|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2001 : 22:16:54
|
TO: American Physical Society Members
FROM: George H. Trilling, APS President
In my May 23 message I noted that contacting House members about the science budget was premature. The time for action has now arrived: appropriators are about to begin the task of allocating funds. I will repeat the summary of the landscape contained in my previous message.
The congressional budget resolution, passed by both houses of Congress, mirrors the presidential discretionary spending totals and would cut much of science sharply from current spending levels. Including a 3 percent inflation rate, here are the numbers in the presidential request.
> NSF: Research and Related Activities would be cut nearly 4 percent. Excluding the Frontiers Centers, Physics would be cut nearly 13 percent. Materials Science would be cut almost 8 percent. All new construction projects would be zeroed out.
> DOE: SLAC and FermiLab would receive increases in the operations budgets and the Spallation Neutron Source would be fully funded. However, university research in high-energy would decline by about 8 percent and in nuclear physics by more than 7.5 percent. Running time at RHIC would drop by 25 percent, and million in construction funding for the LHC would be deferred until next year. Renewable Energy Resources, Nuclear Energy and Conservation would be cut by more than 30 percent. Fusion and BES core programs would be flat funded.
This budget plan will stick unless the scientific community responds. Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) has begun to circulate a "Dear Colleague" letter to House members regarding the DOE's Office of Science. It is imperative that scientists who agree with her position reinforce her message by contacting their own representative immediately. The Biggert letter and the list of last year's 97 co-signers, posted at http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/issues/budget4.shtml, are reprinted below for your information. At present, there is no similar letter circulating in support of NSF research funding.
ACTION:
If you believe that more funding is justified, as I do, please urge your representative to sign onto the advocacy letter, noting that Rep. Biggert's Legislative Assistant Paul Doucette is handling the issue. At the end of your letter, also mention the importance of increased investment in NSF's research activities. If your representative is an Appropriator (indicated with an asterisk), please write a separate letter directly urging increased funding for NSF and DOE's Office of Science.
If you are running Internet Explorer, please use the APS web-based congressional communications site to draft your letter:
http://caphill.aps.org/scripts/advocacy.asp?MEMID=60049398
Further background information can be found at the APS Public Affairs website:
http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/issues/budget-house.shtml.
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE:
Rep. Clement L. Otter
1711 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6611
BIGGERT DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young
Chairman
House Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable David Obey
Ranking Member
House Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Sonny Callahan
Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy & Water
House Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Peter Visclosky
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy & Water
House Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey, and Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Visclosky:
We are writing to express our strong support for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science and the world class scientific research that it funds. To this end, we would encourage you to significantly increase fiscal year 2002 funding for the DOE Office of Science above the level appropriated in fiscal year 2001. Increased funding will allow for the fullest utilization of the tremendous scientific talent and world's best research facilities that are supported by the DOE Office of Science.
The DOE Office of Science is the nation's primary supporter of the physical sciences, providing an important partner and key user facilities in the areas of biological sciences, physics, chemistry, environmental sciences, mathematics and computing, and engineering. This federal research and development funding goes to scientists and students not just at our national labs, but at our colleges and universities as well. Furthermore, the DOE Office of Science supports a unique system of programs based on large-scale, specialized user facilities and large teams of scientists focused on national priorities in scientific research. This makes the Office of Science unique among, and complementary to, the scientific programs of many other federal science agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
We applaud the strong support shown for research conducted within the NIH and NSF, and ask that this level of support be extended to the DOE Office of Science. Future medical breakthroughs depend on fundamental advances in the physical sciences and other research conducted by the DOE Office of Science. One recent example is the Human Genome Project, which progressed so rapidly because of advanced computing technology and biological technology pioneered by the DOE Office of Science. Harold Varmus, former director of the NIH, said, "Medical advances may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinational chemist, or an engineer."
While federally supported medical research like that conducted by NIH has skyrocketed, funding for research in the physical sciences has remained stagnant. Despite the fact that Congress increased funding for the DOE Office of Science by 13 percent in fiscal year 2001, its budget, in constant dollars, is only at its 1990 level. It is the research itself that has been most negatively impacted by this funding shortfall, since the cost of maintaining existing facilities continues to rise with inflation.
Scientific research may not be as politically popular as health care and education right now, but science is as important to progress in these two areas as it is to America's continued economic, energy, and national security. Economic experts maintain that today's unprecedented economic growth would not have been possible were it not for the substantial investment in research made by the public and private sectors over the past several decades. Basic energy research funded by the DOE Office of Science will help address current and future energy challenges with technologies that improve the efficiency, economy, environmental acceptability, and safety in energy generation, conversion, transmission, and use.
According to the Hart-Rudman Report on National Security, "...the U.S. government has seriously underfunded basic scientific research in recent years. The quality of the U.S. education system, too, has fallen well behind those of scores of other nations. ...The inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine." The report goes on to recommend doubling the federal government's investment in science and technology research and development by 2010.
