Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this matter, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1139. H.R. 1139, sponsored by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist the Western Municipal Water District in the planning, design, and construction of the Riverside- Corona Feeder. This project includes water storage, pumping facilities, and 28 miles of pipeline in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. This legislation, as amended, is another step toward ``drought proofing'' Southern California and also reduces the region's dependence on imported water supplies, while providing limited Federal assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

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

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1736. I would like to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands for her kind comments and background on this bill. H.R. 1736 passed the House of Representatives last Congress, and I reintroduced this legislation earlier this year. This bill will benefit many of my constituents by allowing Juab County to become eligible for funding for conjunctive use under the Central Utah Project. Precious water resources in Utah are highly valued and maximizing existing water resources efficiently is imperative. The Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project was planned to develop and export water from the high Uinta Mountains in the eastern part of the State and bring it to the populated Wasatch Front. As originally planned, Juab County would have received a large amount of water. However, due to alterations in the original plan, much of that water is planned for use in the Wasatch, Utah, and Salt Lake Counties. While efforts will continue to identify and secure substantial additional water supplies for Juab, there are near-term steps that can be taken to help the county meet its current needs and growing demands. This legislation will facilitate one of those near- term steps. H.R. 1736 will allow Juab County to become eligible for funding for studies and construction of conjunctive use projects by amending the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. Allowing Juab County to be eligible to receive funds under the Central Utah Project Completion Act will allow the county to maximize surface water flows and groundwater sources by storing flows in existing aquifers. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 361 and yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has appropriately explained the bill, which has passed the bill in the last two Congresses in one form or another. I support the bill.

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

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1175 and yield myself such time as I may consume. The Democratic bill manager has adequately explained the bill. This legislation has been cosponsored by five of my Republican colleagues, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Royce and Mr. Campbell of California.

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

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, the language included in Section 103 of HR 2316 entitled Additional Restrictions on Contractors is language I offered at the Judiciary Committee that closed a loophole in the revolving door provisions of the law. This language was accepted by voice vote in the Judiciary Committee with the support of Committee Chairman John Conyers. My amendment would impose the same post employment restrictions currently in law to those attorneys and firms that are employed through a contract with the Congress. Currently, the House Judiciary Committee Majority has agreed to a contract with a partner in a law firm at the same time that law firm is registered to lobby the Congress and in particular is registered to lobby for clients with particular legislative interest before the committee. It is a glaring loophole that a law firm would be able to send an individual to work on the hill at the same time the firm is lobbying the contract employee's colleagues on the committee and the contract employee can potentially lobby the committee where they worked because they are technically not an employee of the committee. The contract the Judiciary Committee signed was with Irv Nathan of Arnold and Porter for $25,000 per month for up to $250,000 for a 10 month contract. An astonishing amount of money to be paid to a staffer, an amount any full time staffer or member would appreciate to be making. It is my opinion the only way to comply with clause 14(b) of House Rule XXI, which states contract employees shall not be able to use one's official position for private gain and to conduct oneself at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House, is to include contract employees in the revolving door provisions. In an article from the Washington Post on January 16, 2007, Jeff Birnbaum writes: The most jaw-dropping hire from K Street, though, is Matt Gelman. Gelman is senior adviser to House Democratic Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) and is, in effect, on loan from Microsoft, where he is director of federal government affairs. He's on unpaid leave for a few months from the software giant and will return after he helps build Clyburn's vote-counting operation. Furthermore, in a January 27, 2007 story in McClatchy Newspapers Matt Stearns writes: Clyburn spokeswoman Kristie Greco defended the hire, saying that Gelman is a veteran Capitol Hill aide with specialized knowledge . . . and that Microsoft is banned from lobbying Clyburn's personal and leadership offices while Gelman works there. In essence, the language would codify the Clyburn precedent and extend the post-employment restrictions to contract employees and their firms. This language closes a loophole which is ripe for abuse. I appreciate that the language was accepted and remains in the legislation that is being considered today.