<%-2>Clinton upsets horticulturists<%0> (fwd)

[Jennifer D Olson]

Thanks for all your responses. Keep me updated.

Jennifer Olson

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 13:08:59 -0500
From:olso0264 at gold.tc.umn.edu
Subject: <%-2>Clinton upsets horticulturists<%0>

Headline: <%-2>Clinton upsets horticulturists<%0>
Publish Date: 02/01/1995

Jennifer DeAnn Olson

<W0I>Staff Reporter

President Bill Clinton's State of the Union address has crop 
researchers stressed out.

Never mind Clinton's remarks about banning assault weapons or 
reforming welfare. Researchers are fuming about his implication that 
federally funded plant-stress research is nothing more than pork.

Plant-stress research involves the effects of the environment on 
crops, including heat, drought conditions and damp weather.

Clinton blasted a tick-removal program and a $1 million 
plant-research study. ``I'll tell you something, if you'll give me 
the line-item veto, I'll remove some of that unnecessary spending,'' 
he said.

After the speech, horticulturists and botanists around the country 
sent letters to Clinton and hit the Internet with fellow researchers 
to complain about the president's comment.

Duke University plant botany professor James Siedow listened to the 
speech in his car and ``went berserk'' when he heard the comment.

``I drove to my hotel room and wrote a (letter) that night,'' he 
said.

He said he has not received a response from Clinton.

The million-dollar remark prompted other national researchers to vent 
their anger.

Curtis V. Givan, professor of plant biology at the University of New 
Hampshire, wrote to Clinton telling him that the comment left him 
``deeply concerned.''

``It would be disastrous to stop funding research in plant 
pathology,'' Givan wrote.

``I am sorry to have to lecture you in this way, but the fact that 
such an ill-considered remark found itself into (your) speech 
suggests that something is seriously wrong somewhere,'' he continued.

Robert Jones, University agronomy and plant genetics professor, was 
``surprised and concerned'' by Clinton's remarks.

Ronald Reagan's State of the Union speech in 1988 prompted similar 
responses from researchers and farmers when he addressed the issue of 
the line-item veto. Reagan referred to a bill containing hidden money 
for ``cranberry research, blueberry research, the study of crawfish 
and the commercialization of wildflowers.''

White House media spokeswoman Laura Schwartz, said she was unsure of 
Clinton's reference to the study.

Some researchers said they believe Clinton thought he was speaking 
about counseling for plants.

``He implied that we put plants on Dramamine,'' Siedow said.