• FISA Correspondence Update

    The reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is expected to come up for a vote in the Senate before the end of this year.

    Senator Wyden and a number of other Senators are trying to learn more about the privacy impact of the FISA Amendments Act and have pressed the National Security Agency and the Director of National Intelligence to provide more information.

    Below is recent correspondence these Senators have sent and received from both the National Security Agency and the Director of National Intelligence regarding their privacy concerns.

    11/15/2012 Clapper response to Senators’ Nov. 5 letter

    11/13/2012 NSA response to Wyden-Udall Oct. 10 letter

    11/05/2012 Senators’ letter to Clapper

    10/10/2012 Wyden-Udall letter to NSA Gen. Alexander

    8/24/2012 Clapper response to Senators’ July 26 letter

    7/26/2012 Senators’ letter to Clapper

    Tags:
    FISA
  • Wyden Attends 10th Annual Oregon Leadership Summit

    On December 3, Senator Wyden attended the 10th Annual Oregon Leadership Summit. Over 800 community and business leaders were also in attendance.

    Senator Wyden is credited with coming up with the idea for the Oregon Leadership Summit ten years ago-- an idea that grew out of the town hall meetings he holds in every Oregon county every year.

    “We knew this was going to be well received, but it far exceeded what we actually thought was possible,” said Senator Wyden to the Portland Business Journal about the Summit's 10th anniversary.

    At this year's Summit, Senator Wyden praised the Oregon Business Plan and its aim to create businesses and industry in Oregon that sustain local economies and communities. Senator Wyden also spoke of sustained economic growth on a national level.

    “So here’s my take on what has to be done in Washington, D.C.” said Senator Wyden. “We must stop patching the broken mess that creates problems like the fiscal cliff and start working on fresh reforms that will service as a launching pad for sustained economic growth.”

    Senator Wyden stressed that these fresh reforms must include: investing in transportation infrastructure, transparency in trade negotiations, cybersecurity policies that encourage innovation, and comprehensive tax reform. Importantly, since all this takes an educated workforce, students and workers should be able to apply a cost-benefit analysis to their education and training.

    Photo Album:

  • Wyden Profiled in Roll Call for Firm Stand on Civil Liberties

    (Note: This article originally appeared in Roll Call on November 28, 2012)


    The Wyden Holdup: A Liberal's Firm Stand

    By Tim Starks

    Sen. Ron Wyden insists he doesn’t have a grudge against fellow Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California. What he does have, though, is a hold on her two legislative priorities of the lame-duck session — and he has, in fact, placed a hold on every major bill coming out of her Intelligence Committee in the past two years.

    Wyden’s moves to block the two latest bills — a spy agency reauthorization measure (S 3454) aimed at cracking down on leaks and an extension of expiring surveillance provisions from a 2008 law — are the newest demonstrations of how the Oregon Democrat has become the Senate’s hardest line to cross on civil liberties issues in the national security arena.

    Wyden said he considers Feinstein a friend and that he has more in common with her than not as a member of her committee. And his stances aren’t about liberal versus conservative, he insisted, pointing to a record of working with Republicans on a variety of topics from taxes to health care. Indeed, the update of the 2008 surveillance law (S 3276) is even an Obama administration priority.

    “I always start with the proposition that you try to find common ground,” he said. “Sometimes you have to stand alone. And often, when you stand alone on day one, as the debate evolves, you see how things — as you make your case — in effect come around your way, both in terms of policy and politics.”

    Feinstein also emphasized her friendship with Wyden and said they have usually sorted out their differences. But that doesn’t mean the chairwoman of the Intelligence panel likes watching him slow her committee’s agenda. The 2008 law’s surveillance provisions, for instance, are set to expire at the end of 2012.

    “It becomes a bit more difficult,” she said. “Ron has a position, and I respect that position. The majority of the committee feels differently, often a dominant majority.” Because several of the bills he has blocked emerged with near-unanimous support, she said she would prefer that he use “discretion” when he places a hold on legislation.

