[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 30741-30753]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKETING ACT 
                                OF 2003

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 877) to regulate interstate commerce by imposing 
limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial 
electronic mail via the Internet, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 S. 877

       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 ``Controlling the Assault of 
     Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003'', or the 
     ``CAN-SPAM Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Electronic mail has become an extremely important and 
     popular means of communication, relied on by millions of 
     Americans on a daily basis for personal and commercial 
     purposes. Its low cost and global reach make it extremely 
     convenient and efficient, and offer unique opportunities for 
     the development and growth of frictionless commerce.
       (2) The convenience and efficiency of electronic mail are 
     threatened by the extremely rapid growth in the volume of 
     unsolicited commercial electronic mail. Unsolicited 
     commercial electronic mail is currently estimated to account 
     for over half of all electronic mail traffic, up from an 
     estimated 7 percent in 2001, and the volume continues to 
     rise. Most of these messages are fraudulent or deceptive in 
     one or more respects.
       (3) 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.
       (4) The receipt of a large number of unwanted messages also 
     decreases the convenience of electronic mail and creates a 
     risk that wanted electronic mail messages, both commercial 
     and noncommercial, will be lost, overlooked, or discarded 
     amidst the larger volume of unwanted messages, thus reducing 
     the reliability and usefulness of electronic mail to the 
     recipient.
       (5) Some commercial electronic mail contains material that 
     many recipients may consider vulgar or pornographic in 
     nature.
       (6) The growth in unsolicited commercial electronic mail 
     imposes significant monetary costs on providers of 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 in 
     infrastructure.
       (7) Many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail 
     purposefully disguise the source of such mail.
       (8) Many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail 
     purposefully include misleading information in the message's 
     subject lines in order to induce the recipients to view the 
     messages.
       (9) While some senders of commercial electronic mail 
     messages provide simple and reliable ways for recipients to 
     reject (or ``opt-out'' of) receipt of 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.
       (10) Many senders of bulk unsolicited commercial electronic 
     mail use computer programs to gather large numbers of 
     electronic mail addresses on an automated basis from Internet 
     websites or online services where users must post their 
     addresses in order to make full use of the website or 
     service.
       (11) Many States have enacted legislation intended to 
     regulate or reduce unsolicited commercial electronic mail, 
     but these statutes impose different standards and 
     requirements. As a result, they do not appear to have been 
     successful in addressing the problems associated with 
     unsolicited commercial electronic mail, in part because, 
     since an electronic mail address does not specify a 
     geographic location, it can be extremely difficult for law-
     abiding businesses to know with which of these disparate 
     statutes they are required to comply.
       (12) The problems associated with the rapid growth and 
     abuse of unsolicited commercial electronic mail cannot be 
     solved by Federal legislation alone. The development and 
     adoption of technological approaches and the pursuit of 
     cooperative efforts with other countries will be necessary as 
     well.
       (b) Congressional Determination of Public Policy.--On the 
     basis of the findings in subsection (a), the Congress 
     determines that--
       (1) there is a substantial government interest in 
     regulation of commercial electronic mail on a nationwide 
     basis;
       (2) senders of commercial electronic mail should not 
     mislead recipients as to the source or content of such mail; 
     and
       (3) recipients of commercial electronic mail have a right 
     to decline to receive additional commercial electronic mail 
     from the same source.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Affirmative consent.--The term ``affirmative consent'', 
     when used with respect to a commercial electronic mail 
     message, means that--
       (A) the recipient expressly consented to receive the 
     message, either in response to a clear and conspicuous 
     request for such consent or at the recipient's own 
     initiative; and
       (B) if the message is from a party other than the party to 
     which the recipient communicated such consent, the recipient 
     was given clear and conspicuous notice at the time the 
     consent was communicated that the recipient's electronic mail 
     address could be transferred to such other party for the 
     purpose of initiating commercial electronic mail messages.
       (2) Commercial electronic mail message.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``commercial electronic mail 
     message'' means any electronic mail message the primary 
     purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion 
     of a commercial product or service (including content on an 
     Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).
       (B) Transactional or relationship messages.--The term 
     ``commercial electronic

[[Page 30742]]

     mail message'' does not include a transactional or 
     relationship message.
       (C) Regulations regarding primary purpose.--Not later than 
     12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall issue regulations pursuant to section 13 
     further defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the 
     determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail 
     message.
       (D) Reference to company or website.--The inclusion of a 
     reference to a commercial entity or a link to the website of 
     a commercial entity in an electronic mail message does not, 
     by itself, cause such message to be treated as a commercial 
     electronic mail message for purposes of this Act if the 
     contents or circumstances of the message indicate a primary 
     purpose other than commercial advertisement or promotion of a 
     commercial product or service.
       (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.--The term ``electronic mail 
     address'' means a destination, commonly expressed as a string 
     of characters, consisting of a unique 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''), whether or not displayed, to which an electronic 
     mail message can be sent or delivered.
       (6) Electronic mail message.--The term ``electronic mail 
     message'' means a message sent to a unique electronic mail 
     address.
       (7) FTC act.--The term ``FTC Act'' means the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
       (8) Header information.--The term ``header information'' 
     means the source, destination, and routing information 
     attached to an electronic mail message, including the 
     originating domain name and originating electronic mail 
     address, and any other information that appears in the line 
     identifying, or purporting to identify, a person initiating 
     the message.
       (9) Initiate.--The term ``initiate'', when used with 
     respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means to 
     originate or transmit such message or to procure the 
     origination or transmission of such message, but shall not 
     include actions that constitute routine conveyance of such 
     message. For purposes of this paragraph, more than 1 person 
     may be considered to have initiated a message.
       (10) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given 
     that term in the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 nt).
       (11) 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)).
       (12) Procure.--The term ``procure'', when used with respect 
     to the initiation of a commercial electronic mail message, 
     means intentionally to pay or provide other consideration to, 
     or induce, another person to initiate such a message on one's 
     behalf.
       (13) Protected computer.--The term ``protected computer'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 1030(e)(2)(B) of 
     title 18, United States Code.
       (14) Recipient.--The term ``recipient'', when used with 
     respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means an 
     authorized user of the electronic mail address to which the 
     message was sent or delivered. If a recipient of a commercial 
     electronic mail message has 1 or more electronic mail 
     addresses in addition to the address to which the message was 
     sent or delivered, the recipient shall be treated as a 
     separate recipient with respect to each such address. If an 
     electronic mail address is reassigned to a new user, the new 
     user shall not be treated as a recipient of any commercial 
     electronic mail message sent or delivered to that address 
     before it was reassigned.
       (15) Routine conveyance.--The term ``routine conveyance'' 
     means the transmission, routing, relaying, handling, or 
     storing, through an automatic technical process, of an 
     electronic mail message for which another person has 
     identified the recipients or provided the recipient 
     addresses.
       (16) Sender.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``sender'' means a person who initiates such a 
     message and whose product, service, or Internet web site is 
     advertised or promoted by the message.
       (B) Separate lines of business or divisions.--If an entity 
     operates through separate lines of business or divisions and 
     holds itself out to the recipient of the message, in 
     complying with the requirement under section 5(a)(5)(B), as 
     that particular line of business or division rather than as 
     the entity of which such line of business or division is a 
     part, then the line of business or the division shall be 
     treated as the sender of such message for purposes of this 
     Act.
       (17) Transactional or relationship message.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``transactional or relationship 
     message'' means an electronic mail message the primary 
     purpose of which is--
       (i) to facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial 
     transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter 
     into with the sender;
       (ii) to provide warranty information, product recall 
     information, or safety or security information with respect 
     to a commercial product or service used or purchased by the 
     recipient;
       (iii) to provide--

       (I) notification concerning a change in the terms or 
     features of;
       (II) notification of a change in the recipient's standing 
     or status with respect to; or
       (III) at regular periodic intervals, account balance 
     information or other type of account statement with respect 
     to,

     a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable 
     ongoing commercial relationship involving the ongoing 
     purchase or use by the recipient of products or services 
     offered by the sender;
       (iv) to provide information directly related to an 
     employment relationship or related benefit plan in which the 
     recipient is currently involved, participating, or enrolled; 
     or
       (v) to deliver goods or services, including product updates 
     or upgrades, that the recipient is entitled to receive under 
     the terms of a transaction that the recipient has previously 
     agreed to enter into with the sender.
       (B) Modification of definition.--The Commission by 
     regulation pursuant to section 13 may modify the definition 
     in subparagraph (A) to expand or contract the categories of 
     messages that are treated as transactional or relationship 
     messages for purposes of this Act to the extent that such 
     modification is necessary to accommodate changes in 
     electronic mail technology or practices and accomplish the 
     purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE COMMERCIAL 
                   E-MAIL.

       (a) Offense.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with 
       electronic mail

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly--
       ``(1) accesses a protected computer without authorization, 
     and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple 
     commercial electronic mail messages from or through such 
     computer,
       ``(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit 
     multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent 
     to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access 
     service, as to the origin of such messages,
       ``(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple 
     commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally 
     initiates the transmission of such messages,
       ``(4) registers, using information that materially 
     falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for 5 or 
     more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or 2 or 
     more domain names, and intentionally initiates the 
     transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages 
     from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or
       ``(5) falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or 
     the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5 
     or more Internet protocol addresses, and intentionally 
     initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic 
     mail messages from such addresses,

     or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Penalties.--The punishment for an offense under 
     subsection (a) is--
       ``(1) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more 
     than 5 years, or both, if--
       ``(A) the offense is committed in furtherance of any felony 
     under the laws of the United States or of any State; or
       ``(B) the defendant has previously been convicted under 
     this section or section 1030, or under the law of any State 
     for conduct involving the transmission of multiple commercial 
     electronic mail messages or unauthorized access to a computer 
     system;
       ``(2) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more 
     than 3 years, or both, if--
       ``(A) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(1);
       ``(B) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) and 
     involved 20 or more falsified electronic mail or online user 
     account registrations, or 10 or more falsified domain name 
     registrations;
       ``(C) the volume of electronic mail messages transmitted in 
     furtherance of the offense exceeded 2,500 during any 24-hour 
     period, 25,000 during any 30-day period, or 250,000 during 
     any 1-year period;
       ``(D) the offense caused loss to 1 or more persons 
     aggregating $5,000 or more in value during any 1-year period;
       ``(E) as a result of the offense any individual committing 
     the offense obtained anything of value aggregating $5,000 or 
     more during any 1-year period; or
       ``(F) the offense was undertaken by the defendant in 
     concert with 3 or more other persons with respect to whom the 
     defendant occupied a position of organizer or leader; and
       ``(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 
     than 1 year, or both, in any other case.

