It has come to my attention that one of my opponents is misleading delegates and others about my legislation that would create a nationwide wi-fi hotspot.   Since this is not the first, nor will it be the last time, my opponents are unable to tell the truth about my record, I wanted to clear it up before the lie could spread.  Here are the facts:

1. Frequency spectrum is owned and licensed by the FCC.  Radio hosts are on the radio because a company they work for bid on a portion of the frequency spectrum that their radio signal uses.  

2. My bill would require the FCC to auction off another portion of that spectrum.  The FCC currently holds spectrum and creates a virtual monopoly for established companies.

3. This auction would require private companies to bid and pay for the spectrum.  That means they have to pay the treasury to purchase those frequencies.

4. If they bid, part of the agreement will be that they will offer, for free, a low to mid-speed broadband system.  In order to make money (as google, yahoo, and others d0), they will sell advertising space (as companies like Xmission do) and they will offer a high speed service at a cost.  If that business model fails, someone else can buy that spectrum.

5. What it comes down to is this…the FCC, for better or worse, controls the frequency spectrum for many communications media in America.  Private companies can buy portions of that spectrum.  That is what is happening here.

I want to be crystal clear about one thing.  This bill, the auction, and the establishment of this wi-fi network will cost taxpayers ZERO DOLLARS.  There are companies that believe they can make money if given they are allowed to purchase this spectrum.  Anyone telling you that this bill will cost money, or is in some way a government subsidy for a private company is misrepresenting the facts or lying to you.  My record of being a faithful steward of the taxpayer’s money is unimpeachable and the false and misleading comments by some, just to get elected, insult the intelligence of the delegates and are flat out false. 

With the convention campaign in full swing and other candidates spending hours every day talking about my record, today’s Daily Herald has some excellent advice. Of course if you want to know the truth about my record just ask.

THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE DAILY HERALD APRIL 23, 2008 

In any election, an incumbent’s record is fair game for debate. That’s especially true in the race for the Republican nomination in Utah’s Third Congressional District, which Rep. Chris Cannon has served since 1996.

Cannon’s challengers this year have similar ideological views to his own in most matters. Their main assertion is that they can do the job better than he has.But can they? Voters should undertake a dispassionate evaluation before deciding.

Sometimes sorting out the conflicting claims can be difficult. Luckily, in the Internet age, it’s fairly easy to find things out.

The Library of Congress’ Thomas Web site (www.thomas.gov) has a ton of information on what members of Congress have done, from roll call votes to committee reports. For instance, one tab will highlight measures Cannon has sponsored in the current Congress — from naming a building to bolstering a water system in Juab County.

If thomas.gov presents a broad look at what a congressman does, other online sites sift through records to provide insights on the most important issues. Project Vote Smart (www.votesmart.org) has a useful section of that sort. For example, you can click on “immigration” and get records for all House members on eight key immigration measures dating to 1997.

The Web site shows thousands of bills, with all sorts of information. For example, Cannon voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provided for building 700 miles of fence on the border with Mexico. It also shows that in 2004 — when Republicans controlled the House — Cannon voted no on HR 3722, a bill that would have required hospitals to provide information on undocumented immigrants seeking emergency medical care. The bill failed in the House by a lopsided vote of 331-88, so neither party liked it much.

Another online tool is provided by The Washington Post (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress).

The Post provides a wealth of information, including a summary of key votes that gives a full and balanced summary of major actions comparing Cannon’s votes to the general Republican and Democratic positions. Cannon usually backed the GOP position and opposed the Democrat’s measures. But there were revealing exceptions. For instance, he cut against the GOP grain by voting no on HR 5, a bill that aimed to reduce the interest rate on student loans. The bill passed the House by a wide margin.

The above-mentioned Web sites are nonpartisan, but it can be useful to see what the partisan groups say. The AFL-CIO’s Web site (aflciovotes.notlong.com) analyzes Cannon’s votes in 2007 and in his congressional career. The liberal labor group says that in 2007 he voted for the ALF-CIO position on only two of 22 votes, 8 percent of the time — which is consistent with his lifetime rating from the group. Conservatives, of course, might view that as a badge of honor.

The National Taxpayers Union (www.ntu.org) says he voted “right” by their stands 86 percent of the time, winning an “A” rating.

There are plenty of other groups that also evaluate members of Congress, from the American Association of University Women to the National Association of Manufacturers. Such evaluations provide voters with important context that might be missing from mere lists of votes.

There’s also the congressman’s own Web site. For instance, go to http://chriscannon.house.gov/Biography and you’ll find out Cannon sits on these committees:

• Judiciary: Ranking Member, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee; Courts, Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee; Anti-trust Task Force.

• Government Reform and Oversight: Domestic Policy Subcommittee; Information Policy, Census, and National Archives Subcommittee.

• Natural Resources: National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee.

