The United States' relationship with India is based on a shared commitment to democracy.

It is important to support the pivot to the Asia-Pacific region as to our diplomatic resources...

This is a worldwide struggle.

I do want to pick up on your idea that the U.S., perhaps the private sector as well as government, should be chipping in a bit to help those from poorer countries participate in the multistakeholder forums.

It wouldn't be such a bad idea if both businesses and the government would help strengthen the multistakeholder approach.

We need to preserve the Internet's multistakeholder organization and governance and not allow governments, particularly those bent on censorship, to gain control.

As others have stated, we have to keep the Internet free, particularly from those who would try to regulate its content.

So we should be saying, No content regulation, whether it is text or voice, whether it is over old telephony wires or new Internet technology; the ITU is there to provide for international payment recognition, not content regulation.

The United States was correct in not signing the agreement, but the question is: How do we participate in the ITU in the future?

I would like to pick up on that concept, and that is, we have got a lot of language adopted from 1865 to 1988, and one can imagine that the opponents of freedom will try to apply that to the Internet.

We should do more for diplomatic security, the State Department should follow its own procedures, and we haven't done so.

I want to identify myself with the comments of the ranking member, particularly his recognition of Secretary Clinton's service to our country over the last 4 years.