farmers find and share information.|
Inside The Beltway -- July '98
Ag policy update from the Midwest Sustainable
Agriculture Working Group.
Jump down menu:
Ag Approps Agonistes: A Tragic Opera in Three Movements
CFO Woes Continue
Corps Natl Wetlands Permits
Credit Bill News & Action Needed
Food Quality Protection Act
CRPs Under-achieving Continuous Sign-up
USDA Hearing on Future Ag Initiative
Campaign Organic Letter
Moving & Shaking
Previous editions of Inside the Beltway
the Beltway is Sustainable Farming Connection's online version of the Midwest
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group's Washington Report. We reproduce
it with MSAWG's permission. Do not reproduce or post to any electronic network
without specific permission. Contact Brad DeVries
firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.
Ag Approps Agonistes
Appropriations -- Take One
The Senate spent most of the
week of July 13th on the agriculture appropriations bill. The action focused
primarily on the new farm "crisis" and the competing plans for
addressing it (see story below), with attention
also paid to export and sanctions policy as well as tobacco legislation. And,
oh yeah, while they were at it they did a few things actually germane to the
bill like discretionary spending levels for USDA programs for 1999.
(Congressional Budget Process 101: The Appropriations bills are only supposed
to set spending levels for discretionary federal programs, and nothing else.
No setting policy, no messing with mandatory funded programs like the Fund,
CFO, Social Security, etc., no monkey business. Of course the Appropriations
Committees control of the federal checkbook means that they routinely
ignore these bounds and cheerfully trample on others legislative,
executive or divine authority. Whats the difference between God and a
member of the Appropriations Committee? God doesnt think hes a
member of the Appropriations Committee.)
We undertook three major efforts and a couple of minor ones for
Senate floor action. Starting with the good news first (and our only action
related to discretionary spending), we were successful in increasing Direct
Farm Ownership loan funds (70% targeted to beginning farmers) from the
Committee's level of $63 million up to the full farm bill level of $85 million.
The offset was internal to farm credit -- the extra funding was diverted from
"credit sale" funds for sale of inventory property. USDA will still
be able to sell inventory to beginning farmers with the DFO funds, so the
amendment, sponsored by Senator Bumpers (D-AR) with support from Sen. Harkin
(D-IA), is a big net plus. The House level is $75 million, so now we must
fight to prevail in conference. We also want the Senate level on direct
operating loans -- $560 million vs. $500 million in the House bill.
Second on our list was trying to restore funding for the Conservation
Farm Option and the Fund for Rural America, two of our mandatory spending farm
bill "wins" in extreme danger of being snuffed out. As you will
recall, we successfully restored funding in the House bill at the Committee
level, only to have it taken away during floor consideration when Secretary
Glickman supported wiping it out to come up with needed funds for civil rights
litigation related to minority farmers.
Like the final House bill, the Senate Committee provided no funding
for CFO or FRA. Despite great effort and numerous attempts to get something
going, in the end we got just a bit better than nothing. Senator Bumpers did
squeeze in a provision listing a dozen or so programs, including CFO and FRA,
that should receive funding if the total funding allocated to the agriculture
bill increases -- an unlikely prospect.
For all those of you who responded to action alerts and contacted
USDA and the Vice President's office, please know that the Administration, in
stark contrast to its not-so-benign neglect during House consideration of the
bill, did speak forcefully to both the Fund and CFO in its official
communication to the Senate. But, as they say, it was much too little and
Our hopes for conference committee are dim, but not extinguished.
The main focus will likely be on what happens with the new research bill's "Initiative
on Future Agriculture and Food Systems" which is left unscathed in the
Senate bill ($120 million) but knocked out entirely in the House bill. With
the Initiative up for grabs in conference, there may be some consideration of a
more equal distribution of cuts.
We also lent support for efforts to minimize the cuts to the Wetlands
Reserve Program and to find new funding for the Farmland Protection Program.
