[Pages H6369-H6374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL ACT OF 2000

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3113) to protect individuals, families, and Internet service
providers from unsolicited and unwanted electronic mail, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3113

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unsolicited Commercial
Electronic Mail Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND POLICY.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) There is a right of free speech on the Internet.
(2) The Internet has increasingly become a critical mode of
global communication and now presents unprecedented
opportunities for the development and growth of global
commerce and an integrated worldwide economy. In order for
global commerce on the Internet to reach its full potential,
individuals and entities using the Internet and other online
services should be prevented from engaging in activities that
prevent other users and Internet service providers from
having a reasonably predictable, efficient, and economical
online experience.
(3) Unsolicited commercial electronic mail can be an
important mechanism through which businesses advertise and
attract customers in the online environment.
(4) The receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
may result in costs to recipients who cannot refuse to accept
such mail and who incur costs for the storage of such mail,
or for the time spent accessing, reviewing, and discarding
such mail, or for both.
(5) Unsolicited commercial electronic mail may impose
significant monetary costs on Internet access services,
businesses, and educational and nonprofit institutions that
carry and receive such mail, as there is a finite volume of
mail that such providers, businesses, and institutions can
handle without further investment. The sending of such mail
is increasingly and negatively affecting the quality of
service provided to customers of Internet access service, and
shifting costs from the sender of the advertisement to the
Internet access service.
(6) While some senders of unsolicited commercial electronic
mail messages provide simple and reliable ways for recipients
to reject (or ``opt-out'' of) receipt of unsolicited
commercial electronic mail from such senders in the future,
other senders provide no such ``opt-out'' mechanism, or
refuse to honor the requests of recipients not to receive
electronic mail from such senders in the future, or both.
(7) An increasing number of senders of unsolicited
commercial electronic mail purposefully disguise the source
of such mail so as to prevent recipients from responding to
such mail quickly and easily.
(8) Many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
collect or harvest electronic mail addresses of potential
recipients without the knowledge of those recipients and in
violation of the rules or terms of service of the database
from which such addresses are collected.
(9) Because recipients of unsolicited commercial electronic
mail are unable to avoid the receipt of such mail through
reasonable means, such mail may invade the privacy of
recipients.
(10) In legislating against certain abuses on the Internet,
Congress should be very careful to avoid infringing in any
way upon constitutionally protected rights, including the
rights of assembly, free speech, and privacy.
(b) Congressional Determination of Public Policy.--On the
basis of the findings in subsection (a), the Congress
determines that--
(1) there is substantial government interest in regulation
of unsolicited commercial electronic mail;
(2) Internet service providers should not be compelled to
bear the costs of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
without compensation from the sender; and
(3) recipients of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
have a right to decline to receive or have their children
receive unsolicited commercial electronic mail.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Children.--The term ``children'' includes natural
children, stepchildren, adopted children, and children who
are wards of or in custody of the parent, who have not
attained the age of 18 and who reside with the parent or are
under his or her care, custody, or supervision.
(2) Commercial electronic mail message.--The term
``commercial electronic mail message'' means any electronic
mail message that primarily advertises or promotes the
commercial availability of a product or service for profit or
invites the recipient to view content on an Internet web site
that is operated for a commercial purpose. An electronic mail
message shall not be considered to be a commercial electronic
mail message solely because such message includes a reference
to a commercial entity that serves to identify the initiator.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(4) Domain name.--The term `domain name` means any
alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned
by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other
domain name registration authority as part of an electronic
address on the Internet.
(5) Electronic mail address.--

[[Page H6370]]

