2008 Farm Bill Update

FYI ~ MFA has several members, including Board member and VP for Gov't Affairs Chris Holmes on the NRCS State Technical Committee. The message and links below lead to changes in the 2008 Farm Bill, several of which highlight increased attention to forests and forestry support.

USDA’S INTERIM FINAL RULE AMENDS COMPOSITION,
RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

Notice of 60-day Public Comment Period on Rule Published in Federal Register

WASHINGTON, Dec. 2, 2008—U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Chief Arlen Lancaster today announced the release of the interim final rule for State Technical Committees, which amended requirements regarding the composition and responsibilities of these advisory committees nationwide.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) expands agricultural and forestry involvement in the committees, expands the committees’ authority to review local working groups’ efforts to address state program priorities, and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to standardize committee operations nationwide.

The State Technical Committee interim final rule is available for public comment and can be found at USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (USDA-NRCS) Web site,at the official government regulation Web site, and at the Federal Register’s Web site.

Public comments must be submitted by Jan. 26, 2009. These comments will be used to revise the interim final rule, which establishes policy for State Technical Committees. USDA will publish a final rule that will address the public comments.

Each state has an advisory State Technical Committee that is chaired by the USDA-NRCS state conservationist. State Technical Committee members include agricultural producers and other Federal, state, Tribal and non-profit organization professionals that represent various disciplines in the soil, water, wetland, plant, forestry and wildlife sciences. The committees meet regularly and advise the state conservationist and other USDA officials on technical considerations related to implementation of Farm Bill conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Grasslands Reserve Program, and Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.

The committees also advise the NRCS state conservationists on other technical matters, technical guides, criteria for evaluating projects, cost-share and incentives payment levels, and measures related to achieving a program balance regardless of agricultural sector or farm or ranch size. They can also advise the state conservationists on strategies to reach underserved customers.

The committees also accept recommendations from their subcommittees, including local working groups, as they establish natural resource priorities for the state.

Mailed comments on the interim final rule can be submitted to: Director, Conservation Technical Assistance Programs Division, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 6015-S, Washington, D.C. 20250-2890.

Comments can be faxed to (202) 720-2998 and e-mailed to STC2008@wdc.usda.gov. People with disabilities who are interested in submitting comments can contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600. Comments also can be submitted through the Regulations.gov Web site’s public comment feature.

For additional information about State Technical Committees, please visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/StateTech/.

---

The Interim Final Rule can be found at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2008/interim-rules.html.


NRCS has developed a one page fact sheet that can be viewed at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2008/ataglance.html.


General information on the State Technical Committees can be found at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/StateTech/index.html.

Congress enacts most of farm bill over Bush veto

WASHINGTON— Congress has enacted a massive election-year farm bill over President Bush's veto.

More than 90% of the bill will become law after the Senate voted 82-13 to override Bush's veto Thursday. The president claimed it was too expensive and too generous with subsidies for farmers.

But the version that Bush vetoed was missing 34 pages on international food aid and trade. That will require Congress to send another bill to Bush.

The $290 billion bill increases food stamps by $1 billion a year. It also increases subsidies for some crops and for the first time subsidizes growers of fresh fruits and vegetables.

President Vetos Farm Bill

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2419, the "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008."

For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress pass a good farm bill that I can sign. Regrettably, the Congress has failed to do so. At a time of high food prices and record farm income, this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our objectives in international trade negotiations, which include securing greater market access for American farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of government. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment.

In January 2007, my Administration put forward a fiscally responsible farm bill proposal that would improve the safety net for farmers and move current programs toward more market-oriented policies. The bill before me today fails to achieve these important goals.

At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than $28 billion in 1 year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up to $1.5 million. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops, subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort markets. Instead of better targeting farm programs, this bill eliminates the existing payment limit on marketing loan subsidies.

Now is also not the time to create a new uncapped revenue guarantee that could cost billions of dollars more than advertised. This is on top of a farm bill that is anticipated to cost more than $600 billion over 10 years. In addition, this bill would force many businesses to prepay their taxes in order to finance the additional spending.

