1997-09-15 - Re: unSAFE won’t pass?

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
To: John Smith <jsmith58@hotmail.com>
Message Hash: c652f1bc78db0a8a5b9f6a37324465a62269ecc1c5a0900bacb8e807db5ad06f
Message ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970915082535.23461A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
Reply To: <19970915030641.1770.qmail@hotmail.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-15 12:38:07 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:38:07 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:38:07 +0800
To: John Smith <jsmith58@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: unSAFE won't pass?
In-Reply-To: <19970915030641.1770.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970915082535.23461A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


You don't understand the dynamic. At the NatSec hearing last week, there
were two dozen cosponsors on the committee. But all but one voted to gut
the bill. Many others said they were hoodwinked into signing on.

The tide is changing.


On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, John Smith wrote:

> Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>:
> >By late September, the Commerce committee will vote on SAFE. By
> >mid-October, the committee chairs should have worked out a compromise
> >package. This goes to the Rules committee, chaired by Solomon. Until 
> last
> >week he vowed to block SAFE. Now he'd like, I'm told, to get the FBI's
> >version to the floor immediately. There are, however, only so many 
> slots
> >on the suspension calendar.
> The thing I still don't understand is why anyone thinks the house
> will support the new bill.  There were hundreds of co-sponsors for
> SAFE in its original form.  The modified version is exactly the
> opposite of the original SAFE.  So it seems like a majority of house
> members should oppose the bill.
> "John
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com