[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S6068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is being asked to approve the 
Intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2016 by unanimous 
consent. When this bill was reported by the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, I and other colleagues noted that it contained one provision 
that required further debate.
  This provision, section 603, would require Internet and 
communications companies to make reports to the government if they 
become aware of ``terrorist activity.'' Over the past 3 weeks a number 
of Internet companies have raised very valid concerns about this 
provision. In particular, they note that this provision is quite vague, 
and does not specify how these companies should know what is and is not 
terrorist activity.
  The Internet Association, which is comprised of dozens of leading 
technology companies, has warned that uncertainty about the meaning of 
this vague language will create ``an impossible compliance problem'' 
and lead to ``massive reporting of items that are not likely to be of 
material concern to public safety.'' That is obviously something that I 
think every Senator wants to avoid. Internet companies should not be 
subject to broad requirements to police the speech of their users.
  There is no question that tracking terrorist activity and preventing 
online terrorist recruitment should be top priorities for law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies. And leading technology companies 
certainly have a role to play here. The Director of the FBI testified 
this month that technology companies are ``pretty good about telling 
us'' when they see something of serious concern. But I haven't yet 
heard any law enforcement or intelligence agencies suggest that this 
provision will actually help catch terrorists, and I take the concerns 
that have been raised about its breadth and vagueness seriously.
  For these reasons, I object to this unanimous consent request. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to revise or remove this 
provision so that the rest of the bill can proceed forward.

                          ____________________