December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

noiz ... and more SKRONK
by strick＠techwood.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MAB: > Also, /etc/noiz is an attractive target > on multi-user machines.... Right. But you notice I made it mode 660, owner root, group kmem, to parallel the /dev/*mem devices. You have the same vulnerabilities as always on a multi-user system, even if you put /dev/noise in the kernel or run a TCP daemon. Another parallel is the randseed.bin file in PGP. >From an information theory point of view, I don't know how to describe the kind of shared-entropy that this pool exhibits. Making the source of the entropy hidden to the users by crunching on the way out with MD5 adds something to the data -- it's not true entropy, but it's some kind of effective entropy, from the point of view of the users. Unless MD5 has weaknesses that I assume it doesn't, it's not really possible for users to know where their spaces of possible random values overlap, so they don't know how to exploit it. A final note -- I should have put /etc/noiz somewhere in the /var filesystem. Perhaps /var/adm/noiz. But one can edit the Makefile to do that, and no other software has to actually know where it is, since its access is totally encapsulated by noizinit, noizstir, and noizout. The location of these in /usr/local/bin/ is what needs to be standardized, so I hope that's good enough for most users. ------- Oh, I meant to thank everyone for the great discussion and constructive criticism of SKRONK and "encrypt tcp connections" hacks. Especially Perry -- your enumeration of projects was good. Based on that, and what I know of the others, the priority of protocols I'd like to support with skronk are 0. my own hack, to get it going 1. Matt's ESM 2. Kerberized connections (kerb4 or kerb5 or both?) 3. Perhaps the SSL from Netscape Thus SKRONK becomes what I wanted it to be: a way for sites to advertize the availability of enhanced services (via the skronk map UDP daemon) and a way to painlessly integrate crypto with existing code. (The last aspect always draws user interface problems -- if it's so transparent, how do you know if you're encrypted? Right now I have the client end scribble to stderr when it skronks.) strick

1 0

URGENT - What S.314 Would Do
by slowdog＠wookie.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ Article crossposted from comp.org.cpsr.talk,comp.org.cpsr.talk,misc.legal.comp ] [ Author was slowdog (slowdog(a)wookie.net) ] [ Posted on 7 Feb 1995 14:56:15 GMT ] The following is what Senator Exon's bill (S.314) would do to the Communicatons Act of 1934. The text in [brackets] is what is being deleted or changed. What exists as plain text outside those brackets is how the new law will look. Read carefully. There are indeed implications for Internet service providers in terms of their responsibility under the law for the content of their systems and services. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 47 USC Sec. 223 TITLE 47 CHAPTER 5 SUBCHAPTER II Sec. 223. [Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications] Obscene or harassing utilization of telecommunications devices and facilities in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications (a) Prohibited acts generally Whoever - (1) in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communication by means of [telephone] telecommunications device - (A) [makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal] makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available any comment, request, suggestions, proposal, image, or other communication] which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; (B) [makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communications ensues, without disclosing his identity with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; (C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (D) [makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number; or] makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which comversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number of who receives the communication; or (2) knowingly permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section, shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] 2 years, or both. (b) Prohibited acts for commercial purposes; defense to prosecution (1) Whoever knowingly - (A) within the United States, by means of [telephone], telecommunications device makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the call] placed the call or initiated the conversation; or (B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (2) Whoever knowingly - (A) within the United States, [by means of telephone, makes] by means of telecommunications device, makes, knowingly transmits, or knowingly makes available (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without that person's consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication [placed the call] placed the call or initiated the communication; or (B) permits any [telephone] telecommunications facility under such person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than [$50,000] $100,000 or imprisoned not more than [six months] 2 years, or both. (3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this subsection that the defendant restrict access to the prohibited communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe by regulation. (4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than [$50,000] $100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (5)(A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than [$50,000] $100,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation. (B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either - (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the Commission for such purposes, or (ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative proceedings. (6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (c) Restriction on access to subscribers by common carriers; judicial remedies respecting restrictions (1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication specified in subsection (b) of this section from the [telephone] telecommunications device of any subscriber who has not previously requested in writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the provider of such communication. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers, directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on account of - (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (B) any access permitted - (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation by a provider of communications that communications provided by that provider are communications specified in subsection (b) of this section, or (ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to restrict access to restrict access to communications described in subsection (b) of this section. (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider of communications services to which subscribers are denied access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such action shall be limited to the question of whether the communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within the category of communications to which the carrier will provide access only to subscribers who have previously requested such access.

