On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote:
Pro-CODE is essentially dead, of course, replaced by the McCain-Kerr(e)y text, and not moving much. SAFE is in a state of confusion. The worst language, the stuff we've been talking about so angrily, is not from the committees that actually have primary control. She doubts their's enough time for this language to clear the Rules Committee and make it in NatSec-Intelligence draconian form to the floor, let alone pass, let alone reach the Senate floor. She expects Congress to adjourn for the year in late October or early November, and their just isn't time.
I agree with just about all of this. I do, however, think there's just enough time for the NatSec/FBI version of SAFE to move to the floor. It depends on how much effort the NSA/FBI want to expend. I wrote more about this just now in the "Re: unSAFE won't pass?" thread.
* Their strategy is "next year." Some opposition is building. She says Sen. Trent Lott is strongly opposed to the unFreeh form. A coalition called "Americans for a Secure Tomorrow" (Madison Avenue wins again) is active. URL not immediately obvious as of yesterday (to all of those in the room with Ricochet modems, which was about half the room!).
True, Lott would seem to be opposed to the FBI's language. (At least he was opposed to McCain-Kerrey's bill, which didn't go nearly as far.) As for the coalition, the hope would seem to be in running print ads in members' own home districts. Make them sweat. -Declan