[[Page 30743]]

       ``(c) Forfeiture.--
       ``(1) In general.--The court, in imposing sentence on a 
     person who is convicted of an offense under this section, 
     shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States--
       ``(A) any property, real or personal, constituting or 
     traceable to gross proceeds obtained from such offense; and
       ``(B) any equipment, software, or other technology used or 
     intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission 
     of such offense.
       ``(2) Procedures.--The procedures set forth in section 413 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), other than 
     subsection (d) of that section, and in Rule 32.2 of the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall apply to all 
     stages of a criminal forfeiture proceeding under this 
     section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Loss.--The term `loss' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 1030(e) of this title.
       ``(2) Materially.--For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     of subsection (a), header information or registration 
     information is materially misleading if it is altered or 
     concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a 
     recipient of the message, an Internet access service 
     processing the message on behalf of a recipient, a person 
     alleging a violation of this section, or a law enforcement 
     agency to identify, locate, or respond to a person who 
     initiated the electronic mail message or to investigate the 
     alleged violation.
       ``(3) Multiple.--The term `multiple' means more than 100 
     electronic mail messages during a 24-hour period, more than 
     1,000 electronic mail messages during a 30-day period, or 
     more than 10,000 electronic mail messages during a 1-year 
     period.
       ``(4) Other terms.--Any other term has the meaning given 
     that term by section 3 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``Sec.
``1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic 
              mail.''.

       (b) United States Sentencing Commission.--
       (1) Directive.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance 
     with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall review and, as appropriate, amend the sentencing 
     guidelines and policy statements to provide appropriate 
     penalties for violations of section 1037 of title 18, United 
     States Code, as added by this section, and other offenses 
     that may be facilitated by the sending of large quantities of 
     unsolicited electronic mail.
       (2) Requirements.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Sentencing Commission shall consider providing sentencing 
     enhancements for--
       (A) those convicted under section 1037 of title 18, United 
     States Code, who--
       (i) obtained electronic mail addresses through improper 
     means, including--

       (I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a 
     website, proprietary service, or other online public forum 
     operated by another person, without the authorization of such 
     person; and
       (II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by 
     computer; or

       (ii) knew that the commercial electronic mail messages 
     involved in the offense contained or advertised an Internet 
     domain for which the registrant of the domain had provided 
     false registration information; and
       (B) those convicted of other offenses, including offenses 
     involving fraud, identity theft, obscenity, child 
     pornography, and the sexual exploitation of children, if such 
     offenses involved the sending of large quantities of 
     electronic mail.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who 
     distribute pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and 
     introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan horses into personal and 
     business computer systems; and
       (2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law 
     enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute those who send 
     bulk commercial e-mail to facilitate the commission of 
     Federal crimes, including the tools contained in chapters 47 
     and 63 of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and 
     false statements); chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to obscenity); chapter 110 of title 18, United 
     States Code (relating to the sexual exploitation of 
     children); and chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to racketeering), as appropriate.

     SEC. 5. OTHER PROTECTIONS FOR USERS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC 
                   MAIL.

       (a) Requirements for Transmission of Messages.--
       (1) Prohibition of false or misleading transmission 
     information.--It is unlawful for any person to initiate the 
     transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial 
     electronic mail message, or a transactional or relationship 
     message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header 
     information that is materially false or materially 
     misleading. For purposes of this paragraph--
       (A) header information that is technically accurate but 
     includes an originating electronic mail address, domain name, 
     or Internet protocol address the access to which for purposes 
     of initiating the message was obtained by means of false or 
     fraudulent pretenses or representations shall be considered 
     materially misleading;
       (B) a ``from'' line (the line identifying or purporting to 
     identify a person initiating the message) that accurately 
     identifies any person who initiated the message shall not be 
     considered materially false or materially misleading; and
       (C) header information shall be considered materially 
     misleading if it fails to identify accurately a protected 
     computer used to initiate the message because the person 
     initiating the message knowingly uses another protected 
     computer to relay or retransmit the message for purposes of 
     disguising its origin.
       (2) Prohibition of deceptive subject headings.--It is 
     unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission to a 
     protected computer of a commercial electronic mail message if 
     such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied 
     on the basis of objective circumstances, that a subject 
     heading of the message would be likely to mislead a 
     recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a 
     material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the 
     message (consistent with the criteria are used in enforcement 
     of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
     45)).
       (3) Inclusion of return address or comparable mechanism in 
     commercial electronic mail.--
       (A) In general.--It is unlawful for any person to initiate 
     the transmission to a protected computer of a commercial 
     electronic mail message that does not contain a functioning 
     return electronic mail address or other Internet-based 
     mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed, that--
       (i) a recipient may use to submit, in a manner specified in 
     the message, a reply electronic mail message or other form of 
     Internet-based communication requesting not to receive future 
     commercial electronic mail messages from that sender at the 
     electronic mail address where the message was received; and
       (ii) remains capable of receiving such messages or 
     communications for no less than 30 days after the 
     transmission of the original message.
       (B) More detailed options possible.--The person initiating 
     a commercial electronic mail message may comply with 
     subparagraph (A)(i) by providing the recipient a list or menu 
     from which the recipient may choose the specific types of 
     commercial electronic mail messages the recipient wants to 
     receive or does not want to receive from the sender, if the 
     list or menu includes an option under which the recipient may 
     choose not to receive any commercial electronic mail messages 
     from the sender.
       (C) Temporary inability to receive messages or process 
     requests.--A return electronic mail address or other 
     mechanism does not fail to satisfy the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A) if it is unexpectedly and temporarily unable 
     to receive messages or process requests due to a technical 
     problem beyond the control of the sender if the problem is 
     corrected within a reasonable time period.
       (4) Prohibition of transmission of commercial electronic 
     mail after objection.--
       (A) In general.--If a recipient makes a request using a 
     mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive 
     some or any commercial electronic mail messages from such 
     sender, then it is unlawful--
       (i) for the sender to initiate the transmission to the 
     recipient, more than 10 business days after the receipt of 
     such request, of a commercial electronic mail message that 
     falls within the scope of the request;
       (ii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to 
     initiate the transmission to the recipient, more than 10 
     business days after the receipt of such request, of a 
     commercial electronic mail message with actual knowledge, or 
     knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective 
     circumstances, that such message falls within the scope of 
     the request;
       (iii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to 
     assist in initiating the transmission to the recipient, 
     through the provision or selection of addresses to which the 
     message will be sent, of a commercial electronic mail message 
     with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the 
     basis of objective circumstances, that such message would 
     violate clause (i) or (ii); or
       (iv) for the sender, or any other person who knows that the 
     recipient has made such a request, to sell, lease, exchange, 
     or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address 
     of the recipient (including through any transaction or other 
     transfer involving mailing lists bearing the electronic mail 
     address of the recipient) for any purpose other than 
     compliance with this Act or other provision of law, except 
     where the recipient has given express consent.
       (B) Opt back in.--A prohibition in clause (i), (ii), or 
     (iii) of subparagraph (A) does not apply if there is 
     affirmative consent by the recipient subsequent to the 
     request under subparagraph (A).
       (5) Inclusion of identifier, opt-out, and physical address 
     in commercial electronic mail.--

[[Page 30744]]

