Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- July '97 Sustainable Farming Connection Where farmers find and share information. Inside The Beltway -- July '97 Ag policy update from the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group's Washington representative, Ferd Hoefner. Jump down menu: Ag Appropriations -- What a difference a balanced budget deal makes! FY 99 Budget Requests for SARE et al SARE Director Vacancy Tax Bill Debacles Research Title Reauthorization Beginning Farmer Meeting Small Farm Commission EQIP -- What else is in the final rule? Conservation Reserve Program -- 15th and continuous sign-ups CRP Haying and Grazing WRP Enrollment Status Conservation Farm Option -- Still in limbo; RFP expected very soon Farmland Protection Program -- Request for Proposals Pest Management Alternatives -- Request for Proposals Fund for Rural America -- Value-Added Coops Request for Proposals Fund for Rural America -- Update Community Food Projects Grants Update For more information, contact: Brad DeVries bdevries@cais.com Ag Appropriations -- What a difference a balanced budget deal makes! On June 25, the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee approved its version of the spending bill for 1998, and the news is mostly very good. Kudos to all of you who sent out actions, wrote letters, made calls, etc. The overall mega-budget deal between Clinton and Congress calls for increased spending for FY 98, then tailing off back to the FY 97 levels over the next two years, with the big cuts put off until 2001 and 2002. As a result, when allocations were made to each appropriations subcommittee for this round of appropriations bills, agriculture came off in relatively good shape, with over $600 million extra dollars on the House side, and nearly $800 million more on the Senate side. With this allocation in hand, House mark-up went more smoothly then anytime in recent memory. After some high-pitched lobbying on conservation programs, all of the farm bill programs (Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Farm Option, Farmland Protection Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Conservation Reserve Program) escaped with no limitations placed on their funding. The WRP victory is particularly amazing, as appropriations has put an acreage cap on the program every year since we enacted it in the 1990 farm bill. No limitations were placed on the Fund for Rural America or the Community Food Security grants either, so we won across the board on the "mandatory" funding programs from the '96 Farm Bill. Other good news: The House did not, as often has been its custom, zero out ATTRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas), minority farm outreach, state mediation, or organic certification. ATTRA and organic retained level funding ($1.3 million and $500,000, respectively), minority farm outreach and state mediation both received $2 million (out of a USDA request of $5 million and $4 million respectively). Not enough, but a lot better than nothing. In addition, the Farmers Market Nutrition Program was increased, in line with USDA's request, from $6.8 million to $12 million. Both parts of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program (SARE) were kept level at $8 million for Chapter 1 and $3.3 million for Chapter 3. We need to redouble our efforts on getting these bumped up in the Senate bill. The only truly bad news was on farm credit, where direct ownership and operating loans for beginning, minority and other family farmers were cut even below last year's historic lows. The bill would provide only $31 million in ownership loans and $375 million in operating loans, and even these numbers are exaggerations of what actually will be available (due to budget technicalities which I won't bore you with). It is clear working for decent credit numbers will need to be a major priority for our efforts on the Senate bill, along with pushing hard for at least a few million dollar SARE increase. If you are in a Senate appropriations state (IA, WI, MO for the Midwest), be sure to check in immediately with Margaret Krome (mkrome@aol.com). Back on the conservation programs, very good report language was secured on EQIP and CRP. The EQIP language strongly criticizes the way this year's money was allocated to the states and directs the Department to not repeat this year's decision to use the old ACP program as a funding guide. The CRP language endorses the continuous sign-up and state enhancement programs and urges the Department to offer incentive or bonus payments for all partial field enrollment practices, including contour grass strips and other in-field practices, not just to buffers immediately adjacent to waterways. The full committee will take up the bill on July 9, followed by House floor action and Senate mark-up later in July. It is conceivable for the conference committee between the House and Senate to occur prior to the August recess, though September may be more likely. . Top of Page FY 99 Budget Requests for SARE et al Speaking of funding levels ... A special meeting was held on June 10 