While we understand that it may not be practical to double the federal research and development budget this year, we believe Congress should take the necessary steps to move in that direction. We ask that you help the DOE Office of Science attract the best minds, educate the next generation of scientists and engineers, support the construction and operation of modern facilities, and continue to provide the quality of scientific research that has been its trademark for so many years.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Judy Biggert, et al
cc: The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
The Honorable Tom DeLay
The Honorable Dick Gephardt
The Honorable Martin Frost
The Honorable Richard Armey
The Honorable J.C. Watts
The Honorable David Bonior
LIST OF CO-SIGNERS TO LAST YEAR'S BIPARTISAN DOE LETTER BY STATE
CALIFORNIA: Ellen Tauscher (D); Nancy Pelosi (D); Zoe Lofgren (D); Anna Eshoo (D); Lynn Woolsey (D); Barbara Lee (D); Sam Farr (D); Steve Horn (R); Howard Berman (D); Bob Filner (D); Tom Campbell (R); Elton Gallegly (R); Lois Capps (D); Doug Ose (R)
CONNECTICUT: Sam Gejdenson (D); Rosa DeLauro (D); Jon Larson (D)
HAWAII: Neil Abercrombie (D)
IDAHO: Mike Simpson (R)
INDIANA: Tim Roemer (D)
ILLINOIS: Judy Biggert (R); Jerry Costello (D); Bobby Rush (D); William Lipinski (D); Ray LaHood (R); John Porter (R); Philip Crane (R); Rod Blagojevich (D); Donald Manzullo (R); John Shimkus (R)
MARYLAND: Connie Morella (R)
MASSACHUSETTS: Michael Capuano (D); James McGovern (D); John Tierney (D); William Delahunt (D); Marty Meehan (D); Barney Frank (D)
MICHIGAN: Vernon Ehlers (R); Lynn Rivers (D); Debbie Stabenow (D); John Dingell (D); Jim Barcia (D)
NEW JERSEY: Rodney Frelinghuysen (R); Rush Holt (D); Frank Pallone (D); William Pascrell (D); Robert Andrews (D); Chris Smith (R); Jim Saxton (R); Donald Payne (D); Marge Roukema (R);
NEW YORK: Maurice Hinchey (D); Jerold Nadler (D); Rick Lazio (R); Sherwood Boehlert (R); Anthony Weiner (D); Michael Forbes (D); John Sweeney (R); Peter King (R); James Walsh (R); Sue Kelly (R); Ben Gilman (R); Amo Houghton (R)
NEW MEXICO: Heather Wilson (R); Tom Udall (D)
NORTH CAROLINA: David Price (D); Bob Etheridge (D); Robin Hayes (R); Mike McIntyre (D); Melvin Watt (D)
PENNSYLVANIA: Mike Doyle (R); Joseph Hoeffel (D); Curt Weldon (R); William Coyne (D); Tim Holden (D)
RHODE ISLAND: Patrick Kennedy (D)
TENNESSEE: Zach Wamp (R); Bart Gordon (D); William Jenkins (R); John Tanner (D); John Duncan (R); Harold Ford (D); Bob Clement (R); Van Hilleary (R)
TEXAS: Ken Bentsen (D); Silvestre Reyes (D); Charles Gonzalez (D); Ralph Hall (D); Martin Frost (D)
UTAH: Merrill Cook (R)
VIRGINIA: Tom Davis (R)
WASHINGTON: Doc Hastings (R); Jennifer Dunn (R); George Nethercutt (R); Jim McDermott (D); Norman Dicks (D)
WISCONSIN: Tammy Baldwin (D)
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 01:56:47 [Permalink]
|
Yikes! What happened to Colorado? Ok, well I guess I'm gonna have to go push for some science stuff here at home. That's sad and disturbing that my reps don't vote for this stuff. Especially when the Shrub intends to start drilling in some of our wilderness lands. Less hiking room...more tourists.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 08:43:16 [Permalink]
|
Kinda off topic, but...
quote:
Especially when [President Bush] intends to start drilling in some of our wilderness lands. Less hiking room...more tourists.
I've heard that the majority of people in Alaska actually support and desire the drilling. Don't know if this is true or not though.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 02:49:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
LIST OF CO-SIGNERS TO LAST YEAR'S BIPARTISAN DOE LETTER BY STATE
CALIFORNIA: ); Howard Berman
That's my congressman. He's a jerk. The senators of my state are complete morons too.
I've written to all them before about various issues and they 'don't have a clue'.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 12:49:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've heard that the majority of people in Alaska actually support and desire the drilling. Don't know if this is true or not though.
Tokyodreamer, that may be true for Alaska, however, I live in CO. They are planning on drilling in and around some of the protected wetlands in this area. Most folks here aren't really happy about the proposed drilling.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 13:44:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer, that may be true for Alaska, however, I live in CO. They are planning on drilling in and around some of the protected wetlands in this area. Most folks here aren't really happy about the proposed drilling.
Ooops, my apologies! I subconsciously added "Alaskan wilderness" to your post where there was only "wilderness". 
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
