DO     NOT      POST      TO     ANOTHER         LISTSERVE
Debbie says: The authors of  this report are very dedicated and tend to
use the report to "blow off steam" therefore they would not want their
comments to come back at them from an office of congress. This is not an
action alert.

MSAWG WASHINGTON D.C. REPORT

March 2000

"All the News that's Print to Fit"

Please Note: The MSAWG Washington Report
is for the use of MSAWG members,
affiliates, and subscribers only.  Do not
reproduce or post to any electronic
network without specific permission.


***********
CONTENTS

* Big Win on Senate Ag Committee Crop Insurance Bill
* Budget and Appropriations Update
* Harkin "Conservation Security Act"
* Kucinich GE Food Safety Bill Intro'd
* Payment Limits?  What Limits?
* Hearings on Ag Antitrust, Checkoff Programs, Meat
Inspection
* Draft National Organic Standards
* Pork Checkoff Vote
* USDA Issues Proposed Rule for Mandatory Price
Reporting
* Initiative for Future Ag & Food Systems RFP
* CNMP Comment Extended
* Corps Replaces NWP 26
* FDA $$$ on Livestock Microbio Hazards
* EU & Hormone-free Beef
* SAC Analysis of Administration Budget
* Website on Conservation Initiative
* Dairy Forward Contracting
* Glickman "Singing our Song" at Ag Forum
* RMA Organic Focus Groups
* GE Potato Comment Request
* First Meeting of Biotech Advisory group
* Virginia CREP Announced
* Catalog of Fed Funding Sources for Watershed
* Biotech Risk Assessment Grants RFP
* IPM Grants for FQPA Issues
* National Campaign Search for New Exec. Director
***********

* Big Win on Senate Ag Committee Crop Insurance Bill

As promised supporters of crop insurance reform late
last year, Chairman Lugar brought competing crop
insurance and risk management bills to a vote in the
Senate Ag Committee on March 2. Vote jockeying went
on for several preceding weeks, but in the end, as
expected, the mainstream crop insurance substitute
(offered by Senators Roberts and Kerrey) to Senator
Lugar's risk management bill won out on a close 10-8
vote.

The votes cut across party lines, with Democratic
Senators Harkin, Daschle, Conrad, Baucus, and Johnson and
Republican Senators Grassley, Craig, and Santorum
voting with Roberts and Kerrey, and Democrats Leahy
and Lambert-Lincoln and Republicans Helms, Cochran,
McConnell, Coverdell, and Fitzgerald voting with the
chairman.

Prior to the vote, Senator Harkin and his staff
inserted into the Kerrey-Roberts substitute several
items at the request of SAC. Most importantly, the
bill as passed would restore sodbuster/conservation
compliance and swampbuster requirements to crop and
revenue insurance subsidies. The 1996 farm bill
removed the conservation requirements from the
insurance programs. If maintained in conference and
final passage of the bill, the practical effect of
this amendment will be to extend the conservation
requirements to regions and producers who use crop
insurance but are not in the commodity programs and
do not use federal credit programs. Longer range, it
will prevent the elimination of conservation
requirements should the next farm bill eliminate
commodity payments in favor of revenue insurance.

Also in the substitute, as a result of our action ,
is language preventing discrimination against
sustainable and organic producers within the crop
insurance programs, broad language allowing RMA to do
a national whole farm revenue insurance pilot
program, eligibility for community based
organizations to participate in risk management
education funding, and -- within a $500 million pilot
program for risk management payments patterned on the
Lugar bill -- language allowing payments for both
diversification and conservation as risk management
tools. Based on SAC recommendations, language in the
Lugar version that failed to credit existing
diversified operations and existing conservation
practices was revised and language that required
farmers to hire crop consultants or dealers to write
farm conservation plans was eliminated.