3 2

The Rise of "Worse is Better"...
by stig＠hackvan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A while ago, I mentioned appendix C to the _Unix-Haters Handbook_ and someone (Jason?) was interested in it. I couldn't come up with the text of the chapter until now because I didn't have it until now. Look through the Lisp-specific jargon to see what RPG (the author) has to say about the differrent priorities in getting a job done... One school of engineering follows "The Right Thing" approach, while the other uses the "Worse is Better" (quick-and-dirty) approach. Stig I have the .tex file for the article, and it's available on the WWW as http://www.ai.mit.edu/articles/good-news/good-news.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Image] [Image] [Image] Previous: Lisp's Apparent Failures Up: Lisp's Apparent Failures Next: Good Lisp Programming is Hard The Rise of ``Worse is Better'' I and just about every designer of Common Lisp and CLOS has had extreme exposure to the MIT/Stanford style of design. The essence of this style can be captured by the phrase ``the right thing.'' To such a designer it is important to get all of the following characteristics right: Simplicity-the design must be simple, both in implementation and interface. It is more important for the interface to be simple than the implementation. Correctness-the design must be correct in all observable aspects. Incorrectness is simply not allowed. Consistency-the design must not be inconsistent. A design is allowed to be slightly less simple and less complete to avoid inconsistency. Consistency is as important as correctness. Completeness-the design must cover as many important situations as is practical. All reasonably expected cases must be covered. Simplicity is not allowed to overly reduce completeness. I believe most people would agree that these are good characteristics. I will call the use of this philosophy of design the ``MIT approach.'' Common Lisp (with CLOS) and Scheme represent the MIT approach to design and implementation. The worse-is-better philosophy is only slightly different: Simplicity-the design must be simple, both in implementation and interface. It is more important for the implementation to be simple than the interface. Simplicity is the most important consideration in a design. Correctness-the design must be correct in all observable aspects. It is slightly better to be simple than correct. Consistency-the design must not be overly inconsistent. Consistency can be sacrificed for simplicity in some cases, but it is better to drop those parts of the design that deal with less common circumstances than to introduce either implementational complexity or inconsistency. Completeness-the design must cover as many important situations as is practical. All reasonably expected cases should be covered. Completeness can be sacrificed in favor of any other quality. In fact, completeness must sacrificed whenever implementation simplicity is jeopardized. Consistency can be sacrificed to achieve completeness if simplicity is retained; especially worthless is consistency of interface. Early Unix and C are examples of the use of this school of design, and I will call the use of this design strategy the ``New Jersey approach.'' I have intentionally caricatured the worse-is-better philosophy to convince you that it is obviously a bad philosophy and that the New Jersey approach is a bad approach. However, I believe that worse-is-better, even in its strawman form, has better survival characteristics than the-right-thing, and that the New Jersey approach when used for software is a better approach than the MIT approach. Let me start out by retelling a story that shows that the MIT/New-Jersey distinction is valid and that proponents of each philosophy actually believe their philosophy is better. Two famous people, one from MIT and another from Berkeley (but working on Unix) once met to discuss operating system issues. The person from MIT was knowledgeable about ITS (the MIT AI Lab operating system) and had been reading the Unix sources. He was interested in how Unix solved the PC loser-ing problem. The PC loser-ing problem occurs when a user program invokes a system routine to perform a lengthy operation that might have significant state, such as IO buffers. If an interrupt occurs during the operation, the state of the user program must be saved. Because the invocation of the system routine is usually a single instruction, the PC of the user program does not adequately capture the state of the process. The system routine must either back out or press forward. The right thing is to back out and restore the user program PC to the instruction that invoked the system routine so that resumption of the user program after the interrupt, for example, re-enters the system routine. It is called ``PC loser-ing'' because the PC is being coerced into ``loser mode,'' where ``loser'' is the affectionate name for ``user'' at MIT. The MIT guy did not see any code that handled this case and asked the New Jersey guy how the problem was handled. The New Jersey guy said that the Unix folks were aware of the problem, but the solution was for the system routine to always finish, but sometimes an error code would be returned that signaled that the system routine had failed to complete its action. A correct user program, then, had to check the error code to determine whether to simply try the system routine again. The MIT guy did not like this solution because it was not the right thing. The New Jersey guy said that the Unix solution was right because the design philosophy of Unix was simplicity and that the right thing was too complex. Besides, programmers could easily insert this extra test and loop. The MIT guy pointed out that the implementation was simple but the interface to the functionality was complex. The New Jersey guy said that the right tradeoff has been selected in Unix-namely, implementation simplicity was more important than interface simplicity. The MIT guy then muttered that sometimes it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken, but the New Jersey guy didn't understand (I'm not sure I do either). Now I want to argue that worse-is-better is better. C is a programming language designed for writing Unix, and it was designed using the New Jersey approach. C is therefore a language for which it is easy to write a decent compiler, and it requires the programmer to write text that is easy for the compiler to interpret. Some have called C a fancy assembly language. Both early Unix and C compilers had simple structures, are easy to port, require few machine resources to run, and provide about 50%--80% of what you want from an operating system and programming language. Half the computers that exist at any point are worse than median (smaller or slower). Unix and C work fine on them. The worse-is-better philosophy means that implementation simplicity has highest priority, which means Unix and C are easy to port on such machines. Therefore, one expects that if the 50% functionality Unix and C support is satisfactory, they will start to appear everywhere. And they have, haven't they? Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses. A further benefit of the worse-is-better philosophy is that the programmer is conditioned to sacrifice some safety, convenience, and hassle to get good performance and modest resource use. Programs written using the New Jersey approach will work well both in small machines and large ones, and the code will be portable because it is written on top of a virus. It is important to remember that the initial virus has to be basically good. If so, the viral spread is assured as long as it is portable. Once the virus has spread, there will be pressure to improve it, possibly by increasing its functionality closer to 90%, but users have already been conditioned to accept worse than the right thing. Therefore, the worse-is-better software first will gain acceptance, second will condition its users to expect less, and third will be improved to a point that is almost the right thing. In concrete terms, even though Lisp compilers in 1987 were about as good as C compilers, there are many more compiler experts who want to make C compilers better than want to make Lisp compilers better. The good news is that in 1995 we will have a good operating system and programming language; the bad news is that they will be Unix and C++. There is a final benefit to worse-is-better. Because a New Jersey language and system are not really powerful enough to build complex monolithic software, large systems must be designed to reuse components. Therefore, a tradition of integration springs up. How does the right thing stack up? There are two basic scenarios: the ``big complex system scenario'' and the ``diamond-like jewel'' scenario. The ``big complex system'' scenario goes like this: First, the right thing needs to be designed. Then its implementation needs to be designed. Finally it is implemented. Because it is the right thing, it has nearly 100% of desired functionality, and implementation simplicity was never a concern so it takes a long time to implement. It is large and complex. It requires complex tools to use properly. The last 20% takes 80% of the effort, and so the right thing takes a long time to get out, and it only runs satisfactorily on the most sophisticated hardware. The ``diamond-like jewel'' scenario goes like this: The right thing takes forever to design, but it is quite small at every point along the way. To implement it to run fast is either impossible or beyond the capabilities of most implementors. The two scenarios correspond to Common Lisp and Scheme. The first scenario is also the scenario for classic artificial intelligence software. The right thing is frequently a monolithic piece of software, but for no reason other than that the right thing is often designed monolithically. That is, this characteristic is a happenstance. The lesson to be learned from this is that it is often undesirable to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half of the right thing available so that it spreads like a virus. Once people are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right thing. A wrong lesson is to take the parable literally and to conclude that C is the right vehicle for AI software. The 50% solution has to be basically right, and in this case it isn't. But, one can conclude only that the Lisp community needs to seriously rethink its position on Lisp design. I will say more about this later. rpg(a)lucid.com