to discuss USDA's FY 99 budget request for sustainable agriculture research, education, and outreach. Ten people from around the country met with Deputy Secretary Rominger and Acting Undersecretary Floyd Horn for about an hour, covering SARE, Chapter 3 (PDP), ATTRA, and ARS's Integrated Farming Systems program. MSAWG was well represented by Tom Guthrie (MASA) and Juli Baker (CSARE). No definite promises were made, but there were indications of a willingness to give significant bump ups in the request levels serious consideration. The Deputy asked to be provided with additional information to help back up specific, higher request levels. We hope to provide him with all necessary materials later this summer. The National Operations Committee for SARE met the following two days and appreciation was extended for our continuing efforts on the funding front. . Top of Page SARE Director Vacancy As many of you probably know by now, Rob Myers has resigned as the national director of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) at USDA to pursue other aims. The position is open, with a closing date for applications of July 21, 1997. It is, needless to say, paramount to have someone very supportive of our objectives in this position. Please do some immediate recruiting of potential applicants if you haven't done so already. The official title of the position in now "National Program Leader (Sustainable Agriculture)." For application information, call 301-344-3960 or download at http://www.reeusda.gov/new/hrd/97-094.htm.. Top of Page Tax Bill Debacles The tax bills approved as part of the mega-budget deal (known as budget reconciliation) contain big incentives to farm consolidation and tax shelter investments in livestock production. There may still be opportunity to scale them back in the conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions. Conference will start soon after the July 4th recess. Both the House and Senate versions contain substantial new tax breaks for capital gains income. Prior to the 1986 tax bill, which eliminated the capital gains differential, agriculture was a major magnet for tax shelter investment, increasing meat and milk production and forcing down prices, to the detriment of working family farmers. High tax bracket investors and large operators reaped the benefit. The bad old days will be back with us again if Congress and the White House allow the final bill to emerge from conference without a specific provision to close the tax shelter. In a June 16 letter to Congress, the Center for Rural Affairs, National Farmers Union, National Family Farm Coalition, and National Farmers Organization urged that the new low capital gains rate for breeding and dairy livestock be limited to $25,000 annual sales, with a zero limit for passive investors. The Senate bill also contains another capital gains provision that would also foster and subsidize livestock concentration. It would allow "small" business corporations of up to $100 million in assets, including farms, to exclude half the sale of stock from taxation. This would make the tax rate on small business stock just 10 percent. The stock gain could also be "rolled over" without any tax if the proceeds are invested in more small business stock. This would make mega-scale hog confinement facilities much cheaper to finance. Senator Daschle (D-SD), the Senate Minority Leader, has offered an alternative tax package that would retain this provision, but for farms, limit its application to operations with less than $2 million in annual gross sales. This would significantly reduce the problem. While the Daschle alternative package did not pass, it could form the basis of an acceptable conference compromise if enough grassroots support can be mobilized. The tax bills also phase in large increases in the size of estates, including farm estates, that can be passed on tax-free. For most farms, the House bill would double the current roughly $1.5 million that farm estates can pass on tax-free now with but a minimum amount of planning. The Senate bill, not to be outdone, goes much further, taking it up to the $6 million range. Of course, with a good lawyer and advanced planning, much higher sums can escape the tax. Despite all the nonsensical rhetoric about estate tax "reform" to save the family farm, less than five percent of all farm estates benefit from this largess. The estate tax breaks in the bills will serve only to further encourage farm consolidation and increased concentrations of wealth. . Top of Page Research Title Reauthorization The research title reauthorization process continues to plod along. On the Senate side, Chairman Lugar (R-IN) has issued a draft outline which staff has been working through for the last month or so. It is a mixed bag, though with many positive features. On the plus side, it would require: 25 percent of formula funds to the land grants to be used for projects that integrate research and extension. 