The bill is scheduled for floor action on March 22 or
23. As we go to press, numerous amendments are in
varying states of play. The strong expectation,
though, is the bill will pass with only minor
amendment. Senator Lugar does not appear to be trying
to win on the floor what he lost in Committee, though
some environmental groups are nonetheless trying to
get the risk management payment approach re-instated.
The conference committee with the House will likely
follow fairly quickly, as the $6 billion in new 4-
year spending (bringing crop insurance subsidies to
about $3.5 billion per year) technically expires with
passage of this year's budget resolution.

Of the language we won in the Senate, only the anti-
discrimination language is in the House bill, so
there is still much work to be done. We hope to
retain all the provisions gained in the Senate
Committee, strengthen the whole farm revenue
insurance provision, and perhaps add improved risk
management education and conservation language.

* Budget and Appropriations Update

The House Budget Committee approved its version of
the FY 01 budget resolution on March 15. It includes
$596 billion for discretionary spending, about $10
billion more than the current year. However, because
of budget assumptions for large increases in several
budget accounts, including defense, this budget would
represent at least a 6% cut for agriculture and other
unfavored appropriations bills. Also disappointing
was the failure of the Committee to include any funds
in the budget resolution to reinstate the Wetlands
Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program,
or Farmland Protection Program. Over 40 House GOP
members had written to the Committee in support of
new WRP funding.

The budget resolution does include over $6 billion
for another round of double AMTA payments, the same
amount as the past two year's emergency supplemental
appropriations, but in this case done as regular new
spending, rather than emergency, off-budget spending.
The Senate has yet to start on its budget plan, with
Committee consideration scheduled for March 22.

The House Appropriations Committee has approved an
emergency supplemental bill for the current year that
includes funding for Kosovo, Columbia, and natural
disasters (Hurricane Floyd, etc.). On the positive
side, the bill includes $35 million for NRCS to
provide technical assistance on CRP and WRP -- though
it does not include a permanent change in law to fix
the technical assistance funding shortfall. We may
pursue a permanent fix during Senate action.

On the negative side, the bill also closes the
loophole that has allowed USDA to move ahead with
funding for the Fund for Rural America and the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
The Fund's funds will nearly all be spent before this
bill could pass, so it is not really an issue. The
research Initiative, however, could be killed in its
entirety if this action is not reversed. The Senate
Committee marks up their version of the supplemental
on March 21. At press time, the Senate bill does not
do away with the Initiative.  Complicating Senate
consideration of the bill, Majority Leader Trent
Lott, against the wishes of Appropriations Chair Ted
Stephens and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, does not
want to take up the supplemental.  Senator Lott
prefers instead to consider emergency spending as
part of the regular appropriations process.

The House bill also possibly allows emergency
conservation program funds to be spent on rebuilding
hog barns and lagoons in floodplains in North
Carolina. This provision is undergoing further
scrutiny and may become subject to a Senate
amendment.

* Harkin "Conservation Security Act" Close to
Reintroduction

The SAC office has been very busy working on multiple
redrafts of Senator Harkin's Conservation Security
Act, first introduced last summer. The new version of
the bill closely tracks MSAWG Conservation Committee
recommendations for a comprehensive stewardship
incentive program. The current expectation is for
reintroduction of the revised proposal sometime in
April.

Also in the works is the USDA version of a
conservation security initiative. While we know less
about the details of this evolving plan, it appears
to share some things in common with the Harkin bill
but may differ in significant ways. Though still in
process, the current USDA thinking is to emphasize
basic BMPs and portions of farms over more holistic
and whole farm approaches. We will continue to watch
developments.

* Kucinich Bill on GE Food Safety Intro

On March 9, 2000, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-
OH) introduced a bill, H.R. 3883, which would require
that the Federal Food and Drug Administration
undertake extensive safety reviews of genetically
modified foods.  The FDA would have to ensure that
all GE foods are tested for hidden allergens,
toxicity, nutrient levels, unexpected effects, and
functional characteristics.  The bill would also
require a 30-day public comment period for
applications for GE foods and public access to all
studies performed by the applicant, including those
with unfavorable data.  In addition, the bill phases
out the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in
GE foods.  GE foods already on the market would have
to be tested within two years after final rules
implementing the bill are published or be removed
from the market.

