Thomas G. Lammers
lammers at UWOSH.EDU
Wed Aug 17 11:07:02 CDT 2005
Perhaps if NSF had been more equitable in disbursing research funds over
the years, instead of putting a lot of eggs in a few favored baskets,
they'd have an even larger constituency to speak on their behalf.
At 10:50 AM 8/17/2005, Scott L. Gardner wrote:
> SENATE APPROPRIATIONS CUTS FUNDING FOR BIO RESEARCH;
> DECLINES FUNDING FOR NEON
>Immediately following the August congressional recess, the Senate
>Appropriations Committee got off to a quick start on trying to finish
>the remaining appropriations bills. Among the bills on the committee's
>agenda was the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill which funds the
>National Science Foundation. The committee provided NSF with a total of
>$5.58 billion, a $275.8 million (5.2%) increase over last year's
>appropriation, but slightly less than the $5.68 billion provided by the
>House committee in July. The number falls far short of the amount ($6.39
>billion) required to continue the 5-year doubling path authorized by
>Congress last year. However, the committee notes in accompanying report
>language that "the Committee continues to be supportive ofxthe pursuit
>of a doubling path for NSF funding. However, due to funding constraints,
>the Committee is not able to provide such funding at this time, but will
>continue to pursue these efforts in the future."
>Included in the total increase for NSF is a 4.0% increase for Research
>and Related Accounts to a total of $4.22 billion for FY 04. This amount
>is also slightly smaller than the amount provided by the House
>appropriators. Even though the Senate provided an increase to the BIO
>directorate this year, core programs in the directorate stand to be cut
>by approximately $8.5 million. This is due to the committee recommending
>$15 million more for plant genome than requested, but only providing an
>additional $6.5 to the directorate. The House provided only the
>requested $75 million for plant genome research, as well as an
>additional $16 million to the directorate; thus, the House bill provides
>$24 million more for core BIO programs than the Senate bill. Unlike last
>year, BIO was not the only directorate to not receive an increase. The
>Senate level-funded the Geosciences Directorate (GEO) , which houses
>ocean sciences, at last year's level. However, that amount is slightly
>more than $4 million higher than requested by the administration.
>The Senate also failed to provide funding for NEON. Citing budgetary
>constraints, the committee declined to fund any MRE projects that are
>not yet underway, such as NEON. The committee also expressed a desire to
>hear the results of the NAS study on NSF's prioritization procedure for
>large infrastructure projects.
>ACTION ALERT: YOUR SUPPORT COULD MEAN AN ADDITIONAL $37 MILLION (250
>GRANTS AND TWO NEON PROTOTYPES) FOR THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES!
>As is customary in Congress, both the House and Senate Appropriations
>Committees traditionally "mark up" their own version of spending bills.
>Once both houses pass those bills, the houses will "conference" a bill,
>working out differences in funding allocations between the two versions.
>As noted above, there is a significant difference in funding for
>biological sciences research at NSF between the House and Senate marks.
>The House version of the bill would provide $9.6 million more to the
>Biological Sciences Directorate than the Senate. Because the Senate
>designates an additional $15 million to plant genome, the discrepancy in
>funding for core BIO programs is approximately $25 million. The House
>also provides $12 million in the Major Research Equipment and Facilities
>Construction (MRE) account for the National Ecological Observatory
>Network. NEON has been requested in three budget cycles; this is the
>first time it has received funding in any congressional mark. (For more
>information about NEON, visit www.aibs.org/ibrcs)
>WHAT TO WRITE:
>Biologists interested in making their voice heard should FAX a letter to
>their members of Congress. In all letters, be sure to thank them for
>their support of the National Science Foundation. Below is a suggested
>outline for your letter:
>1. Thank them for their support of NSF in the past. Mention last year's
>passage of the NSF Reauthorization Act, which authorized a five-year
>doubling path for the agency. (You may want to acknowledge that while
>current budget situations have put this year's goal out of reach, you
>hope they will continue their strong support for scientific research at
>2. Mention the benefits of NSF funding to your state/district. You can
>get statistics on actual award amounts for your university and state
>3. Encourage the conferees to accept the House numbers for the BIO
>Directorate and NEON. The median annual award for BIO is $94,000; hence
>the House would provide for approximately 250 additional grants. 4.
>Offer to provide them with additional information as they find
>necessary. A nice touch is to extend them (and/or their staff) to visit
>your lab/department at their convenience.
>WHO TO CONTACT:
>ALL biologists are encouraged to contact their members of Congress to
>express support for biological science funding. Unless you bring the
>issue to their attention, they are unlikely to support increases.
>Educating members of Congress on the value of biological science
>research is essential to future growth.
>If you live in any of the following states, calls or letters to the
>Senators below (members of the Appropriations subcommittee handling NSF)
>are especially valuable. Biologists in the states of Missouri and
>Maryland are particularly encouraged to contact Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) and
>Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chair and ranking member, respectively, of
>the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over NSF funding.
>Sen. Conrad Burns (R MT)
>Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R AL)
>Sen. Larry E. Craig (R ID)
>Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R NM)
>Sen. Mike DeWine (R OH)
>Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R TX)
>Sen. Patrick Leahy (D VT)
>Sen. Tom Harkin (D IA)
>Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D WV)
>Sen. Tim Johnson (D SD)
>Sen. Harry M. Reid (D NV)
>Biologists living in the following districts are also strongly
>encouraged to contact their representatives, who sit on the House
>Appropriations subcommittee. Biologists from the 25th district of New
>York and the 1st district of West Virginia are particularly encouraged
>to contact Rep. James T. Walsh (R NY-25) and Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D
>WV-1), chair and ranking member, respectively, of the House subcommittee
>with jurisdiction over NSF funding.
>Rep. David L. Hobson (R OH-7)
>Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R MI-9)
>Rep. Anne Meagher Northup (R KY-3)
>Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R VA-5)
>Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R AL-4)
>Rep. Ray LaHood (R IL-18)
>Rep. Dave Weldon (R FL-15)
>Rep. Mike Simpson (R ID-2)
>Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D OH-9)
>Rep. David E. Price (D NC-4)
>Rep. Robert E. Bud Cramer Jr. (D AL-5)
>Rep. Chaka Fattah (D PA-2)
>Rep. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D GA-2)
>IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS: Do not hesitate to contact Adrienne Froelich
>(afroelich at aibs.org <mailto:afroelich at aibs.org>) or Robert Gropp
>(rgropp at aibs.org <mailto:rgropp at aibs.org>) if you would like assistance
>drafting a letter or finding contact information for your representative
>+-< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><><>< >-+
>Scott Lyell Gardner, Ph.D.
>Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology
>W-529 Nebraska Hall
>University of Nebraska State Museum
>University of Nebraska - Lincoln
>Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0514
>e-mail: slg at unl.edu
>ASP Page: http://asp.unl.edu
Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA
e-mail: lammers at uwosh.edu
Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
More information about the Taxacom