[House Report 113-50]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-50
======================================================================
TO AFFIRM THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING INTERNET GOVERNANCE
_______
May 3, 2013.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Upton, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1580]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1580) to affirm the policy of the United States
regarding Internet governance, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 6
Committee Consideration.......................................... 6
Committee Votes.................................................. 6
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 7
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 7
Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits...... 7
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 7
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 7
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 8
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 8
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 8
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
To show the nation's resolve against regulation of the
Internet by international governmental bodies and to garner
support from other countries, H.R. 1580 makes it ``the policy
of the United States to preserve and advance the successful
multistakeholder model that governs the Internet.'' The bill is
modeled after a resolution the House and Senate unanimously
passed in 2012 expressing the sense of Congress that the U.S.
delegation to a treaty negotiation in Dubai should oppose
efforts to regulate the Internet through a U.N. agency. By all
accounts, that resolution emboldened more than 50 nations to
join the United States in refusing to sign the treaty.
Unfortunately, close to 90 nations did sign the treaty, and
international attempts to regulate the Internet are continuing
to escalate. Just as international advocates of a regulated
Internet are redoubling their efforts, so, too, must the United
States. That is why H.R. 1580 elevates the language of last
year's resolution from a sense of Congress about a particular
treaty negotiation to a law stating U.S. policy on Internet
governance.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
International efforts to regulate the Internet could
jeopardize not only its vibrancy, but also the benefits it
brings to the world. Nations from across the globe met at the
December 2012 World Conference on International
Telecommunications in Dubai to consider changes to the
International Telecommunications Regulations. Although the
treaty negotiation was billed as a routine review of rules
governing international operation of traditional telephone
service, a number of countries sought to use the treaty to
subject the Internet to regulation through the International
Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency.
This development was not unanticipated. That is why leading
up to the conference last year, the House and Senate
unanimously passed S. Con. Res. 50 expressing the sense of
Congress that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Commerce should ``articulate[ ] the consistent and unequivocal
policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free
from government control and preserve and advance the successful
multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today.'' Under
the multistakeholder model, non-regulatory institutions develop
best practices, with public and private sector's input to
manage and operate the content, applications and networks that
make up the Internet.
The Origins of the Internet and Internet Governance
The Internet finds its roots in the Advanced Research
Projects Agency (ARPANET), launched in 1969 by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency to connect universities and
research laboratories working on Department of Defense
projects. Over the next two decades, ARPANET transitioned from
a government network to include civilian users under the
auspices of the National Science Foundation and became the
National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET). As the NSFNET
grew and standards evolved to connect computer networks, a
larger ``network of networks'' emerged. Then, in 1992, the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act (P.L. 102-476) allowed
the NSFNET to interconnect with other non-governmental networks
and opened the door to commercial participation. It was at this
point that the network began to grow exponentially, and the
modern Internet was born.
When network use was limited to U.S. government purposes,
the Department of Defense managed the network. By the 1990s,
however, most of the growth was coming from non-military users,
and the NSF created the Internet Network Information Center
(InterNIC) to manage both numeric addressing on the networks
and the databases of sites. As the number of commercial users
grew, Internet addressing and domain name management became
exceedingly complex. By 1998, these functions were transferred
from the control of the U.S. government to the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a
California non-profit corporation that manages a number of
Internet-related tasks.
A series of ad hoc groups form the engineering corps of the
Internet. The Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet
Architecture Board, the Internet Engineering Steering Group,
and the Internet Research Task Force are collectively organized
under the international non-profit Internet Society. They are
run by volunteers, and all work to create voluntary standards
for Internet users to make interconnection of all networks
easier.
ICANN, as well as the groups that oversee the creation of
voluntary Internet standards under the auspices of the Internet
Society, receive input from governments, Internet users, those
investing in the Internet, academics, and engineers that
develop the technology that makes the Internet possible. This
bottom-up governance structure, referred to as the
``multistakeholder model,'' mirrors the decentralized nature of
the Internet. This approach has enabled the Internet to grow at
an astonishing pace as a driver of jobs, commerce, discourse,
and innovation and become perhaps the most powerful engine of
social and economic freedom the globe has ever known. It
maximizes flexibility and innovation, helping to prevent any
one governmental or non-governmental actor from exerting
control over either the design of the Internet or the content
it carries. That is why the Internet has been able to evolve so
quickly, both as a technological platform and as a means of
expanding the free flow of commerce and ideas. Deviation from
that multistakeholder model weakens the Internet, harming its
ability to spread both prosperity and freedom. That is why
there is bipartisan agreement that the United States should
adopt a policy to preserve and advance the multistakeholder
model of Internet governance.
The ITRs and the WCIT
International telecommunications service is governed
pursuant to regulations adopted through treaty by the 193
nation members of the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU), the United Nations' specialized agency for information
and communications technologies. The ITU was originally
chartered in 1865 to organize the international regulation of
telegraph service.