H.R. 3883 is a complementary bill to another bill
introduced by Representative Kucinich, H.R. 3377,
which requires labeling of GE foods and provides for
limiting the liability of farmers improper labeling
of GE foods.  In February, Senator Barbara Boxer
introduced S. 2086, a companion labeling bill.

* Making Fun of Payment Limitations

Makes you nostalgic for the good old days of the
Mississippi Christmas Tree!  A new program allows
farmers to take crop subsidies above the payment
limit in certificates redeemable for government-held
commodities instead of cash.  Swayed by the heart-
rending stories of farmers forced to get by on a mere
$150,000 a year from Uncle Sam (not to mention the
lobbying clout of the Cotton Council), Congress
established the program last fall.  Secretary
Glickman, who had the option of not implementing the
deal, gave in to strong pressure from Capitol Hill
and the specter of a million bales of cotton that
might have otherwise been forfeited to the federal
government under the loan program this year.  So next
month when you're mailing in your federal tax forms,
be sure to look for your thank you note from
sweepstakes winner J.G. Boswell Co., which controls
an estimated 160,000 cotton acres in California's San
Joaquin Valley, and was tabbed by USDA as one of the
biggest winners in this little bit of largesse for
the larded.

Giving in to the fattest cats can't possibly help
Secretary Glickman's entreaties to Congress to target
assistance to small and medium sized farms.  Noted
USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins, "There's no doubt
it's a concern. Here the secretary has been
advocating a tight payment limit."  Cry us a river,
Keith, cry us a river.

* Upcoming Hearings on Ag Issues

At the NFU convention in late February, Senate
Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin Hatch announced that
later this year his committee will hold hearings on
antitrust law and agricultural concentration.  In
addition, the staff director of the Senate
Agriculture Committee announced that Committee Chair
Lugar will hold a hearing on the agricultural
checkoff programs.  These hearings have not yet been
scheduled.

The Senate Agricultural Committee has scheduled, on
April 6, 2000, a full committee hearing on a bill
sponsored by Senators Hatch and Daschle which would
allow the interstate shipment of meat inspected by
state-certified inspectors. Senator Hatch has
indicated that he and Senator Daschle can muster
enough votes to pass their bill.  For more
information on these hearings, contact the
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition at <[log in to unmask]>
or 202-547-5754.

* Draft National Organic Standards

On the off chance that this is actually news to
someone reading this report, the USDA issued its
revised draft rule for the National Organic Standard
on March 7 at a full-dress press conference at which
Secretary Glickman found several different ways to
say "we listened to you."  Whether or not they
actually heard is another question, which is still up
in the air as organic growers & advocates plow
through the hundreds of pages of the new rule.  If
you want to be one of them, you can download the
whole proposed rule or parts of it from the website
of the National Organic Program at
<www.ams.usda.gov/nop> and read more of the
Department's press statements at
<www.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/03/march.htm>.
Comment on the new draft rule is due by June 13,
2000.

You can find out more about outside opinions on the
new rule at the website of the Rural Advancement
Foundation International <www.rafiusa.org/>.
Official comment by the National Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture should be available by mid-
April; contact them at <[log in to unmask]>.