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 261, I was inadvertantly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, today, the House is presented with a unique opportunity to address two prevailing problems with representation in the House. One relates to whether the District is entitled to a Representative and the other whether Utah is owed an additional seat in Congress because of the illegitimate counting of residents after the 2000 census. Utah lost out on a 4th seat because of a census bureau decision to count, and to enumerate to their respective home States, government employees residing temporarily abroad, but not count similarly situated missionaries. Had the Bureau either not counted any Americans residing temporarily abroad, or counted all such Americans and not just those employed by the Federal Government, Utah would have been awarded a fourth seat. Although this legislation provides Utah the seat it deserves and was denied in the 2000 census, I do have concerns with the language in the bill which ties the hands of the Utah legislature. The preemption language is offensive and demeans the historic role of States in the reapportionment process. I offered an amendment that was rejected by the Rules Committee on a 7-4 vote that would have simply removed the language of the bill mandating the ``at large'' seat in Section 4 and left it to the State to decide. The amendment would have changed ``shall'' to ``may'', and would not have prohibited an at large seat, but rather would have provided Utah the opportunity to choose whether to redistrict or not. The intent of my amendment was to reaffirm the role of the State in the decisionmaking process, but the Democrats treated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution as words without meaning by rejecting my amendment. Although I will vote in favor of this legislation, as this bill moves forward I will continue my efforts to push for inclusion of my amendment to protect the State's role in the process.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, I rise to welcome to the United States and to my State of Utah the Speaker of the Kyrgyz Parliament, Mr. Marat Sultanov. Mr. Sultanov was hosted by leaders in Utah on February 3-5. Kyrgyzstan is a small nation in the heart of Central Asia, landlocked and inhabited primarily by a Muslim population with a predominantly nomadic culture and heritage. Kyrgyzstan has demonstrated itself a friend and ally of the United States, especially in the fight against terrorism. The air base at the Manas International Airport in Bishkek is still the only military base in Central Asia supporting coalition forces operations against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. For some time the Kyrgyz Republic has been considered an advanced nation in terms of political and economic transformation. After the change of regime in 2005 and the election of a new president, Kyrgyzstan still faces many challenges. One great challenge for this nation stems from its proximity to Afghanistan, and the threat of increasing drug trafficking, weapons smuggling and radical militancy. Kyrgyzstan needs our support to progress with reforms for a better future for its citizens. During his visit to the United States, and Utah in particular, Speaker Sultanov talked about those matters. His background and political career show his own contributions to the promotion of market- based economic reforms. Before his election to the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan, he was head of the National Bank and the Minister of Finances. Speaker Sultanov's visit to Utah came at the invitation of Utah Senate President John Valentine, as a result of the Speaker's special interest in building strong, direct ties between the legislators of Kyrgyzstan and the legislature of Utah, as well as with the U.S. Congress. While in Utah, Speaker Sultanov lectured at Utah Valley State College on the subject of ``The Kyrgyz Republic-Utah-Rocky Mountain States: A new level of cooperation through a sustainable Mountain Partnership.'' The Speaker will emphasize for the first time a new tack in the bilateral agenda, related to cooperation in the sphere of sustainable mountain development, which will be very important for both Kyrgyzstan and Utah. The idea of sustainable development is directed toward fighting poverty, unemployment and inequality by looking for the exchange and implementation of best practices among the people who live in similar environments with similar challenges. Many of these challenges in mountain nations come because of remoteness, lack of resources and infrastructure. The Rocky Mountain States and Utah are actively involved in this cooperative process. In November of last year several institutions from this region, including Vista 360 (Jackson, Wyoming), Utah Valley State College and the Utah-Russia Institute became members of the UN-related Mountain Partnership, which coordinates efforts on sustainable mountain development on a global level. Another major project which Utah Valley State College is pursuing, together with its partners from the National Center of Development of Mountain Regions of Kyrgyzstan, is the international conference ``Women of the Mountains.'' A number of prominent women from around the world and from the Rocky Mountain region will take part in the Conference. The goal of the Conference is to unite leading scholars and institutions from the Rocky Mountain States in a regional approach toward sustainable mountain development. This conference will be free and open to the public on the UVSC Orem campus from March 8th-March 10th. The conference will give scholars from the region an opportunity to talk to each other and identify positive examples of sustainable development in the Rocky Mountains and then to further these experiences both in this region and with interested partners around the world. UVSC intends that the Conference be held on an annual basis. Representatives of Kyrgyzstan and other developing mountain nations have emphasized how important it is for them to have specific support from the mountain communities of the United States. The historical development of the mountainous states in North America, and Utah in particular, are of particular interest to them. The new involvement and interest of the Rocky Mountain States and Utah in sustainable mountain development could help many of the transitioning economies to develop and implement more successful, pro- market policies. This is a rewarding and noble goal, especially now, when we are witnessing growing challenges to stability and development around the world from the growth of poverty and unemployment, two primary sources feeding terrorism and militancy.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5304) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for caller ID spoofing, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have five copies at the desk currently.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, we are having a copy directed to Mr. Scott. He has got it.