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-
>
>
>