[Ags-rhic-users-l] Increased budgets in Washington DC

videbaek@sgs1.hirg.bnl.goV

Dear Collaborator,
You may already have received the mailing below. Please follow up on this if
appropriate (i.e. residing in US)
regards
Flemming
------------------------------------------------------
Flemming Videbaek
Physics Department
Brookhaven National Laboratory

tlf: 631-344-4106
fax 631-344-1334
e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Thomas" <jhthomas@lbl.gov>
To: <ags-rhic-users-l@lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:02 PM
Subject: [Ags-rhic-users-l] Increased budgets in Washington DC


> Dear RHIC and AGS Users,
>
> The budget process for science have moved one small step forward in
> Washington DC; but many steps remain before the process is complete.
> Now is a good time to send a letter to your Senator or Congress person.
>
> Please  click  on  the   url  http://caphill.aps.org  and  select  APS
> Advocacy".  This page  will take you through the  steps of composing a
> letter to your Senators and/or Congressperson. It should take no more
> thank 10 minutes.  For RHIC  and AGS users  we recommend  using the
> "talking points"  in the sample letter and then include the one about
> the DOE Office of Science which mentions RHIC specifically.  When you
> are done, please print your letter and mail it.  US Mail is much more
> effective on Capitol Hill than Email or a Fax.  Member of Congress do
> listen to constituents ... and you will probably get a letter in return.
>
> You  might also  enjoy  the  APS public  affairs  page which  contains
> additional  tips   on  how   to  communicate  effectively   with  your
> congresspersons.
>
> http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/issues/congress.shtml#write
>
> Enclosed is a thoughtful note from George Trilling of the APS who asks
> us to write  to our  Representatives  NOW  about funding  for  the
> physical sciences, in particular the Office  of Science at the DOE.  It
> affects science  in  general, but  particularly  for  RHIC  and AGS
> users  it directly affects accelerator operations in the next few years.
>
>
>                         Sincerely,
>
>                        Richard Seto
>                         Jim Thomas
>        for the RHIC & AGS users executive committee
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 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=CL055869
>
> 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:
> Congressman Ken Calvert
> 2201 Rayburn House Office Building
> Washington, DC 20515
> (202) 225-1986
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ags-rhic-users-l mailing list
> Ags-rhic-users-l@lists.bnl.gov
> http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ags-rhic-users-l
>