The ITU convened the World Administrative Telegraph and
Telephone Conference in 1988 to consider a ``new'' regulatory
framework for the international regulation of
telecommunications. Among the resulting International
Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) were revisions to the way
telecommunications providers pay each other for completing
international phone calls, often referred to as ``settlement
rates.'' The United States Senate ratified the International
Telecommunications Regulations in 1992. These regulations
specifically addressed voice telephony, not data processing
capabilities, and resulted in large payments to telephone
companies often owned or controlled by governments.
In December 2012, the ITU convened the World Conference on
International Telecommunications in Dubai, UAE, to consider
changes to the ITRs. Despite assurances from ITU officials that
the conference would not address Internet governance, several
proposals from member nations sought to bring aspects of the
Internet into the text of the ITRs. A number of the Internet-
related provisions, including provisions referencing
unsolicited electronic communications and network security,
were of particular concern as they appear to enshrine an
international cybersecurity regime; could serve as a
justification for countries to engage in Internet censorship in
the name of national security; and serve as the predicate for
international regulation of the Internet, replacing the
multistakeholder model that has served the Internet and the
world so well.
Buttressed by the unanimous passage of S. Con. Res. 50, the
United States and 54 of the 144 other member states that
attended the WCIT left without signing the new International
Telecommunications Regulations. Unfortunately, eighty nine
nations did sign the treaty. The revised ITRs will be
implemented by those nations beginning in January 2015. A
number of upcoming conferences, including the May 14-16, 2013,
World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum in Geneva and the Oct.
20-Nov. 7, 2014, ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, South
Korea, will present additional opportunities for countries to
pursue international regulation of the Internet. The continued
and growing threat of such regulation prompted the House Energy
and Commerce Committee to move H.R. 1580, elevating language
similar to last year's S. Con. Res. 50 from a sense of Congress
aimed at particular treaty negotiations to a law establishing
generalized U.S. policy.
Development of the Language of H.R. 1580
The language of H.R. 1580 is similar to two resolutions
introduced in the 112th Congress: H. Con. Res. 127, which
unanimously passed the House Aug. 2, 2012, and S. Con. Res. 50,
which unanimously passed the Senate Sept. 22, 2012, and the
House Dec. 5, 2012. Both H. Con. Res. 127 and S. Con. Res. 50
included a series of ``whereas'' clauses describing the
societal benefits of the Internet and the importance its
governance structure has played in producing those benefits.
They also both contained a ``resolved'' clause expressing the
sense of Congress that the U.S. Department of State and U.S.
Department of Commerce ``should continue working to implement
the position of the United States on Internet governance that
clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of
the United States to promote a global Internet free from
government control and preserve and advance the successful
multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today.''
Section 1 of H.R. 1580 coverts to findings language from
the ``whereas'' clauses of the resolutions, with minor
modifications to reflect what happened at the WCIT and to make
them more generalized. Section 2 of H.R. 1580 elevates the
``resolved'' clauses of the resolutions from a sense of
Congress aimed at particular treaty negotiations to a law
establishing generalized U.S. policy.
At a Feb. 5, 2013, legislative hearing and an April 10 and
11, 2013, markup, the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology considered a discussion draft of what would become
H.R. 1580. In that version, section 2 sought to make it ``the
policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free
from government control and to preserve and advance the
successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet.''
That language was lifted directly from the end of the
``whereas'' clause of S. Con. Res. 50.
During the April 10 and 11, 2013, subcommittee markup,
Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member Eshoo expressed their
belief that elevating from a resolution to a law the language
making it ``the policy of the United States to promote a global
Internet free from government control'' might interfere with
FCC rules on network neutrality and possibly even efforts
regarding IP protection, child pornography, or other government
action. Chairman Walden explained that a statement of policy
does not impose statutorily mandated responsibilities on an
agency, and that just as a policy statement cannot authorize
the FCC to adopt network neutrality regulations, it cannot
require the FCC to strike them. He also pointed out that the
legislation does not make illegal activity any less illegal
simply because someone has used digital tools to perpetrate the
act. Child pornography is no less illegal if it is disseminated
over the Internet rather than in photographs and magazines. But
punishing illegal activity is different than regulating the
Internet itself. The structure of the Internet and the content
and applications it carries are organized from the ground up,
not handed down by governments. This allows the Internet 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.
In response, Mr. Waxman clarified that the objections
raised by Democrats did not stem from a belief that the
legislation would force the FCC to change its Open Internet
rules, but rather, it would allow another party to use the
policy statement as a basis to challenge the FCC rules. He
expressed concern that a court might consider the policy
statement differently than intended by the Committee.