25% of both extension and research formula funds to be expended on multi-state, multidisciplinary initiatives. Stakeholder advisory groups, with a majority of members from the private sector (i.e., farmers, business, public interest groups, etc.), for the Agricultural Research Service, the National Research Initiative, and each land grant university. State matching funds for federal research and extension funds to 1890 land grant colleges, as required for 1862s. Extension to make national program funding available to 1890 and 1994 institutions, not just 1862s. We'll have to watch the actual language for "stakeholder advisory groups" very carefully to make sure they are inclusive and balanced and the objectives are clear and appropriate. The southern states will strongly oppose the matching requirement, so it is unlikely to prevail. Extension may oppose the multi-state requirement. On the negative side, the draft outline calls for: A single research priority focus on competitiveness (unclear from draft whether this is intended to replace the "research purposes" language or not). Limiting federal money for Extension to "production agriculture only" (i.e., no rural development, no food and nutrition, no food safety, no families, children, and youth, etc.). Extending the Fund for Rural America through 2002 (a very good thing), but make it research only (no rural development) and allow the Research Advisory Board to change the research priorities for the Fund. As the staff-level conversations continue, hopefully the negatives will fall by the wayside. New proposals will also likely be added. USDA continues to work on its draft legislative proposal, which is still at OMB but may be cleared in the near future. When last we heard, it included: A new $100 million/year competitive grant program for the "national genome strategy. A new $100 million/year competitive grant program for integrated, applied research and extension. An extension of the Fund through 2002 at $100 million/year. A 25-percent Extension set-aside for regional and national collaborative activities, including distance learning. Authorization of cooperative agreements with non-land grant universities. Similar 1890 and 1994 institution provisions to the Lugar draft. A phase in of full funding for "indirect costs" of universities, starting immediately at 25 percent and moving up from there (compared to the current limit of 14 percent). It is my assumption that all the new money authorizations, except for the Fund, are pie in the sky. Even if authorized, where would the money come from to pay for them? The indirect cost plank flows in the opposite direction of the mood of Congress and, even with a full court press from the land grants, probably would not stand a prayer. The final news is from the until-now dormant House Subcommittee. Two research hearings were held in June, and two more are scheduled for July. The second hearing focused on public-private industry partnerships, including precision agriculture. The highlight of the hearing was the ranking Democrat, Cal Dooley of California, questioning whether earmarking a large percentage of NRI funds to precision agriculture technology made any sense. A House bill cosponsored by two Committee members (Ron Lewis of Kentucky and Mike Crapo of Idaho) proposes that 40 percent of the NRI be invested in precision agriculture. Dooley suggested this was more congressional earmarking than appropriate and asked for USDA's view on the matter. In response, Bob Robinson, Administrator of CSREES, stated USDA's strong opposition to the bill, H.R. 725, and urged that NRI remain a competitive program without specific earmarks. Robinson also noted that nearly $1 million in NRI funds in 1996 went to grants dealing with precision agriculture, with additional, larger sums invested by ARS. Congressmen Lewis replied that $1 million out of $94 million showed that CSREES was not serious about making precision agriculture a priority and confirmed the need for his bill. Top of Page Beginning Farmer Meeting On May 20, 14 beginning and family farm advocates met with Secretary Dan Glickman and Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger at USDA to discuss farm entry and opportunity issues. Topics discussed included beginning farmer credit programs and funding levels, state "aggie bond" and related beginning farmer programs, "land link" and other transition programs around the country, research and education initiatives targeted to the unique needs of start-up operations, and problems raised by contract farming operations. I organized the meeting, which was attended by representatives of the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, National Family Farm Coalition, National Family Farm/Ranch Transition Network, and National Council of State Agricultural Finance Programs. Chuck Hassebrook and Dave Andrews attended from among MSAWG groups. The Secretary has shown signs of increased interest in addressing beginning farmer concerns. After languishing in the Department since Congress authorized it in 1992, it appears likely the USDA Beginning Farmer and Rancher Advisory Committee will be at long last appointed this summer. The Secretary is also about to appoint a Small Farm Commission to report