3 3

Congressional Phone Numbers
by Samuel Kaplin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In view of recent legislation, I'm going to repost this...No flames please. NRA.org List of members of 104th Congress ALASKA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Murkowski, Frank H. (R) 1-202-224-6665 1-202-224-5301 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R) 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044 Young, Donald (R-AL) 1-202-225-5765 1-202-225-5765 ALABAMA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Heflin, Howell T. (D) 1-202-224-4124 1-202-224-3149 Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R) 1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416 Callahan, Sonny (R-01) 1-202-225-4931 1-202-225-0562 Everett, Terry (R-02) 1-202-225-2901 Browder, Glen (D-03) 1-202-225-3261 1-202-225-9020 Bevill, Thomas (D-04) 1-202-225-4876 1-202-225-0842 Cramer, Robert E. (D-05) 1-202-225-4801 1-202-225-4392 Bachus, Spencer (R-06) 1-202-225-4921 1-202-225-2082 Hilliard, Earl F. (D-07) 1-202-225-2665 1-202-226-0772 ARKANSAS Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Bumpers, Dale (D) 1-202-224-4843 1-202-224-6435 Sen. Pryor, David (D) 1-202-224-2353 1-202-224-8261 Lambert, Blanche (D-01) 1-202-225-4076 1-202-225-4654 Thornton, Raymond (D-02) 1-202-225-2506 1-202-225-9273 Hutchinson, Tim (R-03) 1-202-225-4301 1-202-226-1163 Dickey, Jay (R-04) 1-202-225-3772 1-202-225-8646 ARIZONA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Kyl, Jon (R) 1-202-224-4521 1-202-224-2302 Sen. McCain, John (R) 1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862 Salmon, Matt (R-01) 1-202-225-2635 1-202-225-2607 Pastor, Ed (D-02) 1-202-225-4065 1-202-225-1655 Stump, Robert (R-03) 1-202-225-4576 1-202-225-6328 Shadegg, John (R-04) 1-202-225-3361 1-202-225-1143 Kolbe, James T. (R-05) 1-202-225-2542 1-202-225-0378 Hayworth, J.D. (R-06) 1-202-225-2190 1-202-225-8819 CALIFORNIA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Boxer, Barbara (D) 1-202-225-5161 Sen. Feinstein, Dianne (D) 1-202-224-3841 1-202-228-3954 Riggs, Frank (R-01) 1-202-225-3311 1-202-225-7710 Herger, Walter W. (R-02) 1-202-225-3076 1-202-225-1609 Fazio, Vic (D-03) 1-202-225-5716 1-202-225-0354 Doolittle, John T. (R-04) 1-202-225-2511 1-202-225-5444 Matsui, Robert T. (D-05) 1-202-225-7163 1-202-225-0566 Woolsey, Lynn (D-06) 1-202-225-5161 1-202-225-5163 Miller, George (D-07) 1-202-225-2095 1-202-225-5609 Pelosi, Nancy (D-08) 1-202-225-4965 1-202-225-8259 Dellums, Ronald V. (D-09) 1-202-225-2661 1-202-225-9817 Baker, Bill (R-10) 1-202-225-1880 1-202-225-2150 Pombo, Richard (R-11) 1-202-225-1947 1-202-226-0861 Lantos, Thomas (D-12) 1-202-225-3531 1-202-225-3127 Stark, Fortney H. (D-13) 1-202-225-5065 Eshoo, Anna G. (D-14) 1-202-225-8104 1-202-225-8890 Mineta, Norman Y. (D-15) 1-202-225-2631 Lofgren, Zoe (D-16) 1-202-225-3072 1-202-225-9460 Farr, Sam (D-17) Condit, Gary (D-18) 1-202-225-6131 1-202-225-0819 Radanovich, George (R-19) 1-202-225-4540 1-202-225-5274 Dooley, Calvin M. (D-20) 1-202-225-3341 1-202-225-9308 Thomas, Bill (R-21) 1-202-225-2915 1-202-225-8798 Seastrand, Andrea (R-22) 1-202-225-3601 1-202-226-1015 Gallegly, Elton (R-23) 1-202-225-5811 1-202-225-1100 Beilenson, Anthony (D-24) 1-202-225-5911 McKeon, Howard P. (R-25) 1-202-225-1956 1-202-226-0683 Berman, Howard L. (D-26) 1-202-225-4695 1-202-225-5279 Moorhead, Carlos J. (R-27) 1-202-225-4176 1-202-226-1279 Dreier, David (R-28) 1-202-225-2305 1-202-225-4745 Waxman, Henry A. (D-29) 1-202-225-3976 1-202-225-4099 Becerra, Xavier (D-30) 1-202-225-6235 1-202-225-2202 Martinez, Matthew G. (D-31) 1-202-225-5464 1-202-225-4467 Dixon, Julian C. (D-32) 1-202-225-7084 1-202-225-4091 Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D-33) 1-202-225-1766 1-202-226-0350 Torres, Esteban E. (D-34) 1-202-225-5256 1-202-225-9711 Waters, Maxine (D-35) 1-202-225-2201 1-202-225-7584 Harman, Jane (D-36) 1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684 Tucker III, Walter R. (D-37) 1-202-225-7924 1-202-225-7926 Horn, Steve (R-38) 1-202-225-6676 1-202-226-1012 Royce, Ed (R-39) 1-202-225-4111 1-202-226-0335 Lewis, Jerry (R-40) 1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498 Kim, Jay C. (R-41) 1-202-225-3201 1-202-226-1485 Brown Jr., George E. (D-42) 1-202-225-6161 1-202-225-8671 Calvert, Kenneth (R-43) 1-202-225-1986 Bono, Sonny (R-44) 1-202-225-5330 1-202-226-1040 Rohrabacher, Dana (R-45) 1-202-225-2415 1-202-225-7067 Dornan, Robert K. (R-46) 1-202-225-2965 1-202-225-3694 Cox, Christopher (R-47) 1-202-225-5611 1-202-225-9177 Packard, Ronald (R-48) 1-202-225-3906 1-202-225-0134 Bilbray, Brian (R-49) 1-202-225-2040 1-202-225-2042 Filner, Bob (D-50) 1-202-225-8045 1-202-225-9073 Cunningham, Randy (R-51) 1-202-225-5452 1-202-225-2558 Hunter, Duncan L. (R-52) 1-202-225-5672 1-202-225-0235 COLORADO Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Campbell, Ben N. (D) 1-202-225-4761 1-202-225-0228 Sen. Brown, Henry (R) 1-202-224-5941 1-202-224-6471 Schroeder, Patricia (D-01) 1-202-225-4431 1-202-225-5842 Skaggs, David E. (D-02) 1-202-225-2161 1-202-225-9127 McInnis, Scott (R-03) 1-202-225-4761 1-202-226-0622 Allard, Wayne (R-04) 1-202-225-4676 1-202-225-8630 Hefley, Joel (R-05) 1-202-225-4422 1-202-225-1942 Schaefer, Daniel (R-06) 1-202-225-7882 1-202-225-7885 CONNECTICUT Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT) 1-202-224-2823 Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. (D-CT) 1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750 Kennelly, Barbara B. (D-01) 1-202-225-2265 1-202-225-1031 Gejdenson, Samuel (D-02) 1-202-225-2076 1-202-225-4977 DeLauro, Rosa (D-03) 1-202-225-3661 1-202-225-4890 Shays, Christopher (R-04) 1-202-225-5541 1-202-225-9629 Franks, Gary (R-05) 1-202-225-3822 1-202-225-5085 Johnson, Nancy L. (R-06) 1-202-225-4476 1-202-225-4488 WASHINGTON, D.C. Member Phone Fax Number Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes (D-AL) 1-202-225-8050 1-202-225-3002 DELAWARE Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Biden Jr., Joseph R. (D) 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139 Sen. Roth Jr., William V. (R) 1-202-224-2441 1-202-224-2805 Castle, Michael N. (R-AL) 1-202-225-4165 1-202-225-2291 FLORIDA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Graham, Bob (D) 1-202-224-3041 1-202-224-2237 Sen. Mack, Connie (R) 1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022 Scarborough, Joe (R-01) 1-202-225-4136 1-202-225-5785 Peterson, Peter (D-02) 1-202-225-5235 1-202-225-1586 Brown, Corrine (D-03) 1-202-225-0123 1-202-225-2256 Fowler, Tillie (R-04) 1-202-225-2501 1-202-225-9318 Thurman, Karen (R-05) 1-202-225-1002 1-202-226-0329 Stearns, Clifford B. (R-06) 1-202-225-5744 1-202-225-3973 Mica, John L. (R-07) 1-202-225-4035 1-202-226-0821 McCollum, William (R-08) 1-202-225-2176 1-202-225-0999 Bilirakis, Michael (R-09) 1-202-225-5755 1-202-225-4085 Young, C. W. Bill (R-10) 1-202-225-5961 1-202-225-9764 Gibbons, Samuel M. (D-11) 1-202-225-3376 Canady, Charles T. (R-12) 1-202-225-1252 1-202-225-2279 Miller, Dan (R-13) 1-202-225-5015 1-202-226-0828 Goss, Porter J. (R-14) 1-202-225-2536 1-202-225-6820 Weldon, Dave (R-15) 1-202-225-3671 1-202-225-9039 Foley, Mark (R-16) 1-202-225-5792 1-202-225-1860 Meek, Carrie (D-17) 1-202-225-4506 1-202-226-0777 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-18) 1-202-225-3931 1-202-225-5620 Johnston II, Harry (D-19) 1-202-225-3001 1-202-225-8791 Deutsch, Peter (D-20) 1-202-225-7931 1-202-225-8456 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (R-21) 1-202-225-4211 1-202-225-8576 Shaw Jr., E. Clay (R-22) 1-202-225-3026 1-202-225-8398 Hastings, Alcee L. (D-23) 1-202-225-1313 1-202-225-0690 GEORGIA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Coverdell, Paul (R) 1-202-224-3643 1-202-228-3783 Sen. Nunn, Samuel (D) 1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072 Kingston, Jack (R-01) 1-202-225-5831 1-202-226-2269 Bishop, Sanford (D-02) 1-202-225-3631 1-202-225-2203 Collins, Michael (Mac) (R-03) 1-202-225-5901 1-202-225-2515 Linder, John (R-04) 1-202-225-4272 1-202-225-4696 Lewis, John (D-05) 1-202-225-3801 1-202-225-0351 Gingrich, Newt (R-06) 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656 Barr, Bob (R-07) 1-202-225-2931 1-202-225-0473 Chambliss, Saxby (R-08) 1-202-225-6531 1-202-225-7719 Deal, Nathan (D-09) 1-202-225-5211 