PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 16, 2006
Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 - States that it is the policy of the United States to: (1) promote the ability of all to access and contribute information, ideas, and knowledge via the Internet; (2) use all instruments of U.S. influence, including diplomacy, trade policy, and export controls, to support, promote, and strengthen the free flow of information; and (3) prohibit any U.S. business from cooperating with officials of Internet-restricting countries in effecting potential censorship of online content.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President should commence international negotiations to obtain the agreement of other countries to enact legislation similar to this Act and to pursue the development of international agreements protecting Internet freedom; and (2) some U.S. businesses, in assisting or empowering an authoritarian foreign government to restrict online access to websites such as the Voice of America and other broadcasts and information, are working contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests and undercutting efforts to promote freedom of information for all people.
Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require, in reports relating to foreign economic and security assistance, assessments of the freedom of electronic information in each foreign country.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes in the Department of State the Office of Global Internet Freedom to take specified actions to strengthen global freedom of electronic information.
Directs the President to designate Internet-restricting countries.
Provides minimum standards for U.S. businesses with respect to the protection of online freedom in foreign countries.
Authorizes the establishment of export controls against Internet-restricting foreign countries.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E205-206)
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4780 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4780 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4780 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4780 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.