Again, I'm certainly not an expert on legislative text, but in reviewing it with the team, I don't see anything written within the bill itself that provides those protections against encryption. I do grant that the bill does not actually specify what these orders would do. That's kind of left for later.
To bring this into a real-world analogy, I might say something like we're concerned about a hole being put in a wall. I would say that the bill does not put a hole in the wall. It merely allows for secret orders to force putting a hole in the wall. Our concern is motivated because, at the end of the day, there would still be a hole in the wall.