back on a quick timeframe with recommendations on enhancing moderate-scale family farms within the changing structure of agriculture. The group impressed upon the USDA leadership the need for immediate action to reverse the farm credit program funding disaster of the past year. Twenty-five percent of Farm Service Agency (FSA) operating loans and 70 percent of FSA ownership loans are set-aside for beginning farmers. Despite 1996 farm bill authorizations for $500 million and $85 million a year for direct farm operating and ownership loans, respectively, the current year funding level has collapsed to just $470 million and $37 million, due in large measure to budget miscalculations by the Administration. To make matters worse, USDA's budget requests just $450 and $31 million for 1998, and, due to budget technicalities, even these historically unprecedented low levels are exaggerated. These funding levels would bring to a screeching halt the great progress being made on financing new farming opportunities. For instance, in the three and a half years USDA has offered down-payment loans to beginning farmers, over 1,300 new farms have been started with these loans, at a loan volume of nearly $55 million. The group also recommended action to fund state land-link and transition programs through the Fund for Rural America, to increase research dedicated to beginning farmer needs, and to improve "aggie bond" programs through allowing federal guarantees on private bank loans. A follow-up meeting targeted to budget issues is being planned for late summer. In addition, the National Family Farm/Ranch Transition Network is in D.C. today as part of their annual meeting and meeting with USDA and Hill folks. Top of Page Small Farm Commission Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman is about to announce appointments to USDA's Small Farm Commission. The Commission, patterned after last year's Livestock Concentration panel, will meet intensively for two to three months and then issue a report with recommendations to the Secretary. At least four regional hearings are tentatively planned for July and August, with a final report due sometime in September. The idea for the commission began in part from the pressure on the research division of USDA to respond to letters questioning why their strategic plan appeared to favor large-scale, industrial farming. The Secretary then set-aside a portion of the Fund for Rural America for research to counter livestock concentration, and the research shop began an effort to judge whether its investments were scale-biased or not. The Civil Rights Action Team picked up on the idea and its report called for the naming of a commission. Once Glickman announced his intent to act on this recommendation, we submitted names of nominees, including nominees from other regional SAWGs. As of this date, we still don't know who will serve on the commission, or even what its full charter will be. The Secretary has said publicly that he expects it to focus both on minority and limited-resource farm issues, as well as broader issues related to the structure of agriculture. He has also made clear he wants the report early in the fall so the recommendations can be of use as the FY 99 USDA budget proposal is being finalized. Stay tuned! Top of Page EQIP -- What else is in the final rule? The final rule for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program was published May 21. Everyone has heard about the outcome in terms of achieving our goal of limiting livestock cost-share assistance to operations with less than 1,000 animal units, albeit with the possibility of waivers. But not everyone will have read about some of the other details. While the rule itself is fairly lengthy, it contains only the broad framework for the program. At many critical points in the discussion of the final rule, decisions are deferred to the "program guidance document." This more detailed guidance document has been prepared and is currently pending clearance within the Department. It is expected to go out to the state and local offices by the end of June, but as of this writing it is still "in process." (Call just came in saying "next week -- for sure"). Several points in the final rule bear mention: They have redefined "conservation management systems" to specify that they need not achieve sustainability for any of the natural resources involved. This is distinguished from "resource management system" which does require sustainable treatment level or better. NRCS staff are required to ensure EQIP conservation plans are to have resource management systems for the priority natural resource concern of a priority area or statewide area of concern, but the plans themselves are to specify only conservation management systems. Clear as mud! Appears to have been some infighting over this provision, with a "compromise" in the final rule that at best creates confusion. No change was made in the "local work groups" to include farmers and non-profits. The discussion of the rule states "The Department expects and anticipates ... the local work group will