(A) In general.--The term ``electronic mail address'' means
a destination (commonly expressed as a string of characters)
to which electronic mail can be sent or delivered.
(B) Inclusion.--In the case of the Internet, the term
``electronic mail address'' may include an electronic mail
address consisting of a user name or mailbox (commonly
referred to as the ``local part'') and a reference to an
Internet domain (commonly referred to as the ``domain
part'').
(6) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given
that term in section 231(e)(3) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 231(e)(3)).
(7) Internet access service.--The term ``Internet access
service'' has the meaning given that term in section
231(e)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
231(e)(4)).
(8) Initiate.--The term ``initiate'', when used with
respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means to
originate such message or to procure the transmission of such
message.
(9) Initiator.--The term ``initiator'', when used with
respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means the
person who initiates such message. Such term does not include
a provider of an Internet access service whose role with
respect to the message is limited to handling, transmitting,
retransmitting, or relaying the message.
(10) Pre-existing business relationship.--The term ``pre-
existing business relationship'' means, when used with
respect to the initiator and recipient of a commercial
electronic mail message, that either of the following
circumstances exist:
(A) Previous business transaction.--
(i) Within the 5-year period ending upon receipt of such
message, there has been a business transaction between the
initiator and the recipient (including a transaction
involving the provision, free of charge, of information
requested by the recipient, of goods, or of services); and
(ii) the recipient was, at the time of such transaction or
thereafter, provided a clear and conspicuous notice of an
opportunity not to receive further messages from the
initiator and has not exercised such opportunity.
(B) Opt in.--The recipient has given the initiator
permission to initiate commercial electronic mail messages to
the electronic mail address of the recipient and has not
subsequently revoked such permission.
(11) Recipient.--The term ``recipient'', when used with
respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means the
addressee of such message.
(12) Unsolicited commercial electronic mail message.--The
term ``unsolicited commercial electronic mail message'' means
any commercial electronic mail message that is sent by the
initiator to a recipient with whom the initiator does not
have a pre-existing business relationship.

SEC. 4. CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL
ELECTRONIC MAIL CONTAINING FRAUDULENT ROUTING
INFORMATION.

Section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(5)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) intentionally initiates the transmission of any
unsolicited commercial electronic mail message to a protected
computer in the United States with knowledge that any domain
name, header information, date or time stamp, originating
electronic mail address, or other information identifying the
initiator or the routing of such message, that is contained
in or accompanies such message, is false or inaccurate;'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2)(A)--
(A) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``in the case of''; and
(B) by inserting before ``; and'' the following: ``, or
(ii) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(D) of this section'';
and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) the terms `initiate', `initiator', `unsolicited
commercial electronic mail message', and `domain name' have
the meanings given such terms in section 3 of the Unsolicited
Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2000.''.

SEC. 5. OTHER PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL
ELECTRONIC MAIL.

(a) Requirements for Transmission of Messages.--
(1) Inclusion of return address in commercial electronic
mail.--It shall be unlawful for any person to initiate the
transmission of a commercial electronic mail message to any
person within the United States unless such message contains
a valid electronic mail address, conspicuously displayed, to
which a recipient may send a reply to the initiator to
indicate a desire not to receive any further messages.
(2) Prohibition of transmission of unsolicited commercial
electronic mail after objection.--If a recipient makes a
request to a person to be removed from all distribution lists
under the control of such person, it shall be unlawful for
such person to initiate the transmission of an unsolicited
commercial electronic mail message to such a recipient within
the United States after the expiration, after receipt of such
request, of a reasonable period of time for removal from such
lists. Such a request shall be deemed to terminate a pre-
existing business relationship for purposes of determining
whether subsequent messages are unsolicited commercial
electronic mail messages.
(3) Inclusion of identifier and opt-out in unsolicited
commercial electronic mail.--It shall be unlawful for any
person to initiate the transmission of any unsolicited
commercial electronic mail message to any person within the
United States unless the message provides, in a manner that
is clear and conspicuous to the recipient--
(A) identification that the message is an unsolicited
commercial electronic mail message; and
(B) notice of the opportunity under paragraph (2) not to
receive further unsolicited commercial electronic mail
messages from the initiator.
(b) Enforcement of Policies by Internet Access Service
Providers.--
(1) Prohibition of transmissions in violation of posted
policy.--It shall be unlawful for any person to initiate the
transmission of an unsolicited commercial electronic mail
message to any person within the United States in violation
of a policy governing the use of the equipment of a provider
of Internet access service for transmission of unsolicited
commercial electronic mail messages that meets the
requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Requirements for enforceability.--The requirements
under this paragraph for a policy regarding unsolicited
commercial electronic mail messages are as follows:
(A) Clarity.--The policy shall explicitly provide that
compliance with a rule or set of rules is a condition of use
of the equipment of a provider of Internet access service to
deliver commercial electronic mail messages.
(B) Publicly availability.--The policy shall be publicly
available by at least one of the following methods:
(i) Web posting.--The policy is clearly and conspicuously
posted on a World Wide Web site of the provider of Internet
access service, which has an Internet domain name that is
identical to the Internet domain name of the electronic mail
address to which the rule or set of rules applies.
(ii) Notification in compliance with technological
standard.--Such policy is made publicly available by the
provider of Internet access service in accordance with a
technological standard adopted by an appropriate Internet
standards setting body (such as the Internet Engineering Task
Force) and recognized by the Commission by rule as a fair
standard.
(C) Internal opt-out list.--If the policy of a provider of
Internet access service requires compensation specifically
for the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic
mail messages into its system, the provider shall provide an
option to its subscribers not to receive any unsolicited
commercial electronic mail messages, except that such option
is not required for any subscriber who has agreed to receive
unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages in exchange
for discounted or free Internet access service.
(3) Other enforcement.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prevent or limit, in any way, a provider of
Internet access service from enforcing, pursuant to any
remedy available under any other provision of Federal, State,
or local criminal or civil law, a policy regarding
unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages.
(c) Protection of Internet Access Service Providers.--
(1) Good faith efforts to block transmissions.--A provider
of Internet access service shall not be liable, under any
Federal, State, or local civil or criminal law, for any
action it takes in good faith to block the transmission or
receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages.
(2) Innocent Retransmission.--A provider of Internet access
service the facilities of which are used only to handle,
transmit, retransmit, or relay an unsolicited commercial
electronic mail message transmitted in violation of
subsection (a) shall not be liable for any harm resulting
from the transmission or receipt of such message unless such
provider permits the transmission or retransmission of such
message with actual knowledge that the transmission is
prohibited by subsection (a) or subsection (b)(1).

SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Governmental Order.--
(1) Notification of alleged violation.--The Commission
shall send a notification of alleged violation to any person
who violates section 5 if--
(A) a recipient or a provider of Internet access service
notifies the Commission, in such form and manner as the
Commission shall determine, that a transmission has been
received in violation of section 5; or
(B) the Commission has other reason to believe that such
person has violated or is violating section 5.
(2) Terms of notification.--A notification of alleged
violation shall--
(A) identify the violation for which the notification was
issued;
(B) direct the initiator to refrain from further violations
of section 5;
(C) expressly prohibit the initiator (and the agents or
assigns of the initiator) from further initiating unsolicited
commercial

[[Page H6371]]

electronic mail messages in violation of section 5 to the
designated recipients or providers of Internet access
service, effective on the 3rd day (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal public holidays) after receipt of the
notification; and
(D) direct the initiator (and the agents or assigns of the
initiator) to delete immediately the names and electronic
mail addresses of the designated recipients or providers from
all mailing lists owned or controlled by the initiator (or
such agents or assigns) and prohibit the initiator (and such
agents or assigns) from the sale, lease, exchange, license,
or other transaction involving mailing lists bearing the
names and electronic mail addresses of the designated
recipients or providers.
(3) Coverage of minor children by notification.--Upon
request of a recipient of an electronic mail message
transmitted in violation of section 5, the Commission shall
include in the notification of alleged violation the names
and electronic mail addresses of any child of the recipient.
(4) Enforcement of notification terms.--
(A) Complaint.--If the Commission believes that the
initiator (or the agents or assigns of the initiator) has
failed to comply with the terms of a notification issued
under this subsection, the Commission shall serve upon the
initiator (or such agents or assigns), by registered or
certified mail, a complaint stating the reasons for its
belief and request that any response thereto be filed in
writing with the Commission within 15 days after the date of
such service.
(B) Hearing and order.--If the Commission, after an
opportunity for a hearing on the record, determines that the
person upon whom the complaint was served violated the terms
of the notification, the Commission shall issue an order
directing that person to comply with the terms of the
notification.
(C) Presumption.--For purposes of a determination under
subparagraph (B), receipt of any transmission in violation of
a notification of alleged violation 30 days (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) or more after
the effective date of the notification shall create a
rebuttable presumption that such transmission was sent after
such effective date.
(5) Enforcement by court order.--Any district court of the
United States within the jurisdiction of which any
transmission is sent or received in violation of a
notification given under this subsection shall have
jurisdiction, upon application by the Attorney General, to
issue an order commanding compliance with such notification.
Failure to observe such order may be punishable by the court
as contempt thereof.
(b) Private Right of Action.--
(1) Actions authorized.--A recipient or a provider of
Internet access service may, if otherwise permitted by the
laws or rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate
court of that State, or may bring in an appropriate Federal
court if such laws or rules do not so permit, either or both
of the following actions:
(A) An action based on a violation of section 5 to enjoin
such violation.
(B) An action to recover for actual monetary loss from such
a violation in an amount equal to the greatest of--
(i) the amount of such actual monetary loss; or
(ii) $500 for each such violation, not to exceed a total of
$50,000.
(2) Additional remedies.--If the court finds that the
defendant willfully, knowingly, or repeatedly violated
section 5, the court may, in its discretion, increase the
amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than three
times the amount available under paragraph (1).
(3) Attorney Fees.--In any such action, the court may, in
its discretion, require an undertaking for the payment of the
costs of such action, and assess reasonable costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, against any party.
(4) Protection of trade secrets.--At the request of any
party to an action brought pursuant to this subsection or any
other participant in such an action, the court may, in its
discretion, issue protective orders and conduct legal
proceedings in such a way as to protect the secrecy and
security of the computer, computer network, computer data,
computer program, and computer software involved in order to
prevent possible recurrence of the same or a similar act by
another person and to protect any trade secrets of any such
party or participant.