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5304, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5304, the Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act, the PHONE Act, which was introduced by Representative Tim Murphy. I thank Mr. Murphy for his leadership and commitment to this issue. In the last few years, the criminal activity known as ``spoofing'' has been on the rise. Caller ID spoofing occurs when a person deliberately uses an incorrect, fake or fraudulent caller identification to hide their identity in order to facilitate a fraudulent telephone call and to harass, trick or further a fraudulent scheme. The victims of this activity include the legitimate owner of a caller ID or the recipient of a fraudulent telephone call, who, as a result, may divulge legitimate financial or identifying information such as credit card numbers or other financial information. Spoofing is nothing less than criminal fraud. Spoofing technology has become more accessible to the average person, either through the purchase of Internet telephone equipment or through Web sites specifically set up to spoof. These Web sites promote spoofing as a device to commit fraud, prank phone calls and political attacks, and are used by telemarketers who are attempting to avoid the current ``do not call'' limits. H.R. 5304 creates a new Federal crime prohibiting the modification of caller ID to harass or commit fraud or use another person's ID without that person's consent. The bill imposes a penalty of a prison term of up to 5 years and/or a fine for any violation. However, the legislation does not affect legally available blocking of caller ID technology or lawfully authorized activities of law enforcement intelligence agencies. This legislation will help to deter telephone fraud, to protect consumers from harassment, and to increase protection of consumers and their personally identifiable data from fraudulent telephone use. I urge my colleagues to join together to pass this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5304. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the gentleman that this is in fact an ongoing problem where we have crimes being committed and some difficulty in some cases actually having a rationale for prosecuting people that are using this sometimes in very harsh criminal circumstances. The original bill used the term ``misleading.'' I think we have changed that now to ``defraud or harass.'' There is no legitimate purpose when you are talking about the defrauding or harassing. So I would encourage my colleagues to support this bill. It is much improved, taking into account the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia, and I believe that it is an appropriate bill, a bill that is well-drafted now, and I would urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), the author of the bill.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to introduce for the Record a letter dated today, from the Department of Justice, that I think answers some of the questions that the gentleman from Virginia has asked. We will see that a copy of this is delivered to the gentleman. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC, December 8, 2006. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice appreciates the opportunity to comment on H.R. 5304, the ``Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act'' (``PHONE Act''). As Deputy Assistant Attorney General Barry Sabin testified before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security last month, we support Congressional action to give law enforcement better tools to protect our citizens and our country from identity thieves, stalkers, and other criminals. Overall, the bill would support the Department's efforts to combat the threats caused by the widespread availability of ``caller ID spoofing.'' As noted at the Subcommittee's hearing on the PHONE Act, these threats include preying on the elderly, harassment of telephone users, and dangerous false alarms to public safety personnel. Caller ID spoofing facilitates a number of serious crimes, including identity theft, pretexting, and privacy invasions. It can also be used to hamper important, time sensitive investigations. The Department was especially pleased to see that the scope of the bill includes both conventional telephone calling and many types of voice over Internet protocol (``VOIP'') services. VOIP is an important new advance in the way Americans communicate, and our laws need to keep up with such technological advances if these new innovations are to reach their full potential. The drafters also have wisely recognized that, at times, it may be necessary to modify caller ID information in the course of authorized law enforcement and intelligence operations. Accordingly, the bill properly includes an exception for these legitimate law enforcement and intelligence activities. The Department has a number of recommendations (described below) to clarify the bill and to make it even more effective. A. The bill could be made more effective by creating a more graduated series of offenses. Proposed Section 1038(a) creates only a single offense, a felony. A felony is a very serious charge that carries heavy penalties that may not be proportional to the conduct at issue in every case. The drafters may wish to consider a more graduated series of offenses that would allow prosecutors to charge misdemeanor offenses in appropriate circumstances. For instance, felony penalties could be reserved for caller ID spoofing done in furtherance of another crime or tort, while those playing practical jokes could be charged with a misdemeanor offense. This could lead to greater use of the statute and more just results. Such an approach has been implemented in other federal criminal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030(c)(2)(B) (part of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 270 I (b) (the criminal provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act). B. The bill could be made more effective by prohibiting attempts. A prosecution should not depend on whether a criminal was successful in the object of his or her crime. Thus, if a call placed by a criminal attempting to mislead another does not go through for some reason, the criminal should be punishable as if the call had been completed. Such failures may occur where a service has blocked certain numbers, such as 911, or even for more mundane technical problems. These failures do not make the criminal any less culpable for attempting to mislead others. Thus, we recommend that the bill punish attempts the same as the substantive offense. C. The new provision should be numbered 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1039. The bill seeks to add a new provision to the end of Chapter 47 of Title 18. Section 1038 in Title 18 already exists, however, and we understand that there is a good chance that a bill currently moving through Congress would create a new section numbered 1039. Thus, this bill should be numbered either 