Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing forward H.R. 1542, H.R. 1698 and H.R. 2120 to the full Judiciary Committee. Like many of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, I am frustrated that our committee received an extremely narrow referral of H.R. 1542. My frustration in particular is focused on section 4 of the H.R. 1542 bill that may inhibit efforts to prohibit spamming.

As we on the Judiciary Committee all recognize, unsolicited commercial electronic mail, or “spam,” can impose significant economic burdens on Internet access services, small and large businesses, and of course, individuals. That is because the information superhighway can only handle a finite volume of email. Spam can also negatively affect the quality of service that web users receive and ultimately contributes to a loss of privacy online.

Both the Federal Communications Commission and the states have a substantial governmental interest in regulating spam. Indeed, this Committee recently addressed the spam issue – taking a measured approach to ensure that spammers do not cause further damage to our high-tech economy. To date, however, the primary burden for dealing with spam has fallen on the FCC and the states.

Section 4 of the Tauzin-Dingell bill is intended to completely deregulate the provision of high-speed data services offered by incumbent local exchange carriers. New section 232, which would be created if H.R. 1542 is enacted, would eliminate the authority for the FCC and the states to address spam. As the bipartisan, dissenting views from the Commerce Committee concerning the Tauzin-Dingell bill point out: “The sweeping evisceration of FCC and state authority raises several questions about what rules and regulations no longer apply. . . . That means that many important rules, including consumer protection rules, may inadvertently be swept away.” Spam is one of those areas where FCC and state regulations would be nullified.

Given that H.R. 1542 threatens the ability of the FCC and state governments to deal with spam transmitted using the high-speed data services of Bell companies, I was prepared to offer an amendment this morning. My amendment – to be added to the end of Section 4(b) of Tauzin-Dingell – would simply have said: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Commission or any state from adopting regulations to prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail messages, or ‘spam.’”

The impact that Tauzin-Dingell would have on consumer protection measures such as spam regulations causes me great concern. I hope that if H.R. 1542 does, in fact, reach the floor of the House, all of us who are concerned about this issue will have an opportunity rectify the situation with a floor amendment.

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and for his leadership on these broadband bills.

###