       (A) It is unlawful for any person to initiate the 
     transmission of any commercial electronic mail message to a 
     protected computer unless the message provides--
       (i) clear and conspicuous identification that the message 
     is an advertisement or solicitation;
       (ii) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity under 
     paragraph (3) to decline to receive further commercial 
     electronic mail messages from the sender; and
       (iii) a valid physical postal address of the sender.
       (B) Subparagraph (A)(i) does not apply to the transmission 
     of a commercial electronic mail if the recipient has given 
     prior affirmative consent to receipt of the message.
       (6) Subsequent affirmative consent.--The prohibitions in 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) do not apply to the 
     initiation of transmission of commercial electronic mail to a 
     recipient who, subsequent to a request using a mechanism 
     provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive commercial 
     electronic mail messages from the sender, has granted 
     affirmative consent to the sender to recieve such messages.
       (7) Materially.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), header 
     information shall be considered to be materially misleading 
     if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair 
     the ability of an Internet access service processing the 
     message on behalf of a recipient, a person alleging a 
     violation of this section, or a law enforcement agency to 
     identify, locate, or respond to the person who initiated the 
     electronic mail message or to investigate the alleged 
     violation, or the ability of a recipient of the message to 
     respond to a person who initiated the electronic message.
       (b) Aggravated Violations Relating to Commercial Electronic 
     Mail.--
       (1) Address harvesting and dictionary attacks.--
       (A) In general.--It is unlawful for any person to initiate 
     the transmission, to a protected computer, of a commercial 
     electronic mail message that is unlawful under subsection 
     (a), or to assist in the origination of such message through 
     the provision or selection of addresses to which the message 
     will be transmitted, if such person had actual knowledge, or 
     knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective 
     circumstances, that--
       (i) the electronic mail address of the recipient was 
     obtained using an automated means from an Internet website or 
     proprietary online service operated by another person, and 
     such website or online service included, at the time the 
     address was obtained, a notice stating that the operator of 
     such website or online service will not give, sell, or 
     otherwise transfer addresses maintained by such website or 
     online service to any other party for the purposes of 
     initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail 
     messages; or
       (ii) the electronic mail address of the recipient was 
     obtained using an automated means that generates possible 
     electronic mail addresses by combining names, letters, or 
     numbers into numerous permutations.
       (B) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this paragraph creates an 
     ownership or proprietary interest in such electronic mail 
     addresses.
       (2) Automated creation of multiple electronic mail 
     accounts.--It is unlawful for any person to use scripts or 
     other automated means to register for multiple electronic 
     mail accounts or online user accounts from which to transmit 
     to a protected computer, or enable another person to transmit 
     to a protected computer, a commercial electronic mail message 
     that is unlawful under subsection (a).
       (3) Relay or retransmission through unauthorized access.--
     It is unlawful for any person knowingly to relay or 
     retransmit a commercial electronic mail message that is 
     unlawful under subsection (a) from a protected computer or 
     computer network that such person has accessed without 
     authorization.
       (c) Supplementary Rulemaking Authority.--The Commission 
     shall by rule, pursuant to section 13--
       (1) modify the 10-business-day period under subsection 
     (a)(4)(A) or subsection (a)(4)(B), or both, if the Commission 
     determines that a different period would be more reasonable 
     after taking into account--
       (A) the purposes of subsection (a);
       (B) the interests of recipients of commercial electronic 
     mail; and
       (C) the burdens imposed on senders of lawful commercial 
     electronic mail; and
       (2) specify additional activities or practices to which 
     subsection (b) applies if the Commission determines that 
     those activities or practices are contributing substantially 
     to the proliferation of commercial electronic mail messages 
     that are unlawful under subsection (a).
       (d) Requirement To Place Warning Labels on Commercial 
     Electronic Mail Containing Sexually Oriented Material.--
       (1) In general.--No person may initiate in or affecting 
     interstate commerce the transmission, to a protected 
     computer, of any commercial electronic mail message that 
     includes sexually oriented material and--
       (A) fail to include in subject heading for the electronic 
     mail message the marks or notices prescribed by the 
     Commission under this subsection; or
       (B) fail to provide that the matter in the message that is 
     initially viewable to the recipient, when the message is 
     opened by any recipient and absent any further actions by the 
     recipient, includes only--
       (i) to the extent required or authorized pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), any such marks or notices;
       (ii) the information required to be included in the message 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(5); and
       (iii) instructions on how to access, or a mechanism to 
     access, the sexually oriented material.
       (2) Prior affirmative consent.--Paragraph (1) does not 
     apply to the transmission of an electronic mail message if 
     the recipient has given prior affirmative consent to receipt 
     of the message.
       (3) Prescription of marks and notices.--Not later than 120 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission in consultation with the Attorney General shall 
     prescribe clearly identifiable marks or notices to be 
     included in or associated with commercial electronic mail 
     that contains sexually oriented material, in order to inform 
     the recipient of that fact and to facilitate filtering of 
     such electronic mail. The Commission shall publish in the 
     Federal Register and provide notice to the public of the 
     marks or notices prescribed under this paragraph.
       (4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``sexually 
     oriented material'' means any material that depicts sexually 
     explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256 of 
     title 18, United States Code), unless the depiction 
     constitutes a small and insignificant part of the whole, the 
     remainder of which is not primarily devoted to sexual 
     matters.
       (4) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly violates paragraph (1) 
     shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

     SEC. 6. BUSINESSES KNOWINGLY PROMOTED BY ELECTRONIC MAIL WITH 
                   FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--It is unlawful for a person to promote, or 
     allow the promotion of, that person's trade or business, or 
     goods, products, property, or services sold, offered for 
     sale, leased or offered for lease, or otherwise made 
     available through that trade or business, in a commercial 
     electronic mail message the transmission of which is in 
     violation of section 5(a)(1) if that person--
       (1) knows, or should have known in ordinary course of that 
     person's trade or business, that the goods, products, 
     property, or services sold, offered for sale, leased or 
     offered for lease, or otherwise made available through that 
     trade or business were being promoted in such a message;
       (2) received or expected to receive an economic benefit 
     from such promotion; and
       (3) took no reasonable action--
       (A) to prevent the transmission; or
       (B) to detect the transmission and report it to the 
     Commission.
       (b) Limited Enforcement Against Third Parties.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     person (hereinafter referred to as the ``third party'') that 
     provides goods, products, property, or services to another 
     person that violates subsection (a) shall not be held liable 
     for such violation.
       (2) Exception.--Liability for a violation of subsection (a) 
     shall be imputed to a third party that provides goods, 
     products, property, or services to another person that 
     violates subsection (a) if that third party--
       (A) owns, or has a greater than 50 percent ownership or 
     economic interest in, the trade or business of the person 
     that violated subsection (a); or
       (B)(i) has actual knowledge that goods, products, property, 
     or services are promoted in a commercial electronic mail 
     message the transmission of which is in violation of section 
     5(a)(1); and
       (ii) receives, or expects to receive, an economic benefit 
     from such promotion.
       (c) Exclusive Enforcement by FTC.--Subsections (f) and (g) 
     of section 7 do not apply to violations of this section.
       (d) Savings Provision.--Subject to section 7(f)(7), nothing 
     in this section may be construed to limit or prevent any 
     action that may be taken under this Act with respect to any 
     violation of any other section of this Act.

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT GENERALLY.

       (a) Violation Is Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice.--
     Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act shall be 
     enforced by the Commission as if the violation of this Act 
     were an unfair or deceptive act or practice proscribed under 
     section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
       (b) Enforcement by Certain Other Agencies.--Compliance with 
     this Act shall be enforced--
       (1) under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1818), in the case of--
       (A) national banks, and Federal branches and Federal 
     agencies of foreign banks, by the Office of the Comptroller 
     of the Currency;
       (B) member banks of the Federal Reserve System (other than 
     national banks), branches and agencies of foreign banks

[[Page 30745]]

     (other than Federal branches, Federal agencies, and insured 
     State branches of foreign banks), commercial lending 
     companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, organizations 
     operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 601 and 611), and bank holding companies, by the 
     Board;
       (C) banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation (other than members of the Federal Reserve 
     System) insured State branches of foreign banks, by the Board 
     of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; 
     and
       (D) savings associations the deposits of which are insured 
     by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, by the Director 
     of the Office of Thrift Supervision;
       (2) under the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et 
     seq.) by the Board of the National Credit Union 
     Administration with respect to any Federally insured credit 
     union;
       (3) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78a et seq.) by the Securities and Exchange Commission with 
     respect to any broker or dealer;
       (4) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
     80a-1 et seq.) by the Securities and Exchange Commission with 
     respect to investment companies;
       (5) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
     80b-1 et seq.) by the Securities and Exchange Commission with 
     respect to investment advisers registered under that Act;
       (6) under State insurance law in the case of any person 
     engaged in providing insurance, by the applicable State 
     insurance authority of the State in which the person is 
     domiciled, subject to section 104 of the Gramm-Bliley-Leach 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 6701), except that in any State in which the 
     State insurance authority elects not to exercise this power, 
     the enforcement authority pursuant to this Act shall be 
     exercised by the Commission in accordance with subsection 
     (a);
       (7) under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States 
     Code, by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to any 
     air carrier or foreign air carrier subject to that part;
       (8) under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 
     181 et seq.) (except as provided in section 406 of that Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 226, 227)), by the Secretary of Agriculture with 
     respect to any activities subject to that Act;
       (9) under the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2001 et 
     seq.) by the Farm Credit Administration with respect to any 
     Federal land bank, Federal land bank association, Federal 
     intermediate credit bank, or production credit association; 
     and
       (10) under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et 
     seq.) by the Federal Communications Commission with respect 
     to any person subject to the provisions of that Act.
       (c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--For the purpose of the 
     exercise by any agency referred to in subsection (b) of its 
     powers under any Act referred to in that subsection, a 
     violation of this Act is deemed to be a violation of a 
     Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule. In addition 
     to its powers under any provision of law specifically 
     referred to in subsection (b), each of the agencies referred 
     to in that subsection may exercise, for the purpose of 
     enforcing compliance with any requirement imposed under this 
     Act, any other authority conferred on it by law.
       (d) Actions by the Commission.--The Commission shall 
     prevent any person from violating this Act in the same 
     manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, 
     powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and 
     provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 
     et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this Act. 
     Any entity that violates any provision of that subtitle is 
     subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and 
     immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act in 
     the same manner, by the same means, and with the same 
     jurisdiction, power, and duties as though all applicable 
     terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were 
     incorporated into and made a part of that subtitle.
       (e) Availability of Cease-and-Desist Orders and Injunctive 
     Relief Without Showing of Knowledge.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, in any proceeding or action 
     pursuant to subsection (b), (c), or (d) of this section to 
     enforce compliance, through an order to cease and desist or 
     an injunction, with section 5(a)(2), subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5(a)(4), or section 5(b)(1)(A), neither the 
     Commission nor the Federal Communications Commission shall be 
     required to allege or prove the state of mind required by 
     such section or subparagraph.
       (f) Enforcement by States.--
       (1) Civil action.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State, or an official or agency of a State, has 
     reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that 
     State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any 
     person who violates paragraph (1) or (2) of section 5(a), or 
     who engages in a pattern or practice that violates paragraph 
     (3), (4), or (5) of section 5(a) of this Act, the attorney 
     general, official, or agency of the State, as parens patriae, 
     may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the 
     State in a district court of the United States of appropriate 
     jurisdiction--
       (A) to enjoin further violation of section 5 of this Act by 
     the defendant; or
       (B) to obtain damages on behalf of residents of the State, 
     in an amount equal to the greater of--
       (i) the actual monetary loss suffered by such residents; or
       (ii) the amount determined under paragraph (2).
       (2) Availability of injunctive relief without showing of 
     knowledge.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     in a civil action under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, 
     the attorney general, official, or agency of the State shall 
     not be not required to allege or prove the state of mind 
     required by section 5(a)(2), subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     section 5(a)(4), or section 5(b)(1)(A).
       (3) Statutory damages.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the 
     amount determined under this paragraph is the amount 
     calculated by multiplying the number of violations (with each 
     separately addressed unlawful message received by or 
     addressed to such residents treated as a separate violation) 
     by up to $250.
       (B) Limitation.--For any violation of section 5 (other than 
     section 5(a)(1)), the amount determined under subparagraph 
     (A) may not exceed $2,000,000.
       (C) Aggravated damages.--The court may increase a damage 
     award to an amount equal to not more than three times the 
     amount otherwise available under this paragraph if--
       (i) the court determines that the defendant committed the 
     violation willfully and knowingly; or
       (ii) the defendant's unlawful activity included one or more 
     of the aggravating violations set forth in section 5(b).
       (D) Reduction of damages.--In assessing damages under 
     subparagraph (A), the court may consider whether--
       (i) the defendant has established and implemented, with due 
     care, commercially reasonable practices and procedures to 
     effectively prevent such violations; or
       (ii) the violation occurred despite commercially reasonable 
     efforts to maintain compliance with such practices and 
     procedures.
       (3) Attorney fees.--In the case of any successful action 
     under paragraph (1), the State may be awarded the costs of 
     the action and reasonable attorney fees as determined by the 
     court.
       (4) Rights of federal regulators.--The State shall serve 
     prior written notice of any action under paragraph (1) upon 
     the Federal Trade Commission or the appropriate Federal 
     regulator determined under subsection (b) and provide the 
     Commission or appropriate Federal regulator with a copy of 
     its complaint, except in any case in which such prior notice 
     is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve such 
     notice immediately upon instituting such action. The Federal 
     Trade Commission or appropriate Federal regulator shall have 
     the right--
       (A) to intervene in the action;
       (B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising 
     therein;
       (C) to remove the action to the appropriate United States 
     district court; and
       (D) to file petitions for appeal.
       (5) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under paragraph (1), nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by 
     the laws of that State to--
       (A) conduct investigations;
       (B) administer oaths or affirmations; or
       (C) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of 
     documentary and other evidence.
       (6) Venue; service of process.--
       (A) Venue.--Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be 
     brought in the district court of the United States that meets 
     applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 
     of title 28, United States Code.
       (B) Service of process.--In an action brought under 
     paragraph (1), process may be served in any district in which 
     the defendant--
       (i) is an inhabitant; or
       (ii) maintains a physical place of business.
       (7) Limitation on state action while federal action is 
     pending.--If the Commission or other appropriate Federal 
     agency under subsection (b) has instituted a civil action or 
     an administrative action for violation of this Act, no State 
     attorney general, or official or agency of a State, may bring 
     an action under this subsection during the pendency of that 
     action against any defendant named in the complaint of the 
     Commission or the other agency for any violation of this Act 
     alleged in the complaint.
       (8) Requisite Scienter for Certain Civil Actions.--Except 
     as provided in subsections (a)(2), (a)(4)(B), (a)(4)(C), 
     (b)(1), and (d) of section 5, and paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection, in a civil action brought by a State attorney 
     general, or an official or agency of a State, to recover 
     monetary damages for a violation of this Act, the court shall 
     not grant the relief sought unless the attorney general, 
     official, or agency establishes that the defendant acted with 
     actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of 
     objective circumstances, of the act or omission that 
     constitutes the violation.
       (g) Action by Provider of Internet Access Service.--