1039 or 1040 instead. D. The drafters may wish to include a clear statement of jurisdiction. We believe that the bill as written contains a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to justify federal jurisdiction in most cases. Nevertheless, in order to make jurisdiction even more clear, the Committee may want to consider adding the phrase ``using any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce'' to proposed subsection 1038(a). Alternatively, it may be helpful to include a specific finding regarding jurisdiction in the Committee's report. E. The bill can be made more effective by prohibiting ``generating and transmitting'' misleading caller identification information in addition to ``modifying'' such information. Some of the caller ID spoofing services available today do not actually modify caller ID information. As a technical matter, the service creates a new telephone call, thereby generating or transmitting new caller ID information. To take into account such situations, we recommend that, in addition to modifying information, the bill also cover generating or transmitting caller ID information with an intent to mislead. F. The bill can be made more effective by prohibiting caller ID spoofing with the intent to mislead any other person. Caller ID spoofing can be used not only to mislead call recipients, but also to defraud communications service providers. In addition to misreporting the information that eventually is displayed on call recipients' caller ID displays, the same methods can be and are used to falsify the telephone numbers that carriers use to determine appropriate billing for calls that are carried on their networks. The bill can be strengthened to include this type of fraud by prohibiting misleading ``any other person'' rather than only misleading call recipients. G. The bill can be made more effective by clarifying the definition of ``caller ID information. `` As currently drafted, the definition of ``caller ID information'' is difficult to parse. We would recommend rewording proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(A) to say ``The term `caller ID information' means information regarding the origination of the telephone call, including the telephone number of the originating party.'' H. The bill can be made more effective by focusing the definition of ``telephone call'' on the service used to receive calls rather than the service used to make calls. The bill seeks to cover matters involving ``telephone calls.'' A ``telephone call'' is defined as a ``call made using a telecommunications service or a VOIP service.'' See proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). This definition focuses on the service being used to make the call, thereby allowing the person seeking to mislead others to avoid criminal liability by choosing a service not covered by the statute. For example, a caller using a service that allows only outbound calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) would not be covered (without the modifications suggested in Section I below), even though ordinary telephone users would be receiving such calls. The bill's coverage more properly should depend on the type of service being used to receive the call, since it is call recipients that the bill seeks to protect from being misled. We recommend that the definition of ``telephone call'' be changed to read ``The term `telephone call' means a communication made using or received on a telecommunications service or VOIP service.'' I. The bill can be made more effective by expanding the definition of ``VOIP service.'' We have a number of concerns with the narrow scope of the definition of ``VOIP service,'' a definition that soon could be overtaken by advances in technology. It is important to craft this definition well not only because of the effect it would have on the scope of this bill, but because of the effect it could have on the scope of other important programs, such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and emergency response services. As Thomas Navin, Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission, testified before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Energy and Commerce Committee, ``a restrictive definition of VOIP . . . might establish a statutory precedent that would restrict the Commission's authority to protect life and property in both the public safety and law enforcement contexts.'' The Department has expressed similar concerns in regulatory proceedings and in connection with other bills introduced this Congress, and we would respectfully raise those same concerns with this Committee. 1. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the requirement that a VOIP service be transmitted ``through customer premises equipment.'' It is not clear why protection from being misled by caller ID information should depend on whether VOIP service is transmitted ``through customer premises equipment,'' as set forth in proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i). We therefore suggest deleting these words (``through customer premises equipment'') to broaden the scope of the bill. 2. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the requirement that a VOIP service use Transmission Control Protocol. The bill should not be limited to services that use the Transmission Control Protocol (``TCP''), as many current VOIP services use another protocol (that is not a successor to TCP) called the User Datagram Protocol (``UDP''). We therefore recommend that ``Transmission Control Protocol/'' be deleted from proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i). 3. The bill can be made more effective by clarifying the parenthetical in the definition of a ``VOIP service.'' Proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i) provides that a VOIP service is covered even when the Internet protocol conversion is performed ``without use of circuit switching.'' The Department believes that this provision is unclear. We recommend that the parenthetical be clarified. 4. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the requirement that a VOIP service be offered ``for a fee.'' The Department believes it would be preferable that the bill's prohibition not depend on the provider's business model, that is, not apply only to those VOIP services offered ``for a fee.'' See proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(i). At least some VOIP services are offered at no charge and will be supported by revenue generated from sources other than user fees, such as advertising revenue. In fact, several VOIP providers are currently offering free calls to or from the PSTN. There is no reason why the business model of the service provider should have an impact on the scope of the bill's coverage. 