Sustainable
Farming Connection |
Where
farmers find and share information. |
Inside The Beltway -- May '99
Ag policy update from the Midwest Sustainable
Agriculture Working Group.
Jump down menu:
NRCS Nutrient Management - Sort of CSREES Stakeholder Regs: A whole lotta not much Supplemental Approps Crop Insurance Timeline Emergency Dairy sign-up underway Carbon Call to Action SARE Small Farm Outreach Initiative Small Farm Lending Report Livestock Price Reporting Hearings Excel Charged with PSA Violation Pork Checkoff Petition goes over the top FQPA: Empty Seats at the TRAC U.S. Action Plan on Food Security Shaking the Money Tree - Three Opportunities Moving & Shaking
Previous editions of Inside the Beltway
Inside
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
bdevries@cais.com for more information.
Happy Arbor Day, which Kris Thorp assures me is a holiday born and raised
in the great state of Nebraska. It seems appropriate then today to note the
effect that a minor rash of arborcide had on Washington D.C. earlier this
month. Much to the chagrin of the National Park Service, three adult beavers
took a look at the Tidal Basin just south of the Washington Monument, and saw "beaver
habitat" written on every shoreside tree trunk. Unfortunately for the
beavers, these trees happened to be the Yoshino cherry trees that muster an
annual display of blossoms that give their name to a local festival and flush
millions of springtime tourist dollars into area cash registers. When the
first cherry toppled, it was front-page news in the Washington Post. When the
second came down, we had a national story.
In some ways, this beaver tale typifies the silliness that seems to
take over here in Washington every spring. With what looks like the whole year
laid out in front of it, Congress can ignore the curmudgeons in its midst that
are warning just how far behind the whole budget process already has fallen.
Neckties don't cinch up quite as tight, while shorts and sundresses make their
first goose- bumped appearance for the year. The whole city seems just a bit
less uptight and ripe for a completely goofy mystery like the marauding
Jefferson Memorial beaver gang.
Yet on another, weirder level, there's something quite odd about a
place that can hang breathless on reports of the fate of a favorite tree or
two, while daily consigning entire forests to the saw, bulldozer and clearcut.
This is a place that has decreed that the Great Smoky Mountains, Blue Ridge,
Appalachian range, and forests all over the Atlantic seaboard should be denuded
by acid rain. So it's a little hard to celebrate the glorious victory over
rapacious Tidal Basin beavers that ran this story off the front pages. In
fact, it gives me tremendous pleasure each morning to note, where the bike path
swings down near the Potomac River, the signs of an industrious graveyard-shift
crew, hard at work thinning out some of the shoreside willows just across the
river from the Lincoln Memorial.
They'll be back. Happy Arbor Day.
NRCS Nutrient Management - Sort of
Though the Federal Register is not generally known as a haven for
direct speech, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service reached new lows
in opacity when it announced its revised policy for nutrient management
technical assistance activities. Federal Register, Vol. 64, at pp.
19122-19123 (April 19, 1999).
Rather than actually articulating the
revised policy, the announcement stated that the policy will be "disseminated
through updates of the agency's General Manual" and implemented through
revision of the agency's conservation practice standards for Nutrient
Management (Code 590) and Waste Utilization (633).
The announcement
then noted that these conservation practice standards had already been revised
and reissued. We are not sure if that means that the policy has already been
adopted and/or disseminated because the use of verbal tenses in the
announcement is particularly creative.
The major purpose of NRCS' revision of its nutrient management policy
is to address the water quality degradation from nitrogen and phosphorus
pollutants arising from agricultural operations, particularly animal feeding
operations. Moreover, the nutrient management policy is at the heart of the
USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.
Under
the Strategy, USDA has the primary responsibility for developing Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Plans for animal feeding operations, which address
limitations on the application of animal manures based primarily on nitrogen
and phosphorus standards. Because of the policy's importance to NRCS
conservation programs and to the regulation of animal feeding operations, we
have contacted NRCS staff to request that NRCS post the policy documents on the
NRCS website. We have also requested that NRCS make clear in the future that
they are revising NRCS conservation practice standards or other materials in
order to implement the nutrient management policy.
Under the revised policy, NRCS intends to let each NRCS State
Conservationist establish a phosphorus standard for each state in consultation
with the State Technical Committee and the Land Grant University. We plan on
requesting a meeting with the NRCS to address the issue of what guidance NRCS
will give to the State Conservationists in establishing phosphorus standards
and what assurances NRCS will give that the public will have sufficient notice
and an opportunity to comment.
