EMILY’s List mission is simple: to elect pro-choice Democratic women to office. And they do a great job at promoting these values. But EMILY’s List also says that they help elect women to create progressive change. I’d still give the group $20 bucks any day of the week, but feeling slighted over their endorsed 2012 candidates’ stance on food.
By all account the group’s president is a tenacious campaigner and inspiration to thousands of people across America who are hungry for change.
EMILY’s List helped elect nine women to the U.S. Senate. And by most accounts they helped retain a Democratic majority.
On their website EMILY’s List says,”2012 marks a historic opportunity to change how Washington works by electing Democratic women who sand up to the right, get things done, and build a more progressive America.” That’s great.
But when it came to the Farm Bill and labeling foods that contain engineered products, EMILY’s List pro woman slate of candidate voted mostly NO to labeling. Six out of 9 pro EMILY’s List endorsed Senators opposed labeling GMO foods as proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders -Vermont. That’s by no means EMILY’s List fault, the roll call vote belongs to the Senators.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin –Wisconsin -NO to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Maria Cantwell – Washington -YES to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Dianne Feinstein – California -YES to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand –New York -NO to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Mazie Hirono –Hawaii -YES to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Amy Klobuchar –Minnesota -NO to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Claire McCaskill –Missouri -NO to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Debbie Stabenow – Michigan -NO to Labeling GMOs
Sen. Elizabeth Warren –Massachusetts -NO to Labeling GMOs
The Senate will resume the Farm Bill debate in June after a weeklong recess for Memorial Day.
200 million pounds of the herbicide glyphosate is annually applied to agricultural fields, mostly onto food crops that are engineered to tolerate the weed killer.
Progressive eaters should remain hopeful that when Sen. Barbara Boxer submits her amendment to require labeling of GMO food products that more purportedly progressive Senators join her. It’s clearly time to change the boondoggle of a Farm Bill into a food oriented bill that works for eaters and consumers looking for some choice. Labeling GMO foods simply offers consumers information and choice.
If you see an error here, email me and I’ll fix it.
###
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
It’s early Friday morning and shortly I am heading out into the fields to harvest.
Given that tomorrow May 25th from noon to 5PM at Kalispell’s Depot Park there will be an educational afternoon about the need for labeling genetically modified food products, here’s a quick post about June’s upcoming amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill.
Congress begun their weeklong recess to celebrate Memorial Day and will not return to Farm Bill business until June. It gives Senators a bit to reflect.
Since some of my personal favorite Senators like Max Baucus, Al Franken, and Elizabeth Warren all voted against the Senator Bernie Sanders’ amendment to allow states to require GMO labeling, I am hopeful that the week of solitude and reflection produces results. From the past, Baucus and I share the common bond of being seated in seat number 86 in the Montana Legislature.
Eaters and consumers are getting short changed in the Farm Bill -big time. But with over two hundred amendment not yet debated, plenty of good can still occur. Time will tell what kind of deal Senate leadership cuts to squash debate. Hopefully these amendments make the cut and Senators like Baucus, Franken and Warren step up to support eaters.
Senator Tester –Montana has introduced an amendment to reinvigorate public seed and animal breeding. Classical breeding is a time proven approach to food production and can help small farmers deal with a changing climate with basic seed research.
Senator Boxer –California introduced an amendment in support of mandatory GMO labeling of food products engineered to tolerate herbicides.
Senator Begich –Alaska introduces and amendment to ban the sale of genetically engineered salmon, which use combine genes from the Atlantic and Chinook salmons with a seal eel. The GMO animal is currently waiting approval in the U.S.
Senator Merkley –Oregon introduced an amendment to repeal the GMO protection clause secretly inserted into a bill to keep government open, which allows the industry to sell seeds even if a court block their sale.
Senator Boxer –California also introduced an amendment to protect honeybees and natural pollinator, which have declined in population by 45 percent in just last year.
The Farm Bill is a five-year deal, and the last opportunity in the 113th Congress to enact meaningful policy that matters to eaters.
Thanks for reading, I’m off to harvest. If you find an error, send me an email and I’ll fix it.
