IP: Re:you should be outraged that a few members [I know I am djf]

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:01:15 -0500
To: farber () cis upenn edu
From: Stephen Haynes <haynesmn () ix netcom com>


Dave -

People, hopefully including IPers, will be using a variety of methods to
respond to this Congressional action.  Personally, I wrote my
Representative and both Senators via their web pages or email addresses the
following, which might serve as a model for others:

        I understand that as part of a House/Senate Conference 
        Committee rewrite of a recent "intelligence authorization" 
        legislation, the Committee inserted a provision that 
        authorizes broad "roving wiretap" authorization.  I 
        consider this a gross violation of civil liberties.  
        If you voted for this bill including this provision, 
        knowing or unknowing that the wiretap provision was 
        included, shame, shame!  I should like to know your 
        position on this matter, and what steps will be taken 
        to rescind this authority.

Stephen Haynes

At 08:05 PM 10/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
> X-Sender: jcp () mail jcphome com
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 
> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:41:14 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <jcp () jcphome com>
> Subject: Re: IP: you should be outraged that a few members [I know I am
>  djf]
>
>
> I addition to being outraged, its important to note this form of attack is
> almost
> impossible to defend against because there's so little visiblity beforehand.
> One of the *least* transparent parts of our government is the conference
> committee process.  I certainly know I never heard about it in civics
class...
> I dont know how long the conference to floor-vote interval was on this bill,
> but a casual reading of the Thomas system records on another bill I was
> involved with shows about 36 hours from conference report to the full House
> till passage by BOTH houses.  Not a lot of time to influence the process.
>
> This is one reason people have lobbyists ON the Hill.  To catch things like
> this
> in flight (or in the decision process leading up to conference) and
> influence them
> on the spot.  Given the fact that stuff like this tends to happen at
> end-of-session,
> when everyone is distracted (especially this year, with both Clinton and
> the budget
> late in the session)  I kind of suspect a bumper-crop this year of this
> stuff.  Lobbyists
> *know* when this stuff is likely, thats what they're paid for...
>
> Like i say, this process is pretty un-transparent.  One might even say
opaque.
> Best regards,
>   -jcp-