Re: Answers to CAA questions

[Guest guest]

>

> These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

>

> OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

watered

> down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to make

> it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

as " environmental "

> research, right?

>

> Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't it

have

> to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress is

> sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

>

> Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

pretty

> much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

better

> to start from scratch?

>

> Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

>

> And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

have

> a friendlier congress in January?

>

> Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

consuming to

> contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

stationery, and

> then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

one

> is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than email?

Is

> there a fax list of the members of the committee?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kelli,

Just one question for now about your comments – that's very interesting

about a joint conference committee be bypassed. Is the deal done?

Somewhat unusual to bypass a conference committee, unless those in the

Senate readily agree to relinquish key provisions that they passed

unanimously. Since you appear to have inside information not available

to the rest of us perhaps you can report to us the process by which

differences between the House and Senate Committee will be resolved.

Will the Senate leadership simply instruct the Senate to accept

Barton's changes? Or was it decided with the leadership in advance?

I'll have more questions later about the legislative process that has

been employed here.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:06 PM, seekingtruth4miles wrote:

>

> These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

>

> OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

watered

> down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to make

> it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

as " environmental "

> research, right?

>

> Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't it

have

> to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress is

> sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

>

> Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

pretty

> much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

better

> to start from scratch?

>

> Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

>

> And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

have

> a friendlier congress in January?

>

> Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

consuming to

> contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

stationery, and

> then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

one

> is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than email?

Is

> there a fax list of the members of the committee?

>

>

>

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Kelli,

Another question, since you appear to have inside knowledge of the

dealings – is there a bill in final form? If so, do you know the

provisions in the bill? Can you tell us? What about the report language

for the House? or the colloquy? Has that been fixed too?

Would appreciate any information that you or your associates would like

to share.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Krakow wrote:

Kelli,

Just one question for now about your comments – that's very interesting

about a joint conference committee be bypassed. Is the deal done?

Somewhat unusual to bypass a conference committee, unless those in the

Senate readily agree to relinquish key provisions that they passed

unanimously. Since you appear to have inside information not available

to the rest of us perhaps you can report to us the process by which

differences between the House and Senate Committee will be resolved.

Will the Senate leadership simply instruct the Senate to accept

Barton's changes? Or was it decided with the leadership in advance?

I'll have more questions later about the legislative process that has

been employed here.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:06 PM, seekingtruth4miles wrote:

>

> These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

>

> OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

watered

> down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to make

> it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

as " environmental "

> research, right?

>

> Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't it

have

> to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress is

> sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

>

> Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

pretty

> much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

better

> to start from scratch?

>

> Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

>

> And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

have

> a friendlier congress in January?

>

> Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

consuming to

> contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

stationery, and

> then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

one

> is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than email?

Is

> there a fax list of the members of the committee?

>

>

>

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Can't go into specifics on this board but suffice to say that it's

readily known that " negotiations " are in progress (Barton said this

in print) and that's basically what the " joint conference committee "

would be doing so I don't think it should be necessarily viewed as

anything " unusual " .....In other words, negotiations would have

happened " sooner or later " ....

Kelli

> >

> > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> >

> > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> watered

> > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

make

> > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> as " environmental "

> > research, right?

> >

> > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

it

> have

> > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

is

> > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> >

> > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> pretty

> > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> better

> > to start from scratch?

> >

> > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

> >

> > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

> have

> > a friendlier congress in January?

> >

> > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> consuming to

> > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> stationery, and

> > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

> one

> > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

email?

> Is

> > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> J. Krakow

> Law Office of J. Krakow

> 225 Broadway

> Suite 2700

> New York, New York 10007

> (212)227-0600 (voice)

> (646) 349-1771 (fax)

>

[Guest guest]

Since I have not heard any answers to my questions shall I assume the

fix is in on CAA?

If so, when did the fix occur - Tuesday afternoon? The community is

waiting to hear the news.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:48 PM, Krakow wrote:

Kelli,

Another question, since you appear to have inside knowledge of the

dealings – is there a bill in final form? If so, do you know the

provisions in the bill? Can you tell us? What about the report language

for the House? or the colloquy? Has that been fixed too?

Would appreciate any information that you or your associates would like

to share.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Krakow wrote:

Kelli,

Just one question for now about your comments – that's very interesting

about a joint conference committee be bypassed. Is the deal done?

Somewhat unusual to bypass a conference committee, unless those in the

Senate readily agree to relinquish key provisions that they passed

unanimously. Since you appear to have inside information not available

to the rest of us perhaps you can report to us the process by which

differences between the House and Senate Committee will be resolved.

Will the Senate leadership simply instruct the Senate to accept

Barton's changes? Or was it decided with the leadership in advance?

I'll have more questions later about the legislative process that has

been employed here.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:06 PM, seekingtruth4miles wrote:

>

> These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

>

> OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

watered

> down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to make

> it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

as " environmental "

> research, right?

>

> Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't it

have

> to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress is

> sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

>

> Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

pretty

> much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

better

> to start from scratch?

>

> Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

>

> And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

have

> a friendlier congress in January?

>

> Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

consuming to

> contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

stationery, and

> then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

one

> is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than email?

Is

> there a fax list of the members of the committee?

>

>

>

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Since I have not heard any answers to my questions shall I assume the

fix is in on CAA?

If so, when did the fix occur - Tuesday afternoon? The community is

waiting to hear the news.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Krakow wrote:

Kelli,

Another question, since you appear to have inside knowledge of the

dealings – is there a bill in final form? If so, do you know the

provisions in the bill? Can you tell us? What about the report language

for the House? or the colloquy? Has that been fixed too?