###
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
With this mornings 3 inches of wet snow pummeling our crops and trees, I was again wondered why small farmers are today still excluded from being able to acquire crop insurance. Maybe the Farm Bill will fix this but who knows at this point in the process. But a changing climate makes farming difficult, and today we suffered losses.
Nationally, crop insurance has been taking a political beating for being a boondoggle for corporate agriculture that mostly grows genetically engineered crops. In essence taxpayers are subsiding the corporate growth of GMO crops, and hence helping dispense 200 million pounds of the herbicide glyphosate annually into fields.
S.Amdt 953 by Sen. Richard Durbin -D Illinois to S954 -Farm Bill passed. Roll Call shows a 59 to 33 vote with 8 senators not voting.
“To limit the amount of premium subsidy provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on behalf of any person or legal entity with an average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000, with a delayed application of the limitation until completion of a study on the effects of the limitation.”
The federal government spent over $11 billion subsidizing crop insurance premiums for farmers in the 2012 growing season. That’s a record. The total cost was over $17 billion but includes administrative cost and underwriting losses and gains. Regardless, it was clearly a bad weather year. But farmers still paid only 37 percent of the total premium cost. The feds shouldered the balance or over 62 cents of every dollar of premium cost.
The 2012 crop insurance loss payout was a record $17 billion to farmers, mostly to GMO corn growers. The changing climate was bad last year for farmers.
Since 2001 the federal government has spent an average over $5 billion per year for subsidize crop insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the next 10 years will be nearly $9 billion per year. Crop insurance is sold by 15 large companies nationwide. They may well be the biggest benefactors of the 2013 Farm Bill.
Durbin said that his amendment would affect about 20,000 farmers and save $1 billion over 10 years. He indicated that 4 percent of all farmers in American account for more a third of the crop insurance subsidy.
Durbin was successful in beginning to reform crop insurance. It’s a baby step. But these 14 Democrats abandoned their Majority Whip in his crop insurance reform amendment.
| Baucus | MT |
| Cowan | MA |
| Donnelly | IN |
| Gillibrand | NY |
| Hagan | NC |
| Harkin | IA |
| Heitkamp | ND |
| Hirono | HI |
| Kaine | VA |
| Landrieu | LA |
| Leahy | VT |
| Pryor | AR |
| Stabenow | MI |
| Warner | VA |
Maybe when Congress returns in June from their weeklong recess, they’ll make the Farm Bill work for consumers. But so far, the trillion dollar per decade appropriations bill largely ignores eaters and labeling. And that’s a sad commentary for a Farm Bill.
-If you see an error, email me and I’ll fix it.
###
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
28 Senate Democrats join all but one Republican to kill GMO Labeling
200 million pounds of glyphosate are annually sprayed in agriculture mostly onto genetically modified crops, which are engineered to tolerate the herbicide. Consumers deserve to know which foods are engineered and tolerate herbicides.
28 Democratic Senators today killed an amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill, which would have permitted states the right to require that GMO foods simple be labeled. The 28 Democrats were joined by all but one Republican voting NO on the Farm Bill floor amendment.
The Senate amendment number was 965 sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders –I Vermont. Roll call vote 135 can be viewed at the Library of Congress regarding S954 –Farm Bill.
The 28 Senate Democrats opposed to GMO-Labeling in the 2013 Farm Bill
| Baldwin | WI |
| Baucus | MT |
| Brown | OH |
| Carper | DE |
| Casey | PA |
| Coons | DE |
| Cowan | MA |
| Donnelly | IN |
| Durbin | IL |
| Franken | MN |
| Gillibrand | NY |
| Hagen | NC |
| Harkin | IA |
| Heitkamp | ND |
| Johnson | SD |
| Kaine | VA |
| Klobuchar | MN |
| Landrieu | LA |
| Levin | MI |
| McCaskill | MO |
| Menendez | NJ |
| Nelson | FL |
| Pryor | AR |
| Shaheen | NH |
| Stabenow | MI |
| Udall | CO |
| Warner | VA |
| Warren | MA |
If you see an error, please email me to get it updated.