1-202-225-8272 Norwood, Charles (D-10) 1-202-225-4101 1-202-226-1466 McKinney, Cynthia (D-11) 1-202-225-1605 1-202-226-0691 GUAM Member Phone Fax Number Del. Underwood, Robert A. (D-AL) 1-202-225-1188 1-202-226-0341 HAWAII Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Akaka, Daniel K. (D) 1-202-224-6361 1-202-224-2126 Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. (D) 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 Abercrombie, Neil (D-01) 1-202-225-2726 1-202-225-4580 Mink, Patsy T. (D-02) 1-202-225-4906 1-202-225-4987 IOWA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Grassley, Charles E. (R) 1-202-224-3744 1-202-224-6020 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D) 1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431 Leach, James (R-01) 1-202-225-6576 1-202-226-1278 Nussle, James Allen (R-02) 1-202-225-2911 1-202-225-9129 Lightfoot, James R. (R-03) 1-202-225-3806 1-202-225-6973 Ganske, Greg (R-04) 1-202-225-4426 Latham, Tom (R-05) 1-202-225-5476 1-202-225-6929 IDAHO Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Kempthorne, Dirk (R) 1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893 Sen. Craig, Larry E. (R) 1-202-224-2752 1-202-224-2573 Chenoweth, Helen (R-01) 1-202-225-6611 1-202-226-1213 Crapo, Michael D. (R-02) 1-202-225-5531 1-202-225-8216 ILLINOIS Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Moseley-Braun, Carol (D) 1-202-224-2854 1-202-224-2626 Sen. Simon, Paul (D) 1-202-224-2152 1-202-224-0868 Rush, Bobby L. (D-01) 1-202-225-4372 1-202-226-0333 Reynolds, Mel (D-02) 1-202-225-0773 1-202-225-0774 Lipinski, William O. (D-03) 1-202-225-5701 1-202-225-1012 Gutierrez, Luis V. (R-04) 1-202-225-8203 1-202-225-7810 Flanagan, Mike (R-05) 1-202-225-4061 1-202-225-4064 Hyde, Henry J. (R-06) 1-202-225-4561 1-202-226-1240 Collins, Cardiss (D-07) 1-202-225-5006 1-202-225-8396 Crane, Philip M. (R-08) 1-202-225-3711 1-202-225-7830 Yates, Sidney R. (D-09) 1-202-225-2111 1-202-225-3493 Porter, John E. (R-10) 1-202-225-4835 1-202-225-0157 Weller, Gerald (R-11) 1-202-225-3635 1-202-225-4447 Costello, Jerry F. (D-12) 1-202-225-5661 1-202-225-0285 Fawell, Harris W. (R-13) 1-202-225-3515 1-202-225-9420 Hastert, J. Dennis (R-14) 1-202-225-2976 1-202-225-0697 Ewing, Thomas (R-15) 1-202-225-2371 1-202-225-8071 Manzullo, Donald (R-16) 1-202-225-5676 1-202-225-5284 Evans, Lane (D-17) 1-202-225-5905 1-202-225-5396 LaHood, Ray (R-18) 1-202-225-6201 1-202-225-9461 Poshard, Glendal W. (D-19) 1-202-225-5201 1-202-225-1541 Durbin, Richard J. (D-20) 1-202-225-5271 1-202-225-0170 INDIANA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Coats, Daniel R. (R) 1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964 Sen. Lugar, Richard G. (R) 1-202-224-4814 1-202-224-7877 Visclosky, Peter J. (D-01) 1-202-225-2461 1-202-225-2493 Mcintosh, David (D-02) 1-202-225-3021 1-202-225-8140 Roemer, Timothy (D-03) 1-202-225-3915 1-202-225-6798 Souder, Mark (R-04) 1-202-225-4436 1-202-225-8810 Buyer, Steve (D-05) 1-202-225-5037 Burton, Daniel (R-06) 1-202-225-2276 1-202-225-0016 Myers, John T. (R-07) 1-202-225-5805 1-202-225-1649 Hostettler, John (R-08) 1-202-225-4636 1-202-225-4688 Hamilton, Lee (D-09) 1-202-225-5315 1-202-225-1101 Jacobs Jr., Andrew (D-10) 1-202-225-4011 1-202-226-4093 KANSAS Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Kassebaum, Nancy L. (R) 1-202-224-4774 1-202-224-3514 Sen. Dole, Robert (R) 1-202-224-6521 1-202-224-8952 Roberts, Pat (R-01) 1-202-225-2715 1-202-225-5375 Brownback, Sam (R-02) 1-202-225-6601 1-202-225-1445 Meyers, Jan (R-03) 1-202-225-2865 1-202-225-0554 Tiahrt, Todd (R-04) 1-202-225-6216 1-202-225-5398 KENTUCKY Member Phone Fax Number Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R) 1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499 Sen. Ford, Wendell H. (D) 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 Whitfield, Edward (R-01) 1-202-225-3115 1-202-225-2169 Lewis, Ron (R-02) 1-202-225-3501 Ward, Mike (R-03) 1-202-225-5401 Bunning, James (R-04) 1-202-225-3465 1-202-225-0003 Rogers, Harold (R-05) 1-202-225-4601 1-202-225-0940 Baesler, Scotty (D-06) 1-202-225-4706 1-202-225-2122 LOUISIANA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D) 1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952 Sen. Breaux, John B. (D) 1-202-224-4623 1-202-224-2435 Livingston, Robert (R-01) 1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739 Jefferson, William (D-02) 1-202-225-6636 1-202-225-1988 Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) (D-03) 1-202-225-4031 1-202-225-0563 Fields, Cleo (D-04) 1-202-225-8490 1-202-225-8959 McCrery, James (R-05) 1-202-225-2777 1-202-225-8039 Baker, Richard H. (R-06) 1-202-225-3901 1-202-225-7313 Hayes, James A. (D-07) 1-202-225-2031 1-202-225-1175 MASSACHUSETTS Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. (D) 1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417 Sen. Kerry, John F. (D) 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525 Olver, John W. (D-01) 1-202-225-5335 1-202-226-1224 Neal, Richard E. (D-02) 1-202-225-5601 1-202-225-8112 Blute, Peter I. (R-03) 1-202-225-6101 1-202-225-2217 Frank, Barney (D-04) 1-202-225-5931 1-202-225-0182 Meehan, Martin T. (D-05) 1-202-225-3411 1-202-226-0771 Torkildsen, Peter G. (R-06) 1-202-225-8020 1-202-225-8037 Markey, Edward J. (D-07) 1-202-225-2836 1-202-225-8689 Kennedy II, Joseph P. (D-08) 1-202-225-5111 1-202-225-9322 Moakley, John Joseph (D-09) 1-202-225-8273 1-202-225-7304 Studds, Gerry E. (D-10) 1-202-225-3111 1-202-225-2212 MARYLAND Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. (D) 1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858 Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) 1-202-224-4524 1-202-224-1651 Gilchrest, Wayne T. (R-01) 1-202-225-5311 1-202-225-0254 Ehrlich, Bob (R-02) 1-202-225-3061 1-202-225-4251 Cardin, Benjamin L. (D-03) 1-202-225-4016 1-202-225-9219 Wynn, Albert R. (D-04) 1-202-225-8699 1-202-225-8714 Hoyer, Steny H. (D-05) 1-202-225-4131 1-202-225-4300 Bartlett, Roscoe G. (R-06) 1-202-225-2721 1-202-225-2193 Mfume, Kweisi (D-07) 1-202-225-4741 1-202-225-3178 Morella, Constance (R-08) 1-202-225-5341 1-202-225-1389 MAINE Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Snowe, Olympia (R) 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-6853 Sen. Cohen, William S. (R) 1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693 Longley, James (R-01) 1-202-225-6116 1-202-225-9065 Baldacci, John (D-02) 1-202-225-6306 1-202-225-8297 MICHIGAN Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Levin, Carl (D) 1-202-224-6221 Sen. Abraham, Spencer (R) 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834 Stupak, Bart (D-01) 1-202-225-4735 1-202-225-4744 Hoekstra, Peter (R-02) 1-202-225-4401 1-202-226-0779 Ehlers, Vernon (R-03) 1-202-225-3831 1-202-225-5144 Camp, David Lee (R-04) 1-202-225-3561 1-202-225-9679 Barcia, James A. (D-05) 1-202-225-8171 1-202-225-2168 Upton, Frederick S. (R-06) 1-202-225-3761 1-202-225-4986 Smith, Nick (R-07) 1-202-225-6276 1-202-225-6281 Chrysler, Dick (R-08) 1-202-225-4872 1-202-225-1260 Kildee, Dale E. (D-09) 1-202-225-3611 1-202-225-6393 Bonior, David E. (D-10) 1-202-225-2106 1-202-226-1169 Knollenberg, Joe (R-11) 1-202-225-5802 1-202-226-2356 Levin, Sander M. (D-12) 1-202-225-4961 1-202-226-1033 Rivers, Lynn (D-13) 1-202-225-6261 1-202-225-0489 Conyers Jr., John (D-14) 1-202-225-5126 1-202-225-0072 Collins, Barbara (D-15) 1-202-225-2261 1-202-225-6645 Dingell, John D. (D-16) 1-202-225-4071 1-202-225-7426 MINNESOTA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Grams, Rod (R) 1-202-224-3244 1-202-228-0956 Sen. Wellstone, Paul (D) 1-202-224-5641 1-202-224-8438 Gutknecht, Gil (R-01) 1-202-225-2472 1-202-225-0051 Minge, David (D-02) 1-202-225-2331 1-202-226-0836 Ramstad, James M. (R-03) 1-202-225-2871 1-202-225-6351 Vento, Bruce F. (D-04) 1-202-225-6631 1-202-225-1968 Sabo, Martin Olav (D-05) 1-202-225-4755 1-202-225-4886 Luther, William (D-06) 1-202-225-2271 1-202-225-9802 Peterson, Collin C. (D-07) 1-202-225-2165 1-202-225-1593 Oberstar, James L. (D-08) 1-202-225-6211 1-202-225-0699 MISSOURI Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Bond, Christopher S. (R) 1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149 Sen. Ashcroft, John (R) 1-202-224-6154 1-202-224-7615 Clay, William L. (D-01) 1-202-225-2406 1-202-225-1725 Talent, James M. (R-02) 