* Pork Checkoff Vote

Also probably not news to any of you is the
Secretary's announcement of a vote on the Pork
Checkoff that funds the National Pork Board and,
through the NPB, the National Pork Producers' Council
(NPPC).  In making his announcement at the National
Farmers Union's meeting in Salt Lake City, Secretary
Glickman noted that he was exercising his own
authority to call for a vote, and that the costs of
the vote would come out of the USDA, rather than from
pork checkoff funds.  There's very little information
available on the AMS or broader USDA website about
this announcement, but the Secretary's memo outlining
his reasons for calling the vote is illuminating.  He
notes that: "Having reviewed the AMS verification
process, I have concluded that it is vulnerable to
criticism in a number of respects. Among other
things, USDA's data entry process was flawed, valid
petitions were deleted, and duplicate entries not
removed, making it impossible to state precisely the
final number of petitioners.  AMS' judgements about
individual petitions where producers did not fill out
forms perfectly or legibly are open to challenge."
Due to the uncertainty, the Secretary made the
determination that "equity" and "democratic process"
demanded a vote.

The NPPC went into full panic mode, indicating that
they might sue to block the vote and other clumsy
steps that would only serve to further alienate the
hog producers who will vote on the checkoff.  One
thing they have done effectively is to spin the USDA
announcement in such a way that many news stories are
reporting that the department could not verify enough
signatures, but is bowing to political pressure to
hold the vote anyway.  As is clear from the
Secretary's memorandum, this is simply not the case.
For a copy of the Secretary's Memorandum, contact the
offices of the Campaign for Family Farms at 612-722-
6377, or the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition at
<[log in to unmask]> or 202-547-5754.

* USDA Issues Reg on Mandatory Price Reporting

The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has issued a
proposed rule for mandatory livestock price
reporting.  See Federal Register, Vol. 65 at pp.
14651-14691 (March 17, 2000).  Comments are due on or
before April 17, 2000.  The proposed rule imposes
price reporting requirements on livestock packers and
product processors who slaughter on average more than
125,000 cattle, 100,000 swine, and 75,000 lambs per
year.  Importers who annually import more than 5,000
metric tons of lamb meat are also required to report.
The proposed rule requires that price reporting take
place at specified times and will require the
reporting of certain details of transactions.
Additional information on the rule is available on
the Agricultural Marketing Service website at
<www.ams.usda/gov/lsg/price.htm>.  If you cannot
access the proposed rule on the web, contact the
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition at <[log in to unmask]>
or 202-547-5754.

* Initiative for Future Ag & Food Systems RFP

The Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension
Service (CSREES) has issued a Request for Proposals
for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems program.  The IFAFS Program will total
approximately $113.4 million in this fiscal year.
The Federal Register notice on this RFP is in Vol.
65, No. 44, pp. 11838-11857, March 6, 2000.

The RFP includes a groundbreaking section on research
on farm efficiency and profitability, including the
needs of small and moderate-sized family farms.  This
section of the RFP implements a major win of the
sustainable agriculture movement in the 1998
agricultural research act.  The request calls for new
research partnerships, systems approaches, extensive
farmer involvement, low-capital and low-input
approaches, and both production and marketing/value-
adding processing research.  This section of the RFP
is far superior to the small farm section of the NRI
RFP and most other earlier USDA proposals.  For more
information on this area, contact Program Director
Don West, at (202) 720-5633, e-mail
<[log in to unmask]>, or Denis Ebodaghe at (202) 401-
4385, e-mail <[log in to unmask]>.

Overall funding was divided as follows: Agricultural
Genome and Biotechnology - $32.8 million; Food Safety
and Nutrition - $23.6 million; New and Alternative
Uses - $9.4 million; Natural Resource Management -
$23.6 million; and Farm Profitability/Small and
Moderate-Size Farms - $18.9 million.  In addition, no
less than 30 percent of total funds are being set
aside for "consortia" proposals for large
collaborations, with 4 year awards of between $1
million and $5 million. The balance will be smaller
grants with a top limit of $1 million.