Would appreciate any information that you or your associates would like

to share.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Krakow wrote:

Kelli,

Just one question for now about your comments – that's very interesting

about a joint conference committee be bypassed. Is the deal done?

Somewhat unusual to bypass a conference committee, unless those in the

Senate readily agree to relinquish key provisions that they passed

unanimously. Since you appear to have inside information not available

to the rest of us perhaps you can report to us the process by which

differences between the House and Senate Committee will be resolved.

Will the Senate leadership simply instruct the Senate to accept

Barton's changes? Or was it decided with the leadership in advance?

I'll have more questions later about the legislative process that has

been employed here.

RJK

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:06 PM, seekingtruth4miles wrote:

>

> These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

>

> OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

watered

> down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to make

> it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

as " environmental "

> research, right?

>

> Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't it

have

> to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress is

> sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

>

> Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

pretty

> much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

better

> to start from scratch?

>

> Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

>

> And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

have

> a friendlier congress in January?

>

> Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

consuming to

> contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

stationery, and

> then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

one

> is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than email?

Is

> there a fax list of the members of the committee?

>

>

>

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Kelli,

" You speak to me in riddles.... "

Bob

On Nov 24, 2006, at 10:31 PM, seekingtruth4miles wrote:

Bob,

Can't go into specifics on this board but suffice to say that it's

readily known that " negotiations " are in progress (Barton said this

in print) and that's basically what the " joint conference committee "

would be doing so I don't think it should be necessarily viewed as

anything " unusual " .....In other words, negotiations would have

happened " sooner or later " ....

Kelli

> >

> > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> >

> > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> watered

> > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

make

> > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> as " environmental "

> > research, right?

> >

> > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

it

> have

> > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

is

> > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> >

> > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> pretty

> > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> better

> > to start from scratch?

> >

> > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

> >

> > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

> have

> > a friendlier congress in January?

> >

> > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> consuming to

> > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> stationery, and

> > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

> one

> > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

email?

> Is

> > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> J. Krakow

> Law Office of J. Krakow

> 225 Broadway

> Suite 2700

> New York, New York 10007

> (212)227-0600 (voice)

> (646) 349-1771 (fax)

>

J. Krakow

Law Office of J. Krakow

225 Broadway

Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

(212)227-0600 (voice)

(646) 349-1771 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Please don't assume anything because you didn't get " a timely

answer " from me....

If you look on my last post (which says it posted this morning at

6:00 am) I actually wrote it last night around 10:30 pm!

Lenny, it would be helpful if you could please take me off

the " monitored list " so my posts can arrive in a timelier manner!!

Anyways, posted the current " status " of CAA on Tuesday and I

think you'll find it helpful in answering some of your questions

that you've posed....

Kelli

> >

> > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> >

> > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> watered

> > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

make

> > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> as " environmental "

> > research, right?

> >

> > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

it

> have

> > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

is

> > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> >

> > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> pretty

> > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> better

> > to start from scratch?

> >

> > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

> >

> > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

> have

> > a friendlier congress in January?

> >

> > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> consuming to

> > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> stationery, and

> > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

> one

> > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

email?

> Is

> > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> J. Krakow

> Law Office of J. Krakow

> 225 Broadway

> Suite 2700

> New York, New York 10007

> (212)227-0600 (voice)

> (646) 349-1771 (fax)

> J. Krakow

> Law Office of J. Krakow

> 225 Broadway

> Suite 2700

> New York, New York 10007

> (212)227-0600 (voice)

> (646) 349-1771 (fax)

> J. Krakow

> Law Office of J. Krakow

> 225 Broadway

> Suite 2700

> New York, New York 10007

> (212)227-0600 (voice)

> (646) 349-1771 (fax)

>

[Guest guest]

> " I don't think it [bypassing conference committee] should be

> necessarily viewed as anything 'unusual' "

>

Yup, thanks so much for correcting me. It's absolutely business as

usual, with precedent for us going back to the Eli Lilly rider slipped

in during the dead of night, or the pandemic countermeasure liability

protection being attached to an appropriations bill last December and

shoved down Congress's throat in the dead of night by the Republican

leadership.. " Come to think of it the Combating Autism Act was

manipulated through the Senate by the Republican Leadership (e.g.,

PhRMA shill Santorum - read the private Glaxo memo in Wash Post

yesterday lamenting the loss of pharma's point man in Congress) and

voted in by unanimous consent in -- you guessed it ---the dead of

night. How could I have been so silly to think that an open,

transparent and democratic process would be employed with something

that is called the " Combating Autism Act. " We really do not want any

inconvenient questions aired in public - " behind the scenes " gets the

job done right without the mess.

I thank you for bringing me back to political reality.

By the way, what is the status of the [Pretending to] Combat Autism

Act, anyway. I am not getting much feedback from Rep. Barton's office

in response to my messages.

Bob

On Nov 24, 2006, at 10:31 PM, seekingtruth4miles wrote:

Bob,

Can't go into specifics on this board but suffice to say that it's

readily known that " negotiations " are in progress (Barton said this

in print) and that's basically what the " joint conference committee "

would be doing so I don't think it should be necessarily viewed as

anything " unusual " .....In other words, negotiations would have

happened " sooner or later " ....

Kelli

> >

> > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I didn't

> > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain what

> > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> >

> > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> watered

> > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

make

> > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> as " environmental "

> > research, right?