1-202-225-2561 1-202-225-2563 Gephardt, Richard A. (D-03) 1-202-225-2671 1-202-225-7452 Skelton, Ike (D-04) 1-202-225-2876 1-202-225-2695 McCarthy, Karen (D-05) 1-202-225-4535 1-202-225-5990 Danner, Pat (D-06) 1-202-225-7041 1-202-225-8221 Hancock, Melton D. (R-07) 1-202-225-6536 1-202-225-7700 Emerson, Bill (R-08) 1-202-225-4404 1-202-225-9621 Volkmer, Harold L. (D-09) 1-202-225-2956 1-202-225-7834 MISSISSIPPI Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Cochran, Thad (R) 1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576 Sen. Lott, Trent (R) 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 Wicker, Roger (R-01) 1-202-225-4306 1-202-225-4328 Thompson, Bennie (D-02) 1-202-225-5876 1-202-225-5898 Montgomery, G. V. (D-03) 1-202-225-5031 1-202-225-3375 Parker, Mike (D-04) 1-202-225-5865 1-202-225-5886 Taylor, Gene (D-05) 1-202-225-5772 1-202-225-7074 MONTANA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Burns, Conrad R. (R) 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 Sen. Baucus, Max (D) 1-202-224-2651 Williams, Pat (D-AL) 1-202-225-3211 1-202-226-0244 NORTH CAROLINA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Helms, Jesse (R) 1-202-224-6342 1-202-224-7588 Sen. Faircloth, Lauch (R) 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406 Clayton, Eva (D-01) 1-202-225-3101 1-202-225-3354 Funderburk, Dave (R-02) 1-202-225-4531 1-202-225-1539 Jones, Walter (R-03) 1-202-225-3415 1-202-225-0666 Heineman, F. (R-04) 1-202-225-1784 1-202-225-6314 Burr, Richard (R-05) 1-202-225-2071 1-202-225-4060 Coble, Howard (R-06) 1-202-225-3065 1-202-225-8611 Rose, Charles (D-07) 1-202-225-2731 1-202-225-2470 Hefner, Bill (D-08) 1-202-225-3715 1-202-225-4036 Myrick, Sue (R-09) 1-202-225-1976 1-202-225-8995 Ballenger, Cass (R-10) 1-202-225-2576 1-202-225-0316 Taylor, Charles Hart (R-11) 1-202-225-6401 1-202-251-0794 Watt, Melvin (D-12) 1-202-225-1510 1-202-225-1512 NORTH DAKOTA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Dorgan, Byron L. (D) 1-202-225-2611 1-202-225-9436 Sen. Conrad, Kent (D) 1-202-224-2043 1-202-224-7776 Pomeroy, Earl (D-AL) 1-202-225-2611 1-202-226-0893 NEBRASKA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Exon, J. James (D) 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 Sen. Kerrey, Joseph R. (D) 1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645 Bereuter, Douglas (R-01) 1-202-225-4806 1-202-226-1148 Christensen, Jon (R-02) 1-202-225-4155 1-202-225-4684 Barrett, William E. (R-03) 1-202-225-6435 1-202-225-0207 NEW HAMPSHIRE Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Gregg, Judd (R) 1-202-224-3324 1-202-224-4952 Sen. Smith, Robert (R) 1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353 Zeliff Jr., William (R-01) 1-202-225-5456 1-202-225-4370 Bass, Charles (D-02) 1-202-225-5206 1-202-225-0046 NEW JERSEY Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. (D) 1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707 Sen. Bradley, William (D) 1-202-224-3224 1-202-224-8567 Andrews, Robert E. (D-01) 1-202-225-6501 1-202-225-6583 LoBiondo, Frank (R-02) 1-202-225-6572 1-202-226-1108 Saxton, Jim (R-03) 1-202-225-4765 1-202-225-0778 Smith, Christopher (R-04) 1-202-225-3765 1-202-225-7768 Roukema, Marge (R-05) 1-202-225-4465 1-202-225-9048 Pallone Jr., Frank (D-06) 1-202-225-4671 1-202-225-9665 Franks, Bob (R-07) 1-202-225-5361 1-202-225-9460 Martini, Bill (R-08) 1-202-225-5751 1-202-226-2273 Torricelli, Robert (D-09) 1-202-224-5061 1-202-225-0843 Payne, Donald M. (D-10) 1-202-225-3436 1-202-225-4160 Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-11) 1-202-225-5034 1-202-225-0658 Zimmer, Richard A. (R-12) 1-202-225-5801 1-202-225-9181 Menendez, Robert (D-13) 1-202-225-7919 1-202-226-0792 NEW MEXICO Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Bingaman, Jeff (D) 1-202-224-5521 1-202-224-2852 Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R) 1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371 Schiff, Steven H. (R-01) 1-202-225-6316 1-202-225-4975 Skeen, Joseph (R-02) 1-202-225-2365 1-202-225-9599 Richardson, William (D-03) 1-202-225-6190 1-202-225-1950 NEVADA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Reid, Harry (D) 1-202-224-3542 1-202-224-7327 Sen. Bryan, Richard H. (D) 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867 Ensign, John (R-01) 1-202-225-5965 1-202-225-8808 Vucanovich, Barbara (R-02) 1-202-225-6155 1-202-225-2319 NEW YORK Member Phone Fax Number Sen. D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R) 1-202-224-6542 1-202-224-5871 Sen. Moynihan, Daniel P. (D) 1-202-224-4451 1-202-224-9293 Forbes, Michael (R-01) 1-202-225-3826 1-202-225-0776 Lazio, Rick A. (R-02) 1-202-225-3335 1-202-225-4669 King, Peter T. (R-03) 1-202-225-7896 1-202-226-2279 Frisa, Danial (R-04) 1-202-225-5516 1-202-225-4672 Ackerman, Gary L. (D-05) 1-202-225-2601 1-202-225-1589 Flake, Floyd H. (D-06) 1-202-225-3461 1-202-226-4169 Manton, Thomas J. (D-07) 1-202-225-3965 1-202-225-1909 Nadler, Jerrold (D-08) 1-202-225-5635 1-202-225-6923 Schumer, Charles E. (D-09) 1-202-225-6616 1-202-225-4183 Towns, Edolphus (D-10) 1-202-225-5936 1-202-225-1018 Owens, Major R. (D-11) 1-202-225-6231 1-202-226-0112 Velazquez, Nydia M. (D-12) 1-202-225-2361 1-202-226-0327 Molinari, Susan (R-13) 1-202-225-3371 1-202-226-1272 Maloney, Carolyn B. (D-14) 1-202-225-7944 1-202-225-4709 Rangel, Charles B. (D-15) 1-202-225-4365 1-202-225-0816 Serrano, Jose E. (D-16) 1-202-225-4361 1-202-225-6001 Engel, Eliot L. (D-17) 1-202-225-2464 1-202-225-5513 Lowey, Nita M. (D-18) 1-202-225-6506 1-202-225-0546 Kelly, Sue (R-19) 1-202-225-5441 1-202-225-0962 Gilman, Benjamin A. (R-20) 1-202-225-3776 1-202-225-2541 McNulty, Michael R. (D-21) 1-202-225-5076 1-202-225-5077 Solomon, Gerald B. (R-22) 1-202-225-5614 1-202-225-1168 Boehlert, Sherwood (R-23) 1-202-225-3665 1-202-225-1891 McHugh, John M. (R-24) 1-202-225-4611 1-202-226-0621 Walsh, James T. (R-25) 1-202-225-3701 1-202-225-4042 Hinchey, Maurice D. (D-26) 1-202-225-6335 1-202-226-0774 Paxon, Bill (R-27) 1-202-225-5265 1-202-225-5910 Slaughter, Louise M. (D-28) 1-202-225-3615 1-202-225-7822 LaFalce, John J. (D-29) 1-202-225-3231 1-202-225-8693 Quinn, Jack (R-30) 1-202-225-3306 1-202-226-0347 Houghton, Amory (R-31) 1-202-225-3161 1-202-225-5574 OHIO Member Phone Fax Number Sen. DeWine, Mike (R) 1-202-224-2315 1-202-224-6519 Sen. Glenn, John (D) 1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983 Chabot, Steve (R-01) 1-202-225-2216 1-202-225-4732 Portman, Rob (R-02) Hall, Tony P. (D-03) 1-202-225-6465 1-202-225-6766 Oxley, Michael G. (R-04) 1-202-225-2676 1-202-226-1160 Gillmor, Paul E. (R-05) 1-202-225-6405 1-202-225-1985 Cremeans, Frank (R-06) 1-202-225-5705 1-202-226-0331 Hobson, David L. (R-07) 1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984 Boehner, John Andrew (R-08) 1-202-225-6205 1-202-225-0704 Kaptur, Marcy (D-09) 1-202-225-4146 1-202-225-7711 Hoke, Martin R. (R-10) 1-202-225-5871 1-202-226-0994 Stokes, Louis (D-11) 1-202-225-7032 1-202-225-1339 Kasich, John R. (R-12) 1-202-225-5355 Brown, Sherrod (D-13) 1-202-225-3401 1-202-225-2266 Sawyer, Thomas C. (D-14) 1-202-225-5231 1-202-225-5278 Pryce, Deborah (R-15) 1-202-225-2015 1-202-226-0986 Regula, Ralph (R-16) 1-202-225-3876 1-202-225-3059 Traficant Jr., James (D-17) 1-202-225-5261 1-202-225-3719 Ney, Bob (R-18) 1-202-225-6265 1-202-225-9065 LaTourette, Steve (R-19) 1-202-225-5731 1-202-225-9114 OKLAHOMA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Inhofe, James (R) 1-202-224-4721 Sen. Nickles, Donald (R) 1-202-224-5754 1-202-224-6008 Largent, Steve (R-01) 1-202-225-2211 1-202-225-9187 CoBurn, Tom (R-02) 1-202-225-2701 1-202-225-2796 Brewster, Billy Kent (D-03) 1-202-225-4565 1-202-225-9029 Watts, J.C. (R-04) 1-202-225-6165 1-202-225-9746 Istook, Ernest Jim (R-05) 1-202-225-2132 1-202-226-1463 Lucas, Frank (R-06) 1-202-225-5565 1-202-225-8698 OREGON Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Packwood, Bob (R) 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-3576 Sen. Hatfield, Mark O. (R) 1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276 Furse, Elizabeth (D-01) 1-202-225-0855 1-202-225-9497 Cooley, Wes (R-02) 1-202-225-6730 1-202-225-3129 Wyden, Ronald (D-03) 1-202-225-4811 1-202-225-8941 DeFazio, Peter A. (D-04) 1-202-225-6416 1-202-225-0694 Webber, Catherine (D-05) 1-202-225-5711 1-202-225-9477 