As we have reported previously, the funding for the
Initiative became available late last year when USDA
budget and legal staff discovered a loophole in the
congressional prohibition in spending any funds on
this program.  Needless to say, it continues to be
controversial.  The House Appropriations Committee,
in a supplemental appropriations bill reported out of
Committee on March 9, repeals the funding (again).
As we go to press, the Senate Committee has scheduled
a markup on its version of the supplemental for March
21.  Early indications are they will not repeal the
Initiative's funding.  The final outcome remains very
uncertain.  However, those considering submitting
proposals should forge ahead, at least until the
funding prospects become clearer.  It is likely,
though not yet confirmed, that USDA will extend the
May 8 deadline for submissions.  For e-mail updates
on the situation, subscribe at <ifafs-
[log in to unmask]> or call the SAC office.

* CNMP Comment Extended

NRCS has announced that it has extended the comment
period on its draft Technical Guidance for
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) for
animal feeding operations. See Federal Register, Vol.
65 at p. 13963 (March 15, 2000). The comment period
is extended to April 14, 2000. Note that in addition
to use by NRCS in its voluntary programs, the CNMPs
have also been proposed by EPA for inclusion in Clean
Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits under the regulatory program for
large- scale concentrated animal feeding operations.
The SAC office has prepared suggested comments on the
draft Technical Guidance and is finalizing a detailed
letter which may be endorsed by other organizations.
For further information, contact Martha Noble by
phone at 202-547-5754 or by e-mail at
<[log in to unmask]>.

* Corps Replaces NWP 26

The US Army Corps of Engineers has issued new and
modified Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide
Permits (NWPs) to replace NWP 26.  See Federal
Register, Vol. 65 at pp. 12817 (March 6, 2000); for
additional information see the Army Corps website at
<www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/>.

NWP 26 is scheduled to expire on June 7, 2000, when
the new program goes into effect.  The new NWP
program applies to development activities of 1/2 acre
or less which do not occur in tidal wetlands and
provides additional protection for wetlands in 100-
year floodplains.  The old NWP program allowed
development on up to 3 acres without an individual
section 404 wetlands permit. The Army Corps must also
be notified if an activity will destroy more than
1/10 of an acre, a reduction from the old standard of
1/3 acre.

With regard to agricultural wetlands, NWP 40 has been
increased from a permit limited to the construction
of farm buildings to a permit allowing wetlands
destruction to increase agricultural production,
including ranching and silviculture activities.
Revised NWP 40 allows conversion of up to 1/2 acre of
non-tidal wetland and up to 300 linear feet of
wetland for the purpose of relocating existing
drainage ditches constructed in non-tidal streams.
The revised NWP 40 uses farm tracts, rather than
farms as the measure of single and complete projects,
a provision that will allow more than one wetland
conversion on many farms.  It is difficult to predict
whether the revised NWP 40 is an overall improvement
compared to the use of NWP 26 on agricultural land.
For smaller farms, with only a few farm tracts, NWP
40 may be more restrictive but larger farms, with
more than 6 farm tracts, may be able to convert
significantly more acreage under NWP 40 than NWP 26.

The NRCS will oversee activities on agricultural land
enrolled in the federal farm programs and Army Corps
district engineers will oversee activities on other
agricultural land.  The revised NWP 40 does not
provide any additional protections for playas,
prairie potholes, vernal pools, or other highly
sensitive wetland areas.  In addition, the Army Corps
has prohibited the imposition of more restrictive
regional conditions on these wetlands in acreage
enrolled in federal farm programs subject to NRCS
oversight.

The next step is state certification of the revised
NWP permit program. States have 90 days from the
release of the revised NWP permit program to certify,
deny, or place conditions on the revised permits.
The Clean Water Network has started a state
certification campaign to help ensure the best
nationwide permits possible. If you are working on
the state certification process, contact Ami Grace at
CWN (phone: 202-289-2421 or e-mail:
<[log in to unmask]>) to link with activists within your
state and to obtain fact sheets, suggested regional
conditions, and other tools developed by the CWN and
the National Audubon Society.

* FDA $$$ on Livestock Microbio Hazards

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that
it would make available approximately $600,000 in
fiscal year 2000 for study of microbiological hazards
associated with food animal production.

The announcement by FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine (CVM) indicates that this research will
focus on pre-harvest phases of food animal
production, including aquaculture, and the microbial
hazards prior to harvest that impact upon food
safety.  The announcement specifically notes the need
for research into the effects of therapeutic and
subtherapeutic antibiotic usage in livestock on
bacterial pathogens.

The FDA plans to work through a small number of
cooperative agreements of $100,000 or $200,000 per
year, for up to three years.  Application deadlines
are short; letters of intent to apply should be
received at FDA by April 3, and completed
applications by April 17.  For more information on
administrative and financial management aspects of
the project, contact Cynthia Polit, FDA Grants
Management Specialist at (301) 827-7180.  For
information on the program, contact David Batson at
the CVM at (301) 827-8021.

* EU Agrees to US Hormone-Free Beef Plan

On March 9, the European Union approved new US
measures to certify the reliability of US exports of
hormone-free beef to Europe. This action prevents a
March 15 cutoff on the existing 11,500-ton quota for
US hormone-free product. The EU now hopes that, in
exchange for increasing the quota on hormone-free
beef and possibly reducing the 20% import tariff, the
US will remove some US sanctions against EU exports
approved earlier by the World Trade Organization as a
result of the EU's refusal to accept hormone-treated
beef.  Those sanctions impose 100% import duties on
$117 million worth of European products. If a deal is
struck, export opportunities for organic and hormone-
free cattle producers may increase.

* SAC Comment on Administration Farm Proposal

As a part of it's budget request for fiscal 2001, the
White House outlined a number of farm proposals, most
notably a new system of "Supplemental Income
Payments" (SIP) and a Conservation Security Program
(see story below).

SAC has prepared a brief critical analysis of the
Clinton Administration's farm plan, crediting it with
making very significant advances on targeting income
relief to small and moderate-sized farms, but
faulting the proposal for abandoning planting
flexibility and leaving diversified producers out of
the scheme. The paper also notes the major missing
piece in the proposal - its complete lack of any
short term conservation-oriented supply management
features to help stem continued low prices.

For a copy of the SAC analysis, contact Ferd Hoefner
<[log in to unmask]> or Brad DeVries
<[log in to unmask]> by e-mail or at (202) 547-5754.

* Website on Conservation Initiative

The USDA announced that information for farmers and
ranchers on the Administration's new Conservation
Security Initiative (outlined in the President's
budget request for fiscal 2001) is available on the
web at <www.nrcs.usda.gov>.

Not included in the announcement were the White
House's plans for getting this initiative, closely
associated with Vice President Gore and his
presidential bid, through a Republican-controlled
Congress.

* Dairy Forward Contract Rule and Contract Reform

A short 15-day comment period has ended on a proposed
rule for the "dairy forward contracting" pilot
program. The rule
<www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/dockets.htm> or Federal
Register, March 1, pp. 10891-10894) is the first
testing ground for AMS Administrator Kathleen
Merrigan's initiative to establish new contract
agriculture ground rules that enhance producers'
rights with respect to handlers and processors.

Congress mandated the dairy forward contract pilot
program last year, in part as an experiment to test
granting private proprietary dairy plants the same
forward contracting opportunities currently allowed
for dairy cooperatives. Under forward contracts, the
contract sets the price the farmer or coop will
receive rather than the Federal milk marketing order.
Participation in the pilot is voluntary for both the
farmer and the handler. Handlers will still be
subject to all other provisions of the federal order.

As part of an evolving farmer "right to know"
initiative, AMS is developing educational and
regulatory proposals to aid farmers who, for whatever
reason, are entering production or marketing
contracts. With regard to this specific pilot
project, several safeguards are proposed:

* a clear, plain language disclosure statement must
be signed by the producer before signing a forward
pricing contract;

* the disclosure form verifies that the producer has
received and read a USDA Fact Sheet describing the
pilot program, the risks involved, and useful tips
for the producer to use in deciding to enter into a
contract;

* a 3-day period in which the producer can change his
or her mind and rescind the contract;

* a 6 month limit on first-time contracts (which may
then be renewed) to help producers become familiar
with the pros and cons of forward contracting as a
means of managing risk.

