[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2582-H2584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POLICY REGARDING INTERNET GOVERNANCE
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1580) to affirm the policy of the United States regarding
Internet governance.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1580
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Given the importance of the Internet to the global
economy, it is essential that the Internet remain stable,
secure, and free from government control.
(2) The world deserves the access to knowledge, services,
commerce, and communication, the accompanying benefits to
economic development, education, and health care, and the
informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-
government that the Internet provides.
(3) The structure of Internet governance has profound
implications for competition and trade, democratization, free
expression, and access to information.
(4) Countries have obligations to protect human rights,
whether exercised online or offline.
(5) The ability to innovate, develop technical capacity,
grasp economic opportunities, and promote freedom of
expression online is best realized in cooperation with all
stakeholders.
(6) Proposals have been, and will likely continue to be,
put forward at international regulatory bodies that would
fundamentally alter the governance and operation of the
Internet.
(7) The proposals would attempt to justify increased
government control over the Internet and could undermine the
current multistakeholder model that has enabled the Internet
to flourish and under which the private sector, civil
society, academia, and individual users play an important
role in charting its direction.
(8) The proposals would diminish the freedom of expression
on the Internet in favor of government control over content.
(9) The position of the United States Government has been
and is to advocate for the flow of information free from
government control.
(10) This Administration and past Administrations have made
a strong commitment to the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance and the promotion of the global benefits of the
Internet.
SEC. 2. POLICY REGARDING INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
It is the policy of the United States to preserve and
advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs
the Internet.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
General Leave
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 1580, sometimes called the Internet Freedom
Bill.
The Internet is possibly the most important technological advancement
since the printing press. Governments' hands-off approach has enabled
the Internet's rapid growth and made it a powerful engine of social and
economic freedom. This bipartisan bill is designed to combat recent
efforts by some in the international community to regulate the
Internet, which could jeopardize not only its vibrancy, but also the
benefits that it brings to the entire world.
Nations from across the globe met at the December 2012 World
Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. They
considered changes to the international telecommunications regulations.
The treaty negotiations were billed as a routine review of rules
governing ordinary international telephone service. A number of
countries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, sought to use the
negotiations, however, to pursue regulation of the Internet through the
International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency. None
other than Russian President Vladimir Putin has been clear in his
objective of ``establishing international control over the Internet
using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International
Telecommunication Union.''
The developments in Dubai were not unanticipated. That is why leading
up to the conference last year, the House
[[Page H2583]]
and Senate unanimously passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 50. That
resolution expressed the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of Commerce should advocate ``the consistent and
unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet
free from government control and preserve and advance the successful
multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet today.''
{time} 1720
Now, under that multi-stakeholder model, non-regulatory institutions
seek input from the public and private sectors to develop best
practices for managing the content, applications, and networks that
make up the Internet. The Internet is organized from the ground up and
not from the government handed down. This is not to say that government
has no role in policing unlawful behavior. Illegal activity is no less
illegal simply because someone has used digital tools to perpetrate the
act. Child pornography, for example, is no less illegal if it is
disseminated over the Internet rather than in photographs or magazines.
There is a big difference, however, between punishing illegal acts
committed over the Internet and government control of its management
and operation. Refraining from regulating the underpinning of the
Internet has allowed it to evolve quickly to meet the diverse needs of
users around the world and to keep governmental or non-governmental
actors from controlling the design of the network or the content it
carries.
Buttressed by the unanimous passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution
50, the United States and 54 other countries left Dubai without signing
the treaty. Unfortunately, 89 nations did sign. The revised ITRs will
be implemented by those nations, and that begins in January of 2015.
Now, a number of upcoming conferences will present additional
opportunities for countries to pursue international regulation of the
Internet, including the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum in
Geneva, which starts today, and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in
Busan, South Korea, in 2014.
The growing threat of such regulation prompted the subcommittee of
which I chair, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, to hold a joint hearing earlier this
year with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Just as international
opponents of an unregulated Internet are redoubling their efforts, so
must we. That is why the hearing we held focused on draft legislation
elevating the language of last year's resolution from a mere sense of
Congress aimed at particular treaty negotiations to a generalized
statement of U.S. law.