No new funds were forthcoming for FPP (which has already used all $35 million
allocated to it by the farm bill), though it did get on the list of worthy
programs to support if an additional allocation is forthcoming.
WRP, already cut from 165,000 acres to 140,000 acres in the Committee bill,
was the "cash cow" offset for numerous proposed or rumored
amendments. In the end, it took only one additional hit -- a reduction to
120,000 acres -- to help pay for a move to restore full crop insurance
subsidies to the largest farms in the country, primarily in California and the
The recently-signed research bill had taken the bold step of
making the fee schedule for crop insurance modestly progressive, but not,
evidently, modest enough for some cotton and fruit and vegetable growers and
their well paid lobbyists. The appropriations language puts the new schedule
on hold for 1999 while providing long-term employment for the lobbyists who can
now fight to postpone it each year, with a large run-up in billable hours.
The Administration got its top two priorities taken care of. Senator
Robb (D-VA) succeeded, with no debate, to pass the Glickman-backed amendment to
waive off the statute of limitations for civil rights complaints. Without CFO
available for the offset as it was in the House, the Secretary backed an offset
package that included $5 million each from the National Research Initiative
(reducing it to $92 million), animal quarantine inspection, and the USDA
computer purchase account. They also worked with CBO to revise the estimate of
what was needed for FY 99 to just $15 million ($42 million over 3 years), so
that's all they needed for this year's bill. The waiver will allow minority
farmers to try to collect from USDA for past discrimination abuses related to
commodity programs, farm credit, disaster payments and the like.
Senator Harkin did the bidding on the Administration's Food Safety
Initiative to the tune of $66 million, of which $33 is for research (pathogen
detection technology, new vaccines, etc.) and $28 is for additional inspectors.
The offset includes higher assessments on tobacco growers to pay for the costs
of administering the tobacco program and for net losses for crop insurance on
tobacco, plus another $15 million from the computer account and $13 million
from delaying some ARS lab building and renovation projects for a year. Food
safety is hot election year topic, and the amendment passed 65-34. Had it
failed, the offsets would have been available for a conservation amendment
Appropriations -- Take Two
struggling farm economy has become a major election year issue, heightened by
concerns of both parties that a dozen or so competitive farm district House
races could help decide whether the GOP retains control. For this reason, the
Senate action on appropriations became the stage for the first major revisiting
of the farm bill since its passage in 1996. The wheat state Democrats lost
their bid, on a strictly party line vote, to raise the loan rate and extend the
loan repayment period, but were successful in other efforts.
Most importantly and surprising was a 49-49 winning vote for a 3 -year
pilot on mandatory cattle price reporting, approved despite the strong
opposition of National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the industry. The
crossover GOP votes were cattle state Senators Thomas and Enzi (WY), Burns
(MT), and Grams (MN) and, for whatever reason, Senators Santorum (PA) and
This was a particularly sweet victory for the Western
Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) -- and, of course, livestock producers
-- after so much stalling by USDA over whether to move forward with new price
Also approved by voice vote was a "country of
origin" meat labeling amendment sponsored by Senator Johnson (D-SD). And,
after years of trying, Senator Daschle (D-SD) passed, without debate, a CRP
haying and grazing 5-year pilot project for 7 unnamed states, despite continued
opposition from NCBA, the Farm Bureau, and many wildlife groups. We will work
to perfect the language to make it more suitable for rotational grazing and for
partial field enrollments in case the provision survives conference, though our
language is opposed by the same guys who oppose the underlying provision,
making it a tough sell.
Perhaps the biggest news out of the Senate action was the approval
of $500 million in disaster payments, with unanimous agreement between Hill
Democrats, Republicans and the Administration to count it as "emergency
spending" and thus obviate the need for an offset. In order to pull this
off, a legal fiction had to be developed to sidestep the budget act which
specifically forbids "emergency" status for disaster payments.
election years grand!