SAC has submitted comments that support the mandatory
disclosure statement, the 6-month limit on first time
contracts, and a revised version of the 3-day waiting
period mechanism. We also urged AMS to immediately
suspend or terminate the program if they obtain any
evidence that handlers are coercing farmers into
signing forward contracts, and to move quickly on
development of disclosure statements for production
contracts, in addition to marketing contracts.

The proposed rule, fact sheet, disclosure statement,
and other information are available at
www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/dockets/htm.

* Glickman "Singing our Song" at Ag Forum

In several recent policy speeches, USDA Secretary Dan
Glickman has articulated five new policy principles
to "break out of the farm policy paradigms...that
have hemmed in our thinking for several years."
Several of these principles are right in line with
things the sustainable agriculture movement has said
about federal policy for a long time.

In Glickman's view, federal farm policy for the next
generation should:

* support farmers, not commodities, with federal
assistance supporting farm income rather than crop
prices and getting away from subsidizing "massive
consolidation"

* be more comprehensive and national in scope,
including all types of farms, not just the 8 major
commodities

* make risk management programs "more inclusive,"
including coverage for livestock

* make conservation a centerpiece, not an
afterthought, with broad incentives for environmental
stewardship

* integrate rural development and agriculture, with
support for diversified rural economies and
entrepreneurship.

While we can and should press on substance and raise
questions on details, these are certainly themes that
work very well with previous and new emerging
sustainable agriculture proposals for the farm bill,
appropriations, and USDA administrative reform. Stay
tuned!

* RMA Organic Focus Groups

The Risk Management Agency is in the process of
holding farmer focus groups in different areas of the
country to better understand the possible crop
insurance needs of farmers during the transition
phase to organic production. The issue of transition
insurance has been around for a number of years, and
was proposed to RMA in a letter from SAC and the
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture two
years ago. This is the first detailed attempt by the
agency to try to figure out what is needed and how it
might work.

* GE Potato Comment Request

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) has issued an environmental assessment and a
request for comments on a proposed decision to give
nonregulated status to a genetically engineered
strain of potato.  See Federal Register, Vol. 65 at
pp. 11758-59 (March 6, 2000).  Comments are due by
April 5, 2000 and should be sent to Docket No. 99-
036-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Monsanto Company has made
the request for nonregulation with regard to a Russet
Burbank potato line engineered for resistance to the
Colorado potato beetle and the potato leaf roll virus
by the inclusion of Bt genes, genes from the potato
leaf roll virus, and marker and controller genes from
plant viruses.  A copy of the Monsanto request and
the environmental assessment may be requested from
Ms. Kay Peterson by phone at (301) 734-4885 or by e-
mail at <[log in to unmask]>.

* First Meeting for Biotech Advisors

The USDA has announced that the first meeting of the
Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology will
be held on March 29-30, 2000 from 8:30 am to 5 pm in
the Atrium Ballroom of the Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C.  See Federal Register, Vol. 65
at p. 13710 (March 14, 2000).  The meeting will be
open to the public and, if time permits, the public
may make oral presentations of no more than 5 minutes
each on March 30, 2000.  To attend the meeting you
must contact Ms. Diane Harmon by phone at (202) 720-
4074, by fax at (202) 720-3191, or by e-mail at
<[log in to unmask]> at least 7 days before the
meeting.  If you wish to speak at the meeting, you
must contact Dr. Michael Schechtman in writing at
least 3 business days before the meeting at Office of
the Deputy Secretary, USDA, 202B Jamie L. Whitten
Federal Building, 12th and Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, D.C. 20250; telephone (202) 720-3817; fax
(202) 690- 4265; e-mail:
<[log in to unmask]>.  You may also file
written comments with Dr. Schechtman until May 1,
2000.

