizens voting would have been stymied. The agreement also guarantees that voters who cast their ballots by mail have the same provisional or replacement ballot rights as voters who go to the polls. Under the agreement if a first-time voter in a state fails to supply a driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number when they register, their vote can still be counted even if their ballot is received without a photocopy of identification, if the state election officials determines that the voter is in fact legally registered under state law. These provisions will also not take effect until January of 2003 ensuring that this year's election will not be disrupted by new requirements. Under the agreement, Oregon's pioneering and successful vote-by-mail system will continue, unchanged. I understand the concerns that sparked the identification requirement: a concern that mail-in voter registration and balloting engender fraud. But in Oregon--the only all vote-by-mail state and the state that pioneered Motor Voter--there is very little fraud. No one has come forward with proof of widespread fraud in Oregon. In fact, I was elected to the Senate in the first all vote-by-mail special election. Senator Gordon Smith, my opponent in that race, never raised any questions about fraud. Oregon's penalties for fraud are much tougher than federal law--up to $100,000 in fines and/or 5 years in jail. Since Oregonians voted overwhelmingly in 1998 to use a vote-by-mail system, participation has gone up and fraud has gone down. In fact, in the last Federal election, 80 percent of the registered voters cast a ballot. Since the May 1996 primary, 13 cases of fraud have been prosecuted; convictions were won in five and eight are still pending. In the last federal election, only 192 ballots were not counted because they failed the signature verification test. This is a pretty good record. Has the Senator had similar results in her State?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Mr. Robert L. Tunstall of Oregon has spent a lifetime in service to his fellow Americans--as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, as a U.S. postal worker, and as a dedicated representative of his many colleagues in the Postal Service. In November 1998, Mr. Tunstall was elected to the third-highest office of the American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO, becoming the organization's secretary-treasurer. Prior to that election, Mr. Tunstall was twice chosen as director of the union's clerk division, serving from 1992 to 1998. Mr. Tunstall's illustrious service record with the APWU spans more than three decades. He became president of the Portland, OR local in 1974 and served until 1976. He followed that service as a national representative from 1976-1978, national vice-president for the Seattle region from 1978-1985, and as assistant clerk division director from 1985 until 1992. Mr. Tunstall also represented APWU members as a member of the rank and file bargaining advisory committee in 1975 and as chairman of the appeals committee in 1982. Mr. Tunstall's employment with the U.S. Postal Service began nearly 40 years ago. In 1963, after completing four years in the U.S. Marine Corps. Mr. Tunstall was hired as a distribution clerk. He went on to hold numerous positions, including stamp supply clerk, bulk mail clerk, postage due clerk, box section clerk and pouch rack clerk. Mr. Tunstall was born in Sioux Falls, SD, but raised and educated in Portland, OR. After graduating from Portland's Jefferson High School, he attended Multnomah Junior College, where he made the dean's list in 1967; he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree at Portland State University in 1969. Later, in 1977, Mr. Tunstall earned a law degree at Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College. Mr. Tunstall has taught at the Labor Education Research Center of the University of Oregon. In addition to a career of honorable service, Robert Tunstall has built a fine family as well. He is married to Rae Ann; they have a son, Brett, a daughter, Brooke, and a grandson, Matthew Martinez. I am proud to honor this fellow Oregonian today and I hope that Oregon and the nation benefit from many more years of his public service.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 6 years ago last month I gave my first speech in the Senate Chamber. It dealt with an especially important forestry issue. I continue to have significant interests in these matters as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. In particular, as chairman of this key subcommittee, I am committed to ending the tradition of suspicion and disagreement that has characterized so much of forest management over the decades. I am pleased to be able to announce this morning a development that takes a significant step in that direction. In March of 1996, what brought me to this floor was my opposition to the so-called salvage rider, an approach that allowed timber sales to jeopardize the health of the forests in my home State of Oregon and elsewhere. I believed then, as I do now, that salvage sales that eliminate public input, prohibit legal appeal, and limit environmental analysis, are anathema to responsible and effective forest management. Now, 6 years later, I rise in this Senate to announce the cancellation of a particularly important salvage rider timber sale and to emphasize that, in my view, salvage riders are no way to do business in the natural resources field. I am pleased to be able to announce this morning the cancellation of the Eagle Creek timber sale in my home State of Oregon. From its inception, I believed the Eagle Creek salvage sale was not subject to adequate review and that the planned logging would result in excessive environmental damage. For more than 3 years, I have worked to prevent that damage. In July of 2000, I called on the Department of Agriculture to convene an independent review team to analyze the threat. The team found that, indeed, the sale did pose a greater risk than anticipated to the well-being of the Eagle Creek forest. Today, I offer my thanks to Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, who followed through on her commitment to review the team's findings, for choosing to implement them, and for effectively stopping the timber sale that would have done significant environmental damage. The Eagle Creek sale is an example of a sale that should never have moved forward in the first place. At the core, section 318 salvage sales are inherently flawed because they take the American people, the public that we represent, out of the process of managing public land. As I thank the Secretary of Agriculture for stopping this flawed sale this morning, I call on the administration to oppose further salvage riders. Those who would follow the failed Eagle Creek effort are no more likely to respect the health of the Nation's forests or the wishes and needs of the Nation's forest communities and stakeholders. When the Government pursues natural resources issues with no opportunity for public comment, discussion, or appeal, the only result is distrust and dissention. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management, on my watch I am going to do everything to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to avoid that kind of approach. I am especially pleased the county payments laws that I authored with our colleague from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, are an example of how the logjam over forest policy can be broken. That is an approach that provides for the ecological health of forests and also helps to ensure the economic survival for scores of rural communities. Our county payments legislation helps widen the way for a real discussion of forest management policy and an open discussion that must continue. I come to the floor this morning to reaffirm my commitment to new and inclusive approaches to addressing the issues of forest management. The administration has now made the right decision on Eagle Creek. It is time to halt the destructive practice of salvage sales around this country. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with our colleagues and with the Secretary of Agriculture to promote a balanced forest policy that protects the remaining old growth in our national forests. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the graciousness of the Senator from Tennessee, and I ask unanimous consent that at this time morning business be extended for 10 minutes so at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee I can speak as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. For the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I ask to be recognized after the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the remarks of Senator Miller and Senator Collins I be allowed to speak. I will be offering a consensus amendment at that time which has been agreed to by both sides.