Needless to say, as the debate proceeded, more and more states came
to the mike to say, yes, they too had a disaster that needed some cash. Pity
USDA trying to figure out a formula to carve up the pie! At least there is a
common understanding that about half of the total should be set-aside for the
incredibly hard-hit areas of the Northern Plains.
One of the more entertaining, if completely meaningless, debates was
over a "sense of the Senate" resolution by Senator Grassley (R-IA)
putting the Senate on record in support of the "big ten" wish list of
the Farm Bureau and many of the commodity organizations: IMF bailout, MNF
status for China, fast track renewal, more export subsidies, reducing unfair
trading practices by other countries, abolition of capital gains taxes,
abolition of estate taxes, special new farmer IRAs, reduced environmental
regulations, -- and did we happen to mention more export subsidies. This
bundle of joy passed 71-28 with the "no" votes primarily coming from
members of both parties who have problems with China or fast track.
On a somewhat more serious basis, the Senate debated at length
several legislative provisions to reform export sanction policy, including
amendments by Sen. Lugar (R-IN), Harkin, and others. These all lost in
deference to an ad hoc working group of Senators who are attempting to come up
with a "comprehensive" sanctions policy.
Not to be outdone by the Senate, House Speaker Gingrich and Ag
Committee Chair Bob Smith announced a plan to pass legislation to release FY 99
Freedom to Farm "AMTA" payments on the first day of the fiscal year,
October 1. Under the 1996 farm bill, farmers would normally receive their
commodity program payments half in January and half in September. If the
action on appropriations is any indication, this will pass quickly and be
signed into law.
Appropriations -- Take Three
With an appropriations bill so full of non-germane legislative
amendments rather than spending ones, we would be remiss if we did not mention
several others with relevance to our agenda. First, unbeknownst to us until
just before it was happening, Senators Feingold (D-WI) and Jeffords (R-VT)
pushed an amendment -- accepted without debate -- setting up the Office of
Small Farm Advocate, with a Administrator (political appointee requiring
consent of the Senate). It must be funded from within existing resources, so
it won't be much of an office, but the amendment nonetheless tracks one of the
recommendations of the Small Farm Commission. USDA is currently considering
nominees for a similar position.
Senator Hatch (R-UT) snuck in a provision directing USDA to make a
recommendation pro or con allowing interstate trade for state-inspected meat by
March of next year and was also promised a hearing on this subject by Chairman
Lugar. This issue has come up several times at MSAWG meetings, and we now
might have a chance to intervene if we can develop a consensus policy and
On an unhappy note, there was bad news on farm credit legislative
front. Senators Coverdell (R-GA) and Cleland (D-GA) took some of the bad House
Agriculture Committee-passed provisions from the recently marked up credit bill
(see story below) and added them to the appropriations,
including most importantly the evisceration of the family farm requirement for
Several years back USDA tried to do a similarly misguided change
which we were able to block after great effort. This move, if we cannot defeat
it, could open the flood gates to loans for large-scale confinement livestock
operations and big vegetable growers, among others. For action ideas, see
story on credit below.
Conservation Farm Option Woes Mount
In addition to the probable loss of funding for FY 99 (see
appropriations story above), the CFO has other problems as well.
