Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Farm Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana candidates press stakes in 1995 farm bill as agriculture’s future looms
Summary
In a Billings debate, U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns and Democrat Jack Mudd framed the 1995 Farm Bill as central to Montana’s economy, disputing approaches to price supports, conservation programs and tax changes that affect intergenerational farm transfers.
U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns and Democrat Jack Mudd used a Billings debate to make the 1995 Farm Bill a central campaign issue, saying how Congress writes farm policy will determine whether Montana farmers can make a living and pass operations to the next generation.
“Montana's number 1 industry by far and away is agriculture,” U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns said. “It's gonna be pretty important because in 1995, we're gonna rewrite a new farm bill.”
Why it matters: Both candidates said farm policy affects a large share of Montana’s economy and rural communities. They discussed specific program priorities — loan rates, conservation set‑asides, tax treatment and measures to help succession of farms — that they said should be in the next farm bill.
Mudd emphasized market alignment and conservation. “The 1995 Farm Bill is gonna be 1 of the most important pieces of legislation for Montana because a third of the economy of this state depends upon what happens in that farm bridal, at least a third,” Jack Mudd said, arguing for realistic loan rates and retention of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) as a concept to keep land from being abused.
Mudd listed tax and credit changes he would support to help family farms, including capital gains relief, income averaging and measures to ease transfers between generations so farms are not “carved up … to pay taxes.” He said those changes are social as well as economic priorities for Montana.
Burns said farm policy should be written “by farmers and for farmers and ranchers” and stressed measures to aid market access and capital investment. He called for capital‑gains cuts and accelerated investment credits so farmers can buy equipment and remain competitive: “We need a capital gains cut … Income averaging … investment credit accelerated.”
Both candidates framed the farm bill debate within federal spending constraints. Mudd said Congress must protect high‑priority programs for agriculture even as the federal deficit forces cuts elsewhere; Burns cited market access and private sector solutions as complementary to farm supports.
Details and numbers cited: Mudd and Burns each tied farm policy to specific tools — loan price setting, CRP adjustments, inheritance and capital‑gains treatment, income averaging and investment credits — and argued these are necessary to maintain rural economies and family farms.
What wasn’t decided: The debate did not produce any commitments by Congress or concrete legislative text; both candidates described priorities and principles rather than offering an enacted bill or binding pledge.
Looking ahead: Both said they would press their priorities in the next Congress if elected, with Mudd underscoring protections for smaller producers and Burns emphasizing market mechanisms and investment incentives.