    Even when Wyden isn’t blocking a national security bill over civil liberties issues, he is often a lonely voice of opposition. He was one of just five Democrats who voted Nov. 14 against advancing a cybersecurity bill (S 3414) backed by his party’s leadership and President Barack Obama. He has been among a small handful of Democratic senators seeking the Obama administration’s legal justification for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens suspected of being overseas terrorists, requests he said have gone unfulfilled.

    But sometimes, his approach nets gains: His decision to block an earlier intelligence authorization bill over provisions aimed at cracking down on leaks resulted in the panel stripping the language so that it could advance on the Senate floor.

    He also led the successful fight against a Senate anti-piracy measure that he said would impinge on free speech. Initially, the bill had broad Senate support, but later it was stalled by a grass-roots opposition campaign that saw numerous senators pull their backing.

    Wyden’s stances have made him especially popular with civil liberties groups that have suffered a number of setbacks to their agendas as the federal government has sought new powers to hunt down terrorist suspects.

    Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel in the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, said Wyden has stepped into a leadership void on balancing civil liberties with national security needs left by the departure of former Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

    Wyden’s approach, Richardson said, has been to try to enlist others in his cause. His staff has offered classified briefings to senators at times, and she said he has “serious intelligence chops” that make his peers take him seriously.

    “There are probably a lot of people who you could say are a great lone voice or always vote the right way,” she said. “It’s another thing altogether if they’re good at organizing people to follow them.”

    The holds he has placed on national security bills are not motivated by an urge just to arbitrarily block them, said Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel for the Constitution Project.

    “It’s very helpful for him to raise the profile and ask the Senate to not rush consideration of these bills when there are very serious civil liberties concerns,” Franklin said. Wyden’s hold on the extension of the 2008 surveillance law means the Senate will have to set aside floor time to debate the bill and consider amendments, a move Wyden said he welcomed.

    Because of his state’s political demographics, a mix of urban liberalism and rural libertarianism, Wyden can be aggressive in his defense of civil liberties without facing loud charges from constituents that he is “soft on terrorism,” said Jake Weigler, who managed Wyden’s 2010 reelection campaign and now works for the public affairs firm Strategies 360.

    “He grew up with those values, but sees them reflected in his home state,” he said. “It allows him to be more outspoken than senators in other states where it would be a political liability.”

    Wyden said he inherited some of his civil liberties views from his father, a journalist. But he also said he has grown more worried recently about the balance between national security and civil liberties.

    “I’ve come to feel in the last couple years that the constitutional teeter-totter is out of whack,” he said.

    And despite Feinstein’s lament about the uptick in his use of holds, Wyden said he rarely catches heat from other senators or the administration when he gums up the works.

    “I really don’t. I think there’s a recognition that I’ve had these views for a long time,” views that Wyden said Feinstein and others recognize as sincere. “I didn’t just wake up one morning and say, ‘I want to throw sand in the gears here.’”

    Tags:
    civil liberties
  • Time for a High-Tech Version of the National Guard

    (Note: This op-ed originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 28, 2012)

    When a disaster strikes, access to communi­cations and high-tech ­infrastructure is critical for ­saving lives and mobilizing relief efforts.

    But as we saw a few weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy rendered inoperable the phone lines and computer networks that people needed to call for help and reach loved ones. In the storm’s aftermath many remained unable to access local and federal aid or even find out where they could get gasoline.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. Just as the National Guard can be called upon to provide emergency relief, there are thousands of technology professionals ready, willing and able to volunteer their skills to rebuild crucial technology infrastructure in times exactly like these.

    These men and women could help build emergency cellphone towers and set up mesh Wi-Fi networks. They could assist government agencies to build and maintain the information systems that are needed to locate, manage and deploy food and ­water, tents and electric generators, and to help health workers keep track of drugs and other critical medical supplies.