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
March to Label Engineered Food
Young moms like Sylvia Malaga of Whitefish are organizing an educational day of action called the “March against Monsanto.” These events are planned in 200 places worldwide. One hundred and sixty are in the U.S with four rallies in Montana. The Kalispell event is Saturday, May 25 from noon to 5 p.m. at Depot Park. It is open to the public.
Malaga is part of a growing generation that unknowingly could be eating genetically modified organisms their entire lives. Her child is born into a generation that does not know life before GMOs.
Malaga took action, and wants information about engineered foods. “Our march focuses on labeling genetically engineered foods so that each family can make their own decisions on whether they want to eat them or not,” Malaga wrote.
Malaga hopes that once GMO products are labeled, the marketplace will let informed consumers decide what to eat.
GMOs have saturated the corporate food market. They’re likely in soda pop, corn chips and most processed food.
Congress is unwilling to make the profitable corporate agricultural industry add one more piece of information to the extensive list of food labeling. Consumers simply want to know which foods are engineered and which are traditional foods.
Only certified organic foods or trusting where your local farmer purchases their seed assures a family it is not eating engineered products.
Hundreds of millions of pounds of a synthetic glyphosate are annually sprayed in the field, as GMO products are resistant to the herbicide while it somewhat kills competing weeds. This creates a sickening prospect for a generation of unknowing GMO eaters.
Last year as part of the Farm Bill, Sen. Jon Tester was one of only 26 Senators voting to allow states the right to label GMO foods. The Farm Bill largely subsidizes GMO crops like corn, sugar beets, canola and soybeans. This commodity foursome is plentiful in processed foods.
Tester is now backing a bipartisan bill requiring that genetically engineered food is labeled. Tester said, “American families shouldn’t have to play a guessing game when it comes to the food they put on their kitchen tables.”
Tester cosponsored another bill to eliminate hunger, help young farmers grow and work toward labeling.
Engineered foods are also drifting into other food arenas like salmon, apples and into garden-variety seeds available on store aisles.
Tester has a long history of advocating for farming. He exempted small family farmers from federal regulations targeted toward corporate agriculture practices.
Last month Tester was on the Senate floor mad about a secret GMO rider on a bill keeping government open. The law signed by President Barack Obama, covertly gives industry protection from lawsuits challenging the health or safety of GMOs. Tester was the only Democrat in the Senate voting against this law.
Back in 2005 while serving in the Montana Legislature, Tester sponsored a bill to establish liability for genetically engineered wheat grown in the state. Montana still has the purest, best wheat grown anywhere.
The 2013 Farm Bill is on the move in Congress. Eaters can only hope that that more courageous congressmen join Tester requiring a label on GMOs.
As a candidate, Obama advocated for labeling. But as president, Obama has been coldly silent about labeling engineered products. Instead, the federal agencies charged with food oversight have been overrun by the GMO industry.
Having been ignored too long, it’s increasingly likely that progressive eaters will stay home during the 2014 midterm elections.
Mothers like Malaga and farmers like Tester are doing their respective duty to secure a transparent food system for all eaters.
Flathead eaters should join Malaga and the hundreds of other invitees from across the valley at the May 25 educational rally. Consumers must become actively engaged in this growing food movement.
###
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
2013 Draft House Farm Bill Pollutes America’s Waterways
A few members of the House of Representatives are again using their draft Farm Bill as political cover to gut existing laws that protect our lakes, rivers and streams from being tainted with pesticides.
The Farm Bill is the primary food and agricultural policy tool of the federal government. It has evolved into a broadly sweeping bill that provides for rural economic development, drought relief, family nutrition and other issues vital to the well-being of all Americans. It is updated every five years or so.
The Farm Bill is also a place where lawmakers can tuck in provisions they prefer not to share with their constituents. The House of Representatives’ draft Farm Bill due for mark up this week has included two provisions that would exempt pesticides from certain provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Strong emerging science indicates that pesticides cause big problems when they pollute our surface water. These toxins can kill the necessary organisms that are the foundation of the aquatic food chain, and cause deformities, hormonal abnormalities and other problems in young fish.
