Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes Farm Security Special Fund after rejecting floor amendment to limit awards
Summary
The Vermont Senate passed S.60, establishing a Farm Security Special Fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions, after rejecting a floor amendment that would have limited awards and prioritized first-time recipients.
The Vermont Senate passed S.60, an act to establish a Farm Security Special Fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions. Before final passage a floor amendment offered additional eligibility and prioritization rules; senators debated the amendment and ultimately rejected it, and the bill then passed on third reading.
The floor amendment, presented by a senator identified in the transcript as the Senator from Chittenden, would have added three requirements: a limit of no more than three awards to an individual applicant within a 10-year period; prioritization of awards to applicants who had not previously received the funding; and a requirement that applicants demonstrate that assistance from other sources (insurance, USDA, FEMA) was unavailable before state funds could be used. The amendment sponsor said the provisions were intended to target limited state resources and avoid duplicating federal support.
Senator Proven Windsor told the chamber that the Senate Committee on Agriculture had considered the amendment but recommended advancing the bill without it for two reasons: the committee said an existing board will consider those factors in administering awards, and the committee reported it had no data showing likely abuse that would require the proposed limits.
Another senator cautioned that some types of agricultural losses, such as late frost damage to orchards, are not location-dependent and might not be addressed by the amendment’s location-focused concerns.
After the floor amendment failed on a voice vote (the presiding officer reported “the nays do have it”), the Senate took third reading of S.60 and the presiding officer stated “The ayes have it,” indicating passage.
No appropriation amounts or specific program funding levels were stated on the floor. The Senate discussion referenced FEMA and USDA as potential alternate sources of assistance but did not specify coordination procedures, funding caps or award amounts; transcript remarks indicated the bill aims to “fill in the gaps” where other assistance is unavailable.