> >

> > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

it

> have

> > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

is

> > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> >

> > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and Energy

> > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> pretty

> > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> better

> > to start from scratch?

> >

> > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the Senate?

> >

> > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we will

> have

> > a friendlier congress in January?

> >

> > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> consuming to

> > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> stationery, and

> > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure this

> one

> > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

email?

> Is

> > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> J. Krakow

> Law Office of J. Krakow

> 225 Broadway

> Suite 2700

> New York, New York 10007

> (212)227-0600 (voice)

> (646) 349-1771 (fax)

>

[Guest guest]

Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

budging on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we would

not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

> > >

> > > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I

didn't

> > > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain

what

> > > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> > >

> > > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> > watered

> > > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

> make

> > > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> > as " environmental "

> > > research, right?

> > >

> > > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

> it

> > have

> > > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

> is

> > > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> > >

> > > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and

Energy

> > > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> > pretty

> > > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> > better

> > > to start from scratch?

> > >

> > > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the

Senate?

> > >

> > > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we

will

> > have

> > > a friendlier congress in January?

> > >

> > > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> > consuming to

> > > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> > stationery, and

> > > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure

this

> > one

> > > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

> email?

> > Is

> > > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > J. Krakow

> > Law Office of J. Krakow

> > 225 Broadway

> > Suite 2700

> > New York, New York 10007

> > (212)227-0600 (voice)

> > (646) 349-1771 (fax)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Kelli,

I must continue to monitor your posts to anticipate those that might

be inflammatory and disruptive, since you are not able/willing to

acknowledge that some posts you have made in the past have been so.

I am on a holiday break from work until December 1, so I take a little

longer getting to my hosting duties than usual. This is why approval

of your postings have taken longer time.

Lenny

> >

> > Since I have not heard any answers to my questions shall I assume

> the

> > fix is in on CAA?

[Guest guest]

Question: How do you equate " manipulation " by the Republican

Leadership to the passage (by UNAMIMOUS CONSENT) of the CAA??

I believe there were at least 40 plus Democrats in the Senate when

the vote went through....

And, regarding lack of feedback from Barton's office....if you want

the latest information on CAA, you can get that from 's post on

Tuesday....

Kelli

> > >

> > > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I

didn't

> > > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain

what

> > > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> > >

> > > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> > watered

> > > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

> make

> > > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> > as " environmental "

> > > research, right?

> > >

> > > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

> it

> > have

> > > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

> is

> > > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> > >

> > > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and

Energy

> > > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> > pretty

> > > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> > better

> > > to start from scratch?

> > >

> > > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the

Senate?

> > >

> > > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we

will

> > have

> > > a friendlier congress in January?

> > >

> > > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> > consuming to

> > > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> > stationery, and

> > > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure

this

> > one

> > > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

> email?

> > Is

> > > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > J. Krakow

> > Law Office of J. Krakow

> > 225 Broadway

> > Suite 2700

> > New York, New York 10007

> > (212)227-0600 (voice)

> > (646) 349-1771 (fax)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

is absolutely correct. The autism community should not only

expect transparency, honesty and clear communications from governmental

agencys like the CDC and FDA but from " autism " groups claiming to

represent their interests in Washington, D.C. and State Legislatures as

well.

Kelli Ann, you are now claiming that you were in DC representing only

your son's interests yet previously you had indicated to the autism

community that you were representing and speaking on behalf of

SafeMinds. Which is the real answer? If you were there representing

only your son's interests, don't you think it is a bit odd that one

woman can participate in " behind closed door " negotiations yet leaders

of national organizations with a numerous political and legislative

successes, like A-CHAMP, NoMercury, Moms Against Mercury and CoMeD, are

shut out of the meetings? Something seems very fishy about that

scenario, Kelli Ann.

It is time for the autism community to demand STRAIGHT and COMPLETE

answers from all those at the negotiations, not shadowy references to

closed door meeting when the rest of the community is left in the dark.

Every parent has a stake in this bill and should have a meaningful voice

in the process and entitled to full and timely disclosure from those

claiming to represent the interests of the autism community.

It is time to hold all of those involved in the CAA accountable, whether

they are elected officials, staffers, autism groups or individuals

claiming to only represent their child. The community deserves full and

complete answers to many, many unanswered questions.

I urge every group and parent/advocate to join with NoMercury in calling

for a full, complete disclosure of all activities surrounding the

negotiations conducted on behalf of the autism community, including but

not limited to all political relationships, financial interests,

current status/content of bill (including report or colloquy language)

and any quid pro quo between parties. Transparency and knowledge are

necessary tools in fighting for the best interests of our children.

Thank you,

Lujene

President

NoMercury

Weinmaster

Vice-President

NoMercury

>

> Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

> UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

> budging on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we would

> not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

>

[Guest guest]

Lujene:

I asked the same question yesterday (see

below) and received no reply. I agree it is time for those who are

negotiating on our children’s behalf to step forward and provide us with

clear communication of what is currently going on.

The other groups who are negotiating on behalf

of our children (NAA, Safeminds, CAN, ASA,

AS) do not seem bothered at all

that the mercury organizations are no longer at the table. I

wonder why? Wouldn’t anyone who is negotiating want lots of people

to support their position? It makes me wonder what is going

on and what has been negotiated most recently.

My post from yesterday:

Kelli-

was asking, “who is sitting at the table

representing the autism community? “

All along you have said you are representing Safeminds in DC.