Since we all depend on clean water, these aquatic species are the proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” that indicates the relative health of our own environment.
Scientists have also found that when pesticides mix in water, they can become “chemical cocktails” that are far more toxic than the original pesticides themselves. That’s what make the following provisions so dangerous.
Sections 10012 and 10013 of the House version of the Farm Bill would remove all Clean Water Act protections against pesticides that are sprayed directly into waterways. This would result in the direct application of pesticides into streams and rivers without any oversight, as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – the law under which pesticides are registered – does not require tracking of such pesticide applications.
The House Farm Bill puts the interests of pesticide manufacturers ahead of the health of our wildlife and communities by creating loopholes in the Endangered Species Act while allowing discharge of pesticides in navigable waterways.
This spells trouble for species already on the brink of extinction because of pesticides and other threats. For example, salmon are one species that is particularly sensitive to pesticides in their spawning and rearing streams.
The purpose of regulations governing the application of pesticides is not to stop the use of pesticides. Rather, these safeguards are intended to ensure these potent chemicals are used responsibly and do not do long-term harm to our pure, clean water.
Even a farmer like me clearly knows: water and soil are the legacy we leave our children. The quality of which is dependent on the decisions we make today.
###
The draft U.S. House version of the Farm Bill: http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/farm%20bill/FARRMBillChairsMark2013.pdf
————————–
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
GMO Farm Bill
There are a lot of statewide and national news reports circulating around the 2013 Farm Bill in the U.S. Congress. It stalled in the House in 2012 and contributed to a handful of election losses for politicians seeking election.
I share my Farm Bill perspective having worked in the field as a small farmer for two decades, brokered produce to some of the largest retailers in the nation, and served in state and local politics for a decade. I’ve chaired both statewide agricultural and farm tax committees.
Both the Senate and House drafts are prepared to mark up the bills; mimicking bills passing committees last cycle. There are some minor tweaks.
Consumers must take notice as the draft Farm Bill essentially ignores small farmers and labeling, and makes hungry kids bear the brunt of budgetary cuts.
The House version drastically cuts funding for hungry families in nutrition programs, is a huge giveaway to corporations, and allows polluters to get away with pesticides and herbicides usage by our waterways.
If food or small farmer policy is not put into the current Farm Bill, food and small farmer policies will not pass the 113th Congress. These food bills will either likely founder in Senate or House agricultural committee or simply be filibustered from reaching the Senate floor. That’s the sad but political reality.
There’s a lot of social movement from eaters and consumers about the good national policies in S679 and HR1414 -Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, S809 -Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act.
These policies include senior farmers’ market nutrition programs, encouraging more local and regionally produced foods, young and beginning farm programs, and requiring that genetically engineered foods be labeled for the consumer.
The political reality is that if these policies are not in the Farm Bill, they simply will not pass Congress.
Small farmers are not eligible for crop insurance –just ask one. Every small farmer that I know who grows food in the Flathead Valley has been recently devastated by a new climate of hail. The climate has clearly changed, and small producers must be allowed crop insurance protection just like GMO growers.
Nationwide crop insurance is a priority for farmers. But it simply is not available and does not work for small producers. But the subsidizing boondoggle of the draft proposals calls for the taxpayers to cover three quarters of the gross underwriting loss at a cost exceeding tens of billion of dollars.
Consumers subsidize engineered crops with no labeling rights on GMO foods.
Consumers currently are not allowed to know which processed foods contain mostly engineered GMO products like corn, soybeans, sugar beets or canola and which are traditional foods. That’s a big deal as hundreds of millions of pounds of synthetic herbicides are routinely applied to field crops engineered to tolerate the herbicides.
The Farm Bill is the only viable vehicle open for food lovers and eaters to advocate small farm policies for a hungry nation. All the other bills stuck in committee serve as a social distraction. But the Farm Bill is moving forward, and Congress will pass it.
If a secret rider on another bill to keep government open was good enough to offer protection from lawsuits to GMO seed corporations, then the Farm Bill is a good enough vehicle to label engineered food.