One of Cannon’s selling points is that he is gaining seniority, and thus more clout, in Congress. A newcomer would have to start at the bottom and work his way up. Critics might observe that it can take many years for a congressman to get into a committee chairmanship with real influence; these critics might also wonder if dissatisfied voters are willing to wait that long.

We leave it up to the voters to decide what it means, and if any of the challengers can do better than Chris Cannon. Would Utahns be represented any differently, or about the same?

No, not on immigration reform…but on the need to stop taxing cell phone customers to death!  Today’s Wall Street Journal highlights my legislation to put a stop to new cell phone taxes.  Legislation Senator McCain has introduced in the Senate.

The good news is that Mr. McCain isn’t the only one calling a time-out on new taxes. Last week, Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) and Chris Cannon (R., Utah) introduced a wireless tax moratorium bill. It’s time to protect consumers from this tax collector raid.

The average monthly tax bill on cell phones is twice the average monthly sales tax bill Americans pay.  That is unacceptable.  Government should not simply look at the latest technology, and then tax it to death. 

High discriminatory tax rates are a legacy of monopoly telephone company regulation and make little sense in today’s competitive market for wireless service. But they make even less sense for music, games and other services that happen to be delivered over the airwaves. Kentucky revenuers have even argued that customers buying ringtones should pay twice – the state’s general sales tax rate of 6%, plus local utility taxes because the music arrived via a phone company.

Much as I led the fight to pass the internet tax moratorium (which was signed by the President earlier this year), I will lead the fight to pass this cell tax fairness act. 

During this heated election season, we must not forget that what we do for the least among us, we do for him.

But all that changed when 9-year-old Aaron, who has muscular dystrophy, caught the eye of one of the Secret Service agents safeguarding Pope Benedict.

First off, the Wall Street Journal published an in-depth piece today about the need to strengthen the dollar.  As the Journal points out,

Dollar weakness has contributed to soaring commodity prices that have walloped U.S. consumers just when their spending is most needed to offset the housing slump. Oil alone has climbed to $110 a barrel, from $70 in August, even as the International Energy Agency has slashed its predictions for global oil demand. The commodity boom is the result in large part of the Fed’s weak-dollar policy, and it may have tipped the U.S. into a recession that could have been avoided.

The question remains - what can be done?  From my end in Congress, the Journal advises:

In a better world, Congress and the White House would also help with a fiscal growth agenda, such as a marginal rate tax cut.

This is something I agree with totally and believe is needed.  Tax rates, from marginal to capital gains, are far too high.  Government spending continuing to explode and such spending crowds out private investment.  This in turn forces the Fed to print money or borrow, making inflation a real threat to economic stability. 

Election 2008 CAN change this.  As I recently pointed out on the Bob Lonsberry radio show, my record on reducing taxes, cutting (really cutting…not just slowing growth) spending, and advocating smaller and smarter government is unmatched in this Congress.  (It may shock some to know I have a better anti-pork spending record than Ron Paul)  What we need to do is ensure we elect more people with that record.  Republicans have nearly 30 retirements in the House and good candidates running in many open seats. 

————–

On a different note, independent journalist Michael Totten is always worth reading.   Totten has spent years in Iraq and writes an amazing piece about the rebirth of Fallujah. 

That said, Fallujah’s worst days are likely behind it. “The al-Qaida leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province,” says Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman, who oversees an area just north of Ramadi. “They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”

I want to thank Bob Lonsberry for hosting the debate on 570 KNRS this morning.  It was alot of fun and very informative.   As with all debates, you never relay all the information you want to relay, but overall, I think it was a great way for the voters to see the stark differences and even the similarities of the candidates.

I would encourage you to look at my record when deciding who to support. 

For example, contrary to what Jason Chaffetz insinuated, my record on border enforcement is impeccable.   For example:

On key Immigration votes I voted:
-    For the Border Fence (HR 6061)

-    For the REAL ID Act (HR 418)
REAL ID:
    -    Established national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and non-driver’s identification cards;
    -    Waived laws that interfere with construction of physical barriers at the borders; and
    -    Updated and tightened the laws on application for asylum and deportation of aliens for terrorist activity.
-    For hiring more Border Agents (HR 4437)
-    For making repeated attempts to enter the US illegally an aggravated felony (HR 4437)
-    For establishing an employment eligibility verification system that requires employers to verify the legal status of each employee or face a penalty for withholding employee information (HR 4437)
-    For requiring the detention of any undocumented immigrant attempting to enter the country after October 1, 2006, until deportation or final decision granting admissions to the U.S (HR 4437)
-    For providing the funds needed to ensure that illegal aliens in local prisons would remain in custody until deportation (HR 4437)
-    For penalizing US employers for replacing American workers with immigrant labor (HR 4437)
-    For authorizing up to 10,000 military members to secure the border.  Congressman Cannon supported and voted for this in 1997 and continues to support it

-    For denying Federal Housing Assistance to Illegals

-    For allowing the decision on in-state tuition to be left to the States and not the whims of whatever party controls Congress