Despite the clear interest in the program in the field -- as
demonstrated by the $52 million in proposed projects coming in from 31 states
even though the sign-up period was short and information on the program in
county offices almost non-existent -- the FY 98 rendition of CFO remains in
The $11 million available for CFO this fiscal year
must be obligated to participating farmers by September 30. The awards
process is underway at USDA and should be completed very soon, but the awards
cannot be announced until the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
The rule is still at the Department, and when they finish, it must go to the
Office and Management and Budget for approval. At best, this puts the
announcement off to mid to late August, at which point projects that are
awarded will have just a month to sign up individual farmers, get plans and
contracts approved by NRCS, and checks cut from FSA -- an all but impossible
We have urged the Department to accept all of the individual farmer
proposals that have merit, since those can be approved more rapidly and meet
the deadline. The greater problem will be with group proposals. We will mount
an effort in the context of the appropriations bill conference committee to
secure legislative language to waive the September 30 deadline. If successful,
that would allow the $11 million to be fully utilized with a reasonable
turnaround time. If not, we may lose out yet again on CFO. Almost has us
wishing for the good old days of battling USDA over the Integrated Farm
Meanwhile, we have reviewed all 33 sets of comments received on the
CFO proposed rule. Of those, at least seven organizational and six individual
comments tracked the issues raised in our action alert, in addition to raising
related concerns. Thanks to all who responded! The comments were particularly
strong on third party payments to NGOs, whole farm planning, clear transition
rules from CRP, WRP and EQIP, and inclusion of explicit language on
sustainable agriculture practices and systems.
Of the others who commented, a few highlights follow:
- A joint letter from the Farm Bureau, NFU, and the commodity organizations
raised two issues, recommending all CFO plans be strictly confidential and that
NRCS and the Fish and Wildlife Service reach a cooperative agreement to provide
"safe harbor" assurances for any wildlife enhancements achieved
- The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also weighed
in on the importance of confidentiality and recommended MOUs with government
agencies at all levels to reduce or eliminate potential farmer liability under
- The South Dakota Department of Agriculture asked to be allowed to run the
program, including via contracts with private businesses.
- The National Association of Conservation Districts raised several issues,
including a plea to run CFO without "interference" from the State
Technical Committees, a request for more local (District) control on ranking
proposals, and a recommendation to reduce the time involved in developing
- The National Audubon Society recommended that no WRP easements be
abrogated in the process of shifting to a CFO contract.
- The Farm*A*Syst program urged greater emphasis on "assessment and
planning" activities as part of CFO, including the explicit use of
- The Ag Retailers Association recommended flexibility to allow CFO farmers
to change crop rotation mixes over the contract period as needed and asked for
greater clarity on the role of qualified crop consultants in CFO.
- The Michigan State Technical Committee urged that land retirement through
CFO should still have to go through the regular CRP sign-up.
Not surprisingly, many individuals and some organizations who actually went
through the proposal process commented on the lack of knowledge about the
program at the field and state offices, the application form's lack of clarity,
the exceedingly short time period given to put together a proposal, and the
poor timing (planting season).
Some help may be on the way. NRCS is putting together a program
manual concurrently with the drafting of the final rule. In addition, a CFO
director within NRCS will be appointed later this summer.
Corps National Wetlands Permits
On July 1, 1998, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a request for
comments on its proposal to phase out Nationwide General Permit (NWP) No. 26
and replace it with a revamped Nationwide General Permit Program. See 63
Federal Register 36040 (July 1, 1998). Preliminary impressions from other
federal agencies charged with wetlands protection duties and environmental
groups who saw a draft of the new proposal indicate that the new program may
allow even more wetland destruction than the severely flawed NWP No. 26 it is
intended to replace.
For example, NWP No. 26 was limited to isolated wetlands and wetlands
above the headwaters of streams. The 6 new nationwide permits and the 6
modified permits included in the proposed program are much broader
geographcally, extending to all non-tidal wetlands and in some cases even to
tidal wetlands. The Army Corps also intends to extend NWP No. 26 until March
28, 1999. Currently, NWP 26 is scheduled to expire on December 13, 1998.
We plan on submitting comments on the proposed Nationwide Permit
program, particularly the proposal to significantly broaden the scope of NWP
40 which concerns agricultural activities. Comments on the Army Corps proposal
to extend NWP 26 until March 28, 1999 must be submitted by July 31, 1998.
Comments on the proposed new and modified NWPs must be submitted by
August 31, 1998. The address for submitting comments is: HQUSACE, CECW-OR,
Washington, D.C. 20314-1000.
