get it home page promo

Montana lukewarm about new House farm bill

2013-07-12T00:00:00Z Montana lukewarm about new House farm billBy TOM LUTEY Billings Gazette Helena Independent Record
July 12, 2013 12:00 am  • 

BILLINGS — U.S. Rep. Steve Daines and fellow Republicans passed a scaled-down farm bill Thursday that got a lukewarm reception from a broad spectrum of Montanans.

Daines told The Billings Gazette that the bill wasn’t perfect, but it moved the debate forward on farm policy crucial to Montana’s $3-billion-a-year agriculture economy. Two other House attempts to pass a farm bill failed, with the latest stall occurring just three weeks ago. It wasn’t until Republicans stripped food stamps and other nutrition programs from the bill that enough GOP votes emerged to pass the legislation without support from minority Democrats.

“We need to keep moving forward and we need to start providing some long-term stability for farmers and the agriculture communities in Montana,” Daines said. “The debate really centers around the food stamp program, not the ag components.”

Federal nutrition subsidies for the poor, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as food stamps, were pulling the farm bill down, Daines said. The programs accounted for 80 percent of the total bill’s cost — roughly $500 billion over five years. In June, many conservative lawmakers withheld farm bill support because they wanted deeper cuts to nutrition programs.

Republicans lined up behind the farm bill Thursday as it passed 216-208, with Democrats withholding all support because subsidies for the poor were cut from the bill entirely.

Removing nutrition subsidies from the bill was a divisive move, ending a marriage between those programs and farm subsidies. That pairing had, since the 1970s, given urban and rural lawmakers reason to work together on farm bill passage.

Montana farm groups worried that the farm bill split would hurt agriculture eventually.

“We weren’t in favor of splitting the bill,” said Sandy Courtnage, of the Montana Farmers Union. “We thought it should stand together and we were disappointed when they went that route.”

Additionally, MFU and other groups were disappointed Republicans did way with the long-standing “permanent law” requiring federal farm policy to revert back to the original farm bill language of the 1938 and 1949. The threat of reverting to 60-year-old farm policy, has nudged Congress into updating federal farm policy every five years.

The House farm bill passed Thursday would use the new commodity title as the backstop and farmers worry that would make passing future farm bills difficult if not impossible.

Another concern was that the Senate has already passed its version of the farm bill complete with nutrition subsidies. The two bills must be reconciled in conference and some farmers say the House and Senate versions are too different to be reconciled.

John Youngberg of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation said he didn’t think there would be a farm bill passed this year and possibly not until after the 2014 mid-term elections. That delay would mean farmers and their lenders will have been without the stability of long-term farm policy for three years.

Meanwhile, groups working with the poor worried about the fate of the nutrition subsidies. Cut from the House farm bill, nutrition subsidies will not be debated on their own and most likely passed on a partisan vote with deeper cuts than the $20 billion proposed in the House farm bill that failed June 20.

“Unless we can start changing the mindset of one of the parties, it’s probably not going to change the picture a whole lot,” said Gayle Gifford, Montana Food Bank Network CEO.

SNAP has become a critical supplement for Montana’s poor as they recover from the recession and likely will become more critical as long-term unemployment benefits phase out, she said.

In 2012, 127,000 Montanans used SNAP, according to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.

Conservatives wanted deeper cuts to farm programs. Henry Kriegel of Americans For Prosperity Montana said his organization wanted SNAP split from the farm bill, but it also wanted deep cuts to farm subsidies, which it didn’t get.

“We wanted reforms in the program,” Kriegel said. “Specifically, we wanted to cut the spending overall. That’s one of our overall objectives. We believe we’re spending ourselves into bankruptcy.”

Kriegel said the House farm bill subsidizes large corporate farms capable of standing on their own while doing little for small farmers. AFP opposes that.

Copyright 2015 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. FlamingLiberal1
    Report Abuse
    FlamingLiberal1 - July 12, 2013 1:43 pm
    Ridiculous and disgusting. With the economy sluggish and unemployment high, it is not ethical to take SNAP benefits away from the most vulnerable. Subsidizing large corporations and ignoring family farms is also foolish if we ever want to cut down on GMOs in the food supply... plus companies like Monsanto are perfectly capable of making a profit without taxpayer assistance.
  2. steeline
    Report Abuse
    steeline - July 12, 2013 9:49 am
    Why aren't the Democrats more worried about getting people a job so they can buy their own food and cook it for their children instead of depending on Obama for subsistances. With out the free market system and the Republican work ethic the Democrats will soon run out of money to pay for votes. We need people working, it is good for them and good for America , that includes everyone. America was not built on food stamps, free cell phones, subsidized rents, untility bills and other tax payer pay outs. America was born and raised by hard working people who paid their own way and helped their neighbor when needed. We didn't have a president that is destroying the work ethic in order to make the population totally dependent on him. Don't sell out you freedom and right to work to become a slave. Being a slave never worked in America and as a slave you will only get what the master will give you. We need to get America back and United again.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at editor@helenair.com. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Independent Record

Great Helena Businesses