I'm going to sleep soon so let me try a short answer...
The House Rules committee decides what legislation will go to the House
floor, what amendments will be in order, and in what sequence they will be
presented (which is often very important). The House Rules committee is in
a practice an extension of the (Republican) leadership of the House, which
has expressed public support for SAFE, but has, as we say in DC, other
constituencies to consider as well.
Even SAFE's supporters envision a best-case scenario in which a reasonable
version of SAFE (read: no domestic controls beyond crypto-in-a-crime, some
export relaxation) goes to the House floor. But then killer amendments,
either along the lines of the president-can-do-whatever-he-wants Armed
Services version or one with domestic controls, will be in order and could
be attached to the bill on the floor.
So the real fight seems to be shaping up over the amendments.
Some House GOP leaders told me recently that they expected a floor vote
before the August recess (I put this in an article, but don't have the URL
offhand). This is now hardly likely, so look for something in the fall.
Keep in mind that there are reasonable arguments that no crypto legislation
is the best solution given the current politics -- and the other steps that
are necessary, such as approval by the more-conservative Senate and
overcoming a presidential veto. Anything that clears those hurdles is not
going to be what the industry really wants, I'll wager. And every version
of SAFE that I've read would make it much more difficult to challenge in
court on 1A grounds. So much for Bernsteinesque suits against SAFE if it
becomes law: You're outta luck.
-Declan
At 10:54 PM 7-24-99 -0400, Marc Horowitz wrote:
>Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> The sponsor of yesterday's amendment, Rep. Weldon, said that he wants to
>>> have a classified briefing //on the House floor// to scare members into
>>> voting his way. Look for killer amendments to SAFE to be offered during
>>> that floor vote, perhaps even ones with domestic controls.
>
>Procedurally, what does he need to do to make this happen? Can any
>member of the house do it? Can the Speaker do this on his own, does
>it require a vote of the rules committee, the full house, or what?
>Also, the Supremes often use legislative history when making rulings.
>What would they do in a case like this? Is there any precedent?
>
>I'm wondering if there's some way to take advantage of having so many
>cooks.
>
>Also, when was the last time there was a classified briefing on the
>house floor like this? I would think that something so unusual would
>cause some eyebrows to raise even outside the pro-crypto community.
>