Credit Bill News & Action Needed
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Farm Credit Fix.
Responding to the civil rights and small farm commission reports,
Secretary Glickman proposed legislation to change the 1996 farm bill to allow
farmers who previously received debt forgiveness under the terms of the 1987
credit act to qualify for another government loan and to be eligible for future
Senator Robb attached this language to the supplemental
appropriations bill earlier this year, but it was deleted in conference with
the House in part because of its cost. Robb tried again and won again on the
regular appropriations bill. This time he stripped out the chance for future
restructuring and thus eliminated the cost. This will now go to conference
committee for final disposition.
Meanwhile, the House Agriculture subcommittee that deals with credit
decided to mark-up credit legislation. Instead of the USDA proposed language,
however, the House bill would only allow a second chance for farmers receiving
commercial loans guaranteed by the government, not direct loans. This version
would greatly diminish the universe of potential restored borrowers. That "less
than half a loaf" measure was only the beginning. The House Subcommittee
also approved measures to:
- Raise the loan limitations on guaranteed operating loans from $400,000 and
on guaranteed farm ownership loans from $300,000 to a combined $700,000 in any
combination, with the new combined limit indexed for inflation.
provision, sponsored by Rep. Chip Pickering, Jr. (R-MS), would result in fewer,
larger loans. This would be damaging at any time, but is particularly so now
that demand for guarantees on farm ownership loans within the current loan
limitation is at least 150% greater than the supply of appropriated dollars.
The waiting list and the number of farmers not being served would grow in
order to make room for a small number of $500,000 to $700,000 loans. The same
problem would occur for operating loans now that appropriations levels are
being set at actual use levels.
In addition to increasing the number of unserved customers, the new
higher limitation would make a mockery of the avowed public purpose for
government involvement in the first place, namely to offer limited, modest, and
temporary assistance to limited resource and other family farms unable to
secure sufficient credit elsewhere to make a start in agriculture. Until now,
at least, the purpose has not been to make large loans to enable purchase of
full scale large commercial operations whose credit needs have been
traditionally left to the private market.
Moreover, in FY 97, the average guaranteed operating loan was
$110,000, or just 28% of the existing loan limitation. Likewise, guaranteed
ownership loans averaged $170,000, 57% of the existing limitation. These
levels have remained fairly stable for a long period of time and provide no
indication that an increase is warranted.
- Weaken existing guidelines for determining family-size farm eligibility
for government supported loans.
By law, direct, guaranteed, and emergency loans may only be made to
not larger than family-sized farms who are unable to obtain credit
commercially. Under current administrative rules and guidelines, to qualify
the members of the farm family must make all of the day-to-day management and
operational decisions and provide a substantial amount of the full time labor.
The guidelines note that in most areas of the country the family members will
provide a majority of the labor, but exceptions to the "majority of labor"
rule of thumb are made for high-value, labor- intensive crops. Even in those
exceptions, however, the family must provide both labor and management.
The new provision, sponsored by Cal Dooley (D-CA), would change the "all
decision making" test to participation in "overall decision making,"
change the labor test to participation in "routine, ongoing farm
activities," and specifically prevent FSA from using a "majority of
full time labor test" anywhere in the country.
tries to solve some perceived problems in California with a sledgehammer
approach that opens the floodgates to the use of taxpayer subsidies for
large-scale farming operations everywhere, including concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs). The family farm test has been one of the defenses
the agency has used in some states against such unwarranted loans. Together
with the provision to raise the loan limits, this steers the program far away
from its public purpose.
- Prohibit FSA from denying loans to contract growers of perishable
This provision, also sponsored by Cal Dooley (D-CA), would prevent
USDA from insisting on hands-length arrangements in determining eligibility for
loans. While it only deals with fruit and vegetable growers, it also opens the
door to future consideration of contract livestock operations.
- Prohibit FSA from requiring a specific amount of collateral to secure an
emergency loan if ability to repay can be demonstrated.