[[Page 30746]]

       (1) Action authorized.--A provider of Internet access 
     service adversely affected by a violation of section 5(a) or 
     of section 5(b), or a pattern or practice that vioalted 
     paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 5(a), may bring a 
     civil action in any district court of the United States with 
     jurisdiction over the defendant--
       (A) to enjoin further violation by the defendant; or
       (B) to recover damages in an amount equal to the greater 
     of--
       (i) actual monetary loss incurred by the provider of 
     Internet access service as a result of such violation; or
       (ii) the amount determined under paragraph (3).
       (2) Special definition of ``procure''.--In any action 
     brought under paragraph (1), this Act shall be applied as if 
     the definition of the term ``procure'' in section 3(12) 
     contained, after ``behalf'' the words ``with actual knowlege, 
     or by consciously avoiding knowing, whether such person is 
     engaging, or will engage, in a pattern or practice that 
     violates this Act''.
       (3) Statutory damages.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the 
     amount determined under this paragraph is the amount 
     calculated by multiplying the number of violations (with each 
     separately addressed unlawful message that is transmitted or 
     attempted to be transmitted over the facilities of the 
     provider of Internet access service, or that is transmitted 
     or attempted to be transmitted to an electronic mail address 
     obtained from the provider of Internet access service in 
     violation of section 5(b)(1)(A)(i), treated as a separate 
     violation) by--
       (i) up to $100, in the case of a violation of section 
     5(a)(1); or
       (ii) $25, in the case of any other violation of section 5.
       (B) Limitation.--For any violation of section 5 (other than 
     section 5(a)(1)), the amount determined under subparagraph 
     (A) may not exceed $1,000,000.
       (C) Aggravated damages.--The court may increase a damage 
     award to an amount equal to not more than three times the 
     amount otherwise available under this paragraph if--
       (i) the court determines that the defendant committed the 
     violation willfully and knowingly; or
       (ii) the defendant's unlawful activity included one or more 
     of the aggravated violations set forth in section 5(b).
       (D) Reduction of damages.--In assessing damages under 
     subparagraph (A), the court may consider whether--
       (i) the defendant has established and implemented, with due 
     care, commercially reasonable practices and procedures to 
     effectively prevent such violations; or
       (ii) the violation occurred despite commercially reasonable 
     efforts to maintain compliance with such practices and 
     procedures.
       (4) Attorney fees.--In any action brought pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), 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.

     SEC. 8. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Federal Law.--
       (1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair the 
     enforcement of section 223 or 231 of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223 or 231, respectively), 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.
       (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect in any 
     way the Commission's authority to bring enforcement actions 
     under FTC Act for materially false or deceptive 
     representations or unfair practices in commercial electronic 
     mail messages.
       (b) State Law.--
       (1) In general.--This Act supersedes any statute, 
     regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a 
     State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to 
     send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such 
     statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception 
     in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or 
     information attached thereto.
       (2) State law not specific to electronic mail.--This Act 
     shall not be construed to preempt the applicability of--
       (A) State laws that are not specific to electronic mail, 
     including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or
       (B) other State laws to the extent that those laws relate 
     to acts of fraud or computer crime.
       (c) No Effect on Policies of Providers of Internet Access 
     Service.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any 
     effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other 
     provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or 
     enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a 
     policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or 
     store certain types of electronic mail messages.

     SEC. 9. DO-NOT-E-MAIL REGISTRY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall transmit to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     a report that--
       (1) sets forth a plan and timetable for establishing a 
     nationwide marketing Do-Not-E-mail registry;
       (2) includes an explanation of any practical, technical, 
     security, privacy, enforceability, or other concerns that the 
     Commission has regarding such a registry; and
       (3) includes an explanation of how the registry would be 
     applied with respect to children with e-mail accounts.
       (b) Authorization To Implement.--The Commission may 
     establish and implement the plan, but not earlier than 9 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 10. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 24 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission, in consultation 
     with the Department of Justice and other appropriate 
     agencies, 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.
       (b) Required Analysis.--The Commission shall include in the 
     report required by subsection (a)--
       (1) an analysis of the extent to which technological and 
     marketplace developments, including changes in the nature of 
     the devices through which consumers access their electronic 
     mail messages, may affect the practicality and effectiveness 
     of the provisions of this Act;
       (2) analysis and recommendations concerning how to address 
     commercial electronic mail that originates in or is 
     transmitted through or to facilities or computers in other 
     nations, including initiatives or policy positions that the 
     Federal government could pursue through international 
     negotiations, fora, organizations, or institutions; and
       (3) analysis and recommendations concerning options for 
     protecting consumers, including children, from the receipt 
     and viewing of commercial electronic mail that is obscene or 
     pornographic.

     SEC. 11. IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT BY PROVIDING REWARDS FOR 
                   INFORMATION ABOUT VIOLATIONS; LABELING.

       The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce--
       (1) a report, within 9 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, that sets forth a system for rewarding those who 
     supply information about violations of this Act, including--
       (A) procedures for the Commission to grant a reward of not 
     less than 20 percent of the total civil penalty collected for 
     a violation of this Act to the first person that--
       (i) identifies the person in violation of this Act; and
       (ii) supplies information that leads to the successful 
     collection of a civil penalty by the Commission; and
       (B) procedures to minimize the burden of submitting a 
     complaint to the Commission concerning violations of this 
     Act, including procedures to allow the electronic submission 
     of complaints to the Commission; and
       (2) a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial 
     electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by 
     means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force 
     Standards, the use of the characters ``ADV'' in the subject 
     line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of 
     any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to 
     recommend against the plan.

     SEC. 12. RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER TRANSMISSIONS.

       Section 227(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 227(b)(1)) is amended, in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, or any person outside the 
     United States if the recipient is within the United States'' 
     after ``United States''.

     SEC. 13. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Commission may issue regulations to 
     implement the provisions of this Act (not including the 
     amendments made by sections 4 and 12). Any such regulations 
     shall be issued in accordance with section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to 
     authorize the Commission to establish a requirement pursuant 
     to section 5(a)(5)(A) to include any specific words, 
     characters, marks, or labels in a commercial electronic mail 
     message, or to include the identification required by section 
     5(a)(5)(A) in any particular part of such a mail message 
     (such as the subject line or body).

     SEC. 14. APPLICATION TO WIRELESS.