-    For allowing illegal immigrants to be detained indefinitely pending deportation.  Ending “Catch and Release” (HR 6094)

 Just this Congress I:

-    Was an original co-sponsor of the Congressional Act to Free Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean

-    Am an original signatory of a letter to the President demanding a pardon for Border Agents Ramos and Compean

-    Actively opposed the President/Senate Immigration “Deal” this year.  At the time I said, “Legislation, conceived in secrecy, and dedicated to the proposition that only Senators can solve this issue, cannot long endure. An issue of such import demands the participation and support of the American people. Deciding what it means to be an American is the right of every citizen of this nation and no one, not even the US Senate, can change that.  There is broad support for reform. However, that reform must re-establish trust in the ability of the government to keep its word, promote border security to the top of the agenda, and involve the American people in deciding what is to be done with those here illegally.”

-     Demanded from the Department of Homeland Security the ability for all Americans to see the progress, in real time, of the border fence

Also, I believe Mr. Leavitt misspoke when discussing our debt to China.  According to the US Department of the Treasury, Japan owns more US debt than China.  As one of the most fiscally conservative members of the US House, I will continue to insist on ending deficit spending and paying down our debt.  But we must stick to the facts.

As always, please feel free to contact me or my campaign anytime to get the truth behind my record and the attacks you hear. 

Yesterday, President Bush signed the “Second Chance Act” that I had introduced when Republicans were in the majority and my friend Danny Davis had picked up and I co-sponsored when the Democrats took control.  This bill had broad bipartisan support, from the left and the right. 

Each side recognized that recidivism costs taxpayers billions every year and allowing private entities - from charities to faith based groups - to help end that cycle would be both cost effective for taxpayers and compassionate to those who truly wish to turn their lives around.

I was honored to join the President at the White House yesterday for the bill signing.

For a good news roundup of the bill, please visit:

White House - President’s statement on the Second Chance Act

Deseret News Article on the Second Chance Act

Catholic Charities applauds passage of the Second Chance Act

Watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama question General David Petraeus required a willing suspension of disbelief.  Their disappointment in the progress on the ground in Iraq and against Al Qaeda was palpable.  I say that, not questioning their patriotism, but just to highlight how even they realize that success in Iraq hurts their chances to become President.  I don’t question their sincerity in believing the Iraq war was a mistake (Well, I don’t question Hillary’s sincerity this week, but her position may change again next week).  But as equally clear is how invested in failure in Iraq they are.

To make matters worse for them, today’s NY Post blows the lid off of the Basra operation, further demoralizing Clintonistas, Obamas, and members of the press who have invested so much in the failure narrative.

Seeing as how I have to be in Washington between 3 and 5 days a week during this election season, the opportunity to meet face to face with delegates is limited.  In an effort to ensure we maintain our lead and move well beyond 60%, we had a wonderful conference call tonight.  If tonight’s call was indicative of the support, depth of knowledge, and enthusiasm for a partnership of delegates as a whole, then I am very excited.

Thanks to all who joined us and I look forward to seeing you all when I come home.  I also look forward to chatting with many more of you when I am in Washington and seeing you when I return.

Congressman Cannon Again Named “Friend of the Taxpayer” — Earns Highest Rating of Utah House Delegation.

The National Taxpayers Union is a 362,000-member, nonpartisan, nonprofit citizen group founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, smaller government, and economic freedom at all levels.  On presenting the award to Congressman Cannon, the President of the NTU, Duane Parde, said:

“Chris Cannon’s pro-taxpayer score of 86 percent was one of the best in the entire House/Senate.  By consistently voting to reduce federal spending, taxes, and debt, Chris Cannon has led by example in the fight to ease the burden on taxpayers everywhere. This is an achievement for which he should be proud.”

“If every Member of Congress had voted as responsibly as Chris Cannon did in 2007, Americans could have enjoyed much lower taxes and less waste in government.  Overburdened taxpayers in Utah’s Third District and across the nation owe Chris Cannon a debt of gratitude for his hard work on their behalf. He has truly earned the title ‘Taxpayers’ Friend.’”

According to the NTU, Congressman Cannon received an “A” rating and Congressman Bishop received a “B+” rating.  Congressman Matheson, however, received a “D” rating at 24%. 

NTU analyzed every roll call vote taken during 2007 (1st Session of the 110th Congress) and selected all votes that could significantly affect the amounts of federal taxes, spending, debt, or regulatory impact. A total of 427 House and 182 Senate roll call votes were selected. NTU included votes cast on appropriations bills, authorization bills, budget target resolutions, tax bills, amendments, and certain procedural votes that could affect the burden on taxpayers. Votes that simply shifted equal amounts of spending from one area to another were excluded. Also excluded were votes where there was a significant difference of opinion on how to vote to reduce or control government.  The number of votes used in the analysis, the objective and nonpartisan weighting of the votes, computerized calculations, and many error checks all combine to ensure the highest possible standards of accuracy.