    They also can help small ­businesses, schools and nonprofit organizations get their own ­information networks back online and functioning quickly.

    After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Manhattan, information technology professionals from Intel, Oregon’s largest private employer, joined their counterparts from New York’s “Silicon Alley” who were assisting people trying to get their companies, schools and ­organizations back online. They were welcomed by private businesses.

    But the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other government agencies resisted the assistance that was offered by outsiders who didn’t have credentials and hadn’t been vetted or trained to work with them.

    This experience led us to work with then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia to propose legislation for a National Emergency Technology Guard, or NET Guard.

    This legislation authorized the establishment of a citizen corps of professional technologists, similar to the National Guard. The men and women who joined up would be organized, trained, and could be activated and deployed whenever disaster strikes.

    Although this bill passed the Senate 97-0 and was incorporated into the Homeland Security Act of 2002, sadly neither the Bush nor Obama administrations has used the authority in the statute to organize this potentially life- and property-saving resource.

    There is no question that technologists are willing and able to come together to provide ­effective emergency solutions after a disaster strikes. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, technologists working ­remotely around the world merged several different missing-person databases into one to help ­families locate each other. Other technology volunteers went to New Orleans to string up Wi-Fi networks that allowed for critical communications and voice calls—including calls between then-Mayor Ray Nagin and President Bush even after all telephone and cellphone towers were knocked out.

    “Crowdsourced” mapping tools built by software engineers have been used after earthquakes (as in Haiti in 2010), tsunamis (as in Japan in 2011), and forest fires to help identify the location of makeshift hospitals, food, clean water and shelter or simply to warn against areas of danger. Such maps have even been used to find the location of parking spaces in Washington, D.C., New York City, and other cities after massive snowstorms.

    These private volunteers could be more effective if they were allowed to work directly with government agencies. That is our vision of NET Guard. ­Technology companies with thousands of employees—such as Intel, Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle —would allow them to periodically receive training from the government on disaster response, on coordinating their efforts with government agencies, and other skills. Then, after a disaster, the president could activate these NET Guard volunteers and ­deploy them wherever they are needed. Because they are members of NET Guard, their jobs would be held for them, as is done for members of the National Guard.

    NET Guard teams could also work with federal, state and local officials on emergency-communication plans that could be put into motion even before a major storm hit, or immediately after an unexpected disaster like an earthquake or terrorist attack.

    No one questions the need to keep the phone systems running—and it is equally critical that the nation has a means for getting Internet-based communications systems up and running when they go down after a disaster. Information technology is not just about cool smartphones, tablets and computers. Today it is also about providing and ­delivering crucial information that can save lives, save property, and help ­rebuild faster when it matters most.

    The Obama administration now has dramatic evidence of the need to set up a NET Guard to help victims of future disasters recover and reconstruct their lives.

    (Andrew Rasiej is a Business, Political, and Social Entrepreneur, Founder of Personal Democracy Media, Senior Advisor to the Sunlight Foundation, and the Chairman of NY TechMeetup. Follow him @Rasiej)

  • Wyden Puts Hold on Intelligence Authorization Bill

    Citing free speech and due process concerns, Senator Wyden published the following statement into the Congressional Record outlining his reasons for placing a hold on the Intelligence Authorization bill:

    M. President, the Senate is being asked today to approve the Intelligence Authorization bill for 2013 by unanimous consent.  I believe that significant changes need to be made to this bill before it is passed, so I object to this unanimous consent request. 

    When the Senate Intelligence Committee approved this bill in July, I was the only member of the committee to vote against it, and I would like to take a few minutes to explain my concerns, so that my colleagues who are not on that committee can get a better sense of what this debate is about. 