request and receive ample information and ideas from the public and their respective constituents." If this isn't happening, we should call it to the Department's attention. On a related point, the discussion of the rule states that "State technical committees and State conservationists may develop guidance to assist local work groups. This will be set forth in program guidance." Stay tuned! No change was made in the "unit of concern" language, although the discussion of the rule notes that "A unit of concern can be a whole farm or a portion thereof." In general, the final rule rejected almost every comment that suggested places to insert the option (voluntary) of "whole farm planning." At some points in the discussion of the rule they criticize the idea, but in others seem to endorse it. The best two sentences of the many on this subject states "Participants will be encouraged, but not required, to voluntarily develop a whole farm or ranch plan. ... Participants who submit a whole farm or ranch plan ... will likely be assigned a higher priority for a contract than would participants who do not submit such a plan." So lets use these sentences to maximum benefit. They also rejected any priority for addressing "multiple resource concerns." Even our recommendation for higher levels of payments for whole farm plans and for incorporating on-farm research and demonstration was rejected, although the discussion says "The Department believes the suggestion is a creative manner of providing financial assistance ... " and " ... the concept of the suggestion will be incorporated in the program guidance document." Also consistently rejected were our comments urging support for "on-farm research and demonstration" and for "monitoring and evaluation" to be part of the criteria for choosing priority area proposals. This discussion of the rule does say that our recommendations on monitoring and evaluation "will be included as illustrations of "other factors" in the guidance" document. In a significant win on the evaluation front, they reverse an earlier decision and now say that automated data collection systems will be used by NRCS. Of course, this will only be as useful as the data that are collected, but at least project and program evaluations won't have to be based on sorting through hand written proposals and reports in shoe boxes in each local office. On livestock, the discussion of the rule states " ... the Department will place emphasis on low-cost measures which result in the highest benefits; higher cost practices, such as animal waste facilities, will be eligible if the investment yields substantially high environment benefits." However, the final rule rejected our comments asking for tight restrictions on financial assistance to lagoons and emphasis on alternative waste management technologies. Look for more on these points in the program guidance. The final rule made a change from the proposed rule to allow ranchers who lease public grazing land or public school grazing land to be eligible for EQIP dollars on those public lands. The final rule adds a new section on education assistance. NRCS is given the lead for developing education plans for the nation, every state, and priority areas, with cooperation from Extension, conservation districts, and other public and private education providers. Each state is being given a small allocation to develop an educational plan. Check into what is being done with this funding in your state. A minor victory was won on the issue of allocation of funds. The final rule adds a very general section on how allocation decisions will be made, adding "capability of the partners" and "anticipated or proven performance of the partners" as two of eight criteria. This doesn't come anywhere close to being as good as the language we suggested, but it at least hints at the notion of a competitive process based in part on proposal quality and environmental performance. It should at least give STC members something to use in arguing for real competitive ranking. Closely related, the rule specifies that State Technical Committees are to be consulted both in choosing priority areas ("proposal-approval stage") and again after funds have been allocated to the state ("funding decision stage"). The second review is to determine which already approved priority areas should actually be funded and in what amount. Is this actually happening? On the funding split between priority areas and statewide areas of concern, the discussion of the rule states that this year's 65/35 split will be changed. "To meet future needs, the Department will move to have more funds, perhaps 75 percent or more, directed to priority areas." Last but not least, all specifications of eligible practices and applicable payment rates are left to program guidance materials. As these will be critical to farmers decisions about whether to apply, they will bear careful watching. We made recommendations about how to determine rates -- now we'll have to see if they listened or not. Top of Page Conservation Reserve Program -- 15th and continuous sign-ups I won't go