From: Jim Gashel 
Subject: Re: ACB Washington Connection (fwd)
Andy:
 
Considering your pattern of past postings to this list, I don't think it
would be unfair for anyone to infer that your recent practice of posting
ACB messages to this NFB list is politically motivated.  So, you might as
well drop the disguise that you are merely passing along information.
 
As to the content, if you are advocating that we should adopt the ACB'S
political strategy, whether on the Gorton amendment or anything else, I
doubt that you will have many takers here.  Concerning the Gorton
amendment, the operative message and suggested approach on that was
conveyed to this list and through our other distribution channels on
Friday, September 12.  A list of the members (Senate and House) who would
be appointed to serve as conferees was also included in that posting.
 
The question of strategy is: how much of our political capital and
good-will should we expend in helping to defeat the intirity of an
amendment as broad as Senator Gorton's when even he conceeded that
disability programs -- especially the rehabilitation and disability
research account -- would be removed from the bill?  Whether you agree
with it or not, our leadership has chosen to focus on saving the
disability related programs.
 
This does not mean that we agree with the rest of the education block
grants notion.  However, there are plenty of large groups out there that
are more than capable of carrying the day on opposing the demise of these
broader programs.  President Clinton,too, weighed in and said that he
would veto the bill if the Gorton amendment were to emerge in the final
product.
 
Inside the Congress itself, the political reality is that Senator Specter
will control the position of the Senate conferees in regard to the Gorton
amendment which he voted against on the floor.  The leaders of the House
conferees -- Porter and Livingston -- also oppose the Gorton amendment.
While they may philosophically agree with the view of turning more money
back to local control, they are committed institutionally to producing
appropriations bills that are relatively clean.  The Gorton amendment is
inconsistent with this because it is the kind of major change that
Congress is unlikely to "ram through" on an appropriations bill.
 
In saying all of this, I am not suggesting that the Gorton amendment and
the philosophy behind it should be taken lightly.  In fact, as I have
already said, the operative message sent on our part has been to oppose it
with the approach suggested in the September 12 notice.  The reason for
contacting the Congress on this for the most part is to warn them against
doing this sort of thing in the future.  Initially, the reason was also to
prevent any similar amendment in the House.
 
"Keeping your powder dry" for the times that it might really be needed is
always one of the factors to be considered in a legislative strategy.  In
this case, it has been worth it to fire a shot, but a neucliar war-head
would be over-kill.  Deciding something like this is always a matter of
judgement, and people may reasonably differ in making such judgements.
 
I have said all of this, which I realize is at some length, to point out
that the strategy we may choose to employ may be somewhat different from
that promoted by the ACB.  Anyone who wants to do so can choose either one
or something else.  To be effective, however, we ought to be coordinated.
For most of us on this list there is enough of a sense of the need for
this coordination that your posting of ACB messages will not disrupt it.
I would be more concerned with the thought that you are deliberately
trying to disrupt it.
 
On that point, I would say that this list has been set up for the
discussion of NFB programs and efforts.  Anyone who subscribes to this
list owes the rest of us the curtesy of recognizing that fact.  As
director of Governmental Affairs for the NFB, I would not feel comfortable
with the thought that someone would be using my messages deliberately to
disrupt another group's approach.
 
Therefore, please respect our right to maintain a list which we use in our
movement for communicating with one another about timely issues and
strategy.  If you don't want to do it that way, then the ACB'S list, or
one that you create for yourself, may be more to your liking.
 
Thanks,
 
J. g.
---
---------------