Now you are stating in your post that you are only representing your son.

Are you representing your son only or Safeminds in the CAA

negotiations?

Hope Miles is doing well with the move to DC.

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of lujene_clark

Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006

12:03 AM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: Answers to

CAA questions

is absolutely correct. The autism community should not only

expect transparency, honesty and clear communications from governmental

agencys like the CDC and FDA but from " autism " groups claiming to

represent their interests in Washington,

D.C. and State Legislatures as

well.

Kelli Ann, you are now claiming that you were in DC representing only

your son's interests yet previously you had indicated to the autism

community that you were representing and speaking on behalf of

SafeMinds. Which is the real answer? If you were there representing

only your son's interests, don't you think it is a bit odd that one

woman can participate in " behind closed door " negotiations yet

leaders

of national organizations with a numerous political and legislative

successes, like A-CHAMP, NoMercury, Moms Against Mercury and CoMeD, are

shut out of the meetings? Something seems very fishy about that

scenario, Kelli Ann.

It is time for the autism community to demand STRAIGHT and COMPLETE

answers from all those at the negotiations, not shadowy references to

closed door meeting when the rest of the community is left in the dark.

Every parent has a stake in this bill and should have a meaningful voice

in the process and entitled to full and timely disclosure from those

claiming to represent the interests of the autism community.

It is time to hold all of those involved in the CAA accountable, whether

they are elected officials, staffers, autism groups or individuals

claiming to only represent their child. The community deserves full and

complete answers to many, many unanswered questions.

I urge every group and parent/advocate to join with NoMercury in calling

for a full, complete disclosure of all activities surrounding the

negotiations conducted on behalf of the autism community, including but

not limited to all political relationships, financial interests,

current status/content of bill (including report or colloquy language)

and any quid pro quo between parties. Transparency and knowledge are

necessary tools in fighting for the best interests of our children.

Thank you,

Lujene

President

NoMercury

Weinmaster

Vice-President

NoMercury

>

> Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

> UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

> budging on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we would

> not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

>

[Guest guest]

I have read 's post. The questions still remain unanswered. Do

you need the questions repeated yet again?

> > > >

> > > > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I

> didn't

> > > > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain

> what

> > > > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> > > >

> > > > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> > > watered

> > > > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

> > make

> > > > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > > > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> > > as " environmental "

> > > > research, right?

> > > >

> > > > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

> > it

> > > have

> > > > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

> > is

> > > > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> > > >

> > > > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and

> Energy

> > > > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> > > pretty

> > > > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> > > better

> > > > to start from scratch?

> > > >

> > > > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the

> Senate?

> > > >

> > > > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we

> will

> > > have

> > > > a friendlier congress in January?

> > > >

> > > > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> > > consuming to

> > > > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> > > stationery, and

> > > > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure

> this

> > > one

> > > > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

> > email?

> > > Is

> > > > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > J. Krakow

> > > Law Office of J. Krakow

> > > 225 Broadway

> > > Suite 2700

> > > New York, New York 10007

> > > (212)227-0600 (voice)

> > > (646) 349-1771 (fax)

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

Sorry, I did miss your post from yesterday. It is an excellent post and I applaud Moms Against Mercury for continuing to seek answers to the same questions that NoMercury has been asking for quite some time. I believe CoMeD and A-CHAMP have been posing similar questions...still left largely unanswered except for a self-congratulatory yet ambiguous press release after we had be pushing for answers for weeks.

One of my most basic questions: Why would any group relentlessly pursue a bill that did not have the support of Dr. Bernie Rimland, Congressman Dan Burton or Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. who were and are perhaps some of the staunchest supporters of our children? Men who have stood firm for the best interests of the children even in the face of personal hardship and harsh criticism looked at the CAA in its various forms and did not support it.

For groups who worked "behind the scenes" to try to convince the autism community the CAA is a silk purse when it is a sow's ear seems disingenuous. I keep having the visual of a smarmy used car salesman in a seersucker leisure suit trying to sell the biggest lemon on the lot with four bald tires, a leaky radiator and faulty power steering telling the unsuspecting buyer, "No, really, trust me with a little car wax (colloquy language) and elbow grease (lobby the Appropriations Committee and NIH) it'll be like a new Cadillac."

Basically, as I stated many, many months ago, the CAA is a Trojan horse. The brilliant blog post by Wade Rankin of Injecting Sense made the same analogy recently (only he did it much better than I because not only is he an extremely intelligent man, he is an excellent writer).

When all is said and done; when the truth is finally revealed. And I mean the whole truth not some slick PR firm version of what revisionists' want the truth to be. I'll bet that this bill was not really about autism, it was more about politics, money, organizational dominance and rehabilitation of a political career in jeopardy.

Doesn't it seem odd that some groups, huddled behind closed doors in secret negotiations with Santorum (PhaRMA's favorite senator) and Barton (who always follows party leadership) would pursue a bill that Dr. Rimland, a true hero to our children, called "The Pretending to Combat Autism Act?"

Does it seem odd that these same groups, when questioned on specifics and status reports state they cannot disclose what transpired during these "behind the scenes" secret closed door meetings while they were allegedly acting on your children's behalf?

Am I the only one that finds this behavior questionable?

Is it unreasonable for the autism community to want accountability from its "leaders?"

While I appreciate their efforts and their desire to stay at the table, I feel that I along with every other parent have a right to know what was negotiated and who negotiated on our children's behalf.

To me, that seems like a very reasonable request.