This provision, sponsored by Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), is just plain
anti-good government and sound administration.
- Allow additional direct emergency loans even if the farmer previously had
While this is not necessarily a bad provision, it demonstrated a good
deal of bad faith on the part of the majority of the subcommittee who had
already voted down allowing regular direct loans for farmers in the same
situation, as proposed by the Small Farm Commission and others. This amendment
was sponsored by Saxby Chambliss.
The subcommittee also approved two good amendments. The first, offered on
our behalf by Rep. David Minge (D-MN), would fix a 1996 farm bill provision
which limited beginning farmers to less than five years worth of operating
loans. The Minge provision would return to previous law, allowing up to ten
years. Also approved was a Rep. John Baldacci (D-ME) amendment to give
farmer-owned, value-added processing enterprises priority status business and
industry loans and grants.
In Senate floor action on appropriations, three House provisions were
tacked onto the bill by Senators Coverdell (R-GA) and Cleland (D-GA): the
weakening of the family farm definition, the prohibition on requiring
collateral, and the emergency loan eligibility restoration.
Action is needed now to contact all Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee members to support inclusion of the Robb amendment and oppose
inclusion of the Coverdell/Cleland anti- family farm amendment. Also, all
members of the House Agriculture Committee and other farm district
Representatives should be called on to oppose the provisions to raise the loan
limits, weaken the family farm definition, and endorse subsidizing of contract
Food Quality Protection Act
The third Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) meeting in
Washington on July 13 and 14 produced surprise substantive developments in
addition to the anticipated verbal jousting.
In a move applauded by
the pesticide industry, the EPA released a list of eight FQPA science policy
issues for which it will publish guidances starting this fall. Unhappy with the
preliminary approaches EPA outlined for FQPA implementation, pesticide
supporters wanted a formal comment opportunity which publishing the guidances
The issues in question include when to apply the
tenfold safety factor to protect children, the models used to project dietary,
residential and drinking water exposure, how to estimate aggregate exposure
and how to determine cumulative risk assessment for a common method of
In criticizing the EPA, pesticide supporters had
challenged the validity of the data and the models the Agency uses in risk
assessment. Calling for improved science and more comprehensive data is
consistent with the pesticide industrys strategy of delaying FQPA
implementation until the cows come home, and then some.
other hand, environmental, consumer and farmworker TRAC members did win their
argument on behalf of greater public participation in the preliminary risk
assessments which EPA conducts on new and reregistered active ingredients.
Under current procedures, the registrant has two opportunities to review EPAs
work and make technical corrections as well as challenge underlying
In a new policy announced by EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen,
EPA will now provide registrants one thirty day period to correct errors of a
mathematical, computational or typographical nature only. Any challenges to
the assumptions behind the assessment will be noted but no changes will be made
until the full preliminary assessment is published for public comment.
pesticide industry is concerned that release of preliminary findings, which
are rough estimates, will alarm the public and damage the reputation of their
products. The sustainable agriculture and environmental advocates on the TRAC
argued that the public, which is often unknowingly and involuntarily exposed to
these substances, deserves prompt disclosure of what the government knows
about the safety of the products.
These developments are one sign that the wheels of the TRAC are
showing some sign of movement no matter how deep the mud that surrounds them.
The work of the TRAC has been broken down into two subgroups, one for Risk
Assessment and one for Risk Management. With Risk Assessment, the opposing
sides are fighting over pretty traditional ground: who is getting exposed to
how much of what. This is where the data/modeling issues are most in debate.
Does the EPA have sufficient information to act or will a time consuming data
call in be necessary?
Risk Management entails finding ways to reduce
exposure should aggregate levels exceed what is allowed. Which pesticide uses
to prohibit or which tolerances to withdraw represents unchartered water for
regulators; traditionally uses and tolerances were dealt with individually.
