Re: TWO Letters on SAFE

[jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)]

At 12:07 5/02/97 -0400, Jonah Seiger wrote:
>This is indeed true - CDT sent a separate letter and signed the IPC letter.
>
>As Marc Rotenberg knows very well, the legislative process is complicated.
>Marc also knows that Goodlatte, Coble, Lofgren, and the other subcommittee
>supporters of SAFE chose not to consider any amendments at the subcommittee
>markup, but rather to take up our concerns at the full committee.

You obviously meant, "ignore our concerns" rather than "take up our
concerns," right?!?

Because that is, more accurately, what they did and will do.

>Goodlatte's staff and the other sponsors of SAFE had worked very hard to
>prevent any amendments, hostile *and* friendly, at the subcommittee vote
>for fear of hostile amendments from the Administration and opponents of
>SAFE in the congress. A bill isn't worth much when it gets to the full
>Committee if it gets gutted at the Subcommittee.  Goodlatte wanted to get
>some momentum behind it before going into the expected all out fight at the
>full committee.

I see a issue that's not being addressed.  Presumably, in legislative
negotiations the theory behind including such a provision (the criminal
provision) is that there are people "out there" who would support it with
that provision present, but who would oppose it with that provision removed.
(Moreover, the theory would suggest that somebody believes that this bill
would be MORE likely to pass with the provision present than absent.)

Who, exactly, are these people?  Aside from a few government thugs, I really
don't see the groundswell.  Numerically, I think I'm safe in concluding that
there are in the citizenry, by far, more people who would support the SAFE
bill only with the provision removed than those who'd support it only with
the provision present.  We should insist on a bill which reflects the
desires of the public, NOT the government.

One more thing.  That idiot Clinton can easily veto this bill if he chooses
to do so.  The only way this bill is going to turn into law, I think, is if
he _doesn't_ veto it, and that will mean that he prefers getting its
"positives" (positive to him, at least), the criminal provision, and all
those "legitimate needs of law enforcement", and tolerating its "negatives"
(again, to him, at least.)

He may publicly oppose it, but I think that position is a fraud.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com