Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 20:20:07 -0700 From: Jim Warren Subject: GovAccess.057: No wiretap opposition?; vote index; indecent content Warning: This begins another floodlette of half-a-dozen or so postings - just before I fly out to give a talk in Kansas City. --jim SHOULD ALL "AUTHORIZED" AGENCIES HAVE WIRETAP-AT-A-KEYSTROKE CAPABILITIES? >From mech@eff.org Fri Sep 16 10:55:49 1994 From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Fwd: Wiretap Emergency To: eff-activists@eff.org, comp-org-eff-talk@cs.utexas.edu (eff.talk), fringeware@io.com (fringeware), TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU (computer underground digest), risks@csl.sri.com (risks digest), rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu (red rock eater), jwarren@well.sf.ca.us Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 13:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Cc: alt-activism@cs.utexas.edu (alt.activism), alt-activism-d@cs.utexas.edu (alt.activism.d), alt-privacy@cs.utexas.edu (alt.privacy), misc-legal@cs.utexas.edu (misc-legal@cs.utexas.edu), alt-politics-datahighway@cs.utexas.edu (alt.politics.datahighway) Forwarded message: From: KillBarny@aol.com Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 11:53:55 EDT Subject: Fwd: Wiretap Emergency Forwarded message: Subj: Wiretap Emergency Date: 94-09-16 02:58:08 EDT From: nzook@bga.com I just spoke with Joe Barton (R) from Texas about the FBI wiretap bill. He is on a subcommittee that is hearing the bill. He has heard _no_ citizen opposition to it. I was not prepared, but he did invite me to send him my concerns :-D Congressman Joe Barton 1514 Longworth Building Washington, D.C. 20515 p:202-225-2002 f:202-225-3052 Folks, if we can generate a few hundred calls and well-thought-out faxes tommorrow, we might have some effect. I don't know a lot about him, but he seemed to be of the opinion that he didn't really know that much about the bill. It's up to us to educate him. Nathan &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 1993-1994 PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX (c) Date: 13 Sep 94 13:56:05 EDT From: Chuck Cushman/WA <76667.711@compuserve.com> To: ccushman@pacifier.com Subject: Private Property Congress Vote Index 1993-1994 PRIVATE PROPERTY CONGRESSIONAL VOTE INDEX (c) Published By The League Of Private Property Voters P. O. Box 423 Battle Ground, Washington (206) 687-3087 -- FAX (206) 687-2973 Private property rights emerged as a major political issue during the 103rd Congress. Consequently, large numbers of politicians have jumped on the bandwagon and proclaimed steadfast support of property rights. The Congressional Private Property Vote Index enables you to judge how closely the rhetoric of your elected Representatives and Senators matches the reality of their votes. The 1993-94 Index tabulates 14 key roll call votes in the House and 10 in the Senate. It also presents a cumulative percentage score for each Member of Congress. These votes are not all of equal significance. Nor can we deny the involvement of issues other than property rights in some votes. But taken as a whole, the key votes chosen for the Index cover the whole range of property rights issues and therefore, we believe, present a fair picture of each Member's true position on private property rights. ... [I don't yet know where or when or if this report is or will be online. For a copy of the *long* report, contact the League. The net needs *much* more comprehensive surveys of *actual* vote records of our representatives, such as this one. *Quite* informative - for those interested in private- property rights ... such as they may be. :-) --jim] Last-minute update: It will be listed on AOL and Compuserve. It will be in the Politics Forum in the Land Rights/Wise Use Library #18. Its new. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& IN ADDITION TO S.1822's MAKING CARRIERS LIBEL FOR "INDECENT" CONTENT ... >From fins@access.digex.net Tue Sep 20 10:48:27 1994 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 13:42:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS Subject: S.1822 AS REPORTED MAY BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" FINS SPECIAL REPORT September 20, 1994 S.1822 AS REPORTED MAY BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" Amendment Intended of Universal Service Provisions Washington, DC, Sept 20, 1994--Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, released their report dated Sept 14 on S.1822, together with the text of the bill including provisions for a "Universal Service Fund" [sec. 102 of S.1822, new sec. 201A(d)], as ordered reported at the markup Aug 11. However, at least a day previously, there apparently was in the air "intended amendments" to the bill "that would eliminate provisions establishing a Universal Service Fund." The reasons for this discrepancy add one more note of confusion to the already difficult course of this bill. The Congressional Budget Office prepared a cost estimate for S.1822, the Communications Act of 1994, in accordance with normal practice with regard to proposed legislation mandated by the provisions of paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. However, as reported earlier in the Washington Times [Fins-SR2-31], the Congressional Budget Office "apparently decided that the method of collecting the Universal Service Fund required by S.1822 constitutes a tax." This is significant because the Constitution requires that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives and Congressional rules of procedure require them to originate in and be reviewed by the tax writing Committees. The Senate bill, as reported, therefore, may have been unconstitutional. Upon consultation with the Committee, however, the CBO did not actually issue their determination that the USF "constitutes a tax." Instead, according to a letter to Senator Hollings, Chairman of the Committee, from the Congressional Budget Office, dated Sept 13, the latter stated in the estimate actually issued that the same "reflects committee amendments to the bill that would eliminate provisions establishing a Universal Service Fund and requiring telecommunications carriers to pay into that fund." FINS confirmed earlier today in a phone interview with Congressional Budget Office staff Melissa Sampson, who prepared the the CBO estimate, that their report was based on a document provided by the Committee, disclosing the "intended amendment" the bill. Nevertheless, CBO did not publicly report that the amendment was merely "intended." In addition, the bill as reported Sept 14, included the USF despite the "intended amendment" that would "eliminate provisions establishing a Universal Service Fund." FINS confirmed with Sean Crowley, Commerce Committee Press Secretary, that the Chairman does intend to propose an amendment when the matter reaches the Senate floor. However, the Committee will not release the text of the intended amendment, according to Crowley, until it is actually presented on the floor of the Senate. This is now expected to occur sometime next week. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. --Mark Twain From: ken@vivid.com (Ken Fromm) Mo' as it Is. --jim GovAccess is a series of postings and a distribution-list maintained by Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 jwarren@well.com -or- jwarren@autodesk.com >> Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation.<< >> Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org:/cpsr/states/california/govaccess << >> To add or drop the GovAccess list, email to jwarren@well.com . <<