Lujene

Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never budging on the "origional" agreed upon consensus language, we would not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

[Guest guest]

Lujene, No you are not the only one that feels this way. It seems from Kelli's posts that there is a trememdous amount of hostility against those persons and organizations that left the negotiating table when the CAA proved to be a poor excuse for a bill to help our children. Disagreements or not, aren't we all doing this for the same reason? Maurinelujene_clark <lujene@...> wrote: , Sorry, I did miss your post from yesterday. It is an excellent post and I applaud Moms Against Mercury for continuing to seek answers to the same questions that NoMercury has been asking for quite some time. I believe CoMeD and A-CHAMP have been posing similar questions...still left largely unanswered except for a self-congratulatory yet ambiguous press release after we had be pushing for answers for weeks. One of my most basic questions: Why would any group relentlessly pursue a bill that did not have the support of Dr. Bernie Rimland, Congressman Dan Burton or Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. who were and are perhaps some of the staunchest supporters of our children? Men who have stood firm for the best interests of the children even in the face of personal hardship and harsh criticism looked at the CAA in its

various forms and did not support it. For groups who worked "behind the scenes" to try to convince the autism community the CAA is a silk purse when it is a sow's ear seems disingenuous. I keep having the visual of a smarmy used car salesman in a seersucker leisure suit trying to sell the biggest lemon on the lot with four bald tires, a leaky radiator and faulty power steering telling the unsuspecting buyer, "No, really, trust me with a little car wax (colloquy language) and elbow grease (lobby the Appropriations Committee and NIH) it'll be like a new Cadillac." Basically, as I stated many, many months ago, the CAA is a Trojan horse. The brilliant blog post by Wade Rankin of Injecting Sense made the same analogy recently (only he did it much better than I because not only is he an

extremely intelligent man, he is an excellent writer). When all is said and done; when the truth is finally revealed. And I mean the whole truth not some slick PR firm version of what revisionists' want the truth to be. I'll bet that this bill was not really about autism, it was more about politics, money, organizational dominance and rehabilitation of a political career in jeopardy. Doesn't it seem odd that some groups, huddled behind closed doors in secret negotiations with Santorum (PhaRMA's favorite senator) and Barton (who always follows party leadership) would pursue a bill that Dr. Rimland, a true hero to our children, called "The Pretending to Combat Autism Act?" Does it seem odd that these same groups, when questioned on specifics and status reports state they cannot disclose what transpired during these "behind the scenes" secret closed door meetings while they were allegedly acting on your children's behalf? Am I the only one that finds this behavior questionable? Is it unreasonable for the autism community to want accountability from its "leaders?" While I appreciate their efforts and their desire to stay at the table, I feel that I along with every other parent have a right to know what was negotiated and who negotiated on our children's behalf. To me, that seems like a very reasonable

request. Lujene Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never budging on the "origional" agreed upon consensus language, we would not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

[Guest guest]

Given what we know, we must assume the worst of that which we don't.

Re: Answers to CAA questions

,

Sorry, I did miss your post from yesterday. It is an excellent post and I applaud Moms Against Mercury for continuing to seek answers to the same questions that NoMercury has been asking for quite some time. I believe CoMeD and A-CHAMP have been posing similar questions...still left largely unanswered except for a self-congratulatory yet ambiguous press release after we had be pushing for answers for weeks.

One of my most basic questions: Why would any group relentlessly pursue a bill that did not have the support of Dr. Bernie Rimland, Congressman Dan Burton or Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. who were and are perhaps some of the staunchest supporters of our children? Men who have stood firm for the best interests of the children even in the face of personal hardship and harsh criticism looked at the CAA in its various forms and did not support it.

For groups who worked "behind the scenes" to try to convince the autism community the CAA is a silk purse when it is a sow's ear seems disingenuous. I keep having the visual of a smarmy used car salesman in a seersucker leisure suit trying to sell the biggest lemon on the lot with four bald tires, a leaky radiator and faulty power steering telling the unsuspecting buyer, "No, really, trust me with a little car wax (colloquy language) and elbow grease (lobby the Appropriations Committee and NIH) it'll be like a new Cadillac."

Basically, as I stated many, many months ago, the CAA is a Trojan horse. The brilliant blog post by Wade Rankin of Injecting Sense made the same analogy recently (only he did it much better than I because not only is he an extremely intelligent man, he is an excellent writer).

When all is said and done; when the truth is finally revealed. And I mean the whole truth not some slick PR firm version of what revisionists' want the truth to be. I'll bet that this bill was not really about autism, it was more about politics, money, organizational dominance and rehabilitation of a political career in jeopardy.

Doesn't it seem odd that some groups, huddled behind closed doors in secret negotiations with Santorum (PhaRMA's favorite senator) and Barton (who always follows party leadership) would pursue a bill that Dr. Rimland, a true hero to our children, called "The Pretending to Combat Autism Act?"

Does it seem odd that these same groups, when questioned on specifics and status reports state they cannot disclose what transpired during these "behind the scenes" secret closed door meetings while they were allegedly acting on your children's behalf?

Am I the only one that finds this behavior questionable?

Is it unreasonable for the autism community to want accountability from its "leaders?"

While I appreciate their efforts and their desire to stay at the table, I feel that I along with every other parent have a right to know what was negotiated and who negotiated on our children's behalf.

To me, that seems like a very reasonable request.

Lujene

Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never budging on the "origional" agreed upon consensus language, we would not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

[Guest guest]

Kelli:

In your own words, tell us what you think is the cause of autism and the autism epidemic. That would at least place some perspective around this debate.