PENNSYSLVANIA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Specter, Arlen (R) 1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893 Sen. Santorum, Rick (R) 1-202-224-6324 1-202-224-4161 Foglietta, Thomas M. (D-01) 1-202-225-4731 1-202-225-0088 Fattah, Chaka (D-02) 1-202-225-4001 1-202-225-7362 Borski, Robert A. (D-03) 1-202-225-8251 1-202-225-4628 Klink, Ron (D-04) 1-202-225-2565 1-202-226-2274 Clinger Jr., William (R-05) 1-202-225-5121 1-202-225-4681 Holden, Tim (D-06) 1-202-225-5546 1-202-226-0996 Weldon, Curt (R-07) 1-202-225-2011 1-202-225-8137 Greenwood, Jim (R-08) 1-202-225-4276 1-202-225-9511 Shuster, Bud (R-09) 1-202-225-2431 1-202-225-2486 McDade, Joseph M. (R-10) 1-202-225-3731 1-202-225-9594 Kanjorski, Paul E. (D-11) 1-202-225-6511 1-202-225-9024 Murtha, John P. (D-12) 1-202-225-2065 1-202-225-5709 Fox, Jon (R-13) 1-202-225-6111 1-202-226-0798 Coyne, William J. (D-14) 1-202-225-2301 1-202-225-1844 McHale, Paul (D-15) 1-202-225-6411 1-202-225-5320 Walker, Robert S. (R-16) 1-202-225-2411 1-202-225-2484 Gekas, George W. (R-17) 1-202-225-4315 1-202-225-8440 Doyle, Michael (D-18) 1-202-225-2135 1-202-225-7747 Goodling, William F. (R-19) 1-202-225-5836 1-202-226-1000 Mascara, Frank (D-20) 1-202-225-4665 1-202-225-4772 English, Philip (R-21) 1-202-225-5406 1-202-225-1081 PUERTO RICO Member Phone Fax Number Del. Romero-Barcelo, Carlos (D-AL) 1-202-225-2615 1-202-225-2154 RHODE ISLAND Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Pell, Claiborne (D) 1-202-224-4642 1-202-224-4680 Sen. Chafee, John H. (R) 1-202-224-2921 Kennedy, Patrick (D-01) 1-202-225-4911 1-202-225-4417 Reed, John F. (D-02) 1-202-225-2735 1-202-225-9580 AMERICAN SAMOA Member Phone Fax Number Del. Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. (D-AL) 1-202-225-8577 1-202-225-8757 SOUTH CAROLINA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Hollings, Ernest F. (D) 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 Sen. Thurmond, Strom (R) 1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300 Sanford, Mark (R-01) 1-202-225-3176 1-202-225-4340 Spence, Floyd (R-02) 1-202-225-2452 1-202-225-2455 Graham, Lindsey (R-03) 1-202-225-5301 1-202-225-5383 Inglis, Bob (R-04) 1-202-225-6030 1-202-226-1177 Spratt Jr., John M. (D-05) 1-202-225-5501 1-202-225-0464 Clyburn, James E. (D-06) 1-202-225-3315 1-202-225-2302 SOUTH DAKOTA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Pressler, Larry (R) 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1630 Sen. Daschle, Thomas A. (D) 1-202-224-2321 1-202-224-2047 Johnson, Timothy P. (D-AL) 1-202-225-2801 1-202-225-2427 TENNESSEE Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Thompson, Fred (R) 1-202-224-1036 1-202-228-3679 Sen. Frist, Bill (R) 1-202-224-3344 1-202-224-8062 Quillen, James H. (R-01) 1-202-225-6356 1-202-225-7812 Duncan Jr., John J. (R-02) 1-202-225-5435 1-202-225-6440 Wamp, Zach (R-03) 1-202-225-3271 1-202-225-6974 Hilleary, Van (R-04) 1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520 Clement, Robert (D-05) 1-202-225-4311 1-202-226-1035 Gordon, Bart (D-06) 1-202-225-4231 1-202-225-6887 Bryant, Ed (R-07) 1-202-225-2811 1-202-225-2814 Tanner, John S. (D-08) 1-202-225-4714 1-202-225-1765 Ford, Harold E. (D-09) 1-202-225-3265 1-202-225-9215 TEXAS Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R) 1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856 Chapman, Jim (D-01) 1-202-225-3035 1-202-225-7265 Wilson, Charles (D-02) 1-202-225-2401 1-202-225-1764 Johnson, Sam (R-03) 1-202-225-4201 1-202-225-1485 Hall, Ralph M. (D-04) 1-202-225-6673 1-202-225-3332 Bryant, John (D-05) 1-202-225-2231 1-202-225-9721 Barton, Joseph (R-06) 1-202-225-2002 1-202-225-3052 Archer, William (R-07) 1-202-225-2571 1-202-225-4381 Fields, Jack (R-08) 1-202-225-4901 1-202-225-2772 Stockman, Steve (R-09) 1-202-225-6565 1-202-225-1584 Doggett, Lloyd (D-10) 1-202-225-4865 1-202-225-3018 Edwards, Chet (D-11) 1-202-225-6105 1-202-225-0350 Geren, Peter (D-12) 1-202-225-5071 1-202-225-2786 Thornberry, Williams (R-13) 1-202-225-3706 1-202-225-6142 Laughlin, Gregory H. (D-14) 1-202-225-2831 1-202-225-1108 de la Garza, E. Kika (D-15) 1-202-225-2531 1-202-225-2534 Coleman, Ronald D. (D-16) 1-202-225-4831 Stenholm, Charles W. (D-17) 1-202-225-6605 1-202-225-2234 Lee, Sheila (D-18) 1-202-225-3816 1-202-225-6186 Combest, Larry (R-19) 1-202-225-4005 1-202-225-9615 Gonzalez, Henry B. (D-20) 1-202-225-3236 1-202-225-1915 Smith, Lamar S. (R-21) 1-202-225-4236 1-202-225-8628 DeLay, Thomas (R-22) 1-202-225-5951 1-202-225-5241 Bonilla, Henry (R-23) 1-202-225-4511 1-202-225-2237 Frost, Martin (D-24) 1-202-225-3605 1-202-225-4951 Bentsen, Ken (D-25) 1-202-255-7508 1-202-225-4210 Armey, Richard K. (R-26) 1-202-225-7772 1-202-225-7614 Ortiz, Solomon P. (D-27) 1-202-225-7742 1-202-226-1134 Tejeda, Frank (D-28) 1-202-225-1640 1-202-225-1641 Green, Gene (D-29) 1-202-225-1688 1-202-225-9903 Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-30) 1-202-225-8885 1-202-226-1477 UTAH Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. (R) 1-202-224-5251 1-202-224-6331 Sen. Bennett, Robert (R) 1-202-224-5444 1-202-224-6717 Hansen, James V. (R-01) 1-202-225-0453 1-202-225-5857 Waldholtz, Enid (R-02) 1-202-225-3011 1-202-226-0354 Orton, William H. (D-03) 1-202-225-7751 1-202-226-1223 VIRGINIA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Robb, Charles S. (D) 1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689 Sen. Warner, John W. (R) 1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295 Bateman, Herbert H. (R-01) 1-202-225-4261 1-202-225-4382 Pickett, Owen B. (D-02) 1-202-225-4215 1-202-225-4218 Scott, Robert C. (D-03) 1-202-225-8351 1-202-225-3854 Sisisky, Norman (D-04) 1-202-225-6365 1-202-226-1170 Payne Jr., Lewis F. (D-05) 1-202-225-4711 1-202-226-1147 Goodlatte, Robert W. (R-06) 1-202-225-5431 1-202-225-9681 Bliley Jr., Thomas J. (R-07) 1-202-225-2815 1-202-225-0011 Moran Jr., James P. (D-08) 1-202-225-4376 1-202-225-0017 Boucher, Rick (D-09) 1-202-225-3861 1-202-225-0442 Wolf, Frank R. (R-10) 1-202-225-5136 1-202-225-0437 Davis III, Thomas (R-11) 1-202-225-1492 1-202-225-2274 VIRGIN ISLANDS Member Phone Fax Number Del. de Lugo, Ron (D-AL) 1-202-225-1790 1-202-225-9392 VERMONT Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Jeffords, James M. (R) 1-202-224-5141 1-202-224-8330 Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. (D) 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595 Sanders, Bernard (I-AL) 1-202-225-4115 1-202-225-6790 WASHINGTON Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Murray, Patty (D) 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238 Sen. Gorton, Slade (R) 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 White, Rick (R-01) 1-202-225-6311 1-202-225-2286 Metcalf, Jack (R-02) 1-202-225-2605 1-202-225-2608 Smith, Linda (R-03) 1-202-225-3536 1-202-225-9095 Hastings, Dee (R-04) 1-202-225-5816 1-202-226-1137 Nethercutt, George (R-05) 1-202-225-2006 1-202-225-7181 Dicks, Norman D. (D-06) 1-202-225-5916 1-202-226-1176 McDermott, James A. (D-07) 1-202-225-3106 1-202-225-9212 Dunn, Jennifer (R-08) 1-202-225-7761 1-202-225-8673 Tate, Randy (R-09) 1-202-225-8901 1-202-226-2361 WISCONSIN Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Kohl, Herbert H. (D) 1-202-224-5653 1-202-224-9787 Sen. Feingold, Russell (D) 1-202-224-5323 1-202-224-2725 Neumann, Mark (R-01) Klug, Scott (R-02) 1-202-225-2906 1-202-225-6942 Gunderson, Steve (D-03) 1-202-225-5506 1-202-225-6195 Kleczka, Gerald D. (D-04) 1-202-225-4572 1-202-225-8135 Barrett, Thomas M. (D-05) 1-202-225-3571 1-202-225-2185 Petri, Thomas E. (R-06) 1-202-225-2476 1-202-225-2356 Obey, David R. (D-07) 1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561 Roth, Toby (R-08) 1-202-225-5665 1-202-225-0087 Sensenbrenner, F. James (R-09) 1-202-225-5101 1-202-225-3190 WEST VIRGINIA Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Rockefeller, John D. (D) 1-202-224-6472 1-202-224-1689 Sen. Byrd, Robert C. (D) 1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025 Mollohan, Alan B. (D-01) 1-202-225-4172 1-202-225-7564 Wise Jr., Robert E. (D-02) 1-202-225-2711 1-202-225-7856 Rahall II, Nick Joe (D-03) 1-202-225-3452 1-202-225-9061 WYOMING Member Phone Fax Number Sen. Simpson, Alan K. (R) 1-202-224-3424 1-202-224-1315 Sen. Thomas, Craig (R) 1-202-224-6441 1-202-224-3230 Cubin, Barbara (R-AL) 1-202-225-2311 1-202-225-0726