I asked Sen. Bernie Sanders –I Vermont a question today. He told me flat out that he would offer a floor amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill giving states the right to label engineered foods. I am hopeful that Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester support labeling as part of the Farm Bill.
Every farmer I know realizes that the water and soil are worth protecting to insure good food and clean dirt for the next generation. If eaters are lucky, Tester being the upper chambers only working farmer will be allowed to negotiate on an open conference committee ironing final Farm Bill differences. But that’s a long ways away.
Small farmers produce a huge percentage of the worldwide food. But mark these words: if national food policy is not in the 2013 Farm Bill, it is simply not happening in the 113th Congress. And this federal food debate will likely be over for another 5 years.
###
-Screen Shot from the Library of Congress of the Roll Call vote of the 2012 Senate Farm Bill amendment to permit states to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Tin Men Have No Heart
The 63rd Montana Legislature is over. The assembly of elected servants passed a state budget, gave public servants a small raise, funded public education, shored up public pensions, invested in public infrastructure, and conducted themselves more-or-less with the respect that service warrants.
In the closing days, politicians passed a lopsided $150 million income tax cut that oddly raised taxes on the working poor but cut taxes for the rich. A business equipment tax cut may become law, but lawmakers provided no help for Flathead homeowners stung from home property tax reappraisals.
Overall, the Legislature was prepared to earn an above average grade for policy efforts but the health care debacle dragged report card grades to below average.
With U.S. Sen. Max Baucus due for re-election in 2014, Montana Republicans hungered to again bash “ObamaCare” in next fall’s elections. But Baucus did the unforeseeable; he retired with grace after four giant decades of public service to Montana.
The bashing of ObamaCare did not defeat U.S. Sen. Jon Tester last November. And it would’ve had little effect against Baucus, who was a tenacious campaigner.
Rep. Pat Noonan introduced the first Medicaid expansion bill into the Legislature before St. Valentine’s Day. It would have accepted $774 million of federal funding to expand Medicaid over the next two years, created 5,000 jobs immediately, and provided life-saving health care to 70,000 uninsured Montanans.
Gov. Steve Bullock proposed Access Heath Montana in the House. It accepted the same $774 million of federal funding, created the same thousands of jobs, and enrolled 70,000 uninsured Montanans into the federal single payer Medicaid program.
Bullock tailored his proposal to increase doctors and caretakers in Montana. Bullock included a sunset provision of a three-year trial. Subsequent Legislatures would have to reauthorize the policy. It contained little cost to the state.
With the notable exception of freshman Rep. Ed Lieser, D-Whitefish, the Flathead House lawmakers opposed access to health care. A University of Montana study indicates that more than 12,000 people in Flathead County could gain access to federal funding, becoming eligible to enroll into the single-payer insurance program designed for the poor.
The Senate had two major health care bills. Sen. Christine Kauffman’s, D-Helena, bill to accept 100 percent federal funding was tabled.
Sen. Dave Wanzenried, D-Missoula, passed a federal funding bill to the House, with Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell, supporting Medicaid expansion.
Wanzenried’s bill was sent to a committee where Rep. Scott Reichner, R-Bigfork, and fellow Republicans promptly tabled the lifesaving bill.
With Tutvedt’s help, Wanzenried amended another House bill to use the $774 million of federal funding to help provide private insurance from the open market for as many as 12,000 citizens in Flathead County alone.
But Speaker Mark Blasdel, R-Somers, undertook a tricky procedural move and banished federal funding to founder in committee rather than debate the bill on the House floor. Democrats objected to the unorthodox procedure, but all the Flathead Republicans supported the speaker’s rebuff of $774 million in federal funding that contained no cost to Montana.
Blasdel and Flathead House Republicans pocket vetoed the most critical bill of the 63rd Legislature.
The tin men of the Legislature assured that 70,000 Montanans are not eligible this fall to sign up for sizeable federal subsidies on the online health exchange, and have no access to $774 million of federal funding for Medicaid or private insurance. Poor Montanans are subject to federal mandate fines come January, and existing policy holders will subsidize uncompensated health care in hospital emergency rooms.