SEC. 7. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

(a) Federal Law.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of the
Communications Act of 1934, chapter 71 (relating to
obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of
children) of title 18, United States Code, or any other
Federal criminal statute.
(b) State Law.--No State or local government may impose any
civil liability for commercial activities or actions in
interstate or foreign commerce in connection with an activity
or action described in section 5 of this Act that is
inconsistent with the treatment of such activities or actions
under this Act, except that this Act shall not preempt any
civil remedy under State trespass or contract law or under
any provision of Federal, State, or local criminal law or any
civil remedy available under such law that relates to acts of
computer fraud or abuse arising from the unauthorized
transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail
messages.

SEC. 8. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC
MAIL.

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall submit a report
to the Congress that provides a detailed analysis of the
effectiveness and enforcement of the provisions of this Act
and the need (if any) for the Congress to modify such
provisions.

SEC. 9 SEPARABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of
this Act and the application of such provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

General Leave

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 3113, and to insert extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us incorporates the text of
H.R. 3113, which is sponsored by myself and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green) and which passed the Committee on Commerce. It also
incorporates language from H.R. 1686, the bill of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), which creates misdemeanor criminal penalties
for fraudulent e-mail schemes. It also makes some technical and
conforming changes to the committee bill.
There are a lot of thanks that are due for this bill. I would like to
thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) from the Committee
on Commerce and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) from the
Committee on the Judiciary; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell),
ranking member from Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman McCollum) from the Subcommittee on Crime; as well as the
gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) from the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection; and, of course, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green); and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gary Miller) who have worked very hard on this bill.
There are a number of staff members who also have worked hard, and
they often do not get much credit around here, so I would like to thank
them: Justin Lilley from the office of the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Bliley); Andy Levin from the office of Mr. Dingell; Teddy
Jones with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); John Dudas with
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); Patrick Woehrle, who works with
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green); Ben Cline from the office of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte); Steve Cope, the Legislative
Counsel; Paul Callen, the Legislative Counsel; Cliff Riccio; and, of
course, my staff member, Luke Rose.
The Internet community in New Mexico also deserves a lot of thanks in
teaching me about this problem. But I want to talk a little bit about
the problem. The most annoying thing about the Internet is junk e-mail.
But it goes beyond just annoying. It also causes tremendous cost to
Internet service providers.
Steven Fox is a CEO of a little company in Albuquerque called
Associated Information Services. He has 2,000 clients. This is a mom-
and-pop Internet service provider. They get about 4,000 e-mails a day
generally. But he has been fighting to keep his servers from crashing
because they were under a spam attack, getting 400,000 to 2 million e-
mails a day, clogging up their computers.
The estimates are that junk e-mail costs the Internet service
provider companies $1 billion a year and a whole lot of hassle. But it
goes beyond just the hassle and the cost. Three out of every 10 junk e-
mails is pornographic.
I first became aware of this problem shortly after I was elected when
I