Re: Answers to CAA questions

is absolutely correct. The autism community should not onlyexpect transparency, honesty and clear communications from governmentalagencys like the CDC and FDA but from "autism" groups claiming torepresent their interests in Washington, D.C. and State Legislatures aswell.Kelli Ann, you are now claiming that you were in DC representing onlyyour son's interests yet previously you had indicated to the autismcommunity that you were representing and speaking on behalf ofSafeMinds. Which is the real answer? If you were there representingonly your son's interests, don't you think it is a bit odd that onewoman can participate in "behind closed door" negotiations yet leadersof national organizations with a numerous political and legislativesuccesses, like A-CHAMP, NoMercury, Moms Against Mercury and CoMeD, areshut out of the meetings? Something seems very fishy about thatscenario, Kelli Ann.It is time for the autism community to demand STRAIGHT and COMPLETEanswers from all those at the negotiations, not shadowy references toclosed door meeting when the rest of the community is left in the dark. Every parent has a stake in this bill and should have a meaningful voicein the process and entitled to full and timely disclosure from thoseclaiming to represent the interests of the autism community.It is time to hold all of those involved in the CAA accountable, whetherthey are elected officials, staffers, autism groups or individualsclaiming to only represent their child. The community deserves full andcomplete answers to many, many unanswered questions.I urge every group and parent/advocate to join with NoMercury in callingfor a full, complete disclosure of all activities surrounding thenegotiations conducted on behalf of the autism community, including butnot limited to all political relationships, financial interests,current status/content of bill (including report or colloquy language)and any quid pro quo between parties. Transparency and knowledge arenecessary tools in fighting for the best interests of our children.Thank you,Lujene PresidentNoMercury WeinmasterVice-PresidentNoMercury>> Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a> UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never> budging on the "origional" agreed upon consensus language, we would> not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.>

[Guest guest]

Pennies from heaven?

RE: Re: Answers to CAA questions

Lujene:

I asked the same question yesterday (see below) and received no reply. I agree it is time for those who are negotiating on our children’s behalf to step forward and provide us with clear communication of what is currently going on.

The other groups who are negotiating on behalf of our children (NAA, Safeminds, CAN, ASA, AS) do not seem bothered at all that the mercury organizations are no longer at the table. I wonder why? Wouldn’t anyone who is negotiating want lots of people to support their position? It makes me wonder what is going on and what has been negotiated most recently.

My post from yesterday:

Kelli-

was asking, “who is sitting at the table representing the autism community? “

All along you have said you are representing Safeminds in DC. Now you are stating in your post that you are only representing your son.

Are you representing your son only or Safeminds in the CAA negotiations?

Hope Miles is doing well with the move to DC.

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of lujene_clarkSent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 12:03 AMEOHarm Subject: Re: Answers to CAA questions

is absolutely correct. The autism community should not onlyexpect transparency, honesty and clear communications from governmentalagencys like the CDC and FDA but from "autism" groups claiming torepresent their interests in Washington, D.C. and State Legislatures aswell.Kelli Ann, you are now claiming that you were in DC representing onlyyour son's interests yet previously you had indicated to the autismcommunity that you were representing and speaking on behalf ofSafeMinds. Which is the real answer? If you were there representingonly your son's interests, don't you think it is a bit odd that onewoman can participate in "behind closed door" negotiations yet leadersof national organizations with a numerous political and legislativesuccesses, like A-CHAMP, NoMercury, Moms Against Mercury and CoMeD, areshut out of the meetings? Something seems very fishy about thatscenario, Kelli Ann.It is time for the autism community to demand STRAIGHT and COMPLETEanswers from all those at the negotiations, not shadowy references toclosed door meeting when the rest of the community is left in the dark. Every parent has a stake in this bill and should have a meaningful voicein the process and entitled to full and timely disclosure from thoseclaiming to represent the interests of the autism community.It is time to hold all of those involved in the CAA accountable, whetherthey are elected officials, staffers, autism groups or individualsclaiming to only represent their child. The community deserves full andcomplete answers to many, many unanswered questions.I urge every group and parent/advocate to join with NoMercury in callingfor a full, complete disclosure of all activities surrounding thenegotiations conducted on behalf of the autism community, including butnot limited to all political relationships, financial interests,current status/content of bill (including report or colloquy language)and any quid pro quo between parties. Transparency and knowledge arenecessary tools in fighting for the best interests of our children.Thank you,Lujene PresidentNoMercury WeinmasterVice-PresidentNoMercury>> Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a> UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never> budging on the "origional" agreed upon consensus language, we would> not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your message, but we have directed our questions directly

to Rep. Barton and his staff.

On Nov 25, 2006, at 3:48 PM, seekingtruth4miles wrote:

Question: How do you equate " manipulation " by the Republican

Leadership to the passage (by UNAMIMOUS CONSENT) of the CAA??

I believe there were at least 40 plus Democrats in the Senate when

the vote went through....

And, regarding lack of feedback from Barton's office....if you want

the latest information on CAA, you can get that from 's post on

Tuesday....

Kelli

> > >

> > > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I

didn't

> > > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain

what

> > > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> > >

> > > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA totally

> > watered

> > > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants to

> make

> > > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> > as " environmental "

> > > research, right?

> > >

> > > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more, doesn't

> it

> > have

> > > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new Congress

> is

> > > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> > >

> > > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and

Energy

> > > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> > pretty

> > > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> > better

> > > to start from scratch?

