Can-Spam Act of 2003

CAN-SPAM ACT OF 2003

AMENDMENT NO. 1892

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. SCHUMER], for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina, proposes an amendment numbered 1892.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the Commission to implement a nationwide "Do Not E-mail" registry)

On page 66, strike lines 1 through 11 and insert the following:

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.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings. I thank my good friend, Senator Lindsey Graham, who worked long and hard on this issue with me. Senator Graham and I have been working on quite a few pieces of legislation together. He is a good legislator and a fighter for the things in which he believes. We do not agree on everything, to say the least, but it is a pleasure to work with him.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Burns and Senator Wyden, both of whom have worked long and hard on this legislation for many years. They both were willing to work with me and accommodate some changes which I hope make the legislation better. I believe they do. But the foundation of this bill is their hard work. This is a good day for both of them because they have spent a long time and they deserve a great deal of accolades for their hard work on this important legislation which, hopefully, will pass today.

I thank my colleague, Senator Hollings, ranking member of the Commerce Committee, who offers this amendment along with myself, Senator Graham, and Senator McCain. We are all going to miss FRITZ HOLLINGS. He is one of the true gems of the Senate. He is a forthright man and a direct man. He is a smart man. He is a principled man. I, for one, know that my amendment might not have happened, certainly wouldn't be in the form it is now, without his intervention. I thank him for that.

Finally, Senator McCain and I have worked on a whole number of things together. It is a pleasure to work with him. Again, he is a man of his word. He is able to bring different people together to produce good legislation. He cares about the average person. He never lets any of the special interests get in his way. We wouldn't be here today without the Senator's leadership. I thank him very much.

Let me begin by saying how important this whole bill is to the continued vitality of e-mail and the Internet itself. Unsolicited e-mail has grown at astronomical rates over the past months. It is safe to say we are now under siege. Armies of online marketers have overrun e-mail inboxes across the country with advertisements for herbal remedies, get-rich-quick schemes, and, unfortunately, pornography. What was a simple annoyance last year has become a major concern this year and could cripple one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century next year if nothing is done.

Way back in 1999, the average e-mail user received just 40 pieces of unsolicited commercial e-mail, spam, each year. This year the number is expected to pass 2,500. I know that I am lucky if I don't get 40 pieces of spam every day. As a result, a revolution against spam is brewing as the epidemic against junk e-mail exacts an ever-increasing toll on families, businesses, and the economy.

Let me illustrate this point with a story. My wife and I have two wonderful daughters, one of whom is about to complete her first year at college; the other, a 14-year-old, is an absolute whiz on the Internet. She loves sending and receiving e-mails. As parents, we do our best to make sure she has good values and that the Internet is a positive experience for her, a device to help her with her school work or learn about events taking place around the world, and maybe even a way to order the latest In Sync CD, although I think she likes other groups better.

You can imagine my anger and dismay when I saw my daughter on e-mail. I would say: Great, she is not watching television. And then you can imagine my dismay when I discovered that not only was she a victim of spam like myself, but like all e-mail users, much of the junk mail she was receiving advertised pornographic Web sites. Some of the things that crossed her e-mail were things I would not want to see, let alone my 14-year-old daughter. I was and remain virtually powerless to prevent such garbage from reaching my daughter's inbox.

Recent surveys unambiguously show that the public shares my concern about spam infested with pornography and how it impacts their children. The bottom line is, if parents can control what their kids watch on TV, they should be able to control what their children are exposed to on the Internet. We have parental advisory notices on music, as well as ratings for TV shows and movies to ensure that parents are able to keep their children from being exposed to what they consider inappropriate. So it makes you scratch your head about why there is no safeguard in place to enable parents to protect their kids from vulgar e-mail. The e-mailing public has been at the mercy of spammers for long enough. They want to take back the Internet.

A recent survey conducted by UnSpam, one of the ardent foes of spam and backer of my legislation, and InSightExpress, a research group, backs that view. Here is a quick rundown of some of the highlights of the survey:

Almost 9 in 10 parents say they are seriously concerned about their children receiving inappropriate e-mail versus 5 percent who don't care. Ninety-six percent of parents want the ability to block pornography from their children's inboxes. A paltry 2 percent don't want that right. Ninety-five percent think children should be given extra protection under any anti-spam law, 3 percent undecided. And 93 percent think spammers should face enhanced penalties for sending inappropriate messages to children.