In addition, NRCS has recently
proposed revisions to its conservation practice standards for waste storage
facilities and waste treatment lagoons in a Federal Register notice
that makes no reference to implementation of the revised nutrient management
policy. Federal Register, Vol. 64, at pp. 17311-17312 (April 9, 1999).
We have requested copies of the proposed revisions. The comment period on
these revisions closes on June 8, 1999.
CSREES Stakeholder Regs: A whole lotta not much
USDA published the long-delayed proposed rule on stakeholder input
requirements in the April 14 Federal Register (pages 18534-18536).
This proposed rule is in response to the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Act of 1998, which directs USDA to publish a rule requiring land
grant colleges and universities (1862s, 1890s, and 1994s) to establish and
implement a process for obtaining stakeholder input as a condition of receiving
federal funds.
Amazingly, the proposed rule is essentially
content-less. It merely tells the LGUs to establish a process and submit an
annual report. This despite congressional intent "that USDA establish
broad parameters and guidelines that priority setting processes should meet or
exceed to qualify."
Earlier drafts of the rule at least made
reference to the necessity of an open and fair process, encouraging
participation of diverse individuals and groups, and demonstrating that
stakeholder input was actually considered. In the end, USDA opted for a status
quo, business-as-usual approach, giving free reign to the institutions to do
whatever they want, which unfortunately in some cases is not very much.
You
should have already seen an action alert on this rule. If not, contact the SAC
office for more information on offering official comment, and do it today!
Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before May 14 and
may be mailed, faxed, or sent electronically to Policy and Program Staff;
Office of Extramural Programs; CSREES/USDA; Mail Stop 2299; 1400 Independence
Avenue SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; Fax: 202-401-7752; E-Mail:
oep@reeusda.gov.
Supplemental Approps Remain in Limbo
The emergency supplemental appropriations bill, with money for Hurricane
Mitch relief and for US farmers, has been stalled as Congress debates emergency
appropriations for the war in Kosovo. The extra $1 billion in farm loans the
bill would make available are rapidly becoming "too late" as planting
season has come and, in some instances at least, refinancing deadlines are
passing.
The Senate version of the bill also includes a
SAC-supported provision for $28 million to allow NRCS to continue to provide
technical assistance on conservation programs, as well as $150 million for
livestock assistance, likely to go primarily to hog producers under the
targeted rules of USDA's Small Hog Operation Payment (SHOP) program. The White
House still officially opposes the budgetary offsets made in the House and
Senate bills to pay for the emergency funds.
Until the supplemental is complete, negotiations for the regular FY
00 appropriations bill are in a go-slow mode. In addition, final negotiations
for the regular annual bill must await more wrangling over the budget caps put
in place by the 1997 balanced budget bill. USDA discretionary programs would
have to be cut nearly 12% across the board if the caps stay in place. That
draconian amount could come down somewhat if the Congressional Budget Office,
in re-estimating revenue projections this summer, shows an increase.
Either
way, though, there will be some heavy duty slicing and dicing. Our
discretionary program priorities (SARE, ATTRA, marketing, rural coop/business
programs, etc.) plus the farm bill conservation programs (EQIP, CFO, WRP,
etc.) have never been in greater peril. The best we can guess is the House
subcommittee will mark up in late May or early June, with the Senate to follow
shortly thereafter. Everyone from an agriculture appropriations state or
congressional district should re-double efforts to communicate our priorities.
Update on Crop Insurance Reform
Congress is considering crop insurance reform legislation, including an
Administration proposal estimated to cost as much as $4 billion per year. Under
current law and under the Administration's "reform" proposal, there
are no payment limitations on the amount of subsidy per farm, there are no
conservation requirements (i.e., the taxpayer pays for destruction of wetlands,
prairie, and highly erodible lands), and, with respect to revenue insurance,
subsidies are targeted to the major commodities, creating a major program
barrier to diversified production systems.
Sheesh. Talk about your two steps forward, a hundred steps back!
- Timeline Emerges
While the timeline is not set in stone,
the House Agriculture Committee staff expects to release a concept paper in
mid-May that will circulate for comment. Subcommittee markup is tentatively
scheduled for mid-June, with full committee to follow by a week and floor
action in July. The House leadership has signed off on approximately $300
million to be added for FY 00, probably in the form of another increase in the
subsidy for buy-up coverage similar to this year's. What the budgetary offset
would be for this money is not clear at this time.