I want to thank Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce; Africa, Global
Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations
Subcommittee Chairman Chris Smith; and Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and
Trade Subcommittee Chairman Ted Poe for their leadership and their help
in calling attention to this important legislation and the issue
broadly.
I also want to address the elephant in the room, if you will: the
FCC's network neutrality regulations. As the legislation we consider
today was moving through the subcommittee and then the full committee,
some of my colleagues expressed concern that transforming the exact
language of last year's unanimous resolution into law would somehow
interfere with the FCC's network neutrality rules. In particular, they
saw a conflict with the language in making it U.S. policy ``to promote
a global Internet free from government control.''
Let me be clear: while I oppose the FCC's rules regulating the
Internet, this legislation does not address those regulations. While
statements of policy can help delineate the contours of statutory
authority, they don't create statutorily mandated responsibilities.
Nonetheless, in the interest of reaching bipartisan consensus and
moving this important legislation forward, I agreed to drop the
``government control'' language. The result is the language you see
today in H.R. 1580, which I introduced with Ranking Member Eshoo. This
bill would make it U.S. policy ``to preserve and advance the successful
multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet.''
Passing H.R. 1580 will show we are united against efforts by
authoritarian nations to exert their grip on the Internet. For the sake
of the Internet and the social and economic freedoms that it brings, I
urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To my colleague and my chair on the subcommittee, thank you for your
fine leadership and for your leadership on this legislation as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1580. As my colleague
mentioned, it is a bill to affirm the policy of the United States to
preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that
governs the Internet. It has worked. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Internet has been a unique and powerful driver of social and
economic progress, and it is changing nearly every part of the American
economy and society, everything from education to health care delivery
to agriculture.
This is especially true for rural communities, where communications
technology can have an even greater impact in areas where populations
are small and distances are vast. The Internet enables connections from
even the most far-flung corners of our country to people, goods, and
services around the globe, allowing rural America to compete just as
effectively in the 21st century digital economy.
A critical element of the Internet's success story has been the open
manner in which the Internet is governed. Rather than relying on
centralized control by governments, the Internet instead adopts a
multi-stakeholder model in which all who have an interest can have a
voice in the Internet's operation. Lately, however, the multi-
stakeholder model towards Internet governance has been under assault on
the global stage.
At the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai
last December, as my colleague mentioned, the International
Telecommunication Union adopted several proposals that could
fundamentally alter the way the Internet operates. These proposals
undermine the successful decentralized approach to Internet governance
and impose a government-controlled management regime, thereby
threatening citizens' access to content and information via the
Internet as well as the global free flow of information online.
I am pleased that Congress unanimously passed a resolution last year
urging the administration to preserve and advance the successful multi-
stakeholder model. That's what governs the Internet today. That's what
we want to govern the Internet tomorrow. I applaud the decision by the
U.S. delegation not to sign that final treaty, but efforts to bring the
Internet under the control of international regulatory bodies
continues. This week, member-states of the International
Telecommunication Union will meet again in Geneva to debate issues
surrounding global Internet governance. The passage of H.R. 1580 will
be timely in, once again, demonstrating the unwavering support of our
Congress of the multi-stakeholder Internet governance model.
I want to thank Chairman Upton, and I want to thank Chairman Walden,
and their staff, for working with us on the Democratic side to address
the concerns. Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member Eshoo raised
these concerns during the bill's markup in the Energy and Commerce
Committee. We worked it out.
Mr. Walden, thank you.
I appreciate the modifications made to the bill, which make it clear
that this policy statement will not implicate the legitimate activities
of the U.S. Government online or the authorities of Federal agencies.
Because of these changes, Democrats and Republicans in Congress once
again stand united with the administration in its efforts to resist
proposals that would undermine the existing multi-stakeholder approach.
I join my colleague Mr. Walden in urging my colleagues on the
Democratic side to vote for this bill so we can once again demonstrate
that there is support across the entire political spectrum for
continuing the multi-stakeholder model that allows the Internet to
thrive, which is for the benefit of every American and citizens around
the world.