    This bill contains a number of worthwhile provisions, and I wish that I had been able to support it.  Unfortunately, it also contains several provisions that I find very troubling, all of them located in Title V of the bill.  These provisions are all intended to reduce unauthorized disclosures of classified information, but I am concerned that they will lead to less-informed public debate about national security issues, and also undermine the due process rights of intelligence agency employees, without actually enhancing national security. 

    I agree with my colleagues that unauthorized disclosures of national security information, which are also known as “leaks,” can be a serious problem.  Unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information can jeopardize legitimate military and intelligence operations, and even put lives at risk.  So I think it can be entirely appropriate for Congress to look for ways to help the executive branch protect information that intelligence agencies want to keep secret, as long as Congress is careful not to do more harm than good.  I myself spent four years working on legislation to increase the criminal penalty for people who are convicted of deliberately exposing covert agents, and I am proud to say that with help from a number of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, this legislation was finally signed into law in 2010. 

    So I’m all for Congress recognizing that leaks can be a serious problem, and for doing things to show the men and women of the US intelligence community that we recognize the seriousness of this issue.  The problem, though, is that Congress can’t actually legislate this problem away, and attempts to do so can have serious negative consequences. 

    One of the best analyses I have seen of the problem of unauthorized disclosures was a report published last year by the National Intelligence University.  The report observed that this problem has been around for several decades, and noted specifically that “The relative consistency in the number of unauthorized disclosures over the past 30 years demonstrates their persistent nature, independent of which political party controls the White House or Congress.”  This report, like a number of previous reports on the subject, also suggested that because it is very difficult to identify government employees responsible for disclosing classified information to the media, unauthorized disclosures are not a problem that can be solved with legislation. 

    Again, this doesn’t mean that Congress shouldn’t try to find ways to help the executive branch when it can.  But it does mean that Congress and the public should be generally skeptical of anti-leaks bills, and remember that not everything that is done in the name of stopping leaks is necessarily wise policy.    

    In particular, I think Congress should be extremely skeptical of any anti-leaks bills that threaten to encroach upon the freedom of the press, or that would reduce access to information that the public has a right to know.  

    As most of my colleagues are aware, my father was a journalist who reported on national security issues.  Among other things, he wrote what many consider to be the definitive account of the Bay of Pigs invasion, as well as an authoritative account of how the US came to build and use the first atomic bomb.  Accounts like these are vital to the public’s understanding of national security issues.  Without transparent and informed public debate on foreign policy and national security topics, American voters would be ill-equipped to elect the policymakers who make important decisions in these areas.  

    Congress, too, would be much less effective in its oversight if members did not have access to informed press accounts on foreign policy and national security topics.  And while many members of Congress don’t like to admit it, members often rely on the press to inform them about problems that congressional overseers have not discovered on their own.  I have been on the Senate Intelligence Committee for twelve years now, and I can recall numerous specific instances where I found out about serious government wrongdoing – such as the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, or the CIA’s coercive interrogation program – only as a result of disclosures by the press.  

    With all of that in mind, I am particularly concerned about sections 505 and 506 of this bill, both of which would limit the flow of unclassified information to the press and to the public.  Section 505 would prohibit any government employee with a Top Secret, compartmented security clearance from, and I quote, “entering into any contract or other binding agreement” with, quote, “the media” to provide “analysis or commentary” concerning intelligence activities for a full year after that employee leaves the government.  This provision would clearly lead to less-informed public debate on national security issues.  News organizations often rely on former government officials to help explain complex stories or events, and I think it is entirely appropriate for former officials to help educate the public in this way.  I am also concerned that prohibiting individuals from providing “commentary” could be an unconstitutional encroachment on free speech.  For example, if a retired CIA Director wishes to publish an op-ed commenting on a public policy debate, I see no reason to try to ban him from doing so, even if he has been retired less than a year.  