The Senate
situation is less firm. Chairman Lugar (R-IN) set up a Risk Management
Roundtable to advise the committee (see below). The roundtable participants are
meeting with members and staff on April 29; no word yet on when they plan to
ride forth from Camelot in quest for the Holy Grail. In a week or so, Senators
Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) are expected to introduce a
southern bill into the mix, along side the Kerrey-Roberts bill introduced
earlier (see Spring Washington Report for details).
A compromise may then emerge between the bipartisan midwest and southern bills.
Chances are the Senate will not begin markup until the House bill is at least
out of committee, however.
- Roundtable Meets
A Senate Agriculture Committee-apppointed
Risk Management Roundtable met all day on April 28 to try to reach consensus
on the outlines for a legislative package. The Roundtable included insurance
company and farm group representatives as well as ag economists and the RMA
Administrator.
The group was a bit all over the map, though the key
points of the Kerrey-Roberts bill were generally endorsed. Several roundtable
participants endorsed whole farm revenue insurance, one as an long-term
alternative for the whole existing program and a couple as an option for fruit
and vegetable growers. No specific discussion took place on a broader whole
farm option as a complement to the existing program, as we have been
recommending.
The panel also lacked consensus on revenue insurance
coverage on livestock, though even proponents suggested a go-slow, pilot
project approach. The issues of targeting and conservation requirements were
not even on the table, though a question from the audience led RMA Administator
Ken Ackerman to say introduction of those themes would turn a business program
into a social welfare program!
- Cost Estimate on Kerrey-Roberts
As we previously reported,
the budget resolution passed by Congress prior to the Easter recess includes $6
billion in new money for a $1.5 billion per year increase in crop insurance
subsidies for each of the years 2001 through 2004. This is on top of the
current $1.7 billion per year taxpayer cost. The Senate had included $500
million for 2000 in its budget, but it was deleted in conference with the
House. The House leadership, meanwhile, promises to find at least $300 million
for 2000.
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Kerrey- Roberts bill to
fit within the budget guidelines. CBO estimates the bill would cost a bit under
$1.5 billion for the first two years, and a bit over for the second two years.
The estimate, however, does not include the proposed revenue insurance pilot
project for livestock or some other special pilot projects in the bill, due to
uncertainty about details and thus cost. Nonetheless, given the favorable
budget ruling, the bill likely will provide the framework for future
negotiations.
- Office of Inspector General Report
The OIG at USDA issued
a very critical report summarizing earlier audits of the crop insurance program
("Report to the Secretary on Federal Crop Insurance Reform," March
17, 1999, No. 05801-2-At). The report noted high reimbursement costs to
insurance companies, conflicts of interest, and poor quality control, and
suggested a return to a government-administered delivery system as a way to
control costs and improve program effectiveness.
In response, the
Risk Management Agency, with the approval of the Secretary, issued a blistering
critique of the OIG report (dated April 20), saying it "detracts from a
fact-based public dialogue by...relying on unsupported generalizations and
omitting relevant information."
In turn, the OIG reissued its
report with a handful of revisions and additions, but no backing off of its
original points (revised report, dated April 19). The two sides cannot even
agree on how much the taxpayer is currently spending on the program. All of
this back and forth was the subject of a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing
on April 21.
Emergency Dairy sign-up underway
The new $200 million Dairy Income Loss Assistance Program, funded as an
emergency measure in last year's budget bill, is open for enrollment from April
9 through May 21. The payment rate will be between 18-20 cents per
hundredweight, with the maximum payment about $5,000 per operation.
Applications are available at FSA offices or at
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/.
Carbon Call to Action
As we go to press, a group of environmental organizations are preparing to
send a letter to the President urging implementation of three proposals to help
get farmers and USDA into the carbon sequestration business. With leadership
from SAC, the Climate Action Network agriculture committee is calling on the
Administration to move ahead with the Conservation Farm Option (hey! Remember
CFO?), establish a continuous sign-up within EQIP for whole farm/soil quality
plans, and to redirect funding to SARE and to Integrated Farming System
partnerships. The benefits of each program for carbon sequestration and
climate change mitigation are emphasized.
Among the endorsers are
the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Working Group, Ozone Action,
American Bioenergy Association, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and
the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.