This legislation is also filled with earmarks and other ill-considered provisions. Most notably, H.R. 2419 provides: $175 million to address water issues for desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-acre land purchase from a private owner; funding and authority for the noncompetitive sale of National Forest land to a ski resort; and $382 million earmarked for a specific watershed. These earmarks, and the expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, have no place in the farm bill. Rural and urban Americans alike are frustrated with excessive government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds for pet projects. This bill will only add to that frustration.

The bill also contains a wide range of other objectionable provisions, including one that restricts our ability to redirect food aid dollars for emergency use at a time of great need globally. The bill does not include the requested authority to buy food in the developing world to save lives. Additionally, provisions in the bill raise serious constitutional concerns. For all the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 2419, and I urge the Congress to extend current law for a year or more.

I veto this bill fully aware that it is rare for a stand-alone farm bill not to receive the President's signature, but my action today is not without precedent. In 1956, President Eisenhower stood firmly on principle, citing high crop subsidies and too much government control of farm programs among the reasons for his veto. President Eisenhower wrote in his veto message, "Bad as some provisions of this bill are, I would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound and good for farmers and the nation." For similar reasons, I am vetoing the bill before me today.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 21, 2008.

2008 Farm Bill Update

The information below was supplied to MFA by the American Forests and Paper Association (http://afandpa.org/)

Today the U.S. Senate passed H.R. 2419, The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 by a vote of 81-15 following yesterday’s passage in the House by a comfortable 318-106 margin. The President is expected to veto the measure, but given vote counts in each chamber, his veto will likely be overridden and the bill will become law.

Provisions of interest to the industry that are included in the conference report are:

TAX

ü An AF&PA supported one-year version of the TREE Act, which provides a maximum 15 percent corporate tax rate on qualified timber gain for regular tax and AMT purposes. Timber must be held more than 15 years to qualify. It also includes a number of REIT modernization provisions, also for a one-year period from date of enactment.

ü Tax deductions for landowners who take steps to conserve habitat for species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. These provisions provide for the first time incentives associated with taking affirmative steps to protect listed species on private land. AF&PA worked in a broad coalition including the Farm Bureau and several environmental groups in support of these incentives.

ü The conference report also includes a new, $1.01 per gallon production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol. This credit reflects a reduction from the original amount of $1.25 per gallon which was contained in the Senate passed version. Consistent with our biomass policy, AF&PA did not take a position on this provision.

ü Accompanying this provision is language which was sought by many of our members requiring an analysis by the National Academy of Sciences of the tax credit’s impact on regional agricultural and silvicultural capabilities of commercially available forest inventories, the selling price of forest products and the maximum amount of biofuels production capable on U.S. forests.

BIOMASS

ü New grants and loan guarantees for demonstration and production scale biorefineries. Consistent with our biomass policy, AF&PA succeeded in securing language that allows for consideration of the impacts of new biomass demand on existing facilities as well as the potential for new markets and rural economic development. In addition, existing wood and paper facilities will be eligible for these grants.

ILLEGAL LOGGING

ü An amendment to the Lacey Act prohibiting importation of wood obtained from illegal logging. AF&PA worked in a broad coalition of conservation and industry groups to support this language. Illegally sourced wood costs the US wood products sector an estimated $460 million annually.

FORESTRY

ü Greatly increased access to conservation programs (such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program) for non-industrial, private forest landowners.

ü Language directing States to set priorities for the conservation of private forests, and allowing the allocation of some Forest Service State & Private Forestry funds through a competitive process.

ü Language allowing extensions and other types of flexibility to purchasers of Federal timber who have been impacted by steep declines in solid wood markets.

WOOD PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL

ü Provisions extending the Market Access Program at the current $200 million annual funding level through 2011 and extending the Foreign Market Development program at its current $34.5 million through 2012 are included in the bill. These programs help develop markets for U.S. agricultural products, including forest products, overseas and are important components of the U.S. wood products industry’s international trade strategy

TRANSPORTATION

ü A study of rural transportation issues which includes an examination of the sufficiency of railroad capacity in rural American as well as the sufficiency of rail competition and reliability of rail service. The study, which is due to Congress 9 months from enactment, also would address reasonableness of rail prices and adequacy of a federal process for resolving rail customer grievances with the railroad.