[[Page H2584]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALDEN. In closing, Mr. Speaker, freedom of the Internet is as
essential as America's long held constitutional belief in freedom of
the press, and we don't need governments--ours or others--infringing on
how the Internet is managed and governed, nor in terms of maintaining
the freedom of the press.
So, with that, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1580, which
reaffirms current policy to preserve and advance the successful multi-
stakeholder model that governs the Internet, which is so very critical
to our economic and social well-being.
In June 2011, the thirty-four member countries of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, business representatives, and
technical experts agreed on principles that included a commitment to
promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the
Internet. The 34 OECD members range from the United States to France to
South Korea to Mexico.
This landmark OECD communique recognized the importance of the multi-
stakeholder approach, stating that ``The Internet's openness to new
devices, applications and services has played an important role in its
success in fostering innovation, creativity and economic growth.''
That's right.
Yet somehow the United Nations missed the memo. In December 2012, the
U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union--a government-only
membership body--took a vote on a binding global treaty that would
establish the ITU as the forum for Internet standard setting. Despite
U.S. opposition, 89 of 144 countries voted for the revised
International Telecommunications Regulations. They included China,
Cuba, Russia and other countries hostile to political freedom.
In a UN system where each country has one vote--no matter how
undemocratic--this UN overreach could shift the idea of Internet
governance from what is best for netizens to what is best for a group
of governments. There is no need for a UN Internet treaty. The Internet
is flourishing in the current multi-stakeholder framework just fine.
In addition, there are serious concerns around the lack of
transparency and inclusivity of the UN's ITU process. The Internet has
transformed our ability to access and share information--surely
Internet policy should not be developed behind the closed doors of the
UN.
The U.S. State Department, Commerce Department, business community
and civil society leaders must step up their outreach. We must clearly
explain the huge economic and social benefits that are derived from the
Internet and the policy framework that is needed to maximize those
benefits. Going forward, a concerted effort must be made to turn around
as many as possible of the 89 votes for the International
Telecommunications Regulations.
Congress is unified in our support of an open Internet--we recognize
the importance of the Internet to our economy and society. We recognize
the threat of proposed international control of the Internet. It is now
time to rally the international community against this dangerous
policy.
I want to thank Chairman Walden for his work on H.R. 1580 and want to
recognize the excellent cooperation between the Energy and Commerce
Committee and the Foreign Affairs committee on Internet governance. Our
committees held a joint hearing in February entitled ``Fighting for
Internet Freedom: Dubai and Beyond.'' We will continue to coordinate.
And we will certainly continue to fight for Internet Freedom.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, as the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy
Forum (WTPF) begins in Geneva, Switzerland today, it's fitting that the
House is considering legislation that affirms the support of the United
States for the multi-stakeholder process of global Internet governance.
As we've debated before the Communications and Technology
Subcommittee time and time again, H.R. 1580 is not about our views on
domestic Internet policy. The legality of the FCC's 2010 Open Internet
Order will be decided by the Courts. H.R. 1580 is about ensuring that
this week and at future conferences, the International community knows
that the U.S. Congress stands behind the multi-stakeholder process and
the importance of a free and open Internet.
The Internet continues to advance rapidly and with this growth,
billions around the world will experience the innovation, openness and
transparency that have enabled the Internet to flourish. I thank
Chairman Walden for bringing this legislation to the floor in a
bipartisan manner and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1580.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to support H.R.
1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United States to preserve and
advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the
Internet.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Administration have
been united in our support for a global open Internet governed from the
bottom up. We worked together last Congress on a bipartisan, bicameral
basis to express our support for that successful approach to Internet
governance.
On some domestic issues, I have strong differences with the majority
over Internet policy. One example is my support for a domestic Internet
policy that prevents Internet service providers from acting as
``gatekeepers'' that control what American citizens can do online. But
those differences appropriately stop at the water's edge.
I want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Walden for listening to
the concerns we had about the initial draft of this bill. They worked
with me and other Committee Democrats to address those issues by
removing certain language from the draft and assuring us that the
legislation is in no way intended to direct domestic Internet policy.
With these changes and the assurances of my colleagues, I am pleased
that we stand together on a bipartisan basis in support of our
diplomats and the multistakeholder model for global Internet
governance.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure so we can send a strong,
united signal to the global community.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1580.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________