    I understand my colleagues’ desire to prohibit unauthorized disclosures by retired officials, but these officials are already legally bound not to disclose classified information that they learned while in government service.  And I would also note that this bill does not define who is and who isn’t a member of “the media,” and that this ambiguity could present a variety of problems.  When this bill was being considered in committee, I suggested that we get feedback from outside groups before we voted on it, so that we could address problems like this, and I hope that the committee will take that step in the future. 

    Section 506 would also lead to a less-informed debate on national security issues, by prohibiting nearly all intelligence agency employees from providing briefings to the press, unless those employees give their names and provide the briefing on the record.  The bill makes an exception for agency directors and deputy directors, and their public affairs offices, but no one else.  It seems to me that authorized, unclassified background briefings from intelligence agency analysts and experts are a useful way to help inform the press and the public about a wide variety of issues, and there will often be good reasons to withhold the full names of the experts giving these briefings.  I haven’t seen any evidence that prohibiting the intelligence agencies from providing these briefings would benefit national security in any way, so I see no reason to limit the flow of information in this manner. 

    The third provision that I am most concerned about is section 511, which would require the Director of National Intelligence to establish an administrative process under which he and the heads of the various intelligence agencies would have the authority to take away pension benefits from an intelligence agency employee (or a former employee) if the DNI or the agency head “determines” that the employee has knowingly violated his or her nondisclosure agreement and disclosed classified information. 

    I am concerned that the Director of National Intelligence himself has said that this provision would not be a significant deterrent to leaks, and that it would neither help protect sensitive national security information nor make it easier to identify and punish actual leakers.  Beyond these concerns about the provision’s effectiveness, I am also concerned that giving intelligence agency heads broad new authority to take away the pensions of individuals who haven’t been formally convicted of any wrongdoing could pose serious problems for the due process rights of intelligence professionals, particularly when the agency heads themselves haven’t told Congress how they would interpret and implement this authority.  As many of my colleagues will guess, I’m especially concerned about the rights of whistleblowers who report waste, fraud and abuse to Congress or Inspectors General. 

    I outlined these due process concerns in more detail in the committee report that accompanied this bill, so I won’t restate them all here.  I will note, though, that I am particularly confused by the fact that section 511 creates a special avenue of punishment that only applies to accused leakers who have worked for an intelligence agency at some point in their careers.  There are literally thousands of employees at the Departments of Defense, State and Justice, as well as the White House, who have access to sensitive national security information.  I don’t see a clear justification for singling out intelligence community employees with this provision, when there is no apparent evidence that these employees are responsible for a disproportionate number of leaks.  And I am concerned that it will be harder to attract qualified individuals to work for intelligence agencies if Congress creates the perception that intelligence officers have fewer due process rights than other government employees.  

    While I have a number of smaller concerns regarding the language of these anti-leaks provisions, the issues that I have just laid out represent my central concerns, and I hope that my colleagues now have a better sense of why I oppose this bill.  I would add that my view seems to be widely shared outside of Congress, and that when USA Today ran an editorial criticizing these anti-leaks provisions, they couldn’t find a single senator who was willing to publicly defend them. 

    I know that the sponsors of this bill have worked hard on it, and I am still happy to sit down with them at any time to discuss my concerns in more detail, and help them make the major changes that I believe must be made before this authorization bill moves forward. 

  • Wyden Visits with Students at Oregon High Schools

    Some people say that young people today are disengaged from politics, but if Oregon high school students are any indication, that just isn't so. 

    In Oregon this past month, Senator Wyden visited with students at Southridge, Tigard, Franklin, and Wilson High Schools. Students asked and Senator Wyden answered. Questions were thoughtful, provocative, and on a variety of issues including the NDAA, foreign and domestic policy, and access to education. 

    Senator Wyden appreciated and gained valuable insight by hearing policy ideas, prescriptions, and questions from the next generation of leaders. Can’t wait for the many more high school visits to come!