[[Page H6372]]

started getting junk e-mail. The first one had a subject line that said
``What your Federal Government does not want you to know.'' Thinking
that this is from one of my constituents who is telling me about yet
another failure of the Federal Government, I opened it and found myself
in an X-rated e-mail Web site. Well, I guess maybe my Federal
Government does not want me to know what naked women look like. That is
what I concluded from that.
But I also concluded that that is something that I did not want my
children to see if they got an e-mail that said ``new toys on the
market''. That is the problem.
As I found out, as a consumer, one has no right to say do not send me
any more of this. It is very likely that the return e-mail address is
not accurate anyway; and that, as soon as one replies to it, it
validates one's e-mail address, and they sell it to somebody else.
This bill requires a valid return address on unsolicited commercial
e-mail. It allows Internet service providers to set and enforce
policies including having spam-free Internet service providers. It
requires that unsolicited commercial e-mail be labeled, and it requires
that people who send unsolicited commercial e-mail respect a consumer's
request to be taken off the list.
There is a right of free speech in this country, including commercial
free speech on the Internet, but there is no right to force us to
listen or to force us to pay the cost of junk e-mail. That is what this
bill will take care of.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
3113, the Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act.
As one of the principal authors of the legislation, along with the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), I am very pleased that the
House of Representatives will act on this important piece of Internet
legislation today.
Over the last decade, Americans have witnessed the development of the
Internet and the many associated applications that now make our daily
lives easier and more efficient. However, this movement to cyberspace
has not occurred without problems.
As more and more people move online, their need for privacy and data
management becomes paramount. Just as the Internet provides a
personalized window looking out to work and shop through, it can be
used by strangers to look into our personal habits and information.
H.R. 3113 will be the first line of defense against people trying to
look into our private lives. The legislation's primary function is to
stop individuals and companies from forcing unwanted e-mail messages on
to our computers.
Typically, these messages are advertisements for anything from dog
food to pornography and, in many cases, come in disguised formats that
make the consumer believe the message contains innocent information, as
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) mentioned.
It is only after these messages are delivered and opened that the
consumer realizes they have just received a junk e-mail or better known
as spam.
Because the Internet provides a low-cost method of advertising, many
advertisers tap this technology to send millions of unwanted messages
to consumers through the Internet service providers, the ISP.
While these messages may cost the sender almost nothing to initiate,
the ISP and the consumer both lose time and money carrying and deleting
these messages.
H.R. 3113 limits the ability of spammers to force their messages by
forcing spammers to have a clear and conspicuous label on their
messages so consumer and ISPs have an easier time identifying and
deleting these messages; making sure spammers send clear and accurate
router and return address information on their messages so consumers
can respond to their message to opt out of future advertisements;
providing consumers with the option to opt out reinforced by the
ability to seek civil damages for any future violation. Once a consumer
requests that their name be taken off whatever list a spammer is using,
any further spam messages could result in court action. Allowing ISPs
and consumers to initiate civil actions to seek damages from spammers
is our last effort.
Taken as a whole, all these provisions empower consumers and our ISPs
with the ability to protect both their privacy and their resources.
One point I want to make very clear is spam is not free. Millions of
spam messages dumped into an ISP can degrade the system speeds while
the servers and routers try to deliver this mail, and consumers waste,
must waste time and energy deleting these messages from their computer.
For those Members that may be concerned with the legislation's impact
on the first amendment to the bill, it deals only with unsolicited
commercial e-mail. This bill would not have any effect on nonprofit
fund-raising or any other type of e-mail communications that is not
commercially related.
Mr. Speaker, since the problem spam was brought to my attention
several years ago in a town hall meeting in my own district, I made it
a priority to try and correct the problem we have with the Internet and
return it back to my constituents.
H.R. 3113 is a tool that can now be used to filter and stop unwanted
intrusions in our home and offices.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson) in thanking many of the members and the staff
particularly for their work on this. I would like to thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member, for all of their support in
getting this legislation passed out of the full Committee on Commerce
by unanimous consent.
This is an important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of stopping Internet spam.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3113, a bill
which, for the first time, puts in place meaningful consumer
protections against the receipt of spam or unsolicited commercial e-
mail.
It is important, first of all, to recognize this is a truly
bipartisan effort, 100 percent of the way, 100 percent of the time.
Back in November of last year, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs.
Wilson), who I want to congratulate today, and as flowery a term as I
can possibly imagine, she has done Herculean work to bring this to the
floor. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), like the gentlewoman from
New Mexico, has worked so hard in putting together the final
compromises.
The gentleman from California (Gary Miller) who came to us earlier
and asked for our consideration of his measure which has now played a
significant role in the final version of this bill, along, of course,
with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman, and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member, of our
committee, who have done such a good job to bring this to the floor
today.
We reported the bill out of subcommittee by unanimous vote, and the
same thing happened in full committee, all in voice votes, indicating
strong support for this bill.
It addresses the substantive concerns of the Committee on the
Judiciary as well, by the way. It makes the appropriate adjustments to
title XVIII, which was proposed by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), which criminalizes certain egregious spamming activities
that will not necessarily be deterred by civil penalties.

