X-Envelope-to: ethology@finhutc.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"ethology@finhutc.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethology
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:06:00 MST
From:         IMP@ARIZVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Could you please distribute this msg to the net?

From:   IN%"jcha@u.washington.edu"  "James Ha"  2-SEP-1992 16:57
To:     IN%"jcha@u.washington.edu"
CC:
Subj:   ABSnet Legislative Alert

Return-path: <jcha@u.washington.edu>
Received: from UWAVM.U.WASHINGTON.EDU (MAILER@UWAVM) by CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (PMDF
 #12663) id <01GOBEBD8PV49GX9QM@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>; Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:57 MST
Received: from UWAVM by UWAVM.U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with
 BSMTP id 3917; Wed, 02 Sep 92 16:56:38 PDT
Received: from milton.u.washington.edu by UWAVM.U.WASHINGTON.EDU (IBM VM SMTP
 V2R1) with TCP; Wed, 02 Sep 92 16:56:37 PDT
Received: by milton.u.washington.edu (5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.22 ) id AA04754;
 Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:54:45 -0700
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:54:45 -0700
From: James Ha <jcha@u.washington.edu>
Subject: ABSnet Legislative Alert
To: jcha@u.washington.edu
Message-id: <9209022354.AA04754@milton.u.washington.edu>
X-Envelope-to: IMP

From IMP@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU  Ukn Aug 17 13:49:08 1992
Received: from bashful.u.washington.edu by milton.u.washington.edu
        (5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.22 ) id AA12739; Mon, 17 Aug 92 13:49:06 -0700
Received: from SkyBlu.CCIT.Arizona.EDU by bashful.u.washington.edu
        (5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.22 ) id AA01661; Mon, 17 Aug 92 13:49:01 -0700
Received: from CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU by CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (PMDF #12663) id
 <01GNOV1KS8XC8Y53L9@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>; Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:48 MST
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:48 MST
From: IMP@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Another legislative alert....
To: jcha@u.washington.edu
Message-Id: <01GNOV1KS8XC8Y53L9@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU>
X-Envelope-To: jcha@u.washington.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"jcha@u.washington.edu"
Status: RO
X-Status:

Dear Jim...Could you please send this out ASAP...the full Senate will be
voting shortly....

>From the 7 August issue of Science about the recent Congressional bill for
NSFappropriations:

     "...there was no cheering in the basic research community.  The same
bill that boosted the station seems to rule out any increased funding for
investigator-initiated research at NSF in 1993.  In fact, NSF's budget is
likely to be shunted into a holding pattern for at least a year.  And to make
matters even worse, if instructions handed down by a Senate committee are
carried out, NSF may be asked to promote education and "economic competitive-
ness" projects at the expense of basic science.
     That analysis comes from NSF's congressional experts after a quick review
of a bill that cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee on 31 July....The
House passed its version on 30 July, and with surprising speed, the Senate
appropriations committee decided to take up its own bill the next day.  Both
bills aim for roughly the same targets in 1993...a flat budget for NSF,
inching up from $2.6 billion to $2.7 billion, which means the agency may not
quite keep up with inflation.
     ...Robert Traxler (D-MI), chairman of the House appropriations sub-
committee on independent agencies said...he was "saddened" that "I did not
get a whimper of protest from anyone that the NSF was held to zero growth."...

PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN TO PROTEST THE 1) ZERO GROWTH
BUDGET and 2) POTENTIAL FOR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT FOR FUNDING DECISIONS.

                 Your letters CAN make a difference.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU