[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 6, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE NETIZENS PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 5, 1999

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the 
introduction of the Netizens Protection Act of 1999. This legislation 
is carefully tailored to protect consumers and Internet Service 
Providers (ISPs) from the costs and inconvenience of unsolicited e-
mail.
  My bill allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to take legal action 
against someone who uses their equipment or facilities--without their 
permission--to initiate the bulk transmission of unsolicited electronic 
messages. Equally important, it would also permit consumers to take 
action against someone who sent them unsolicited e-mail, so-called 
spam.
  The bill is based on a simple principle of fairness: consumers should 
not have to pay for unwanted messages and neither should their ISP. 
Spam is not just a nuisance that can be cured by the judicious use of 
the delete key. Spam literally forces you to pay for the costs of some 
other person's advertisement--it is like getting a piece of junk mail 
and then having to pay for the cost of the stamp. Spam exposes you to 
dangerous viruses that can damage files or harm computer hardware. Spam 
often consists of illegal pyramid schemes and frequently contains 
illegal child pornography.
  Moreover, even if an Internet user is not paying for the additional 
time online to retrieve unwanted mail, they are still being charged a 
higher rate by their ISP for filter services and larger band-widths to 
combat ``junk e-mail.'' Unwanted e-mail is costly to both the provider 
and consumer. The problem is that unlike regular junk mail, where the 
sender pays for the costs, spam shifts the costs from the sender to the 
recipient.
  My legislation would require anyone sending an unsolicited electronic 
message to provide a name, a physical mailing address, and the 
electronic mail address of the person who initiated the message, along 
with a method by which the recipient of the message could contact the 
transmitter of the electronic mail to request that no further messages 
be sent. If someone was sent unsolicited e-mail from someone they 
contacted to request no further mail be sent, they could pursue legal 
action to recover treble damages.
  Along with empowering the consumer to take action against spam, my 
bill also allows ISP's to seek legal remedies if someone violates their 
policies against unsolicited electronic mail messaging. Additionally, 
ISP's would be required to explain their unsolicited e-mail policies in 
simple terms so spammers could be forewarned and users could make an 
informed decision about what ISP to use, as well as whether they wanted 
unsolicited e-mail blocked. Consumers would and should be able to 
decide whether they want to receive unsolicited e-mail. My bill does 
that. Furthermore, the consumer would be able to take legal action if a 
spammer did not respect their wishes under the Netizens Protection Act.
  The Netizens Protection Act is directed at the big spammers who tie-
up networks with thousands upon thousands of messages. It would not go 
after someone who just sent a few messages either inadvertently or even 
intentionally. Language in my bill would allow someone to send up to 50 
identical or substantially similar messages to recipients within a 
seven day period.
  My legislation would also not interfere with or affect direct e-mail 
advertising or marketing. All avenues of legitimate direct marketing 
would remain. If any previous business relationship existed between the 
e-mailer and the e-mail recipient, my legislation would not affect the 
e-mail transaction. For example, if someone made a purchase at a retail 
store, a business relationship would exist, so that retailer could send 
e-mail updates to that customer and still maintain compliance with the 
Netizens Protection Act. Indeed, I believe that unless legislation is 
enacted to protect consumers from spam, it will discourage the 
expansion of Internet business and commerce.

                          ____________________