Risk Management promises to be a far more challenging and unpredictable
debate. This is especially true because the science behind one of FQPAs
most revolutionary provisions -- treating cumulatively the exposures of all
compounds found to share a common mode of toxicity -- has yet to be fleshed
out. Look for Risk Management issues to become the increasing focus of debate
at the next TRAC meeting (July 28) and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
(July 29-30). A fifth TRAC meeting is scheduled for September 15-16.
CRPs Underachieving Sign-up
It was a simpler, happier time, back in the old days when Secretary
Glickman was promising to bring 8 million acres of high-priority enrollments
into the CRP under the new Continuous Sign-up. Like most of the dreams of
youth, this one did not fare very well with time and experience. First, the
target shrank to 5.5 million acres, with only 4 of that actually designated for
general continuous enrollment, about a million for the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, and the balance of half a million for miscellaneous
enrollments, such as retirements under CFO, should this dream (we too were once
young!) ever come to pass.
Sad to say, anemic performance on the continuous sign-up may leave us
reminiscing in our dotage for the days of that 5.5 million acre target. The
Secretary just announced that CRP had enrolled only 618,888 acres (about 34,000
acres more than the last announcement in February) of high-priority practices
under the continuous sign-up, and a good chunk of those are pretty
Of these 618,000 acres, the practices break out as follows:
|Shallow Water for Wildlife
|Contour Grass Strip
(Note: These figures add up to about 18,000 more than the total figure USDA
claims, so there may be some overlap in categories, or else their math skills
are even worse than ours. State-by-state category breakdowns are available in
the USDAs news release at
if you want to try your hand at correcting their arithmetic.)
If the line for salt-tolerant vegetation caught your eye, it should.
Virtually all of these acres are in Montana (141,064) and North Dakota
(54,267), and mean that essentially a third of the acres brought in under
continuous enrollment are less about high-priority conservation, and more about
federally-subsidized retirements for high plains farms with questionable
fertilizer practices. As for wellhead protection, just shy of 90,000 of those
acres are in South Dakota.
Since even grown-ups and hard-bitten
fact-facers need a bit of good news now and again, here it is: the Midwest
states of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois have done a fairly good job of bringing in
filter strip and riparian buffer acres, and modestly well at bringing in grass
waterways and other practices SAC has championed for the continuous sign up.
Washington State also accounts for a significant number of acres in these
categories. Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, and Ohio also accounted for some of
these high-priority sign-ups.
Clearly, the size and scope of the education and outreach efforts
not to mention our long ignored call for bonus payments for high-priority
sign-ups must increase if the promise of partial field enrollments is ever to
be fulfilled. MSAWG may want to take a much more direct role in this effort.
USDA Hearing on Research Initiative
Even as the ink was still drying from the President's signature on the new
research bill and while the funding was totally up for grabs in the
appropriations process, USDA held a public hearing and opened a public comment
period on the 5-year, $600 million "Initiative for Future Agriculture and
The Initiative, created by Senator Lugar (R-IN),
has quickly become the darling of the research wing of the Department and its
land grant partners. By holding the public hearing at this critical juncture,
the Administration was sending a strong signal on its unstated but implicit
preference for the Initiative compared to its older sister, the Fund for Rural
America. Strange politics, but then again not out of the ordinary for USDA.
Our very own Ferd Hoefner testified at the July 9th hearing on behalf
of the Coalition. Additional written comments will also be submitted by the
July 24th deadline. In addition to criticizing the Department's misguided
appropriations lobbying on the Fund and CFO, the testimony and oral remarks
also included implementation recommendations for the Initiative calling on
- Require clear plans for direct integration of research and extension in
each project awarded funding.
- Implement the bulk of the Initiative through a nationally coordinated, but
regionally administered structure.
- Give priority to multi-institutional public-private research/education
partnerships that include non-governmental and non-university organizations and
other non-traditional partners.
- Include farmers in a very substantial way in the evaluation panels
selected to review and rank proposals.