       (a) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     interpreted to preclude or override the applicability of 
     section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) 
     or the rules prescribed under section 3 of the Telemarketing 
     and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102). 
     To the extent that a requirement of such Acts, or rules or 
     regulations promulgated thereunder, is inconsistent with the 
     requirement of this Act, the requirement of such other Acts, 
     or rules or regulations promulgated thereunder, shall take 
     precedence.

[[Page 30747]]

       (b) FCC Rulemaking.--The Federal Communications Commission, 
     in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, shall 
     promulgate rules within 270 days to protect consumers from 
     unwanted mobile service commercial messages. The rules shall, 
     to the extent consistent with subsection (c)--
       (1) provide subscribers to commercial mobile services the 
     ability to avoid receiving mobile service commercial messages 
     unless the subscriber has provided express prior 
     authorization, except as provided in paragraph (3);
       (2) allow recipients of mobile service commercial messages 
     to indicate electronically a desire not to receive future 
     mobile service commercial messages from the initiator;
       (3) take into consideration, in determining whether to 
     subject providers of commercial mobile wireless services to 
     paragraph (1), the relationship that exists between providers 
     of such services and their subscribers, but if the Commission 
     determines that such providers should not be subject to 
     paragraph (1), the rules shall require such providers, in 
     addition to complying with the other provisions of this Act, 
     to allow subscribers to indicate a desire not to receive 
     future mobile service commercial messages at the time of 
     subscribing to such service, and in any billing mechanism; 
     and
       (4) determine how initiators of mobile service commercial 
     messages may comply with the provisions of this Act, 
     considering the unique technical aspects, including the 
     functional and character limitations, of devices that receive 
     such messages.
       (c) Other Factors Considered.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall consider the ability of an initiator of an 
     electronic mail message to reasonably determine that the 
     electronic mail message is a mobile service commercial 
     message.
       (d) Mobile Service Commercial Message Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``mobile service commercial message'' means 
     a commercial electronic mail message that contains text, 
     graphics, or images for visual display that is transmitted 
     directly to a wireless device that--
       (1) is utilized by a subscriber of commercial mobile 
     service (as such term is defined in section 332(d) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)) in connection 
     with such service; and
       (2) is capable of accessing and displaying such a message.

     SEC. 15. 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. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this Act, other than section 9, shall 
     take effect on January 1, 2004.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on S. 877.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) be given control of 10 minutes of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana is granted.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for the second time in just a few months, Congress is on 
the verge of passing watershed consumer protection legislation. Less 
than 2 months ago, we enacted, in record time I might add, legislation 
that codified the ability of the Federal Trade Commission to implement 
the Do Not Call Registry on telemarketing phone calls. Today, we take 
an equivalent step in the Internet area. S. 877, with the substitute I 
have called up, will give millions of Americans the ability to block 
unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail, what we now derisively call 
spam.
  The Internet has given us abilities beyond our wildest dreams; and as 
it continues to grow in popularity and functionality, the time will 
come when every American, from school kids to senior citizens, 
homemakers to CEOs, will rely on it for crucial aspects of their lives. 
I received, by the way, my first e-mail from my mom just this month. 
And she was thrilled, and I was thrilled to see her enter the Internet 
Age.
  But one of the terrific aspects of the Internet, the ability to send 
and receive e-mail, has given us enormous headaches because of spam. It 
cripples computer networks and makes regular e-mail checking a 
seemingly endless hassle.

                              {time}  1715

  Even worse, a great deal of spam channels in pornography and other 
subjects not worthy of discussion on a family cable channel, and this 
spam frequently preys on defenseless, unsuspecting children.
  Well, we are here to provide the necessary tools to end the nonsense 
and to bring some peace of mind back to parents around the country. The 
substitute before us will empower American consumers with a right to 
opt out of all unwanted, unsolicited commercial e-mail, or spam, and it 
will also provide the Federal Trade Commission with the authority to 
set up a Do-Not-Spam Registry based upon the Do-Not-Call Registry. The 
substitute grants strong protection for parents and consumers to say no 
to the receipt of pornographic spam, and makes it a crime subject to 5 
years in prison to send fraudulent spam. And finally, it gives the FTC 
and State attorneys general the ability to vigorously enforce the new 
law.
  I am pleased to report that the product before us now enjoys broad 
bipartisan support here in the House and also in the other body. The 
bill can and should go to President Bush before we adjourn the first 
session of the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this much-needed, bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of S. 877, the compromise which has been 
worked out on the antispam legislation.
  First, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 
for the many years of work she has put in with me and other members of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  I also thank the leadership of our committee, the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Chairman Tauzin) for their strong commitment to this effort which the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and I began almost 5 years 
ago. She had a terrible personal experience with spam, and I heard from 
constituents some of the same stories, and my wife and I have received 
some of that same unsolicited spam on our own personal e-mail account.
  This legislation will set the fair and clear standards for e-mail 
marketing that consumers and the Internet need desperately. The future 
of e-mail is at stake, and the time to act is now. Congress is 
delivering the enforcement tools we need.
  Importantly, this compromise has clear definitions of commercial e-
mail which the FTC can enforce and any individual consumer's request to 
not receive further commercial e-mail from a sender will have the force 
of the law. Spammers who lie and deceive with false header information 
and deceptive subject lines will be lawbreakers and will be prosecuted 
as such.
  After we enact this legislation, spammers will no longer be able to 
harvest e-mail addresses from Web pages across the Internet without the 
threat of prosecution. There are so many good things in this bill that 
it is hard to go over all of them in 2 minutes.
  We will come after spammers from all angles. State attorneys general 
are empowered, and Internet service providers are empowered to seek 
damages up to $250 per e-mail or $6 million total.
  After the success of the FTC's Do-Not-Call list, the Do-Not-Spam 
registry implementation is feasible. I

[[Page 30748]]

thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and our ranking member, 
and I also thank the many cosponsors of our original bill, H.R. 2515, 
on the antispam effort.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House-modified version of 
Senate 877, and wish to thank my fellow chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in working 
out this compromise which deals with a very vexatious question, and I 
think provides a win/win situation for everybody except the few bad 
actors that flood the electronic media with spam.
  The Internet has revolutionized commerce and communications by 
permitting businesses to reach consumers in a digital, global 
marketplace and has allowed individuals to communicate through the 
speed and convenience of electronic mail. Unfortunately, the massive 
growth of unsolicited e-mail or ``spam'' now threatens to kill the 
utility of this popular media. Last year over 6 trillion e-mails were 
transmitted. Today, almost half of those e-mails are unsolicited or 
unwanted.
  Commercial e-mail is good, and a necessary and valuable component of 
electronic commerce. It allows legitimate businesses to customize 
offers of products and services and transmit them immediately to 
customers.
  However, the same features that make e-mail a valuable commercial 
tool also lead to its abuse by spammers. Once a portable to the global 
network is obtained, sending e-mail is instantaneous and virtually 
costless. There are no stamps in cyberspace, no per-message cost, not 
even a post office. The costs of delivery are borne more by the 
recipient and the transmission network than by the sender. The 
exponential growth of spam and the advancing sophistication of efforts 
to block it threaten to turn the information superhighway into a 
nightmare for every info-commuter and parent.
  Like other means of communication, e-mail can be used to cheat, 
defraud, and deceive consumers and also has been used to distribute 
computer viruses that have caused millions of dollars in economic 
damages. Unscrupulous spammers have transformed electronic inboxes and 
the Internet into virtual minefields strewn with lewd and pornographic 
images and solicitations, imperiling a medium that can serve as a 
critical learning tool for children.
  I am pleased to support this version of Senate 877, which is 
substantially similar to H.R. 2214 introduced by the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and myself earlier this year. I believe it will provide a remedial 
enforcement mechanism that private, regulatory, and individual State 
action cannot.
  The criminal provisions contained in this legislation are central to 
its purpose and to its effectiveness. In order to provide a credible 
deterrent to spammers, this legislation enhances criminal penalties for 
predatory spamming, and provides law enforcement personnel far more 
authority to prosecute spammers whose electronic presence can shift 
with a keystroke.
  The bill provides significant criminal penalties for the most 
egregious spammers by making it a crime to intentionally falsify the 
identity of the sender or disguise the routing and source information 
of e-mails. Other spammer tactics made criminal under this bill include 
the hijacking protected computers to send spam from the addresses of 
unsuspecting Internet users.
  The House modification of S. 877 also provides for much higher 
penalties and more effective civil and criminal enforcement against 
spammers who send unwanted sexually explicit materials. This bill even 
requires special labels for this most offensive category of e-mail. The 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) deserves special recognition 
for her work to get this provision into law.
  Overall, the bill provides consumers with more information and 
choices to stop receiving all forms of unwanted commercial e-mail while 
providing law enforcement officials and providers of Internet access 
with the tools to go after spammers.
  While S. 877 accomplishes these vital goals, there are some 
activities that it deliberately does not reach. Specifically, the 
legislation concerns only commercial and sexually explicit e-mail and 
is not intended to intrude on the burgeoning use of e-mail to 
communicate for political, news, personal and charitable purposes.
  Moreover, this legislation, while preempting State spam specific laws 
with a uniform national standard, also preserves a role for State law 
enforcement officials to help combat this growing electronic menace. 
The bill also allows for State laws that deal with fraud and computer 
crimes to remain in effect. However, there is specific language in the 
bill limiting this authority to law enforcement officials or agencies 
of the State, and it is not the intent of Congress to allow outsourcing 
of this truly State function to the plaintiff's bar.
  The House-modified legislation also contains other necessary 
amendments to the bill passed by the other body and reflects a 
thoughtful, bipartisan and bicameral approach to address the growing 
scourge of spam while preserving and promoting the commercial vitality 
of the Internet. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, and it would not have 
been possible without the good work of the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) and his staff, David Cavicke, along with the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff, David Schooler and Gregg 
Rothschild, working with the majority. I think we have come to an 
excellent result. It builds upon the work that the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) have been 
making for years in this area. I think that the public is really going 
to be a beneficiary from this product this evening. I would be remiss, 
of course, not to single out the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) as well and his staff for their excellent work on this 
bill.
  In addition to the other provisions mentioned by other Members, this 
legislation now contains a modified version of the wireless spam 
amendment that I had offered for inclusion. The legislation preserves 
important authority of the Federal Communications Commission and FTC 
where it serves consumer interests. It also requires the FCC to 
initiate a rule-making for wireless spam so that no loopholes are 
created, but in a way to ensure that wireless consumers have greater 
protection than that accorded in the underlying bill.
  As we attempt to tackle the issue of spam that is sent to our desktop 
computers, we must also recognize that millions of wireless consumers 
in the United States run the risk of being inundated by wireless spam. 
Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in 
Europe, South Korea and Japan over the last few years as wireless 
companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services.
  In Japan alone, NTT DoCoMo estimates that its wireless network 
processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day. That is a day. 
As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a 
consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is 
even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam 
that follows you wherever you go, and according to the U.S. wireless 
carriers, is already on the rise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for thanking 
the majority staff. I wish I could introduce Mr. Cavicke because he has 
done such a great job on this bill, but he is not a Member.

