[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 103 (Wednesday, June 3, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2699-S2700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NOTICE OF INTENT TO OBJECT TO PROCEEDING

  I, Senator Ron Wyden, intend to object to proceeding to S. 482, a 
bill to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to combat 
international cybercrime, and to impose additional sanctions with 
respect to the Russian Federation, and for other purposes, dated June 
3, 2020 for the reasons as stated in the Record.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to give notice of my intent to 
object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding S. 482, the 
Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act.
  I want to first start by making myself clear: I support the vast 
majority of the provisions in this bill. It has now been over three 
years since Russia meddled in our last presidential election, and 
Congress has yet to hold Vladimir Putin accountable for it. I commend 
the bill's sponsors for coming together, on a bipartisan basis, with 
legislation that would take real steps to address Moscow's aggression.
  Unfortunately, the bill is burdened by one extremely problematic, 
unrelated section, Title IV, or what was previously known as the 
International Cybercrime Prevention Act. This is now the fourth time my 
colleagues have attempted to jam that bill through this very chamber. 
In fact, the same exact language was first floated in 2015, only to be 
defeated. It was brought up again in 2016, and was, again, defeated. 
Once more, in 2018, this bill was introduced as a standalone bill and, 
again, defeated.
  The authors of this problematic legislation are giving it one more 
try, this time by attempting to bury it within a largely unrelated 100-
page, bipartisan legislative vehicle. And, by adding this language onto 
an extraneous foreign relations bill, my colleagues have been able to 
bypass the jurisdictional scrutiny of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
altogether.
  Title IV of the bill is, at best, an extremely misguided piece of 
legislation. While its proponents claim the language is meant to fight 
botnets and other malicious cybercrime in a limited context, its 
effects would be far more broad-reaching. What this bill would do, in 
reality, is significantly expand the badly outdated Computer Fraud and 
Abuse Act, or the CFAA--a law that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has 
time and time again abused against cybersecurity researchers and 
activists, including the late Aaron Swartz.
  Mr. President, advocates and legal experts have long warned that the 
CFAA chills legitimate speech and research. DOJ has adopted an 
interpretation of the CFAA so extreme that it has argued in federal 
court that it is illegal merely for someone to violate a website's 
terms of service, such as by lying about their height, weight, or age 
in an online dating profile. While I take a back seat to no one when it 
comes to protecting Americans from hackers and improving our nation's 
cybersecurity, DOJ has stretched this Reagan-era hacking law to 
absurdity.
  The last time the International Cybercrime Prevention Act was 
proposed in this chamber, I voted against it because I believed then, 
as I do now, that the draconian CFAA must be modernized. I have sought 
to reform the

[[Page S2700]]

CFAA, and rather than addressing its many serious flaws, Title IV of 
DASKA expands it, creating broad new prohibitions and harsh penalties.
  Mr. President, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bill 
before us is a resoundingly good bill--but it is one that is held back 
by one small and unrelated section. My hope is that, working in a 
bipartisan way, we can resolve this glaring problem with DASKA. 
However, until that happens, I will object to any unanimous consent 
request to proceed to the legislation.

                          ____________________