John Edwards said:

> I am glad that I am not responsible for choosing
> between expensive research and lower production.

Expensive?

Here's what is required to restore the funding that
the proposed 2003 USDA budget neglects to fund:

Beltsville      $1.46 million  (verified by lab director)
Tuscon          $1.7   million  (verified by lab director)
Baton Rouge     $1.5   million  (unverified wild guess)

TOTAL           $4.66 million

The total USDA proposed budget is $74.4 billion
The money "at risk" is a mere 0.006% of the total.
That is six thousandths of one percent!!

If worst comes to worst, and the funding is not restored,
here's a fallback plan:

    a)  There are roughly 130,000 US beekeepers
    b)  $4.66 million split equally would be $35 each.

Wow - research is cheaper than buying ONE package.
Research will help your packages survive.
Seems pretty inexpensive to me.
So, buy a package of invisible bees for science!

There is one thing 100 times cheaper - a 35-cent stamp
for a letter to a member of the agriculture budget
committee to ask them to restore the funding.

Here's the list.

      http://agriculture.house.gov/members.htm

Here's where to find your own congressman,
by entering your zip code:

    http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html

Time is short - the House Appropriations subcommittee
will consider the ARS budget on February 28.  The Senate
gets it on March 14.

(Do NOT send e-mail, send a postcard or letter.
Congress ignores e-mail, but pays attention to paper.)

Why is this so?  My guess is:

  a) The pen is mightier than the sword
  b) A picture is worth a thousand words

  Therefore, a picture postcard, or a letter
  with a photo enclosed is clearly the
  ultimate attention-getting weapon.

Fire at will.


        jim

        farmageddon