into any detail on CRP. There has been much in the press and elsewhere, and if I got started there might be no end. Instead, I will just remind everyone of the opportunity to reach out to farmers who either ended their CRP contracts (to go back into production) or who had their re-enrollment offers turned down in the 15th sign-up, encouraging them to consider enrolling buffer strips and special conservation practices through the continuous sign-up. We have worked long and hard to authorize partial field enrollments in the 1990 farm bill, to save the CRP baseline prior to the last farm bill, to get a continuous sign-up, and to get at least incidental haying and grazing of strips allowed. Now is the time to get some real mileage out of these legislative and administrative efforts by encouraging landowners to utilize the continuous sign-up. The Department has a variety of materials available to assist you, via the "Buffer Initiative" of which SAC and many MSAWG groups are supporting members. Also of note -- some groups have been getting foundation support to hire folks to go farm-to-farm, door-to-door to push the continuous sign-up. Something to consider... Top of Page CRP Haying and Grazing On June 20, USDA announced emergency grazing will be permitted on CRP acres in natural disaster areas designated by the Farm Service Agency. Grazing will be allowed until September 30, or until the disaster conditions abate, which ever comes first. A decision on haying is expected any day. It is expected to include haying only in disaster areas with a documented 40-percent or more reduction in hay or pasture or where hay stocks are less than 40 percent of normal, with a 75-percent limit on the amount of CRP that can be hayed. The start date is still being debated, but one draft would allow a July 1 start date (40-percent payment reduction) or a July 15 start date (25-percent reduction). In either case, hay must be removed no later than October 1. Look for actual details from USDA very soon. Speaking of haying and grazing, still nothing from USDA to follow up their promise in the FY 98 Budget Proposal that they would be sending to the Hill a legislative proposal on regular (non-emergency) haying and grazing on CRP. Top of Page WRP Enrollment Status Just a quick note on the Wetlands Reserve Program. As of the middle of April, FY 97 WRP enrollments total 115,000 acres out of 291,000 offered, with 50,000 acres in permanent easements, 49,000 acres in 30-year easements, and 16,000 acres in 10-year cost-share agreements. The demand for permanent easements still runs high, far outstripping demand for 30-year easements. The 10-year cost-share agreements required by the farm bill are now are real problem. While there is some demand, the administrative decision to make cropped wetlands eligible for CRP and the resulting very large wetland enrollment in the 15th sign-up has greatly reduced interest in the WRP 10-year option, which pays a fraction of what is available under CRP. Attempts may be made to try to fix the farm bill in the appropriations bill or, if not there, than in the technical corrections bill, when and if it starts to move. Top of Page Conservation Farm Option -- Still in limbo; RFP expected very soon The CFO program continues to suffer bureaucratic inertia, turf struggles, and seeming outright hostility from Department lawyers. We are still awaiting publication of an interim final rule, together with a Request for Proposals, in the Federal Register. We have the draft RFP and "evaluation criteria" in hand and expect few changes prior to publication. So farmers and organizations interested in applying can and should already be putting their proposals together. Emphasis is given to sustainable agriculture practices, innovative solutions, whole farm planning, and on-farm field trials, demonstrations, and tech-transfer efforts. Payments can be for planning, practices, limited land retirement (especially buffers and strips), and wetland restoration. Farmers can apply individually, and project applications will also be accepted. Projects may be organized by non-profits, sustainable agriculture farmer associations, Extension, etc. Funds and/or technical assistance are expected to be available from NRCS to assist with monitoring and evaluation, and may be available to assist with program administration and outreach and education. Only $2 million is available for FY 97, barely enough for about 50 farms to participate (note: payments to the farmer for all 10 years of the CFO contract come from the funds available the year the farm is enrolled). If the appropriations action by the House Subcommittee (see Ag Appropriations -- What a difference a balanced budget deal makes, above) holds, as I expect it will, then $15 million will be available for FY 98. We plan to encourage USDA to continue to use the same RFP for the FY 98 funds so that proposals can be accepted and farms enrolled during the fall and winter months, without having to go through additional administrative hoops. Top of Page Farmland Protection Program -- Request for Proposals The FY 97 Request for