Priority bills for rural Montana families
Homegrown Prosperity: Renewable Fuel and Energy Independence for Montana -- SB 432 by Sen. John Bruggeman (R-Polson)
Rural champ John Brueggeman led the charge for this bill, which would have put Montana biodiesel on the map. The Renewable Fuel and Energy Independence Act intended to ramp-up production and refining of Montana-made biodiesel. Under the bill, as soon as biodiesel refining capacity came on-line, Montana would switch to using B2 and then B5 biodiesel blends at filling stations across the state. Like many bills for rural prosperity this session, SB 432 enjoyed wide bipartisan support in the Senate only to die in the bitterly divided House. The correct vote is aye.
History:
- Passed the Senate 35 aye, 14 no (1 absent/excused)
- Tabled by the House Transportation Committee
- Motion to bypass the Committee and bring directly to the House floor failed 47 aye, 51 no (2 absent/excused)
- Bill died
Tax Relief for Homegrown Montana Fuels #1 -- HB 166 by Rep. Holly Raser (D-Missoula)
A pair of bills to level the playing field for Montana-made renewable biodiesel started in the House of Representatives with a successful effort by Holly Raser to extend the tax credit made available for crushing oilseeds, producing and blending biodiesel until 2015. HB 166 also extended the credit to innovative companies that produce engine lubricants like motor oil from oilseeds, like the one currently operating in Malta, Montana. The bill, requested by the administration of Governor Brian Schweitzer, easily passed both the House and Senate. The correct vote is aye.
History:
- Passed the House 75 aye, 24 no (1 absent/excused)
- Passed the Senate 34 aye, 15 no (1 absent/excused)
- Signed by the Governor
- Became law
Tax Relief for Homegrown Montana Fuels # 2-- HB 822 by Rep. Michele Reinhart (D-Missoula)
A bill to provide tax relief for Montana consumers and small businesses that purchase biodiesel for individual or business use did not fair as well. Michele Reinhart led a valiant, uphill effort against big energy companies to bring the cost of Montana-made fuel down at the pumps. HB 822 would have given a tax credit to consumers roughly equal to the percentage of biodiesel blended into their fuel, up to a 20% credit. Reinhart's bill passed the House, was tabled by the Senate Taxation Committee, only to be overridden and passed by the full Senate. Governor Schweitzer vetoed the bill after the legislature adjourned. The correct vote is aye.
History:
- Passed the House 61 aye, 38 no (1 absent/excused)
- Tabled by the Senate Taxation Committee
- Motion to bypass the Committee and bring directly to the Senate floor passed 34 aye, 16 no
- Passed by the Senate 34 aye, 16 no
- Vetoed by the Governor
25% by 2025 -- HJR 6 by Rep. Mike Phillips (D-Bozeman)
A nationwide effort is underway to invest in rural American and help promote energy independence by increasing the amount of energy produced from renewable agricultural sources to 25% of the nation's supply by the year 2025. HJR 6 by Mike Phillips, a resolution expressing the Legislature's support for the vision, easily passed both chambers and was sent by Secretary of State Brad Johnson to the President, the leaders of the U.S. Congress, and the state's congressional delegation. The correct vote is aye.
History:
- Passed the House 61 aye, 39 no
- Passed the Senate 30 aye, 20 no
- Resolution adopted by the Legislature
Stronger Protections for Farm and Ranch Families' Property Rights -- SB 19-SA and SB 19-HA by Sen. Christine Kaufmann (D-Helena) and Rep. Norma Bixby (D-Lame Deer)
Between the 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions, an interim committee of legislators studies ways to increase protections for rural landowners faced with oil and gas development on their land. Often times, this is development farm and ranch families cannot control; much of the mineral estate underneath Montana is owned by the government or the successors to the railroads. Despite a huge turnout of concerned rural families, especially in northeast Montana, the committee failed to recommend any changes to the legislature except giving landowners 20 days notice before oil and gas drilling occurs, instead of the current 10 day requirement.
Recognizing how difficult it would be for a family to become prepared for oil and gas development in just 20 days, Norma Bixby and Christine Kaufmann offered amendments to the bill on the House and Senate floor to require big oil companies to come to the table and negotiate with landowners. The amendments also required 30 days notice - standard practice in other states like Wyoming. Unfortunately, the amendments failed in both chambers and the law passed as originally drafted. The correct vote on both amendments is aye.