{time} 1030

In effect, this consensus legislation will protect consumers without
infringing upon constitutionally protected commercial speech. It does
so by providing consumers layers of protection that, on an aggregate
basis, empower

[[Page H6373]]

the consumers to rid themselves of spam without imposing an outright
ban on unsolicited electronic mail.
First, consumers will have a choice in the marketplace between the
ISPs who accept spam and those who do not. Second, if a consumer
subscribes to an ISP that does accept spam for dissemination, that
consumer will have the right to be placed on an op-out list
administered by the ISP so spam will not be received. And, third, where
a consumer not wishing still happens to receive spam, the bill requires
that all spam messages contain a valid electronic mail address to which
the recipient can send a reply saying no further messages.
Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation; I urge its adoption on the
House floor.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gary Miller), who was not only a leader in pulling this
legislation together here in the House but also in California before he
was elected, and I would also like to personally thank him for his
assistance.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it does not cost any more
money to send a million e-mails than it does to send one, and that has
created a skewed incentive that is harming the Internet with spam.
This is a very important issue to me. I really want to thank the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson). She has been a joy to work
with, and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) on the Democratic
side. But the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), his input has been
invaluable and his commitment to getting this bill to the floor has
caused this bill to be heard today.
I originally became involved in this issue 4 years ago when a
constituent of mine was harmed by spam. The e-mail address for his
computer business was used as a false return address for spam. His
business basically was shut down for days because hundreds of thousands
of responses came back and, basically, also sent from expired
addresses.
This is simply an issue of unfair cost shifting. More than 90 percent
of Internet users receive spam at least weekly. Thirty percent of
America Online traffic is spam. For SBC communications, 35 percent of
all their e-mail traffic is spam. Out of the 2 million spam messages
collected by the spam Recycle Center, over 30 percent was pornography.
Many parents are tired of their children pulling up e-mail messages
saying ``sorry I missed you,'' just to find out it is a pornographic
response to something. Thirty percent of the get-rich schemes come
through spam also, many of which target senior citizens. Much of the
rest of these solicitations include selling information on how to
become a spammer, gambling, or weight loss.
Advertisers are shifting their costs on to our constituents, and that
is why we need to give Internet service providers and individuals the
tools to protect themselves.
When I became a California State assemblyman, my legislation to allow
Internet service providers to protect themselves from spammers became
law. Internet service providers have been enforcing this anti-spam
policy in court in California; and in most cases, they settle out of
court and spammers stop spamming individuals.
Federal legislation is necessary. The part of this legislation that I
have worked most hard on says Internet service providers can have a
policy regarding spam; they can have it conspicuously posted on their
policy; and they can enforce that policy in court and collect damages
from spammers, $500 per message, capped at $25,000 per day. This forces
a spammer to gain permission from the ISP or the individual recipient
before the advertiser trespasses on someone's computer equipment.
It is the responsibility of Congress to stop unfair cost shifting
that harms our constituents. We did it with faxes, and the problem is
even more urgent with e-mail. By allowing ISPs and individuals to
control spam, we will take away the ability of fly-by-night advertisers
from sending something we do not want in our homes and then forcing us
to pay for it. That is the ultimate insult, and it needs to be
corrected. It is as bad as having somebody bill us for the junk mail we
receive at home at the end of each month.
This legislation is a market-based consumer protection solution to a
skewed incentive on the Internet. I urge all my colleagues to support
Internet consumers, Internet service providers and e-commerce by
supporting this legislation.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Internet spam will never go away. However, by passing
this legislation we will be taking the first steps towards limiting its
impact on the overwhelmed e-mail users everywhere.
It is my hope, as the provisions of this legislation begin to take
effect, that private industry will continue to develop better and more
effective software to combat spam. Our ultimate goal is to intercept
and delete spam before it ever reaches the consumer's mailbox, if that
is the consumer's decision. If it does make it to the recipient, then
filtering software on our personal computers can take care of it.
This bill, though, will not affect those consumers who wish to
receive commercial solicitations over the Internet. For those of us who
are tired of opening innocent looking e-mails only to find an
advertisement for a porn site, this legislation will hopefully curb
those unwanted and objectionable messages.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), for her efforts on this legislation; and I hope
the other body will act quickly to pass this important consumer
protection measure.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The creation and the growth of the Internet has been one of the most
important developments of the second half of the 20th century. It
started out as an academic research tool in the 1960s, then moved to
the defense world. The Internet today has become the global
communications, information, entertainment and commercial medium. All
of us want to see electronic commerce flourish, and the Committee on
Commerce particularly is focused on making sure that interstate and
international commerce remains as free and as open as possible.
In 1996, consumers spent just $2.6 billion in on-line transactions
compared to more than $50 billion in 1999. That explosive growth will
continue. But there are some things about the new medium which create
problems for consumers: when someone tries to commit fraud over the
Internet; when someone tries to shift costs from the person making and
selling a product to those who are carrying the e-mail; and, of course,
the right of consumers to say there are some things that I just do not
want to have in my in-box.
The reality is, with regular mail, we have rights under Federal law
to say I do not want any more of that sent to my mailbox at the end of
my road. But we do not have that right with Internet communications and
with e-mail. This bill will give us that right, as consumers and as
parents, to say there are some things I do not want to see in my in-
box.
I am very pleased that we were able to accomplish it. I thank the
gentleman from Texas for his cooperation and his help, and the
gentleman from California, as well as all of the members of the
subcommittee and of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important
consumer protection measure. My congratulations go to Representatives
Green and Wilson, who together have crafted a solution to this
insidious problem on the Internet known as ``spam.''
Spam, or unsolicited commercial e-mail, is no longer a mere nuisance
to the 40 million Americans who use the Internet. It has rapidly become
an abusive practice whereby innocent users are bombarded with
commercial messages over which they have no control.
Worse, the content of these messages is often pornographic. So-called
``teaser'' images often appear out of nowhere, inviting the recipient
to visit one adult site on the Web or another. For many people,
especially families who share a computer, these spam messages are more
than an intrusion, they are a personal assault.
Spam also imposes real economic costs on Internet users. Many
consumers, particularly in rural areas, pay long distance charges when
connecting to the Internet. The time spent downloading these unwanted
messages translates into real dollars and cents paid by the