1 0

RE: a new way to do anonymity
by Johnathan Corgan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > There are many, many analogies you can draw about a network of this > type to an ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) network. > >Thank you for the analogy. It's always good not to reinvent the wheel >when you don't need to. Exactly. Anywhere we can "stand on the shoulders" of others reduces wasted time and effort. >When you set up a mapping on a packet forwarder, this is exactly the >kind of initialization that would be required. It is also at this >point that keying would be negotiated, etc. Encrypt-Telnet to a switch process. Use text based command line sequence to check outbound paths, bandwidth available, negotiate quality of service, execute digital payment arrangements, etc. Conclude the transaction and get bumped to your next hop, where it happens all over again. Done right, it could probably be automated. It seems like a lot of effort, but if you remember that once an initial session is established with your Pipe-net Service Provider (tm), a given circuit can be relatively long-lived. >Now here's an important detail that needs to get done right. Is the >forwarding for fixed length packets, variable length packets, or >streams? Is this decision global or local? What are the latency and >aggregatation effects? How important are these for different classes >of data? (telnet v. voice, e.g.) One of the lessons learned in the years-long debate between the telco folks pushing synchronous time-division multiplexing point to point circuit switches and the data folks pushing variable length packet-switched broadcast medium networks is that fixed length packets can give you both TDM and statistical multiplexing. So, at the bottom most session layer, moving bits around in fixed chunks allows you to do things easier like bandwidth pre-allocation, aggregation, circuit based congestion control, and negotiated quality of service agreements to end points in the network. To learn from the efforts that have come from the thousands of people working on ATM, we could take a look at what has emerged as the "ATM Adaptation Layer." AAL specifies methods to encapsulate various data formats and quality of service requirements onto this fixed length, continuous stream of data packets. There is one for voice traffic, which requires fixed bandwitdth and very little relative latency, another for LAN type data packets, which have bursty bandwidth requirements and variable packet sizes. Your comment above is accurate in that the requirements involved in a Telnet session are vastly different from say, PGP Phone over TCP. The good part about all this is that a lot of the thinking, testing, prototyping, and standardization has already been done. The standards exist today for adapting variable bandwidth, variable packet length, variable latency data packets onto a continous stream of fixed length packets moving through a switched network. This reminds me of the old days of Packet Radio which used intelligent repeaters that you would access (via command line), determine your next repeater, then log into it, etc. I once established virtual circuit from Connecticut to Florida over 2 meter packet that took 25 or so hops, and had a transit delay of a half an hour. Primitive, kludgy, unreliable, and essentially useless, but totally cool. An opportunity presents itself here to establish this Pipe-net style service network, that would greatly expand the ability for network users to essentially bypass all the crap which appears to be coming down on us from our friendly representatives in Washington, who are trying so hard to "protect" us from ourselves. >I'd suggest just getting something running first, to get some >prototyping experience. Of course. What I've outline is a pretty ambitious goal. I'd be happy to see primitive switch implementations that do nothing more than forward TCP streams. Its a start and we would learn a lot along the way. Alas, I don't do Unix; my programming expertise is in (gasp) the Windows environment. So it looks like I could start looking at the requirements implementation of a Winsock interface that made all this stuff transparent to an end user. Important consideration. I suppose the IRC folks could add their experience to the mix. In a very real way, IRC _is_ a packet switched unicast/multicast stream service on top of the 'net. Do we have any IRC op types onboard here? == Johnathan Corgan "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." jcorgan(a)aeinet.com -Isaac Asimov WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jc/jcorgan/home.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLzhqMU1Diok8GKihAQGRxAP/dWIvYMuqX5c1y/Mlmc73WQlQ/1263vqb YzGMvgTFEP0p/jZZstb8tMOyHY2KKp7WWLXV94jd8/KhdQgYFtGHphVm93WP3Bu8 hRK8kV5UEtANQ/JycVHG6HU3MMxLhE+Yh+M/CFLBwBZZYYglnV3DLqBHv4kq+5Tg /7ZiTjnHRDk= =ee6L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Exon in WSJ
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Today's WSJ - Page B1 - Above the fold Government Tackles a Surge of Smut on the Internet "On-line computer services are bracing for a government crackdown against smut on the Internet -- even though nobody's sure if the Net *can* be regulated." Accompanying article on how demand for porno overwhelms sites that try to supply it. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLzjPtIVO4r4sgSPhAQF9IgP/Rv8haetVjaFqbd4j3QMSqAw7J219jej1 ZQTBujNlgFMb94TZSUy/X7oReAutJyaiWDvSyS7Nmnxx0xGAWMgR/8K9SlfJleia Kja7H+cC7DODhGNMo3AUkn+shqKzz/idVZb3EiF1gtP3Xsm5DA5r9vqZyVZlFHxR 1IkGmN76Ax0= =5UtC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