> > >

> > > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the

Senate?

> > >

> > > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we

will

> > have

> > > a friendlier congress in January?

> > >

> > > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> > consuming to

> > > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> > stationery, and

> > > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure

this

> > one

> > > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

> email?

> > Is

> > > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > J. Krakow

> > Law Office of J. Krakow

> > 225 Broadway

> > Suite 2700

> > New York, New York 10007

> > (212)227-0600 (voice)

> > (646) 349-1771 (fax)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I am extremely disappointed that a couple of weeks ago, when

negotiation meetings were held in Washington DC (with 8 offices half

republican, half democrat and 20 staffers), no one solicited any

input from A-CHAMP, the political action committee whose main

mission is to " Advocate for Children's Health Affected by Mercury

Poisoning " and has years of experience on the Hill. Bob Krakaw,

with ACHAMP and Lujene with NoMercury have been instrumental in

passing legislature in many states, for the banning of Thimerosal in

vaccines.

When the conference calls occurred this summer with the consensus

committee concerning the CAA, Bob and Lujene were the ones asking

the hard tough questions. Someone (from CAN) made a mistake of

including Bob on an e-mail thread that said (something to the

effect) that Bob Krakow needed to be silenced!

There are thousands of parents who wish they could be a part of

helping this process along. Many would have loved the opportunity

of supporting your meetings last week with faxes and letters, phone

calls, has they known what was being " negotiated " .

To keep meetings on behalf of our children secret, and then NOT to

include the staunchest of advocates (A-CHAMP,Generation Rescue, MAM,

CoMeD) to assist you in this endeavor, continues to erode the UNITY

of the Thimerosal/mercury groups and to compromise the trust of the

parents whose children you say you are representing.

> > > > >

> > > > > These are particularly question for ACHAMP. Just like I

> > didn't

> > > > > understand the football analogy, I need someone to explain

> > what

> > > > > exactly we're trying to do with CAA.

> > > > >

> > > > > OK, so the original consensus was gutted, and the CAA

totally

> > > > watered

> > > > > down. And that was in the Senate, right? So, Barton wants

to

> > > make

> > > > > it an even weaker version of its now-already weak self, by

> > > > > eliminating vaccine/thimerosal research, as well

> > > > as " environmental "

> > > > > research, right?

> > > > >

> > > > > Now, if Barton has his way, and weakens it even more,

doesn't

> > > it

> > > > have

> > > > > to go back to the Senate? What happens after the new

Congress

> > > is

> > > > > sworn in- do the bills-in-progress continue on as before?

> > > > >

> > > > > Isn't the effort to contact members of the Commerce and

> > Energy

> > > > > committee only going to, at best, get us back to an already

> > > > pretty

> > > > > much wrecked bill (as it came from the Senate)? Would it be

> > > > better

> > > > > to start from scratch?

> > > > >

> > > > > Or, is ACHAMP happy with the bill as it came out of the

> > Senate?

> > > > >

> > > > > And, why are we in a rush to make these changes now, if we

> > will

> > > > have

> > > > > a friendlier congress in January?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sorry these are elementary questions- but it is so time

> > > > consuming to

> > > > > contact congress- I always write a letter on personal

> > > > stationery, and

> > > > > then fax to the entire committee list. I want to make sure

> > this

> > > > one

> > > > > is worth it. Don't you think faxing's got more clout than

> > > email?

> > > > Is

> > > > > there a fax list of the members of the committee?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > J. Krakow

> > > > Law Office of J. Krakow

> > > > 225 Broadway

> > > > Suite 2700

> > > > New York, New York 10007

> > > > (212)227-0600 (voice)

> > > > (646) 349-1771 (fax)

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Maurine,

You make an important observation, and I would like to use your point

to clarify something. Certain organizations are using a " walking away "

canard (or smear) to try to delegitimize or denigrate the actions of

the organizations that took a principled stand regarding the

willingness of the other organizations to dismantle the consensus bill.

I have read or heard the phrase " walk away " so many times from

different quarters I can only conclude that it is an agreed upon

strategy to use this orchestrated talking point to prevent A-CHAMP and

others from participating in negotiations. To say we " walked away " from

anything is a lie.

In our public statements we articulated our readiness to continue

discussions with anyone at any time to advance this legislation

consistent with our children's interests. Our private actions were

completely consistent with our public statements. In fact, our

withdrawal of our endorsement for CAA gave us leverage at a key time

(in July) to have a positive effect on negotiations and we offered that

leverage privately to some of the other organizations. We chose not to

grandstand out of respect for those organizations that continued

efforts to salvage favorable provisions in this bill. In retrospect,

perhaps we should have tried to kill the bill, but we did not do this

out of specific respect for and in response to a specific request by

the main organizations working on the bill (back in June they claimed

our actions would operate to kill the bill and asked us to desist). We

helped privately to support those trying to retain provisions on

environmental research, vaccine research and public oversight and

offered, repeatedly, to do the same, right up to the last few days.

In response to our good faith efforts we have seen an orchestrated

effort to continue to exclude us from discussions using a " walking

away " lie. I even learned of a comment by one official of one of the

large organizations that equated our actions to a parent who walks away

from his family when times get tough. Needless to say such comments are

offensive, serve only to reveal the poor character of those who would

make such false comments, and are a deliberate effort to slander us and

denigrate our efforts. We have had talk of respecting parents with

which I agree. Respect is a two-way street, but for some it appears

that the respect – and genuflecting – only runs in one direction.