  • Wyden Letter to the Editor: China’s subsidy of solar panels

    (Note: this letter was originally published in the Washington Post on October 28, 2012)

    A federal investigation has proved that China is subsidizing its solar panels and dumping those panels in the U.S. market. The Oct. 19 editorial “A cloud on trade” said there’s a good reason to let China continue to do this. I disagree.

    World trade is governed by well-defined rules. Allowing China to break those rules at the whim of certain lobbying groups would turn the rules-based trading system into one based on politics. The world tried that system before. It failed. Under that system, trade was neither free nor fair, to the detriment of the United States and global economy.

    Failure to address China’s practices will undercut U.S. innovation. It will also make it more difficult for the United States to act against China’s cheating in other areas on everything from the manipulation of its currency to its export restraints on resources such as rare earth minerals.

    China has been clear that it is seeking to be a dominant provider of the world’s solar panels, and it is accomplishing this by breaking the rules. To accept these actions because it is helpful to consumers (for now) is to accept a world in which China chooses the industries it wishes to dominate and the

    United States is forced to take what’s left. How long after the last U.S. solar manufacturer has shut its doors will China wait to use its monopoly power to raise prices for U.S. consumers?

    Ron Wyden, Washington

    The writer, a Democrat from Oregon, is a member of the U.S. Senate.

  • Wyden and Landrieu Tour Energy Infrastructure in Louisiana

    Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) returned from a two-day tour of Louisiana over the weekend, where he visited energy industry infrastructure and coastal restoration efforts Friday and Saturday at the invitation of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

    Wyden and Landrieu toured Louisiana’s costal marshes by helicopter and examined the web of energy industry facilities and support services at Port Fourchon, on the Gulf Coast, among other activities, during the two-day visit.

    “I’m glad Senator Landrieu invited me to tour her home state– I saw a lot in Louisiana that I'm going to take back to Washington,” Wyden said. “The uniqueness of the state’s energy industry and the special nature of its coastal environment proved to me once again that we can’t rely on a one-size-fits-all energy policy.”

    Slideshow:

     

    Tags:
    Coast
    Energy
    Louisiana
  • Wyden Hails Opening of Shepherds Flat Wind Energy Project

    This past Saturday, Shepherds Flat Wind Energy project came online in Gilliam and Morrow counties in Central Oregon.

    Shepherds Flat is one of the world’s largest wind farms generating 845 megawatts of power – enough to power more than 200,000 homes. The wind farm was developed by Caithness Energy and boasts 338 wind turbines made in the U.S. by General Electric which are creating emissions-free power.

    “Shepherds Flat shows all of us what renewable energy in the 21st Century looks like, with electricity flowing, real steel in the ground, real jobs, and real economic growth,” Wyden said, in a statement.


    Check out Senator Wyden’s op-ed on the Production Tax Credit for wind power which helps make projects like Shepherds Flat possible: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81570.html


    Tags:
    Energy
    Wind
  • An Alaskan Adventure

    This past week, Senator Wyden travelled up to Alaska where he toured several of Alaska’s energy projects and spoke of the need for comprehensive tax reform with Alaskan Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich.

    First, was an energy tour on the invitation of Senator Murkowski, a colleague and top-ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.  Stops on the tour included the Chena Renewable Energy Fair, a geothermal plant at Chena Hot Springs, a liquefied natural gas terminal in Kenai, and an offshore oil platform in Cook Inlet.

    Next up Senator Wyden and Senator Begich toured the Fire Island Wind Project in Anchorage and celebrated UPS’s 105th Birthday with a tour of their planes and facilities. The trip ended with Senator Wyden and Senator Begich talking about their Bipartisian Tax Fairness and Simplification Act on the Mike Porcaro show and at a roundtable hosted by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation.

    "This has been helpful," Wyden said of the trip, his first in Alaska focused on energy issues. "Alaska has been a major energy producer for decades and it’s now in transition to new energy opportunities including natural gas and renewable energy.  Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich showed me firsthand how energy independence and creating more good-paying jobs go hand in hand."

    Slideshow: