International Consumer Protection Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. Dingell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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. 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) be given control of 10 minutes of my time.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) to speak on the bill.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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).

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. 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 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. 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.

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. 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. 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 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. 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.