SARE Small Farm Outreach Initiative
Implementing one of the recommendations of the National Commission on Small
Farms, the SARE program launched an education campaign on April 19 entitled "Farming
for Profit, Stewardship & Community." As part of the new effort, 10 "tip
sheets" are being circulated to producers with ideas on where to go for
further information.
The topics are soil quality, marketing, pest
prevention, organic, alternative livestock systems, weed management, farm
planning, networking, crop diversity, and agroforestry. In announcing the
campaign, Secretary Glickman said "We want to make sure that producers
know what sustainable agriculture is, how it can be applied to their
operations, and where they can go for help... Concentration, global economics,
and other factors have contributed to tough times for many of our small
farmers. These are some of the ways they can fight back."
Copies
of the tip sheets are available from the SARE office at (301) 405-3186, or
online at: http://www.sare.org/san/tipsheet/index.htm.
Small Farm Lending Report
The US Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy recently issued a
report on bank lending to small farms, defined for the study as any loan under
$250,000. Not surprisingly, they found that the smallest banks have the
largest percentage of total assets in small farm loans and account for just
over 50% of all such loans, despite owning just 6% of total bank assets.
In
total value, small farm loans were two-thirds of the total loan volume, but
large loans (defined as over $1 million) are increasing at a rate six times
greater than small farm loans. The study lists the small farm-friendly banks,
while a companion volume computes small farm lending by the nation's largest 57
bank holding corporations. The reports are available at
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/stats.
Livestock Price Reporting Hearings
On April 29, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and
Horticulture held a hearing characterized by Subcommittee Chair Pombo as a
progress report on negotiations between livestock producers and packers on
legislation to mandate livestock price reporting.
The House
Agriculture Committee leadership had requested the negotiations on March 8.
George Swan, President of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and
representatives of Montfort and Excel Corporation indicated that they were on
the verge of reaching an agreement on proposed legislation, with the intent of
sending a legislative proposal to Congress the week of May 3. Major points of
apparent consensus between the cattle producers and packers include mandatory
reporting of prices and terms of trade for all cattle purchased for slaughter;
mandatory price reporting for boxed beef; and mandatory reporting of meat
sales and shipments into the export market. Reporting requirements extend to
spot sales and to weekly reports for all cattle purchased on basis contract for
cattle purchased on a formula or grid. The full text of the testimony and the
draft proposal are posted on the web at
http://hill.beef.org/ct/prcrpt429.htm.
John
McNutt, president of the National Pork Producers Council also testified,
acknowledging that the NPPC had resisted mandatory price reporting for a long
time but had now changed its position. In addition to requesting mandatory
price reporting, the NPPC also requested the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration maintain a publicly available catalogue of each type
of marketing contract currently offered by packers who slaughter in excess of
250 swine per day, or 1250 swine per week.
Most of the panelists and
Representatives at the hearing acknowledged the catalytic effect of state
legislation requiring mandatory price reporting. On the positive side, the
grassroots action, much of it led by MSAWG organizations, has forced federal
action. On the cautionary side, federal legislation will most likely preempt
state legislation on mandatory price reporting. We will keep the MSAWG posted
on proposed federal legislation.
Excel Charged with PSA Violation
On April 9, USDA charged Excel, a subsidiary of Cargill, with underpaying
1250 farmers by about $1.8 million in violation of the Packers and Stockyards
Act. The complaint alleges that Excel failed to notify hog producers that it
had changed the formula for calculating lean percent in hogs. Last year
Congress increased the budget for legal and economic expertise in enforcement.
The charge against Excel is one small sign that it may have some impact. The
toll- free Packers and Stockyards complaint line about unfair trade practices
is 1-800-998-3447.
Pork Checkoff Petition goes over the top
The Campaign for Family Farms, a seven-state coalition of farm and rural
groups announced in mid-April that they had amassed the thousands of petition
signatures necessary to force a referendum on the federal Pork checkoff
program.
The pork checkoff assesses a mandatory fee of 45 cents for every $100
of animal value for hogs sent to market. These funds, to the tune of about $60
million a year from pork producers, go to the National Pork Board (a quasi-
governmental entity), which turns around and uses virtually all of that sum in
contracts with the National Pork Producers Council for loosely defined pork
promotion activities. In this role, the NPPC has taken active steps to
support the growth of factory hog farming and the livestock market
consolidation that is driving independent producers out of business.