In politics, heart matters. The Flathead House Republicans chose to not secure health care for 12,000 valley citizens. For that debacle, the 63rd Legislature earned a below average grade for substandard policy performance.
###
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
LEGISLATIVE POCKET VETO: an indirect veto of a legislative bill by the Montana House or Senate Leadership team through retention of the bill until after adjournment of the legislature.
Legislative Pocket Vetoes are bills that passed out of committee but were never placed on full Floor for consideration, or bills heard in committee but never acted upon, or Constitutionally authorized amendments to bills from the Executive that were never placed onto either/both Chamber’s Floor for consideration, or bills redirected to committee for required hearing but rather foundered until Sine Die adjournment.
-Better Legislative Pocket Veto explanation or definition welcomed.
The Montana Legislature adjourned sine die, from the 63rd Session on April 24th 2013. April 27th was Day 90 final day. All bill information from Legislative website available at www.leg.mt.gov
This is a running list of pocket vetoes of the 63rd Montana Legislature. If you find more please -or see a needed correction or object to a bill being on the list, let me know and I’ll add them to the running list or make needed changes.
HB126 –Rep. Pat Ingraham -Republican
Passed out of Senate State Administration on April 3rd, never put on Senate Floor for consideration.
HB251 -Rep. Pat Ingraham -Republican
Remains on 2nd Reading Senate Floor after Indefinitely Postponed motion reconsidered on April 19th, but never put back up for consideration.
HJ22 –Rep. Douglass Coffin -Democrat
Passed out of Senate Education on April 19th, never put on Senate Floor for consideration.
HB623 –Rep. Liz Bangerter -Republican
Returned to House on April 18th with Senate Amendments, redirected to House Human Services on April 19th by Speaker for Hearing per H40-220. Hearing never scheduled, bill never resurfaced to consider Senate Amendments on the House Floor.
HB57 –Rep. Pat Noonan -Democrat
Heard in Senate Business and Labor on February 1st, no further action on bill.
HB450 -Rep. Roger Hagan -Republican
Passed both Chambers by April 8th. Free Conference Committee appointed April 13th by House, April 16th by Senate. Conference Hearing April 19th. Bill left to founder in Conference Committee until Sine Die adjournment, never reported back to Floors.
SJ27 –Sen. Bruce Tutvedt -Republican
Passed out of Senate Taxation on April 10th, never put on Senate Floor for consideration.
SJ30 -Sen. Bruce Tutvedt -Republican
Passed out of Senate Taxation on April 12th, never put on Senate Floor for consideration.
HB217 –Rep. David Howard -Republican
Returned with Governor’s Proposed Amendments on April 19th, never put on Senate or House floor for consideration.
SB19 –Sen. Bradley Hamlett -Democrat
Returned with Governors Amendments on April 15th. Amendments adopted in Senate on April 19th. Amendments never put on the House floor for consideration.
SB125 -Sen. Alan Olson -Republican
Returned with Governor’s Proposed Amendments on April 12th. Amendments never put on the House or Senate floor for consideration.
SB347 -Sen. Chas Vincent -Republican
Returned with Governor’s Proposed Amendments on April 23rd. Amendments never put onto the Senate or House floor for consideration.
——————————-
Read Subsection 2 for information about Governor’s Amendments.
Constitution of Montana — Article VI — THE EXECUTIVE
Section 10. Veto power. (1) Each bill passed by the legislature, except bills proposing amendments to the Montana constitution, bills ratifying proposed amendments to the United States constitution, resolutions, and initiative and referendum measures, shall be submitted to the governor for his signature. If he does not sign or veto the bill within 10 days after its delivery to him, it shall become law. The governor shall return a vetoed bill to the legislature with a statement of his reasons therefor.
(2) The governor may return any bill to the legislature with his recommendation for amendment. If the legislature passes the bill in accordance with the governor’s recommendation, it shall again return the bill to the governor for his reconsideration. The governor shall not return a bill for amendment a second time.
(3) If after receipt of a veto message, two-thirds of the members of each house present approve the bill, it shall become law.