Proposals on Farmland Protection was issued May 28, with a July 14 deadline. This year, only $2 million is available. If the House subcommittee action holds, next year will probably be close to $18 million. With the limited amount for this year, the RFP focuses on collaborative efforts that integrate FPP with other federal, state or private conservation programs, including CRP, WRP, EQIP, WHIP, etc. With CRP or WRP, the easement price would be discounted to account for the other payments. With EQIP or other cost-share or incentive programs, the easement price will not be affected by the other payments. If CFO had been ready in time, it too would have been eligible for pairing, but alas... Proposals are accepted only from states, tribes, and local government units with pending offers for the acquisition of conservation easements or other interests in lands that contain prime, unique, or other productive soils. State Conservationists will pick top applications to send to the Regional Conservationist, who in turn will send the top three regional proposals to the national NRCS office by August 11. For more information, call Humberto Hernandez, NRCS/USDA, at 202-720-2847. Top of Page Pest Management Alternatives -- Request for Proposals The RFP for this year's pest management alternative grants appeared in the Federal Register June 18, with proposals due by August 4. This competitive grants program, which has $700,000 to award this time around, makes grants in two general categories -- pesticide use and usage data and replacement or mitigation strategies, especially for pesticides being reviewed under the Food Quality Protection Act for dietary, worker exposure, groundwater or ecological risk. Replacement and mitigation strategy awards must show evidence of substantial involvement by farmers or other pesticide user groups in project design and implementation. For more information, contact Michael Fitzner, CSREES/USDA, at 202-401-4939. Top of Page Fund for Rural America -- Value-Added Coops Request for Proposals On May 23, USDA announced the last of the Fund items to get out the door -- a $1.7-million initiative to support the development of cooperatives that focus on agricultural value-added products. This is something we fought long and hard for, and although it did not turn out exactly as we proposed, it hopefully will be a useful program. The proposal deadline is July 31. Government agencies, colleges and universities, and non-profits are all eligible to submit proposals. Awards will be for up to 75 percent of the cost of the project, with the match either in cash or in-kind. Proposals will be judged on merit, quality and the relevance to creating increased economic opportunity in farming and rural communities, especially for small farms. Proposed or existing coops are eligible and proposals may focus on technical assistance in development of market feasibility analysis or market identification opportunities. For more information, contact John Wells, RBCS/USDA, at 202-720-3350. Top of Page Fund for Rural America -- Update No doubt everyone has heard by now that the supplemental appropriations bill (frequently referred to as the disaster bill) cut this year's $100 million for the Fund to $80 million, despite our efforts to stop this unnecessary raid. The final decision on where the cut will be taken still awaits a final decision by the Secretary, though it is assumed that it will all be taken from the research side. We are still looking for a vehicle to use to make a technical correction to the farm bill to provide funding for the Fund in FY 98. Due to a drafting mistake, no funds will be available next year without the technical correction. Assuming we can get the technical correction taken care of, it is quite possible that this year's research RFP will be "made whole" by dipping into FY 98 money, with the FY 98 RFP then going out with a smaller total dollar availability. Final totals on research RFP submissions: Nearly 600 "Center" planning grants were received, with a final total of 464 after some initial weeding out. Awards will be made in July. Exactly 1,082 standard project proposals were received, with awards to be made in October or November. ARS submitted 82 applications, with the Forest Service coming in with 12, ERS with 2, foundations and private non-profits with 42, corporations with 60, minority institutions (1890s, Native American, and Hispanic) with 105, and all the rest from the land grants (1862s). Top states were Texas (104), California (96), New York (59), Mississippi (52), and Missouri and North Carolina (tied at 51). Top of Page Community Food Projects Grants Update Approximately 120 proposals were submitted by the June 6 deadline, competing for this year's $2.5 million. The proposals will be panel reviewed in August, with awards made by the end of September. For more information, call Elizabeth Tuckermanty, CSREES/USDA, at 202-205-0241. Top of Page Home Farm Policy Menu Inside The Beltway -- July '97 ©1997 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://sunsite.unc.edu/farming-connection/farmpoli/msawg/wash9707.htm