Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
On The ‘Spam’ Problem And Alternative Solutions
May 15, 2003

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.

 # # # # #