[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[House]
[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.

                          ____________________