[[Page 30749]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) to speak on the bill.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago spam was a 
nuisance, and now it is a nightmare. It is interrupting people's 
legitimate use of the Internet and their ability to communicate without 
having a lot of junk to go through every morning.
  I think today is a great victory for consumers and for parents. 
Parents should not have to worry about the kinds of things coming into 
their kids' inboxes. For the first time, Americans who use the Internet 
and get e-mail will have the right to say take me off your list, I do 
not want this in my house. That is a tremendous right to be given to 
citizens in this Nation.
  I am glad we have a strong bill with strong enforcement that requires 
labels for sexually explicit material, and allows users to opt out 
without having things that are required to be viewed in order to do so.
  E-mail has been called the ``killer ap'' of the Internet, the killer 
application. And now today, we are saying that the people who use it 
are going to have the right to take it back and own it without an 
encumbrance by spammers.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) with whom I have been working on this 
issue for over 4 years, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
who has also been a wonderful leader in this effort, as well as the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr) for their efforts. We have put together a good 
bill, and it is a better bill because we have all worked on it 
together.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about some of 
the good things about this agreement that is in the bill S. 877.
  Spammers who lie and deceive with false header information and 
deceptive subject lines will be lawbreakers and prosecuted. After we 
enact this legislation, spammers will no longer be able to harvest e-
mail addresses from Web pages across the Internet without the threat of 
prosecution.

                              {time}  1730

  Our bill cracks down on automated ``dictionary'' spam attacks, the 
spam version of the auto-dialer that sends spam to every possible e-
mail combination. Most importantly for our families, and something that 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) experienced with her 
daughter, this bill requires warning labels on sexually explicit e-
mail; and we will be able to refuse further e-mail without having to 
view the offensive content. It will go after spammers again from all 
angles, from the Federal Trade Commission, from the States attorneys 
general and also Internet service providers who, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said, 50 percent of the networks 
oftentimes are unsolicited e-mail. They will be able to sue for damages 
of $250 per e-mail or a total of $6 million. It is there so our 
attorneys general have the ability and our ISPs will do it.
  Finally, after the success of the Do-Not-Call list, the FTC is to 
plan a Do-Not-Spam registry within 6 months and will implement it if it 
is feasible.
  Like my colleagues, our staff worked hard on it in both our 
committees, Judiciary and Energy and Commerce. I thank my personal 
staff, Drew Wallace, for working on this with all the folks involved.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from 
Louisiana, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their 
leadership in pulling these two committees together. We have been 
working on this for a long time. It is that kind of teamwork that has 
resulted in this legislation today as well as a great deal of 
cooperation on the other side of the aisle. We really appreciate what 
it takes to write good legislation.
  Spam is not just a nuisance anymore. Over half of the e-mail sent 
today is spam. Unsolicited e-mail, such as advertisements, 
solicitations, or chain letters is the junk mail of the Information 
Age. At best these unwanted messages burden consumers by slowing down 
their e-mail connections. At worst these messages bombard American 
families with unsolicited, sexually explicit materials and fraudulent 
information. It is time to can spam.
  The bill before us makes it a criminal offense to send a commercial 
e-mail that falsifies the sender's identity. In addition, the House 
amendments which have been incorporated into this bill strengthen the 
provisions that punish spammers for failing to place warning labels on 
sexually explicit materials.
  This bill makes the necessary changes to the Senate's ``can spam 
act'' to establish clear, uniform guidelines for those who send 
commercial e-mail and to criminalize fraudulent conduct. The bill 
provides State attorneys general, ISPs, the FTC, and the Department of 
Justice with the appropriate tools to enforce the bill against bad 
actors.
  Because no legislation can provide a cure-all for spam, this bill is 
technology-friendly. It protects the ability of ISPs and small 
businesses to develop innovative technological solutions to combat spam 
and to protect consumers, such as filtering and blocking technologies. 
This bill establishes clear guidelines for legitimate businesses and 
punishes fraudulent conduct, not going after the good guys. It 
accomplishes these objectives without overregulating and without taking 
the information out of the Information Age.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we can work well together around here. I am 
sure that a lot of people are surprised.
  I want to pay a congratulations and compliment to my distinguished 
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the 
committee, and also to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for his labors. I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for his leadership in this 
valiant effort and undertaking, and I want to pay particular tribute to 
both the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the 
wonderful gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for their 
outstanding leadership, for the courage and for the dedication with 
which they stood hitched on this difficult issue and these difficult 
negotiations. Congratulations to all of the above. And also to Mr. 
Gregg Rothschild, Mr. David Cavicke, Mr. Bryce Dustman, and Peter Filon 
of the staff; also David Schooler and Shannon Vildostegui for their 
wonderful work as members of the staff because their efforts have 
helped make this possible.
  This is a good bill and it is worthy of our support. There are things 
that we could have done that would have been a little better, but it is 
a piece of legislation which is going to solve a concern of the 
American people, something which is good and is in the public interest. 
And it is an important first step in restoring consumers' control over 
their inboxes and stopping some of the evil and rascality that we are 
seeing in the telecommunications industry. It requires marketers to let 
people know who they are and where they can be located. It prohibits 
false and misleading transmission information so that marketers cannot 
hide their identity. It prohibits marketers from deceiving consumers by 
using false headers or subject lines. Importantly, it affords the 
Federal Trade Commission and the States full enforcement authority over 
these consumer protection provisions.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill permits law enforcement to go 
after those who disguise sexual messages and through such deception are

[[Page 30750]]

able to send sexual material into our homes and into the hands of our 
children. This is a critical first step against those who profit by 
sending unwanted and offensive sexual commercial messages. It will stop 
much wrongdoing.
  I am also pleased that the House has adopted the Senate provision 
creating a do-not-spam registry. I expect the FTC to take their charge 
seriously under this provision and to do all that is necessary to 
implement such a registry at the earliest possible time.
  Finally, I am pleased that the House has added a new provision to 
grant even stronger protections from spam to users of wireless cell 
phones. The gentleman from Massachusetts deserves the thanks of all of 
us for that. In connection with this provision, I commend the hard work 
of our dear friend, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I do not expect this bill to 
solve totally the growing problem of unwanted spam. It must be 
recognized that the people who engage in this practice are most 
diligent, most able, and have a huge financial incentive to do it. It 
is quite possible that we will have to visit the matter again. It is 
regrettable that it does not contain an important deterrence against 
spam, citizen suits; but we can address that at a future time. It also 
has the regrettable practice in it of preempting stronger State laws, 
something which I do not favor. It is, however, a distinct improvement 
over the Senate-passed bill, and the hard work that has brought us to 
agreement on the part of those who have worked on it is something which 
merits the thanks of the public for work in the public interest.
  I plan to work to try and expand this in future times and to do the 
things that are necessary to assure that our people are not abused by 
these people.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan for his statement and his kind friendship.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, today on the heels of our recent efforts to 
ensure that the do-not-call list was implemented, we are taking yet 
another major step forward in our efforts to protect consumers from 
unwanted commercial solicitations. With passage of this bill tonight, 
we are one more step closer to giving American consumers a Federal law 
which will for the first time allow them to just say no to unwanted 
commercial e-mails, otherwise known as spam. And we back it up with 
strong enforcement by the FTC, State attorneys general, and Internet 
service providers as well.
  As the father of two young kids, I am particularly pleased that this 
bill requires warning labels on commercial e-mails which contain 
sexually oriented material, and it protects our kids from being 
unwittingly exposed to such garbage that might pop up in the family's 
inbox. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 
Internet, I am particularly pleased to have worked with my colleagues 
on this, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey); 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); certainly the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Burr); and my chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), on provisions which direct the Federal 
Communications Commission to implement added protections against spam 
for cell phones and other wireless devices. What a nightmare ready to 
happen. On our staff I want to particularly thank Will Nordwind, who 
spent countless hours as we negotiated this the last number of months.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to relate a small family story. When my dad came 
back from World War II, my mom fixed his first dinner. It was Spam. Dad 
said, no way. Battle of the Bulge, we had enough of that. No more are 
we going to have that junk. My family thankfully was spared that for 50 
years. Sadly, American consumers have not been spared from that awful 
stuff called spam because this is spam on the Internet.
  I can remember when e-mails came first off, everyone loved to get an 
e-mail. I thought we were finally making some headway. But lo and 
behold, my wife was out of town, and I did not realize she was deleting 
it. Every morning she would get up at 5:30 or 6 in the morning. She has 
been gone all week. Today just from last night, I had 150 spams.
  Pass this bill. End this stuff. I cannot call it what I really think. 
God bless America.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know we are getting down to the 
last few minutes, but, like my colleague from Michigan, I ate a lot of 
Spam. I am holding up my gift of Spam from my cosponsor. Like him, the 
only way I could ever survive Spam was with A-1 steak sauce. I remember 
the story that my first time, somebody showing up at a town hall 
meeting and saying, I'm tired of spam and I said, thank goodness I 
haven't had to eat it in years. But I do remember it tasted pretty good 
in college when I needed it.
  But now as my colleague from Michigan said, spam will not have a bad 
name for people who use the Internet. Again, I would like to thank the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for providing me a can of 
Spam. I am not going to cook it. I am going to put it on the wall so 
hopefully I will not have to.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, after hearing about that stuff that the gentleman from 
Texas was waving around, let me say that we Yankees knew that Spam was 
bad 50 years ago. It has taken a long time for you rebels to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the general public, really, 
for helping us move this bill forward. I am pleased we were able to 
work out a deal on this legislation. It has taken some time, but the 
product is well worth it. The American public has been flooded with 
millions of pieces of unsolicited e-mail every day. This legislation 
will help us provide the teeth in the law to stop this. But it is the 
content of certain e-mails, particularly e-mails containing sexually 
explicit material which is especially problematic.
  I compliment the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for 
working together with us on language that is similar to the 
Pennsylvania law that I sponsored to help label and help us rid our 
computers of these sexually explicit e-mails. I am pleased this was put 
into the bill. We want our children to use the Internet and e-mail, but 
many parents fear what the children may see. Parents are stuck in the 
middle. They want their kids to use the educational tool of the 
Internet, they want them to be very capable of utilizing it, and it 
will help them in their schoolwork on one hand, but on the other when 
my Senator was sitting behind one of his children, in fact, he said to 
me, I could not believe what came up on the screen.
  It is important for us to make sure that we control it but we allow 
freedom of speech. I compliment my colleagues. I look forward to a 
spam-free e-mail.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The reality is that this whole movement began as people several years 
ago saw what the impact would be of unwanted spam on their home or work 
computers. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) pointed out, he 
had in one day 150 unwanted spam messages on his home computer. What 
this legislation does is to help every American to deal with that 
problem. What I ask the Members to do as well is to deal with another 
issue that quite likely is going to rise to a level of being a problem 
that eclipses even computer spam and that would be cell phone spam.