* Virginia CREP Announced

On March 8, 2000, the USDA announced that it has
finalized an agreement with the state of Virginia
which establishes a Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) for the state.  The $91 million dollar
program targets 25,000 acres in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed and 10,000 acres in non-Bay drainage areas
in southern Virginia.  The federal government will
spend $68 million on the CREP and Virginia will
contribute $23 million.  The CREP will focus on
reducing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from
agricultural lands and will also provide for
restoration of wetlands and wildlife habitat and the
establishment of permanent conservation easements on
some acreage.  For more details on the CREP, see the
USDA news release, which includes an question and
answer fact sheet, posted on the web at
<www.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/03/0075>.

* Catalog of Fed Funding Sources for Watershed

The EPA recently published the Catalog of Federal
Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (2nd Edition)
EPA 841-B-99-003.

The Catalog provides information on Federal funding
programs that might be available to fund different
aspects of watershed protection and local-level
watershed projects.
It contains one-page fact sheets for each of the 69
funding sources (grants and loans) that provide
information on the type of projects funded and
eligibility requirements.

Copies of the new funding catalog are available at no
charge from the >National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at: Phone: (513)
489-8190 or (800) 490-9198, Fax: (513) 489-8695).
(Please include the document number EPA 841-B-99-003
when ordering the document.)

* Biotech Risk Assessment Grants RFP

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES) have issued a Request for Proposals
(and for comment on the RFP) for a new $1.5 million
"Biotechnology Risk Assessment" research grants
program for the coming year. See Federal Register,
Vol. 65, No. 43 at pp. 11706-11709 (March 3, 2000)

The grants will be competitively awarded and support
"science-based biotechnology regulation, thereby
helping to address concerns about the effects of
introducing genetically modified organisms into the
environment and helping regulators develop policies
regarding such introduction."  The RFP specifically
notes that proposals for risk management, as opposed
to risk assessment, are not acceptable.  There is a
particular emphasis in the RFP on encouraging
research on genetic outcrossing, pest resistance, and
other key issues raised regarding GE crops.
Proposals must be received by April 10, 2000.  For
more information on this program, contact Dr. Deborah
Sheely, CSREES; telephone (202) 401-1924, or by e-
mail at <[log in to unmask]>.

* IPM Grants for FQPA Issues

Also in the mix is a CSREES RFP for both research and
stakeholder input for a program entitled "Pest
Management Alternatives Program: Addressing Food
Quality Protection Act Issues for Fiscal Year 2000."
The RFP is available in the Federal Register, Vol.
65, No. 43 at pp. 11712-11717 (March 3, 2000).

The RFP calls for proposals that "develop, test, and
implement pest management alternatives and possible
mitigation strategies to ensure that crop producers
have reliable methods of managing pests considered a
high priority under the Food Quality Protection Act
and related regulatory actions."

Proposals are due by April 17, 2000; comments on the
RFP are requested within six months of this Federal
Register notice.  Application materials may be
requested via e-mail at <[log in to unmask]> by sending
your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and telephone
number.  Be sure to note that you are requesting a
copy of the application materials for "FY 2000
Special Research Grants Program - Pest management
alternatives research: Special Program Addressing
Food Quality Protection Act Issues."

* National Campaign Looking for New Executive
Director

The search is on for a new Executive Director for the
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.  The
Campaign is a network of over 2000 diverse
organizations whose mission is to shape national
policies to foster a sustainable food and
agricultural system.  The deadline for submitting
applications is May 12, 2000.  For further
information go to the Campaign's website at
<www.SustainableAgriculture.net>  or contact Kai
Siedenburg by e-mail at <[log in to unmask]> or the
Campaign by phone at 914-744-8448.

END

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]