History:
- Motion to amend on the Senate floor failed 19 aye to 31 no
- Motion to amend on the House floor failed 46 aye to 53 no (1 absent/excused)
- Bill became law without amendment
Big Oil's Montana Land Grab -- HB 24 (House Only) by Rep. Harry Klock (R-Harlowton)
We live a time when Montanans want the government and big companies to have less power to take private farm and ranch property, not more. But Harry Klock from Harlowtown has a different perspective. Klock sponsored HB 24, which would have given big oil companies the power to take your property away from you, without your consent, to build carbon-transporting pipelines. Never mind that big oil companies are perfectly capable of purchasing land from willing sellers if they need to. They came to the legislature to ask for special permission to take it without your consent.
House Bill 24 passed the House early in the session with a surprisingly high number of votes. Senators had a different take on eminent domain than Harry Klock, and amended the bill to remove all references to allowing the taking of private property for these new pipelines. They also added a provision that made HB 24's effective date contingent on another bill - a bill that ultimately died. As a result, HB 24 won't go into effect. The correct vote is no.
History:
- Passed the House 70 aye to 28 no (2 absent/excused)
- Amended by the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee to render our concerns moot
- Passed the Senate 46 aye to 4 no
- Senate amendments rejected by the House 57 against the amendments, 43 for the amendments
- Joint Senate/House conference committee reports out Senate version of the bill with contingent voidness provision. Report adopted by both chambers
- Senate Bill 218 did not pass; as a result, HB 24 became void.
Behemoth Big Energy Company Bureaucracy -- HB 114 (House Only) by Rep. Alan Olson (R-Roundup)
Alan Olson of Roundup introduced HB 114, which would have created a huge new government bureaucracy - the Montana Transmission and Pipline Authority. The bill would have subsidized a whole new government Board to build new transmission lines and pipelines across family farm and ranch land to transport power out-of-state. Rural voters became concerned this new government bureaucracy would use its sweeping powers to take private property through eminent domain.
Governor Schweitzer's administration opposed the bill, and the Senate Finance and Claims Committee tabled it for the session. The correct vote is no.
History:
- Passed the House 68 aye to 30 no (2 absent/excused)
- Tabled by the Senate Finance and Claims Committee
Jobs, Trade, and Democracy -- SJR 17 (Senate Only) by Sen. Jim Elliot (D-Trout Creek)
Jim Elliot received national attention we he sponsored - and passed - a resolution through the Montana Senate calling for a fairer system of international trade: one where the Congress doesn't simply vote up or down on new trade agreements - but debates them fully. SJR 17 also called for Congress to involve state legislatures like our own when a treaty would remove the rights of states like Montana to pass important legislation like country-of-origin labeling. Unfortunately, the resolution was tabled in the House. The correct vote is aye.
History:
- Passed the Senate 44 aye to 6 no
- Tabled by the House Business and Labor Committee
Investing in Value-Added Agriculture -- SJR 13 by Sen. Frank Smith (D-Poplar)
SJR 13 by Frank Smith of Poplar calls for an interim study to revise Montana laws to encourage the development of a local food processing industry in Montana. Rural voters supported the effort by Grow Montana, a coalition of family agriculture organizations, to get the legislature to, "explore ways that our state can invest in value-added production as a form of community-based economic development, where more of the end product's value stays in Montana and profits recirculate within Montana's communities."
This resolution enjoyed wide support in the session, and was adopted. The correct vote is aye.
History:
Local Food for Montana #1 -- HB 380 (House Only) by Rep. Kevin Furey (D-Missoula) and Local Food for Montana #2 -- SB 328 by Sen. Don Steinbeisser (R-Sidney)
Two legislators - a House Democrat and a Senate Republican - led the charge for expanding Montana consumers' access to made-in-Montana foods this legislative session. Kevin Furey and Don Steinbeisser introduced similar pieces of legislation in their respective chambers. Both HB 380 and SB 328 sought to remove restrictions from local and state governments from purchasing Montana-made foods. Under current law, all food contracts must be put out for bid and the lowest bid must be accepted.
HB 380 passed out of the House Agriculture committee but was killed on the House floor on a slim 49 to 51 vote. Fortunately, the Senate version of the bill handily passed the Senate and later passed the House as well. The bill is now law. In both instances, the correct vote is aye.
History:
HB 380:
SB 328
Except where noted, the votes recorded and used in the Montana League of Rural Voters scorecard are the second reading, debate-stage votes on the House and Senate floor. We feel these votes usually represent the legislator's position on the bill.
The votes on third reading, while truly definitive, sometimes reflect situations where legislators change their vote because they know it will not affect the outcome. However, where noted, we use the third reading vote if a complete vote was not taken on second reading (for example, legislators were absent), or where the third reading was a clearer representation of the legislators' true position on the bill due to changes made to the bill.