[[Page 30751]]

  Imagine if you reach a point where there are 150 unwanted rings on 
your phone, your cell phone, this zone of privacy which we all have as 
these marketers are calling into your cell phone all day long. What 
this legislation does is it ensures that the Federal Communications 
Commission and the Federal Trade Commission take the actions which give 
protections against this being the new battleground. It is already a 
full scale epidemic in Europe, in Japan, in South Korea.

                              {time}  1745

  It is heading our way. Probably by the time the FCC has a chance to 
put the regulations on the books, maybe a year from now, we will have 
already seen its growth so those protections against these cell phones 
just ringing all day long becomes the epidemic that really just drives 
people crazy. So the bill will require the FCC to consider certain 
provisions with an eye towards assessing the problems and perhaps the 
unique capabilities or limitations of wireless devices. We have to be 
sure that wireless consumers and carriers can functionally implement 
the new legal requirements. But the Federal spam legislation ought to 
reflect the particular characteristics of the wireless technology and 
use this bill as a way to ensure that we have promulgated rules 
requiring a consumer opt-in for wireless e-mail messages so that the 
consumer has affirmatively said that they want these messages to come 
into their life. Otherwise, this device that is so valuable now to 170 
million Americans would just be the single greatest nuisance ever 
invested.
  Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the compromise spam legislation that 
we bring to the House Floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation reflects a series of agreements between 
advocates for the two alternative House spam bills--one offered by 
Chairman Tauzin, and the other offered by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Green of 
which I am an original cosponsor, as well as a series of compromises 
with our Senate counterparts. While not a perfect bill, I believe it 
merits support.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation now contains a modified 
version of the wireless spam amendment that I had offered for 
inclusion. The legislation preserves important authority of the FCC and 
FTC where it serves consumer interests. It also requires the FCC to 
initiate a rulemaking for wireless spam so that no loopholes are 
created but in a way to ensure that wireless consumers have greater 
protection than that accorded in the underlying bill.
  As we attempt to tackle the issue of spam that is sent to our desktop 
computers, we must also recognize the millions of wireless consumers in 
the United States run the risk of being inundated with wireless spam. 
Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in 
Europe, South Korea, and Japan over the last few years as wireless 
companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services. 
In Japan alone, NTT DoCoMo estimates that its wireless network 
processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day. As cumbersome 
and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a consumer can 
turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is even more 
intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam that 
follows you wherever you go and according to U.S. wireless carriers, is 
already on the rise.
  To prevent wireless spam from overwhelming the American wireless 
marketplace as it has networks in other countries, this legislation 
tasks the FCC to promulgate rules in order to put strong consumer 
protections on the books. In addition, the bill requires the FCC to 
consider certain provisions with an eye toward assessing them given the 
perhaps unique capabilities or limitations of wireless devices. We must 
be sure that wireless consumers and carriers can functionally implement 
the legal requirements. Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the 
particular characteristics of wireless technology and use and this bill 
will allow the FCC to promulgate rules requiring a consumer ``opt-in'' 
for wireless email messages while examining the nature of a consumer's 
relationship with their wireless phone and service to take into account 
the unique service and technical characteristics that may warrant 
wireless-specific rules affecting consumer and carrier rights and 
obligations.
  The wireless spam provision of the bill offers wireless consumers 
relief by requiring an ``opt-in'' for spam to wireless consumers. This 
reflects the fact that spam to a mobile phone is more intrusive to 
consumers and the fact that some wireless payment plans currently 
charge users for the amount of text messages they receive.
  The provision would require ``express prior authorization'' from the 
consumer before an entity could send spam to their wireless device. My 
intent is that this ``express prior authorization'' be implemented in a 
way that a request for ``express prior authorization'' is conspicuous 
and easily understood by consumers and that each entity seeking to send 
mobile service commercial messages pursuant to Section 14(b)(1) obtain 
such consumer authorization. In addition, the wireless spam provision 
requests that the FCC consider the ability of an initiator of spam to 
reasonably determine whether an electronic mail message is a mobile 
service commercial message. Obviously, as wireless service evolves, 
more and more consumers will receive Internet emails via their 
commercial mobile service provider's network and directly to their 
wireless device. If a person ha an email address from their commercial 
mobile service provide and it can be readily identified as a wireless 
address, such as [email protected] or [email protected] then the 
reasonable ability of a potential spammer to recognize that as such is 
relatively easy. Hopefully, commercial mobile service providers--and 
consumers--will see the benefit of having an email address that can be 
reasonably determined to be a wireless address, so that the prospect of 
massive amounts of spam to consumers over wireless networks can be 
thwarted and consumers can enjoy the benefits of entities needing their 
express prior authorization before sending them wireless spam.
  Spam sent to desktop computer email address, and which is then 
forwarded over a wireless network to a wireless devices, i.e., 
delivered ``indirectly'' from the initiator to the wireless device, 
would be treated by the rest of this bill and not by the wireless 
specific provisions we subject to an FCC rulemaking.
  This legislation also represents an improvement in other areas over 
the Senate-passed bill. For example, the compromise doubles the damage 
caps in the Senate bill. It also eliminates the knowledge standards for 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC) and state Attorney General injunctive relief. The bill 
provides for rulemaking authority to clarify and tighten the definition 
of what constitutes a ``commercial email.'' Requires that identifiers 
and a postal address musts be on all commercial emails to desktop 
computers. Finally, the bill also shortens the time frame from which an 
``opt-out'' request would become enforceable.
  All of these represent important improvements over the Senate bill.
  I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Mr. Dingell for 
their excellent work in this area. I want to salute Representatives 
Heather Wilson and Gene Green for spearheading House spam efforts in 
this session as well as in the previous Congress as the lead sponsors 
of the House bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time 
from Committee on the Judiciary, and I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) as well as the time of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr)?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) 
has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we are 
here today to get rid of unwanted sexually explicit e-mail, but we are 
also here to protect those individuals who want to use e-mail as a 
commercial tool in a responsible way based upon the rules, and the 
challenge for us was to design something that allowed commerce to take 
place but that got at the heart of what all of us wanted to do, and 
that is to get the smut off of our screen, to make sure that the ones 
that were unsolicited and that we did not want to see again, that we 
had the opportunity to get rid of them. And I am going to tell the 
Members it was tough, I think we would all agree, trying to find the 
right language, the right word in some cases, to make sure that the