In recognition of the importance bipartisan agreement on
this issue played in Dubai and on the world stage, Chairman
Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo directed staff to try and work
out mutually agreeable legislative language before the full
committee markup. Based on the Chairman's commitment to work
towards a bipartisan solution, the Subcommittee passed the
draft legislation by voice vote, without any amendments being
offered or debated.
As a result of those discussions, Chairman Walden and
Ranking Member Eshoo introduced H.R. 1580 on April 16, 2013,
which contained slightly modified language. In particular, it
dropped the reference to promoting a ``global Internet free
from government control'' and focused on the remaining language
making it U.S. policy ``to preserve and advance the successful
multistakeholder model that governs the Internet.''
At the full committee markup the following day, Chairman
Walden reiterated that, while statements of policy can help
delineate the contours of statutory authority, they do not
create statutorily mandated responsibilities. For that reason,
he said he did not believe the language passed in subcommittee
would have required or prohibited U.S entities from taking any
particular action on network neutrality or any other matter. He
also explained that there is a big difference between
government control of the management and operation of the
Internet, and punishing use of it to commit illegal acts.
Chairman Walden concluded by stating that he still opposes the
FCC's network neutrality rules, but was willing to make the
changes to send a unified message. He said that governments'
hands off approach to the Internet has enabled its rapid growth
and made it a powerful engine of social and economic freedom.
By elevating from a sense of Congress to a law language similar
to last year's resolution, the legislation will show the United
States' commitment to the multistakeholder governance model and
resolve to oppose efforts by authoritarian nations to exert
their grip on the Internet.
Ranking Member Waxman recognized the significance of
striking the words ``free from government control'' from the
operative provision of the bill and urged his colleagues to
support the measure so Congress could once again send a strong,
united signal to the global community. He noted that the
modification agreed to was significant because it made clear
that the policy statement contained in H.R. 1580 would not
implicate the legitimate activities of the U.S. government
online or the authority of federal agencies.
HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a
hearing February 5, 2013, on ``Fighting for Internet Freedom:
Dubai and Beyond.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from
Commissioner Robert McDowell of the Federal Communications
Commission; Ambassador David A. Gross, former U.S. Coordinator
for International Communications and Information Policy with
the U.S. Department of State; Ms. Sally Shipman Wentworth,
Senior Director, Public Policy at Internet Society; Mr. Harold
Feld, Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge; and Dr.
Bitange Ndemo, Permanent Secretary in the Kenyan Ministry of
Information and Communications and a Director of the
Communications Commission of Kenya.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On April 10 and 11, 2013, the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology met in open markup session and
approved for full Committee consideration, without amendment,
by a voice vote, a discussion draft of legislation to affirm
the policy of the United States regarding Internet governance.
Chairman Greg Walden, together with Ranking Member Anna
Eshoo and 31 additional cosponsors, introduced H.R. 1580 on
April 16, 2013.
On April 17, 2013, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1580 to be reported
favorably, without amendment, by voice vote.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto.
There were no record votes taken in connection with ordering
H.R. 1580 reported. A motion by Mr. Upton to order H.R. 1580
reported to the House, without amendment, was agreed to by a
voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee held a legislative
hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
H.R. 1580 codifies in law the policy of the United States
to preserve and advance the multistakeholder model that governs
the Internet.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R.
1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United States
regarding Internet governance, would result in no new or
increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax
expenditures or revenues.
EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS
In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee
finds that H.R. 1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United
States regarding Internet governance, contains no earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
May 2, 2013.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1580, a bill to
affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet
governance.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1580--A bill to affirm the policy of the United States regarding
Internet governance
H.R. 1580 would affirm the policy of the United States to
preserve and advance a multistakeholder model to govern the
Internet. Such a model, currently in practice, involves groups
drawn from civil society, the private sector, governments,
academic and research communities, as well as national and
international organizations.
Based on information from the Federal Communications
Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would
not have an effect on spending subject to appropriation because
the workloads of those agencies would not be affected. Further,
enacting H.R. 1580 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 1580 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susan Willie.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 1580 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
The Committee finds that enacting H.R. 1580 directs no
agency to complete any specific rule makings within the meaning
of 5 U.S.C. 551.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Findings
This section makes a number of findings related to the
governance of the Internet and the Internet's importance to
society, including that:
The Internet must remain stable, secure, and free
from government control given its importance to the global
economy;
The world deserves the access to knowledge and
economic benefits that the Internet provides and that are the
bedrock of democratic self-governance;
The structure of Internet governance has profound
implications for competition and trade, democratization, free
expression, and access to information;
Countries have obligations to protect human
rights, whether exercised online or offline; and
Proposals to fundamentally alter the governance
and operation of the Internet would diminish freedom of
expression on the Internet in favor of government control over
content.
Section 2. Policy Regarding Internet Governance
Section 2 states that ``[i]t is the policy of the United
States to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder
model that governs the Internet.''
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
This legislation does not amend any existing Federal
statute.