We will continue to try to influence this bill in a positive way. We

have sent communications directly to Congress, rather than go through

intermediaries who do not represent us and who appear to want us to go

away.

Bob

On Nov 26, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Maurine Meleck wrote:

Lujene,

No you are not the only one that feels this way.  It seems from Kelli's

posts that there is a trememdous amount of hostility against those

persons and organizations that left the negotiating table when the CAA

proved to be a poor excuse for a bill to help our children.

Disagreements or not, aren't we all doing this for the same reason? 

Maurine

lujene_clark <lujene@...> wrote:

> ,

> Sorry, I did miss your post from yesterday.  It is an excellent post

> and I applaud Moms Against Mercury for continuing to seek answers to

> the same questions that NoMercury has been asking for quite some

> time.  I believe CoMeD and A-CHAMP have been posing similar

> questions...still left largely unanswered except for a

> self-congratulatory yet ambiguous press release after we had be

> pushing for answers for weeks.

> One of my most basic questions:  Why would any group relentlessly

> pursue a bill that did not have the support of Dr. Bernie Rimland,

> Congressman Dan Burton or Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. who were and

> are perhaps some of the staunchest supporters of our children?  Men

> who have stood firm for the best interests of the children even in the

> face of personal hardship and harsh criticism looked at the CAA in its

> various forms and did not support it. 

> For groups who worked " behind the scenes " to try to convince the

> autism community the CAA is a silk purse when it is a sow's ear seems

> disingenuous.  I keep having the visual of a smarmy used car salesman

> in a seersucker leisure suit trying to sell the biggest lemon on the

> lot with four bald tires, a leaky radiator and faulty power steering

> telling the unsuspecting buyer, " No, really, trust me with a little

> car wax (colloquy language) and elbow grease (lobby the Appropriations

> Committee and NIH) it'll be like a new Cadillac. "

> Basically, as I stated many, many months ago, the CAA is a Trojan

> horse.  The brilliant blog post by Wade Rankin of Injecting Sense made

> the same analogy recently (only he did it much better than I because

> not only is he an extremely intelligent man, he is an excellent

> writer). 

> When all is said and done; when the truth is finally revealed.  And I

> mean the whole truth not some slick PR firm version of what

> revisionists' want the truth to be.  I'll bet that this bill was not

> really about autism, it was more about politics, money, organizational

> dominance and rehabilitation of a political career in jeopardy. 

> Doesn't it seem odd that some groups, huddled behind closed doors in

> secret negotiations with Santorum (PhaRMA's favorite senator) and

> Barton (who always follows party leadership) would pursue a bill that

> Dr. Rimland, a true hero to our children, called " The Pretending to

> Combat Autism Act? "   

> Does it seem odd that these same groups, when questioned on specifics

> and status reports state they cannot disclose what transpired during

> these " behind the scenes " secret closed door meetings while they were

> allegedly acting on your children's behalf?

> Am I the only one that finds this behavior questionable?

> Is it unreasonable for the autism community to want accountability

> from its " leaders? "

> While I appreciate their efforts and their desire to stay at the

> table, I feel that I along with every other parent have a right to

> know what was negotiated and who negotiated on our children's behalf.

> To me, that seems like a very reasonable request.

> Lujene

>

>

>

>  Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

> UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never budging

> on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we would not be

> playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

>

>

Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I apologize for just using the words " walked away " in my recent post

to Kelli Ann, and it was by no means an attempt to delegitimize or

denigrate the actions of those groups. I was only attempting to

convey a message of groups demonstrated actions which are the result

of holding true to original intents and acting in the best interest

of our children.

> >

> >  Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

> > UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

budging

> > on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we would not

be

> > playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

> >

> >

>

> Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

>

[Guest guest]

You do not need to apologize for your message. These words " walk away "

are being deliberately twisted (not by your) to mischaracterize our

(A-CHAMP's and others) actions and undermine the legitimacy of our

voice in advocating our position on CAA. Used generically, " walking

away " is a perfectly ok tactic to use in negotiations. But there is a

concerted and orchestrated effort to characterize A-CHAMP as " walking

away " with the specific intent of damaging our credibility and stifling

our voice. I have encountered the term in justifying some group's

actions rebuffing our efforts to coordinate advocacy efforts. I have

encountered the term also in its use by another to dismiss our actions

as if we " walked away " when things got " tough. " When it was first used

publicly last July it was used to characterize our opposition to the

bill in the form it existed in July as compared with the

self-characterization of other organizations to remain " engaged. " I

privately told the party that used the phrase that I objected to it and

their organization should refrain from using the characterization. I

have now seen the phrase used by multiple organizations and people in

regard to us. It is a slander designed to keep us away from the

discussions. It is a ploy used by the spinmeisters who have

orchestrated the CAA negotiations.

My remarks were in no way directed to you - I merely used your message

as an opportunity to clarify what is going around as a result of the

work of certain spinmeisters.

On Nov 26, 2006, at 10:01 AM, searchingforserenity111 wrote:

Bob,

I apologize for just using the words " walked away " in my recent post

to Kelli Ann, and it was by no means an attempt to delegitimize or

denigrate the actions of those groups. I was only attempting to

convey a message of groups demonstrated actions which are the result

of holding true to original intents and acting in the best interest

of our children.

> >

> >  Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

> > UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

budging

> > on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we would not

be

> > playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

> >

> >

>

> Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

>