[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Page 11850]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             THE ``SPAM'' PROBLEM AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

  Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the problem of junk 
commercial e-mail, commonly known as ``spam.'' It is increasingly 
apparent that spam is more than a just a nuisance: It has become a 
serious and growing problem that threatens to undermine the vast 
potential of the Internet.
  America's businesses and America's homes are flooded with millions of 
unwanted, unsolicited e-mails each day. A recent study by Ferris 
Research estimates that spam costs U.S. firms $8.9 billion annually in 
lost productivity and the need to purchase ever more powerful servers 
and additional bandwidth to try to stay ahead of the spammers; to 
configure and run spam filters; and to provide helpdesk support for 
spam recipients. The costs of spam are significant to individuals as 
well, including time spent identifying and deleting spam, inadvertently 
opening spam, installing and maintaining anti-spam filters, tracking 
down legitimate messages mistakenly deleted by spam filters, deleting 
spam that is not caught by filters, and paying for Internet Service 
Providers' blocking efforts.
  In my home state of Vermont, one legislator recently found that two-
thirds of the 96 e-mails in his inbox were spam. And this occurred 
after the legislature had installed new spam-blocking software on its 
computer system that seemed to be catching 80 percent of the spam. The 
Assistant Attorney General in Vermont was forced to suggest to computer 
users the following means to avoid these unsolicited commercial e-
mails: ``It's very bad to reply, even to say don't send anymore. It 
tells the spammer they have a live address. The best thing you can do 
is just keep deleting them. If it gets really bad, you may have to 
change your address.'' This experience is echoed nationwide. The FTC's 
recent spam forum underscored the magnitude and complexity of the 
problem.
  Twenty-nine States now have anti-spam laws, but the globe-hopping 
nature of e-mail makes these laws difficult to enforce. Technology will 
undoubtedly play a key role in fighting spam, but a technological 
solution to the problem is not likely in the foreseeable future. ISPs 
block billions of unwanted e-mails each day, but spammers are winning 
the battle.
  In addition, given the speed with which spammers adapt to anti-spam 
technologies, the development and dissemination of such technologies is 
not cheap. Why should businesses and individuals be forced to invest 
large amounts of time and money in buying, installing, troubleshooting 
and maintaining new generations of anti-spam technologies?
  The problems posed by junk e-mail are real, with substantial 
consequences for Internet users and service providers alike. I am 
working with other members of the Judiciary Committee, on both sides of 
the aisle, to arrive at an appropriate solution.
  I have often said that Congress must exercise great caution when 
regulating in cyberspace. Any legislative solution to spam must tread 
carefully to ensure that we do not impede or stifle the free flow of 
information on the Internet. The United States is the birthplace of the 
Internet, and the whole world watches whenever we decide to regulate 
it. Whenever we choose to intervene in the Internet with government 
action, we must act carefully, prudently, and knowledgeably, keeping in 
mind the implications of what we do and how we do it. And we must not 
forget that spam, like more traditional forms of commercial speech, is 
protected by the First Amendment.
  At the same time, we must not allow spam to result in the ``virtual 
death'' of the Internet, as one Vermont newspaper put it.
  The Internet is a valuable asset to our nation, to our economy, and 
to the lives of Americans, and we should act prudently to secure its 
continued viability and vitality.

                          ____________________