[[Page 30752]]

right penalty was in place but it did not go too far. And I think it is 
safe to say today that there is no single piece of legislation that 
will ultimately solve the spam problem.
  It is my hope that this bill is an excellent first start. I believe 
that it is appropriate to praise the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman 
Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member, 
and Gregg Rothschild and David Cavicke and many other committee staff 
and personal staffs that worked tirelessly to try to come up with a 
solution to the problem that we had. The FTC's own estimates estimate 
that 20 percent of all spam contains advertising of pornography. That 
is not counting the spam that we received that has deceptive content 
and fraudulent content.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we think we found the right 
blueprint. We think those businesses that are reputable can continue, 
and they can live within the framework, and they can live by the rules, 
and, hopefully, this will help to chase those that intended not to live 
by the rules out of the system and off our screen.
  I want to praise once again both committees, the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the staffs and the 
members, and urge support for this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  And I just want the attention of the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Burr). I want to pay tribute to him for the very honorable and 
splendid way in which he has worked with us to bring this matter to 
conclusion. Without his labors and those of the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, we would not be here talking about this matter. And I thank 
both gentlemen, and I thank also Jonathan Cordone.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  And I yield myself that time in order to conclude the debate for the 
Democratic side, and I would like to point out how important this bill 
is.
  Congress many times acts in areas where most Americans say ``How does 
that affect me?'' This legislation will now affect every computer in 
the United States in the way in which it affects the user of that 
computer, and it will affect every user of a cell phone in the way that 
that cell phone is used or, to be more explicit, the way in which 
marketers abuse those phones and computers. So this is a great day, and 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green) did a great job in bringing it to our attention, and 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), in putting together an environment in which we 
can negotiate this bill out in a bipartisan fashion.
  The litany of saints is long, and I mentioned many of them earlier. I 
would like to add the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. He and his staff 
contributed significantly to this legislation. To the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Burr), I want to congratulate him and his excellent 
work on this legislation. The consumers will be the beneficiary. I want 
to mention the gentlewoman from Silicon Valley, California (Ms. Eshoo) 
for all of her wonderful work on this legislation. The gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who had a deep interest in the wireless aspects 
of this legislation, I think he deserves credit for what is happening 
here today. The gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), David 
Cavicke did a great job, and I think I should mention Howard Waltzman 
as well on the chairman's staff for his excellent work; on the 
gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Upton) staff, Will Nordwind, who has 
been working on this for several months, as well with the chairman. And 
I would conclude by thanking my own staff, Colin Crowell, who 
throughout this year had a plan to include a wireless cell phone 
antispam provision in the legislation, and today we see the fruition of 
all of his excellent work, and I think that consumers will be the 
beneficiary for the generation ahead. So I conclude by complimenting 
the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In concluding, let me, first of all, again signal the extraordinary 
cooperation that exists between the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce as we conclude this debate and also to 
echo thanks and congratulations the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has extended to so many of our staff and the members who have 
worked on this.
  This is a consumer protection piece of legislation. Very often when 
we come to these consumer protection-type pieces of legislation, we 
will see this extraordinary bipartisanism and this ability of 
committees that often have conflicting versions of bills work them out 
as we have today. This is a huge consumer protection piece of 
legislation.
  And I want to say something that I hope all the Federal judges of 
America will pay attention to tonight very carefully. This legislation 
specifically authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to create a Do Not 
Spam Registry. No one should have any doubt about it. It is as clear, 
it is explicit. When this legislation passes the Congress and is signed 
into law, the FTC will explicitly have that authority, and a Do Not 
Spam Registry will be available in our future.
  I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green). Of all the members who have put in yeoman hours 
in time and effort, these three members of our committee have done an 
extraordinary job. And I particularly, again, want to single out the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) with, again, the bipartisan spirit in which 
we worked together when we can and do work together so well. This is a 
good example where America will benefit because we are legislating as 
Americans and not as party members as we often do on this floor. And I 
want to thank the gentleman, again, for that respect and that spirit of 
cooperation that he always extended to the chair and to the management 
of our committee affairs.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for consumers in 
America. Very soon a Do Not Spam Registry will be available to them. 
They will be able to call and have their names put on that registry. 
People who refuse to pay attention to that registry and spam them 
regardless will be subject to severe penalties. People who fraudulently 
continue to spam without identifying who they are, when they are 
caught, will pay a big price. Attorney Generals and the FTC are given 
enforcement authority under this compromise, and I think we are 
affording Americans with a brand new tool to protect themselves against 
the entry of material they do not want in their homes whether it comes 
in through the computer, through the telephone, or via the mail. This 
is a great step forward, and I urge adoption of this bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report and thank the 
chairman and ranking member for their work in this effort. I'm 
particularly pleased that the serious shortcomings of the bill which 
I've raised at our committee have been addressed.
  The problem of spam has become so prolific that by the end of this 
year half of all e-mails sent will be spam.
  The numbers are staggering: 76 billion spam e-mails will be delivered 
in 2003; 50 percent of kids have received e-mails containing 
pornographic or sexually explicit information; and U.S. businesses will 
spend close to $10 billion to fight spam this year.
  And marketers have brazenly claimed that the success of the ``Do Not 
Call List'' will drive them to spam even more, costing U.S. businesses 
and consumers even more.
  I sponsored legislation to curb the epidemic of spam and crafted the 
original proposal to empower the FTC to replicate the enormous

[[Page 30753]]

success of the ``Do Not Call List'' by creating a ``Cannot Spam List.'' 
I'm very pleased that a version of this measure has been included in 
the conference report, which I hope the FTC will implement soon after 
enactment of this bill.
  I'm also pleased that the conference report strengthens some of the 
weaknesses of the Senate bill, especially by giving greater authority 
to states to enforce these laws.
  This legislation does not end the entire problem of spam. I'll 
continue to fight for measures to prevent unauthorized and unwanted e-
mail from flooding our inboxes and our computer networks. But this is a 
good start and important and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the anti-spam legislation 
before us, S. 877.
  I am glad to see that Congress has finally taken definitive action on 
this issue. During my first term in Congress, I worked with my 
colleagues Gene Green and Heather Wilson, who have shown great 
leadership here, on anti-spam legislation that passed the House in 
2000.
  Today we have before us legislation to help address the mounting 
problem of unsolicited e-mail advertising, or spam, which has become 
perhaps the biggest nuisance of the Information Age and a drain on our 
economy.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a provision 
intended to combat a related problem that has gotten out of hand in 
some countries and is growing ever worse in the United States--spam 
sent to wireless phones through text messaging.
  As many of my colleagues know, I introduced legislation intended to 
draw attention to this issue--the Wireless Telephone Spam Protection 
Act. This bill was intended to launch what could be called a preemptive 
attack against wireless spam before it spins out of control in the 
United States. Congress too often acts once the fire is already lit. 
This time, we can put the fire out before it gets out of control.
  The Japanese are already fighting off a tsunami of cell phone spam. 
On one recent day, the 38 million customers of the largest Japanese 
wireless company, NTT DoCoMo, received 150 million pieces of spam. Even 
today, after passage of anti-spam laws in Japan, DoCoMo's subscribers 
still receive up to 30 million wireless spam messages each day. This 
has caused millions of Japanese wireless phone users to simply stop 
using their cell phone service.
  So far, U.S. cell phone users have been largely sparred this torrent 
of annoying, unwanted messages. I presume this is because a lot of 
telemarketers don't believe there are enough text-capable cell phones 
in the country. Most new phones are text capably, however, and the 
number of text messages sent in this country has been rising rapidly, 
quadrupling from 250 million messages sent in December 2001 to 1 
billion messages sent in December 2002. Seventeen percent of cellular 
customers, about 23 million people, currently use text messaging--
including 45 percent of cell phone users in the lucrative 18-to-25-
year-old category. Direct marketers are already beginning to salivate.
  That is why I am glad to see that this legislation includes a 
provision instructing the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate an 
opt-in rule for wireless spam. I would like to thank Mr. Markey for his 
work on this issue, and I would like to salute all of those who put 
this legislation together. It is by no means cure-all, but it is 
certainly a good first step towards ending the onslaught of e-mail spam 
and the tsunami of wireless spam. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, for several Congresses now we have had 
hearings and markups in the Energy and Commerce Committee on the 
nuisance of spam, but no progress has been made. I am pleased that a 
bill has finally come forward that looks headed for passage into law.
  Through all this time, the flood of unsolicited e-mails has only 
grown, ISPs have become more and more overwhelmed, and consumers more 
aggravated.
  I know that this bill will come as a welcome relief to many who are 
fed up with opening their e-mail accounts only have to unwanted 
commercial e-mails clogging up their Internet mailboxes.
  Consumers have to waste time deleting numerous spam emails, and even 
worse, if they do unsuspectingly open one of these e-mails, they are 
often faced with offensive pornography.
  I commend the members of the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce 
Committees for their ongoing efforts to address this problem, and I am 
pleased to support this bill.
  I do believe that the bill falls short in one area, in that it does 
not provide a private right of action for individual consumers to seek 
their own remedies. But this legislation does much to strengthen 
enforcement, provide protection from harmful pornographic e-mails, and 
to set up a Do Not Spam Registry, which I can only guess will be as 
popular as the Do Not Call Registry.
  I hope that this bill will put control over Internet mailboxes back 
in the hands of consumers, so that they can choose to receive e-mails 
that they want, and to get rid of e-mails that they do not.
  And to those businesses and individuals that violate these provisions 
and send out spam illegally, this bill will provide the Federal Trade 
Commission, state attorney generals, and Internet Service Providers 
with the tools to crack down on these violators.
  As the House attempts to wrap up its work for the session, there have 
been several bills coming to the floor that I do not believe have 
merit. This bill, however, shows that when we want to, Congress can 
truly act for the public benefit.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Chairman Tauzin, 
Chairman Sensenbrenner, Messrs. Dingell and Burr, and Mrs. Wilson in 
supporting a good consumer protection bill that I hope will help us, as 
consumers, fight the scourge that is spam.
  No one disputes the great utility of e-mail, the fact that it has 
brought great efficiency and productivity gains, not only to our 
professional lives but also our personal lives. Nonetheless, our daily 
routine of scouring through and reviewing our e-mail also tells us that 
e-mail as a critical communications medium is under assault from 
unwanted e-mail--most peddling goods or services ranging from the real 
to the absurd. I do not have a problem with e-marketing per se, after 
all, our consumer based economy is highly dependent on marketing. 
However, e-mail communications make accountability more difficult. 
Therefore, unscrupulous people use it to advance fraudulent and 
deceptive acts and even good commercial actors are tempted to take 
advantage of this lack of accountability.
  Effective and narrowly tailored legislation, like the one before us 
today, can help bring greater accountability to e-mail solicitations. 
That greater accountability is achieved by making sure that fraud and 
deception is prosecuted and subjected to severe penalties.
  Legislation is only part of the solution, and in my view a smaller 
part. Rather, technology, consumer education, and industry cooperation, 
in my view, are the key tools in combating spam and injecting real and 
effective accountability. Finally, combating spam requires 
international cooperation. I think my bi-partisan bill, H.R. 3143, 
which strengthens the Federal Trade Commission's ability to address the 
growing problem of transnational fraud, will go a long way in fighting 
spam that is not home grown.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the Senate bill, S. 877, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. TAUZIN. 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.

                          ____________________