What Happened to the Farm Bill?

Over the August recess, when Members of Congress were back home in their states and districts, there was a fair amount of media attention surrounding lawmakers’ calls to enact a Farm Bill this fall, dubbing the effort Farm Bill 2.0. The “2.0” modifier refers to the fact that significant portions of the Farm Bill—namely, Title 1, which governs commodities such as row crop agriculture and dairy, as well as Title IV, which covers nutrition programs—have already been addressed in the comprehensive budget reconciliation bill signed by the President on July 4. What is left represents a small percentage of Farm Bill spending, but that portion has an outsized impact on the forestry and forest products value chain, including the hardwood sector.

The impact of Congress addressing the two biggest Farm Bill titles earlier this year is now being felt. In the past, Farm Bills have faced serious consequences if Congress failed to act in reauthorizing a Farm Bill. If the process dragged on too long, farm policy would revert to the Agricultural Act of 1949, which would result in automatic, draconian cuts to row crop and dairy subsidies, causing severe harm to our country’s farmers. The specter of that scenario ultimately enticed lawmakers to come together and forge a comprehensive 5-year farm policy bill. Title 1 was effectively the engine that drove the Farm Bill rewrite process, and without it, the sense of urgency and motivation for action is not there.

So, what is at stake? Thankfully, a key Hardwood Federation deliverable as part of the Farm Bill is trade promotion, and that was addressed in the budget reconciliation bill. Both the Market Access and Foreign Market Development programs received double funding for their ongoing work in opening up markets overseas for domestically produced hardwood lumber. That was a significant win, and one that we worked hard for. Outside of trade, the primary items authorized by the Farm Bill for which we advocate are in the Forestry and Energy Titles. Under Forestry, many hardwood manufacturing companies have received funds under both the Wood Innovation (WIG) and Community Wood Grant programs. These two funding streams have provided substantial, critical capital for projects ranging from replacing biomass boilers and other necessary sawmill upgrades to the production of mass timber, as well as projects that convert woody biomass into biofuels. At a time when domestic markets for lumber and residuals are desperately needed, these two programs are essential.

Also in the Forestry title is the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. This is essentially our country’s tree-counting tool, which tracks the forested acreage in the U.S. and growth/drain ratios across our nation’s forests. The forest products supply chain relies on updated FIA data to back up our claims that wood and paper production is sustainable and that our fiber baskets are healthy. Increasing funding for FIA so that it is adequately staffed and forest data collection is timely and accurate is a high priority not only for the hardwood sector, but for every link in the value chain.

Other vital programs in the Farm Bill Energy Title have benefited hardwood manufacturers. For those hardwood sawmills that also produce wood pellets, the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels has provided a substantial revenue stream as pellets qualify for this payment program. Also important is the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI), which provides grants for wood processing facilities to innovate and upgrade their facilities. And finally, the Biobased Markets Program, which is both a federal procurement preference and a voluntary labeling initiative for renewable materials, is housed in this title.

In conversations we have had with USDA officials and Congressional staff, inaction on a Farm Bill 2.0 will not mean that these pro-grams lapse. Any continuing resolution that comes together in the next week or so (hopefully) will extend funds for these programs. However, it does underscore the need to focus advocacy on the appropriations process in the future and work to ensure that these vital Farm Bill programs, from which we benefit, are funded appropriate-ly. What is lost due to Farm Bill inaction is the ability to update and revise these programs to better reflect the current needs of the forest, the forest products industry, and the overall bioeconomy.

In meeting personally with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA) late last month, he remained optimistic that a Farm Bill 2.0 effort would ultimately move forward and become law later this fall. The Hardwood Federation team has been working hard in both the House and Senate to support this goal and will continue our advocacy efforts in the coming weeks to make this outcome a reality.

By DANA COLE, Executive Director of the Hardwood Federation