Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- May '99

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:

red ballNRCS Nutrient Management - Sort of
red ballCSREES Stakeholder Regs: A whole lotta not much
red ballSupplemental Approps
red ballCrop Insurance Timeline
red ballEmergency Dairy sign-up underway
red ballCarbon Call to Action
red ballSARE Small Farm Outreach Initiative
red ballSmall Farm Lending Report
red ballLivestock Price Reporting Hearings
red ballExcel Charged with PSA Violation
red ballPork Checkoff Petition goes over the top
red ballFQPA: Empty Seats at the TRAC
red ballU.S. Action Plan on Food Security
red ballShaking the Money Tree - Three Opportunities
red ballMoving & Shaking

red ballPrevious 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.

red ballNRCS 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.

Top of Page

red ballCSREES 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.

Top of Page

red ballSupplemental 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.

Top of Page

red ballUpdate 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!

  1. 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.

  2. 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!

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
Top of Page

red ballEmergency 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/.

Top of Page

red ballCarbon 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.

Top of Page

red ballSARE 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.

Top of Page

red ballSmall 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.

Top of Page

red ballLivestock 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.

Top of Page

red ballExcel 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.

Top of Page

red ballPork 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.

Top of Page

red ballFQPA: 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.

Top of Page

red ballU.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.

Top of Page

red ballShaking The Money Tree - Three Opportunities
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
Top of Page

red ballMoving & 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.

Top of Page


red ballPrevious editions of Inside the Beltway

Top of Page

Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- May '99


©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