- Develop a set of Initiative implementation guidelines, open to public
review and comment.
- Set-aside no less than 50 percent of Initiative funding for projects that
help solve the most critical environmental and farm income problems
- Give significant attention to agroecological projects as well as research
and education on marketing alternatives and locally owned value-adding
- Give high priority to the Initiative's special emphasis on the
competitiveness of small and medium-sized farms.
- Achieve substantial progress on the research recommendations of the
Secretary's National Commission on Small Farms.
- Implement the new "Coordinated Program of Research, Extension, and
Education to Improve the Viability of Small and Medium Size Dairy, Livestock,
and Poultry Operations" with funding from the Initiative.
- Link the Initiative closely with the environmental research agenda under
consideration in the soon-to-be-announced USDA- EPA Joint Strategy on Animal
Feeding Operations to help create sustainable livestock systems.
- Within the future food production emphasis, give significant emphasis be
given to genetic diversity and preservation.
- With regard to the mission area on new uses and production, give
significant emphasis be placed on new crops and crop diversification research.
- Link the Initiative to the sustainable agriculture research agenda of the
President's Commission on Sustainable Development and the USDA Sustainable
Campaign Organic Letter
The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture is pushing the USDA to
honor Secretary Glickmans pledge to publish organic standards which the
sustainable agriculture community can embrace.
On June 1, the
Campaign sent the Secretary a letter supporting his decision to fundamentally
re-write the Proposed Rule for the National Organic Program in light of the
overwhelming public rejection of the initial draft. The letter was co-signed
by more than forty organizations representing a truly national coalition of
farming, consumer and environmental interests. The Campaign committed itself
to working with USDA to turn the tone and substance of Glickmans decision
into meaningful improvements in the standards.
The letter included
five specific suggestions: reaffirm the central and historic role of the NOSB,
publish a plan for review of the nearly 300,000 public comments, compile a
definitive market analysis of the organic industry, strengthen the National
Organic Program office and establish a realistic timeline to publish a new
The Campaign believes that with the right resources and
the right commitment, a revised Rule can be published in early 1999. So far,
the Department has indicated that the next draft will be published as a
Proposed Rule which would invite a new round of public comment. The Campaign
has not received an official response from the USDA but there will be an
opportunity to meet when the Campaigns Organic Committee comes to DC
following Julys NOSB meeting.
Moving & Shaking
- Mark your calendars the Third MSAWG Annual Gathering is scheduled for
January 22-24, 1999 at the Bishop OConner Catholic Pastoral Center in
Madison, Wisconsin. Well see you there!
- On July 13, Secretary Glickman announced the appointment of Rosalind Gray
to be USDAs new director of civil rights. Gray comes to the post from
her work as a civil rights consultant, and before that as the deputy general
counsel for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Gray
replaces Pearlie Reed, who moved from the USDA civil rights office to become
Chief of the NRCS.
- The Soil and Water Conservation Society has issued a call for posters and
displays for a national conference on The State of North Americas
Private Land, scheduled for January 19-21 in Chicago Illinois. The
brochure describes a broad array of topics for presentation, including Land,
Water, Air, Plants and Animals, Communities/Systems/Watersheds, as well as
Structural and Social Economic Indicators. Questions about proposals should be
directed to Charlie Persinger at (515) 289-8938 or
- The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has just released Fields
of Change: A New Crop of American Farmers Finds Alternatives to Pesticides,
which profiles 22 commercially viable farms around the country and documents
how these farms are reducing pesticide use while maintaining or increasing
profitability. Copies of the report are available for $14 (plus $3 shipping
and handling) from NRDC at (212) 727-2700.
Previous editions of Inside the Beltway
©1998 Committee for
Sustainable Farm Publishing
Please read about our
usage permission policy and disclaimer.
comments, suggestions and questions to the site author:
Coded using HoTMetaL Pro 3.0.
Best viewed in
Please see our credits page
for more information.