Our amendment is a solution that will give parents-the only solution-the ability to protect their children from offensive and obscene e-mail spam by registering their children's e-mail address. Parents across the country are increasingly worried about this problem, and we should do the right thing by giving them a registry. Parents and children are not the only ones who will benefit from a no e-mail registry. Business owners and ISPs across the Nation can identify with the frustration many of us feel in the battle against spam. With surveys showing that nearly 50 percent of e-mail traffic qualifies as spam, businesses spend millions of dollars each year on research-filtering software and new servers to deal with the ever expanding volume of junk e-mail being sent through the pipes.

According to Ferris Research, spam costs businesses in the United States $10 billion each year in lost productivity, consumption of information technology resources, and help desk time.

That is $10 billion that should be spent on growing American businesses and jobs instead of fighting spam.

The Do Not E-mail Registry created by the FTC would allow businesses to cut costs and improve productivity in the workplace by giving them the ability to register their entire domain names. Very important to businesses.

Some have expressed concern about creating a list of e-mail addresses that spammers could exploit. The FTC has already said it is technologically possible to create and secure the list. This is no longer a worry and one of the breakthroughs we made in the last few months that are allowing this legislation to come to the Senate floor.

In fact, we know that the database of addresses can be protected by military-caliber encryption so that its valuable contents will not fall into the wrong hands.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the underlying bill and other amendments, and then I will get into mine.

First, I commend Senators BURNS and WYDEN for their long efforts on this bill. The bill will, for the first time, set minimum standards for all commercial e-mail. It will require all commercial mail to include valid return e-mail addresses and physical addresses of the sender. It must provide accurate header and router information. And most messages will be required to have an opt-out system.

It does not stop there. In addition to these provisions, it will take aim at the mass collection of e-mail addresses and the rampant fraud which, according to a report released by the FTC, is present in 66 percent of junk e-mail.

I am hopeful that we can add important criminal provisions to these civil measures. I know both my colleagues, including Senators MCCAIN and HOLLINGS, want to do that. I worked in the Judiciary Committee with Senators HATCH and LEAHY on a bill that makes it clear that fraud and deception in e-mail will not be tolerated. And those who do not heed the warnings in this bill will face stiff punishment. These criminal provisions will outlaw some of the spammers' favorite tricks.

About our legislation as well, let me just say it is really important that we put in the registry, which, in my judgment, is the best way to get at spam. No system is foolproof and, as Mr. Morris of the FTC has said, no bill will solve all of the problems. But the registry is the most complete, comprehensive way to do it, combined with the criminal penalties that we are adding in the Hatch-Leahy-Schumer amendment.

The minute somebody spams someone on the Do Not Call list, there will be an immediate cause of action and criminal prosecution.

The good news is that since we know that a large amount of spam comes from a small amount of people, we can get after these few people. This legislation, as you know, gives the FTC 6 months to come back with a comprehensive proposal. We then get 3 months here to examine it to see if we want to change it, and then the FTC may implement it. I have received-and they have both verbalized this on the Senate floor-assurances from Senators MCCAIN and HOLLINGS that if the FTC should decide they don't want to implement it, or come up with something that is unworkable, they will use their clout with the FTC to straighten things out and get this done. Otherwise, we in the Congress can respond.

I believe this amendment will allow, without any further action by Congress, as long as the House passes it and it stays in the bill-and I thank Senator McCain for assuring me that he will not even sign a conference report that doesn't have this amendment in it, and I know all of my colleagues are for this legislation. But once it passes the House and is signed into law, we set the road for a no-call registry. It is all downhill after that.

Within a year, it is my belief we will have that registry and, just as the no-call registry was a great success, I believe the no-spam registry will be a great success. It will take a little longer, it will be a little more difficult, but the same basic popularity and support that the American people have given the no-call registry, they will give, for sure, to the no-spam registry, and the combination of a good proposal that the FTC will have to send to us in 6 months and vigilant enforcement, plus the no-spam registry, plus the underlying base of the bill, will put a crimp, a real dent in spam.

Are we ever going to eliminate all spam? For sure not. But is this legislation, along with the amendment I am adding, going to be the toughest, best approach, and greatly curtail spam? Indeed. It is my belief that when we enter these portals a year from now, spam will have greatly decreased.

One of the great inventions of the 20th century, which is now sick and ailing, will be healthy and going full steam ahead. The bottom line is that this is a very fine day for those who use computers and e-mail and for American technology in general. It shows that we can all work together and get something done-get something done that the American people want.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation. Let's finally do something about one of the greatest technological problems that we face right now in this country, the proliferation of spam.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. I once again thank my colleague from Arizona for helping us with this list and his commitment in terms of keeping this in the conference and then making sure the FTC moves forward with this in every technological way possible. I very much appreciate it. As I mentioned before, the Senator is a true gentleman, a man of his word. We would not be here today without his good work.