Producers
associated with the Campaign for Family Farms noted that since 1986, when the
federal government imposed the mandatory pork checkoff, hog prices have fallen
from $49 per hundredweight to Depression-era lows of $8 per hundredweight.
The pork checkoff is one of twelve congressionally mandated
agricultural promotion programs that take nearly $660 million from farmers and
ranchers each year. Farmers have rejected seven such programs by referendum
in the past few years. The Campaign for Family Farms is pushing to avoid
delays in scheduling the vote that will decide the fate of the pork checkoff.
FQPA: Empty Seats at the TRAC
Noting the slow pace at which the EPA is implementing the 1996 Food Quality
Protection Act, which regulates the use of farm chemicals, environmental,
consumer and public interest groups publicly resigned from the Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Council (TRAC).
The White House convened the
TRAC last year (with Veep Gore grinning in all the baby photos as proud papa)
in response to industry complaints that the FQPA process was, well, on the
verge of committing regulation. (Yes, it was more complicated than that. So
go write your own dang newsletter.)
The former TRAC member groups cited
EPA's footdragging in implementing the Act, including dodging some of the
Agency's own timelines for assessing the risks posed by pesticides,
particularly looking at the dangers of exposure by multiple routes or aggregate
exposure to different pesticides that have the same "mode of action."
The TRAC defectors include: Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers
Union, the Pesticide Education Center of San Francisco, the World Wildlife
Fund, Farmworker Justice Fund, National Campaign for Pesticide Policy Reform,
and the C.A.T.A. (el Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas) Farmworker
Support Committee.
U.S. Action Plan on Food Security
On March 26, 1999, the USDA released the "U.S. Action Plan on Food
Security", which is the U.S. response to the 1996 World Food Summit in
Rome.
The World Summit set a goal of reducing the number of
undernourished people in the world by 50 percent by 2015. The Action Plan
includes proposed measures for addressing domestic and international issues
related to undernourishment and food security, including economic security,
research and education, sustainable food systems and the environment,
information and mapping, and food and water safety.
In the
announcement of the Plan's release, USDA Secretary Glickman stated that the
newly established USDA Community Food Security Initiative will be central to
implementing the domestic portion of the plan, with emphasis on federal food
assistance programs and nutrition research, a pilot national school breakfast
program, restoration of food stamp benefits to elderly legal immigrants, and
food recovery and gleaning programs. You can obtain a copy of the Plan by
calling Rebekah Davis at (202) 690-0855 or by downloading the Plan (88 pages)
in PDF format from http://www.fas.usda.gov/icd/summit/usactplan.pdf.
NGOs
working on food security issues are planning a meeting in Washington D.C. on
June 16 which will address both domestic and international aspects of the
Action Plan, as well as USDA's new Community Food Security Initiative. The
meeting will provide USDA and the State Department to brief the NGOs on plans
for implementing the Action Plan and will give NGOs an opportunity to discuss
implementation with the agencies. If you are interested in participating in
this meeting contact Linda Elswick of the International Partners for
Sustainable Agriculture by phone at (202) 778-6119 or by e-mail at
ipsa@igc.org. The number of attendees at
the meeting will be limited and Linda is gathering the names of those who wish
to be invited.
Shaking The Money Tree - Three Opportunities
- Community Food Projects RFP:
The USDA's Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service has issued a request for
proposals (RFP) for Fiscal Year 1999 Community Food Project Competitive
Grants. Grant applications must be received by the USDA on or before June 4,
1999. Instructions for applying for the grants are provided in the Federal
Register announcement of the RFP, Federal Register, Vol. 64, at pp.
19430-19437 (April 20, 1999). Copies of the RFP and further information on
the grants are also available by calling Elizabeth Tuckermanty at (202)
205-0241; Mark Bailey at (202) 401-1898; or Zy Weinberg at (202) 401-1928.
The
USDA has posted the RFP on the web at
http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/food.htm.
The RFP posted on the web includes the program application materials, which
are highlighted and can be downloaded from the web as WordPerfect documents.
If you cannot access or download the documents, contact Martha Noble at the SAC
office (Ph: (202) 547-5754; e-mail: mnoble@msawg.org
and she can fax or mail you a copy of the RFP and application materials. You
can also contact Liz Tuckermanty, the Manager of the Community Food Projects
Program (Ph: (202) 205-0241; e- mail: etuckermanty@reeusda.gov.
She can provide the RFP, application materials, and answer your questions
about proposals.