WSJ Article on Sen. Exon's Legislation
by daleh＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Government Tackles a Surge of Smut on the Internet" Wall Street Journal Wednesday, February 8, 1995 page B1 ----------Begin Quote---------- Instead, the services would prefer to be treated like phone companies, which claim no responsibility for telephone conversations. With millions of messages passing through each day, the services say couldn't possibly monitor everything even if they tried. Sen. Exon is unconvinced. "If I were against this <the legislation>, if I didn't want to be bothered with it, if I felt it might complicate my ability to make money on the superhighway, that's the argument I would make," he says, adding that a failure by the government to act would be "an open invitation to some of the hardcore pornography getting into our homes." -----------End Quote----------- Dale H.

2 1

USPO & Digital Postage/E-Cash Project
by daleh＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The US Post Office just killed a project that would have created a digital postage/e-cash system. This would have been a digital replacement for the Pitney-Bose style Postage Metering machines. To use a PM machine one has to take the entire machine physically to a Postal Station and purchase some fixed dollar amount of postage. The Postal clerk unseals and unlocks the machine, dials in the amount of postage purchased and then relocks and reseals the machine. This mechanical system would have been replaced by a serial-port dongle and a piece of software. The dongle would contain an EEPROM in a replacable button (made by Dallas Semiconductor) into which would be loaded data indicating the amount of postage that had been purchased and not yet used. The software package would be able to print the address, postage seal, routing codes, etc directly on the envelope via a laser printer and decrement the amount of available postage left in the dongle. In the original test, customers would have to take the dongle to a Postal Station to purchase additional postage, but the ultimate goal was to have been to have a commerical dial-up service available that one could dial into and purchase additional postage directly. A proof-of-concept prototype was developed in VB and a production prototype was then developed in VC++. Unfortunately the crypto wasn't very strong. The USPO contracted with Carnege-Mellon to try and break the system and they were able to within a couple of weeks. USPO then killed the project. Dale H.

2 1

Re: Cooperation
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Nathan Zook <nzook(a)bga.com> > I agree that it is to our advantage to minimize the cooperation between > remailers, for the following reasons: > [...] > But there is a major difference between active cooperation and agreeing to > a standard. Active cooperation is just that--something which cannot be > automated, or which involves automated judgement decisions. I claim that > my ideas are merely standards. A standard which might even be extendable > into the dominions of a hostile government. I see your point. I tend to have something of a knee-jerk reaction against proposals which put more responsibility into the hands of the remailer operators, but as you say the mere promulgation of a standard does not in itself require cooperation. We have de-facto standards right now, which is what makes chaining possible. And from the technical point of view, the idea of remailers encrypting between themselves seems to do no harm and could possibly make the attacker's job potentially more difficult by reducing the amount of information he has available. One problem is that one remailer may not know about all of the others. So to the extent that your proposal requires a registry of remailers, a centralized service which keeps track of all remailers, I still have a problem. This is where my vision departs from those who see the "remailer net" as an entity, and for whom the notion that remailers would treat messages to each other specially is a natural assumption. If you would suggest that at each stage the message included not only the address of the next remailer, along with the "payload" which was already encrypted (by the sender) for that remailer, but in addition a key for that remailer and a request to encrypt under that key, then I would feel much better about it. This way there is no need for the remailer to know anything about whom it is sending to. Likewise if we wanted to specify in the standard that messages could be signed, that also would not imply collusion. However to specify that signatures must be checked would have some implications about acquiring the necessary public keys through some means, and I don't think that should be done. I do like the idea of standards. In fact I wonder if the current "mark 1" remailer command set shouldn't be documented as an Internet RFC. It has been in use for a couple of years now, evolving somewhat over that time, and some twenty or thirty remailers have operated for some part of that time following that spec. It would also give a certain amount of (undeserved, perhaps) respectability to remailer operators if there were an actual numbered RFC which they were following. And it does seem to me that this kind of thing is exactly what the RFC's are for. Certainly there are a great many "minor" RFC's which are less followed than our remailer standards. Hal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBLzZTfBnMLJtOy9MBAQFsRwIA4A5EzFZwJdEmSvcfMmnu+RCAEGYK56dg y2LBawLdYn5FNcnvH6YkfCMHIcWURm1b6emEsw32FVH2m6ScAAH/iQ== =F2+s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 5

Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
by jpp＠markv.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For my congresional 'representatives'. S.314 is not a moral bill. Making the owner of a computer (or computer network) responsible for what its users store (or transmit) is like making the owners of a parking lot responsible for what is stored in the cars parked there. It just isn't moraly reasonable. S.314 is un-American. America has always been a place where speach is freeest. We have consistently held the expression of ideas to be one of the very most important rights. To hold the owner of a buliten board responsible for the illegal messages posted to it, is to force the buliten board owner to become a government censor in all but name (and wages). It effectively ends the bulliten board's use as a venue of free speach. S.314 is harmfull to America. The kind of 'chilling effect' this bill wil place on the computer (networking) industry would put american companies at a serious disadvantage. Could I really operate an airline reservtion system for a large airline if I could be held liable for illegal information transmitted using my equipment? No. Could I operate the masive software and hardware networks that the phone system requires? No. But, I bet the company I own in Mexico, or in Canada could. They aren't burdened with such (artificially created) liabilities. Or perhaps I could get a special waiver from my friends in Washington. Hmmm. How much will these sorts of 'work arounds' cost american bussiness? S.314 is not enforceable. There is no certain way to tell if a file of data is an illegal one. Stegnography and cryptography, along with the fact that what a bit means depends on which programs are used to interpret it, mean that even this message could be porno, terrorist threats, or arangements for drug trafficing. Imagin searching all the cars in your parking lot for drugs. Very expensive, and not very reliable. Tons of drugs travel past just such inspection sites each year. Now imagine how tough it would be if the drugs could be turned into perfectly normal steal in the body panels of the vehicles! That is what stegnography and cryptography do to data. Turn perfectly 'awfull' data into data perfectly indistinguishable from noise, and then hide the noise as indistinguishable-from-inocent 'errors' in other data. Concider the spelling in this message -- convert each word into a bit -- 1 if it is speled right, 0 if not. Or how about spacing, or, punctuation -- Hmmm. Now supose we add otras idiomas, aux eble muchos languages en cxiu mesagxon. Will computer (network) owners be responsible for the spelling, punctuation, language, word choice, and grammer of all the electronic mail sent, received, and stored? S.314 is bad for *your* career. If you vote to support it, I will vote against you in upcoming elections. I will work to impeach you. I will never employ you, I will not read your memoirs, I will not do business with you in any way what so ever. I urge you to think twice, and then vote no on S.314. j'

2 2