5. The bill can be made more effective by eliminating the requirement that a VOIP service must offer two-way interconnection to the PSTN. The bill also limits ``VOIP service'' to a service that ``has the capability to originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network [PSTN].'' See proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1038(c)(l)(C)(iii) (emphasis added). This provision is unnecessarily restrictive for two reasons. First, some VOIP providers offer services that only allow one of those two capabilities. Under the definition in the bill, a call to a person's telephone is not a ``telephone call'' if the caller's service does not also allow that originator to receive calls from the PSTN. There is no reason a person should be allowed to mislead call recipients, even ones using traditional telephone service, simply because he or she uses a service that restricts incoming calls. Even if the bill were amended as suggested above to focus on the service used to receive calls, there is no reason why subscribers to receive-only services should be less protected from fraudulent caller ID information simply because their ability to call out is limited. We recommend that, at a minimum, the word ``and'' be changed to ``or'' in proposed subsection 1038(c)(l)(C)(iii). In addition, the bill only covers services that are capable of interconnecting with the PSTN. Reference to the PSTN could be interpreted to limit its applicability to one particular set of wires, i.e., the traditional telephone network. If, as some predict, the future of telephone communications shifts entirely away from that older network, the bill could become a dead letter. We recommend adding ``or a successor network'' at the end of proposed subsection 1038(c)(1)(C)(iii). J. The bill can be more effective by including a forfeiture provision. In addition, the Department believes the bill would have more deterrent effect if it also included a forfeiture provision. Specifically, a court could order the convicted party to forfeit the proceeds derived from the offense, along with equipment used to facilitate the offense. The language for a forfeiture provision could be modeled on the wording used for the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. See 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1037(c). K. The bill can be made more effective by giving prosecutors tools to combat money laundering of illegal proceeds of violations of the PHONE Act and the CAN-SPAM Act. We recommend adding proposed section 1039 and existing section 1037 to the list of ``specified unlawful activities'' in section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18. This amendment would make certain financial transactions involving the proceeds of violations of sections 1037 and 1039 money laundering offenses under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1956 and 1957, and it will provide for the civil forfeiture of such proceeds. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 981(a)(l)(C) (providing for the civil forfeiture of proceeds of crimes designated as ``specified unlawful activity''). Existing law provides that comparable crimes, e.g., violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030 (computer fraud and abuse) constitute specified unlawful activities. For convenience, we have included recommended edits to the text of the bill in order to accomplish many of the recommendations suggested above (attached hereto as Appendix A). The Department appreciates the Committee's leadership in ensuring that our country's laws meet this new challenge. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill and for your continuing support. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of these views from the standpoint of the Administration's program. If we may be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, James H. Clinger, Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice supports the bill. We recognize that sometimes in the helter-skelter of closing up Congress, things happen quickly and maybe not perfectly. I think this bill is a good bill. I think this bill does what we need it to do. I think we have answered the major questions here. We may have to revisit it sometime in the future, but I would like to see law enforcement have this tool. So I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a copy of those comments on the way over to the gentleman from Virginia. I would hope we would never require begging in this institution for access to information, and I apologize for any inconvenience. While we are delivering the Department of Justice's letter, the first paragraph of which talks about supporting the bill, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania such time as he may consume.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman from Virginia had the opportunity to review the document and the bill?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, one of the greatest pains in my life is the fact that we have colleagues in this institution who are sometimes troublesome, and so we get that caller ID and I think it is from my office and I end up talking to one of my colleagues I might not have talked to if I wasn't being spoofed by the institution. My understanding is we had to make a copy of that letter. Apparently it was the only one we had. So we will have a copy coming to you momentarily. It is being delivered currently to your staff.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me point out to the gentleman that those are not recommendations of things that are needed to improve the bill but suggestions for improvement of the bill, and I would ask my colleagues to support the bill as it stands. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and would like to point out, I am sure the gentleman when he talks about hiding the ball he is not referring to us. We have been working with the Justice Department to get this information. We got to the gentleman's office this bill by midday today and, again, we apologize for the technical difficulties. I am not sure if the gentleman opposes the bill in substance, but I would again encourage my colleagues to support the bill. It is my understanding the gentleman is likely to be the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee next year and can bring this up and improve it with all of the comments and the suggestions that the Justice Department has proposed, and therefore I hope that he will join with me in supporting this bill for its passage. I encourage my colleagues to pass it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.