[[Page H6374]]

consumer. And, of course, the slower the Internet connection, the
greater the tab.
The consumer also pays for spam through higher costs incurred by
Internet Service Providers, or ``ISPs.'' The exponential growth in spam
leaves ISPs with no choice but to expand their server capacity to
accommodate the heavier traffic. These investments pose a significant,
but unavoidable, burden on ISPs that many must pass along to consumers.
H.R. 3113 is a common-sense approach that will go far to putting an
end to this practice. First, it permits an ISP to legally enforce its
own policy with regard to whether it will accept spam or not. This
protects ISPs and consumers alike. Second, it allows consumers to opt-
out of receiving spam from individual senders. And finally, it empowers
consumers to ``just say no'' to receiving future messages from a
particular company when he or she has had enough.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to commend my colleagues for their diligent
efforts.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3113, The
Unsolicited E-Mail Act.
The problem of junk e-mail is reaching epidemic proportions. I've
received hundreds of calls and letters from constituents in my
congressional district pleading with me to do something about the spam
that plagues their computers.
In Silicon Valley, where e-mail is often the communication medium of
choice, deleting unwanted messages has posed a significant time and
financial burden.
More importantly, the proliferation of unwanted e-mail messages has
raised real privacy concerns.
In 1991, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to
restrict the use of automated, prerecorded telephone calls and
unsolicited commercial faxes on the grounds that they were a nuisance
and an invasion of privacy. Shouldn't we provide the same level of
protection for e-mail?
Unwanted e-mail also poses a significant burden on the Internet
infrastructure and on companies providing Internet access services.
Unwanted and unwelcome data have flooded ISPs, considerably increasing
their costs for network bandwidth, processing e-mail, and staff time.
H.R. 3113 offers a balanced and effective approach to the junk e-mail
problem by ensuring that providers and consumers control their own
mailboxes, and still allowing businesses to market by e-mail to the
millions of consumers who desire it.
I urge my colleagues to support this thoughtful bill.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3313, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mrs. WILSON. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________