(4) (a) If the legislature is not in session when the governor vetoes a bill approved by two-thirds of the members present, he shall return the bill with his reasons therefor to the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall poll the members of the legislature by mail and shall send each member a copy of the governor’s veto message. If two-thirds or more of the members of each house vote to override the veto, the bill shall become law.
(b) The legislature may reconvene as provided by law to reconsider any bill vetoed by the governor when the legislature is not in session.
(5) The governor may veto items in appropriation bills, and in such instances the procedure shall be the same as upon veto of an entire bill.
—————————
Montana Code Annotated on Governor’s Amendments
5-4-304. Amendatory veto. The governor may return any bill to the originating house with the governor’s recommendations for amendment. The originating house shall reconsider the bill under its rules relating to an amendment offered in committee of the whole. The bill is then subject to the following procedures:
(1) The originating house shall transmit to the second house, for consideration under its rules relating to amendments in committee of the whole, the bill and the originating house’s approval or disapproval of the governor’s recommendations.
(2) If both houses approve the governor’s recommendations, the bill must be returned to the governor for reconsideration.
(3) If both houses disapprove the governor’s recommendations, the bill must be returned to the governor for reconsideration.
(4) If one house disapproves the governor’s recommendations and the other house approves, then either house may request a conference committee, which may be a free conference committee:
(a) If both houses adopt a conference committee report, the bill, in accordance with the report, must be returned to the governor for reconsideration.
(b) If a conference committee fails to reach agreement or if its report is not adopted by both houses, the governor’s recommendations are considered not approved and the bill must be returned to the governor for further consideration.
(5) The governor may not return the bill for amendment a second time.
——————————
Know of More Pocket Vetoes?
Onward,
Mike
###
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Time to do our part to save lives
Gratefully the 63rd Montana Legislature has less than a week of service left in the regular session. I know how tough of a job these 90 days can be, and what sacrifice our public servants make for the betterment of Flathead locals. The session can produce a decent amount of good, but unfortunatly is on tract to generate some very ugly consequences for Flathead citizens.
It is time to do our part to save lives.
12,000 Flathead County citizens will suddenly not qualify for the federal online health insurance Exchanges, nor can they access Montana’s allocation of $774 million in federal funds over the next two years to help purchase private insurance, unless Speaker Mark Blasdel –R Somers allows a Floor vote on House Bill 623.
Flathead Valley’s own Speaker Blasdel invoked a tricky procedural rule to remove HB623 from the House floor and placed it into an unfriendly committee where statewide newspapers are reporting that it is likely to founder until next week’s Legislative adjournment.
12,000 Flathead citizens will be subject to the federal insurance mandate fine next year, but the powerful Flathead delegation of House Republicans will not allow a Floor vote to access federal funds to help pay for life saving health insurance for Flathead citizens. All the while Representatives enjoy $18,000 of state taxpayer funded health insurance per two year term.
HB623 has no fiscal impact to the State of Montana. Fiscal analyst report, “HB 623, as amended, has no fiscal impact to the Legislative Branch, to the Department of Justice, nor to the Department of Public Health and Human Services.”
Sen. Bruce Tutvedt –R Kalispell and Rep. Ed Lieser –D Whitefish are both supporters of HB623 and deserve our thanks.
These Flathead House Republicans will not allow a Floor vote on HB623:
Speaker Mark Blasdel –Somers (406) 261-3269 mblasdel@bresnan.net
Rep. Randy Brohehl -Kalispell
Rep. Carl Glimm -Kalispell
Rep. Steve Lavin -Kalispell
Rep. Scott Reichner -Bigfork
Rep. Jerry O’Neil –Columbia Falls
Rep. Keith Regier -Kalispell
All HB623 details or contact information for public servants is online at www.leg.mt.gov
Flathead specific health info:
http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/seminars/2013/BestMedicine.pdf
http://50.57.217.116/janda/files/home/Medicaid/Flathead%20County_Medicaid%20Expansion.pdf
Onward,
Mike
###
-Mike Jopek is a retired State Legislator who again helps run the family farm in Whitefish. He welcomes feedback at mike@mikejopek.com.
Copyright 2013 www.mikejopek.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
