[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6780-6782]
[From the U.S. 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 and Senate unanimously passed 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 50. That resolution expressed the sense of 
Congress

[[Page 6781]]

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

[[Page 6782]]

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.
  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 thirty-four 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 U.N. system where each country has one vote--no matter how 
undemocratic--this U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N.'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 
U.N.
  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.

                          ____________________