Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. [Page: H10237] I rise in opposition to this bill. A similar bill passed under suspension by about a vote of 410-11, and I was one of the people that voted for the bill at that time. The bill went over to the Senate. The Senate has amended the bill.

The underlying bill I think is actually a very good bill. It's a very important bill. We need to do something with it. But the bill that has come back is dramatically different from the bill that went over to the Senate.

My understanding is that the Senate has included in this bill the power for Federal law enforcement agencies to seize equipment that may be used in violation of the act. And what that means is, if you have got a kid who downloads music improperly, your computer may be seized. I'm not exactly sure what the scope of that seizure is, but that's in part because this is a gerrymandered piece of this bill that was added to an underlying bill that was coherent and integrated and would have worked very, very well.

As it is, I have to rise in opposition to this, what I think of as an extraordinary assertion of Federal authority over what we do with our personal lives and our computers and our equipment.

That is not to condone, by any stretch of the imagination, the improper use of copyrighting material, but to say, rather, that this bill, in its current form, has gone too far in that regard.

And so I oppose the bill, and I ask that my colleagues take a look at it and consider it and consider opposing this bill, along with me, because of the overreach that has happened here.

I might note this seems like this happened about 8 years ago where the Senate added a provision to one of the appropriations bills that would have allowed the recording industry to spike, that is, to put a virus on the computer of the user on which downloaded music resided.

[Time: 17:30] That was inappropriate. We worked on this side to stop that, and I think we should stop that here with this bill now.