House Panel Approves Internet Governance Bill
The House Communications Subcommittee approved a bill by a voice vote Thursday aimed at codifying the U.S. policy against “government control” of the Internet, during a brief vote that clocked in at less than 10 minutes. Democrats continued to raise their objections that the bill, as currently written, could be used to challenge the FCC’s net neutrality order, but agreed to offer no amendments in order to negotiate the bill during the full committee markup. Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., acknowledged that there “still appears to be a misunderstanding about what this legislation does and doesn’t do.” Walden said his staff are willing to speak with minority staffers “in good faith, between now and the full committee markup, to see if we can come to an agreement. Nothing will be off the table, nothing,” Walden said in his opening statement. “We should give this an opportunity to work.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The three-page bill aimed to clarify that it’s 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” (http://1.usa.gov/10FeUsK). The bill echoes language in House and Senate resolutions passed last year opposing the revised International Telecommunication Regulations adopted at the World Conference on International Telecommunications. The non-binding resolutions sought to preserve “the multi-stakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived” (CD Dec 6 p16).
The bill “does not require the FCC to strike the net neutrality regulation. And as a matter of law, a statement of policy does not impose statutorily mandated responsibilities on an agency,” Walden said. “This legislation neither requires nor authorizes the FCC to take any action with respect to its net neutrality regulations or any other rules.” Walden said he disagreed that the legislation “might have the unintended consequences” of preventing a U.S government agency from enforcing intellectual property, child pornography or other laws. “There is a big difference between government control and ... punishing illegal acts,” he said.
The only Democrats to attend the markup were Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Eshoo said the “substantial issues” she raised during Wednesday’s opening remarks “continue to be of great concern,” prior to Thursday’s vote. “I believe that it is in the best interest of our subcommittee to find a bipartisan path forward, and I hope we can,” she said. Eshoo said if an agreement is not reached in the negotiations leading up to the full committee markup, the Democrats will object to the bill. Eshoo had said (CD April 11 p5) she was planning to offer an undisclosed number of amendments to the bill at Thursday’s markup but declined to offer any.
Waxman said he’s “not encouraged” by Walden’s opening statement, “because you seem to reject all the points that we raised.” Waxman said he never said the bill would “force the FCC to change the open Internet rules.” But “I worry that it allows somebody else to use it as the basis to challenge the FCC rules,” he said. After the markup, Waxman said: “It makes sense for [Walden] and it makes sense for us to sit down and see if we can work something out."
Eleven Republican members unanimously voted to pass the measure to the full committee: Walden, Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta, of Ohio; and Reps. Lee Terry of Nebraska; Mike Rogers of Michigan; Steve Scalise of Louisiana; Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee; Renee Ellmers of North Carolina; Billy Long of Missouri; Adam Kinzinger of Illinois; Cory Gardner of Colorado; and Brett Guthrie of Kentucky. Walden had few words for reporters after the markup, saying only: “We are going to try to work this out.”
Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld isn’t convinced the bill was hatched as a “subtle plan to kill net neutrality,” he told us. “I do think that Republicans certainly saw that as an added benefit. But I think this was more about beating the drum of stopping the U.N. takeover of the Internet,” he said. “Telecom doesn’t really revolve around net neutrality. But it has become the Kevin Bacon of telecom policy -- you are never more than six hops away from it,” said Feld, referring to the popular theory that every actor is no more than six connections from actor Kevin Bacon. “There is no driving emergency to get this passed quickly,” Feld said. “Everyone realizes that the worst thing to have happen would be to transform something designed to show our unity and firmness of purpose into a showcase for partisan divisiveness that stokes fears of hidden agendas. Once cooler heads prevail, it is a simple matter to clarify the bill[']s true intention.”