The Community Food Projects grants are intended to help private,
non-profit entities establish and carry out projects designed to meet the needs
of low-income people, increase the self-reliance of communities in providing
for their own food needs, and promote comprehensive responses to local food,
farm, and nutrition issues.
For FY99, approximately $2.4 million is
available for grants for a one-time infusion of federal funds. Applicants may
request as much as $100,000 per year, up to a $250,000 maximum, for projects
of up to three years duration. USDA is also requesting that grant requests be
for at least $10,000. Federal funds for the project must be matched, at a
minimum, on a dollar-for-dollar basis by non-federal funds, in cash and/or
third party in-kind contributions.
Information on the Community Food
Projects Grant Program, including descriptions of previously funded projects,
is available on the web at
http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/community.htm.
This site includes descriptions of projects awarded grants in previous years,
including information on how to contact the organization awarded the grant.
Two MSAWG members have received CFP grants: the Practical Farmers of Iowa in
1997 and the Kansas Rural Center in 1998.
Martha Noble of the SAC office attended a CFP grant workshop at
Pennsylvania State University on April 23, conducted by Liz Tuckermanty, a
grant proposal reviewer Patrick Temple-West, and a previous grant applicant,
Don Regal of Just Harvest in western Pennsylvania. She has prepared a brief
summary of tips provided by the workshop leaders on how to prepare a successful
grant proposal. In addition, the Community Food Security Coalition will also
provide tips on preparing a winning proposal on its website
http://www.foodsecurity.com/ and is
available for consultation by phone at (310) 822-5410.
- Rural Coop Development Grants:
The USDA Rural Business
Cooperative Service has announced that approximately $1.75 million is available
to fund FY99 Rural Cooperative Development Grants. Federal Register,
Vol. 64, at pp. 17612-17613 (April 12, 1999).
The grants are
intended to be used by nonprofit corporations and institutions of higher
learning in establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative
development. Those wishing to apply for a grant should contact their USDA
Rural Development State Office for further information and copies of the
preapplication materials packet.
Completed preapplications must be received by May 28, 1999. After
screening preapplications, the State Office will invite applicants selected for
awards to submit a formal application prior to September 1, 1999. You can get
more information about the grants program by calling James Haskell, Assistant
Deputy Administrator, Cooperative Services at (202) 720-8460.
- Research on Rural Cooperatives
The USDA Rural
Business-Cooperative Service has issued an RFP to nonprofit organizations and
institutions of higher education for cooperative agreement funds for research
on agricultural and non-agricultural cooperatives serving rural communities.
Federal Register, Vol, 64, at pp. 17613-17615 (April 12, 1999).
Application forms are available from the Cooperative Services Program website
at http://www.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rrcop.htm,
by calling (202) 690- 0368, or by faxing (202) 690-2723. You may also request
forms by e-mailing thomas.stafford@usda.gov
and providing your name, mailing address, and phone number. Indicate that you
are requesting forms for Fiscal Year 1999 Research on Rural Cooperative
Opportunities and Problems.
Proposals and other required materials must be received by June 30,
1999 and directed to Dr. Thomas H. Stafford, Director, Cooperative Marketing
Division, Rural Business- Cooperative Service, USDA, Stop 3252, Room 4204, 1400
Independence Ave., SW, Washington D.C. 20250-3252. You may also contact Dr.
Stafford by phone at (202) 690-0368 for further information about the RFP.
Moving & Shaking
Dr. Charles Laughlin has been appointed as the new Administrator for the
Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service. Since July 1996,
Dr. Laughlin has been the Dean and Director of the College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. He also held
administrative positions at Colorado State, Univ. of Georgia, Mississippi
State, Michigan State, and Univ. of Florida. Dr. Laughlin received a B.S.
degree from Iowa State University, a M.S. degree from Univ. of Maryland, and a
Ph.D. from VPISU with a major in plant pathology and physiology. Dr. Laughlin
has been a strong supporter of SARE.
Previous editions of Inside the Beltway
©1999 Committee for
Sustainable Farm Publishing
Please read about our
usage permission policy and disclaimer.
Send
comments, suggestions and questions to the site author:
Craig Cramer
cdcramer@clarityconnect.com
Coded using HoTMetaL Pro 3.0.
Best viewed in
Netscape 3.0
or later. Please see our credits page
for more information.
http://metalab.unc.edu/farming-connection/farmpoli/msawg/wash9904.htm |