Maine looks to offer farmers zero-interest loans amid federal funding cuts
Farmers and supporters from across the state paraded in Augusta on April 16, 2025 to draw attention to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's cuts to programs and grants that provide critical support to Maine's farming community. (Photo by Eesha Pendharkar/ Maine Morning Star)
Maine Sen. Stacy Brenner introduced a bill during a public hearing Thursday that would allow the state to better financially support farmers during unexpected events and emergencies.
'This is not a hypothetical concern,' Brenner (D-Cumberland) told the Legislature's Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. 'Farmers across Maine are facing unprecedented challenges from increasing erratic and extreme weather to the uncertainty of federal support.'
Brenner's bill, LD 1605, comes after more than 100 farmers and supporters — including U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree — paraded through Augusta last week to protest federal cuts to agricultural grants and programs. In recent weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has cut several programs that have provided millions of dollars and critical support to Maine farms.
Just last week, the federal agency ended the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, which has provided over $477 million to help Maine farms subsidize projects focused on integrating climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices.
A cost-sharing program that helps integrate conservation practices into working lands is also under threat as the Trump administration has tried to freeze one of its funding sources: the Inflation Reduction Act.
Beyond these sizable cuts, Maine farmers have expressed concern over President Donald Trump's back and forth on tariffs that they say could eat away at their already thin profit margins.
With tractor parade, Maine farmers protest USDA cuts that could leave many in debt
LD 1605 would allow the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to use one of its existing funds to grant zero-interest loans to farmers in the event of a disaster or loss of funds due to federal cuts. The proposal is co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats in both chambers.
'This is smart, targeted investment in rural resilience, food security and the future of Maine's agriculture,' said Brenner, who also serves as president and CEO of Maine Farmland Trust and owns Broadturn Farm in Scarborough.
The department is in favor of the bill because it currently lacks a mechanism to distribute rapid emergency funds, said Director Megan Patterson. She told the committee that this legislation could offer that 'crucial bridge funding' for farmers during unpredictable times.
An original version of this bill sought to include food banks, which have also been hit by federal cuts to a program that would have provided $1.25 million to Maine over the next three years for food banks to source fresh produce from local growers. Brenner said she decided to move forward with a proposal that utilized existing funding levers and had to make the hard choice to leave food banks out.
Good Shepherd Food Bank said it supports the bill even with the changes because of its strong partnership with Maine's farming community.
Maine Farmland Trust and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association also both spoke in support of the bill.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Bipartisan deals on voting and election changes are rare. It just happened in one swing state
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Facing a legislature dominated by Democrats, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo stood before Nevada lawmakers earlier this year with a message that some did not expect to go far: 'Set aside partisan politics.' It was a plea that might have seemed more aspirational than realistic, given the country's deep polarization. Yet it set the stage for one of the session's most unexpected outcomes — a bipartisan agreement to bring voter ID requirements to the perennial battleground state by next year's midterm elections. In a deal that came together in the waning days of the session, the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that combined a requirement for voter ID — a conservative priorityacross the country and something that has been on Lombardo's legislative wish list — with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mailed ballots in the state's most populous counties. Lombardo is expected to sign the bill. The compromise represents a form of bipartisan dealmaking that has been especially scarce in recent years as the country's political divisions have deepened, especially around any potential reform to voting and election laws. President Donald Trump's lies about his loss in the 2020 presidential election fueled a wave of restrictive voting laws in Republican-led states that Democrats countered with changes to make voting more accessible, while an executive order Trump signed earlier this year seeking to overhaul how elections are run was met with a wave of Democratic lawsuits. Election legislation has mostly hit a dead end in states where the parties share power, making Nevada's bill all the more remarkable. A requirement for voters to show photo identification at the polls has long been a nonstarter for Nevada Democrats, who have argued that it threatened to disenfranchise low-income voters and make it more difficult for people to vote, especially older voters, those with disabilities and those without driver's licenses. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo after the governor vetoed his original bill to expand drop box access, acknowledged it was a tough concession. But he said it was the best they could do with the time they had left. 'Now I understand and appreciate that this will be a particularly challenging bill for some to support, but I also believe we have a duty to move forward,' he said over the weekend when releasing details of the deal publicly for the first time. It's a stark contrast to the 2023 legislative session, the last time lawmakers met. Lombardo outlined voter ID as one of his main priorities, but Democrats in the statehouse refused to give the proposal a hearing. The governor vowed he would take the issue directly to voters. Last November, Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved the voter ID ballot initiative that Lombardo supported. Voters will have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution, and the requirement would then be in place for the 2028 presidential election. Yeager told his colleagues over the weekend that voters seemed poised to give their final approval to the measure. He argued that passing a voter ID law now would give the state a two-year head start on implementing the requirements, to get ready before the next presidential contest. Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, said he respects the will of the voters and will work with the governor and local election officials 'to continue strengthening our elections.' That includes, under the proposal, a new — and free — digital form of voter ID that his office will be in charge of rolling out. Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans supported requiring all voters to provide photo ID at their voting place to cast a ballot, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. 'This may not be my favorite policy to have to implement, but I think as a Legislature we have a responsibility to do this,' Yeager told his colleagues. State Sen. Carrie Ann Buck, a Republican, praised the effort, saying, 'I think this is very thoughtful and very courageous of you to bring this in a bipartisan way ... I think our common goals are that every legitimate voter gets to vote.' But not all Democrats were on board, with five voting against it when it passed the Senate. 'I recognize what you're attempting to do, to stave off something worse,' said Democratic Sen. Dina Neal. But she said she was 'wrestling with the philosophical issue with voter ID.' 'I'm not in the space where I am openly willing to disenfranchise a population who may not even understand this law as written.' If Lombardo signs the bill, Nevada will join 36 other states that either require or request voters show ID when voting in person, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Under Nevada's bill, voters will be required to show a form of photo ID when voting in person, which will include government-issued IDs and Nevada-issued university student IDs. 'Nevada has some of the most secure and accessible elections in the country,' Yeager said, 'and this bill is a set of compromises between the Legislature and the governor that I believe can ensure that tradition continues.' ___ Associated Press writers Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta and Linley Sanders in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if they change their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure, one of several alterations. The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. A group of moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California has said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief. Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate. 'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X. 'Best to leave it alone.' He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place. 'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said. 'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.' 'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the Caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate. 'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm gonna go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point so I don't think we can toss that off.' Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.' The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate. While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California. The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting on Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson. 'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling. But they believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson. 'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.' This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing. 'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.' While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite. 'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.' 'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.' House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing. 'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.' Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus' comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.' Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence. 'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not gonna comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.' 'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added. Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added. When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'
Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Judge largely denies request to block restrictions on getting measures on Florida's ballot
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has largely denied requests by grassroots campaigners to block portions of a new Florida law that restricts the state's citizen-driven process for getting constitutional amendments on the ballot. Organizers of separate campaigns to expand Medicaid and legalize recreational marijuana had urged U.S. District Mark Walker to block implementation of parts of the law, arguing that the new requirements violate their First Amendment rights. But in an order issued Wednesday, Walker granted a narrow injunction, barring state officials from enforcing one section of the law criminalizing ballot petition fraud against one campaign staffer. The order means that at least for now, the campaigns will largely have to operate under the new restrictions as they try to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot. Legislatures in dozens of states have advanced bills recently to crack down on the public's ability to put measures up for a vote, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Voting rights advocates say the trend betrays the promise of direct democracy. Under Florida's new law, an individual could be charged with a felony if they collect more than 25 signed ballot petitions, other than their own or those of immediate family members, and don't register with the state as a petition circulator. The law signed last month by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also gives campaigns just 10 days instead of the previous 30 to return signed petition forms to local elections officials. Petitioners could also face stiff fines if they don't return the petitions on time, or send them to the wrong county. Lawmakers argue that the new restrictions are needed to reform a process they claim has been tainted by fraud. The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the changes months after a majority of Florida voters supported ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational marijuana, though the measures fell short of the 60% needed to pass. Attorneys for the campaigns Florida Decides Healthcare and Smart & Safe Florida have argued the new law makes gathering enough petitions from voters prohibitively expensive and effectively impossible. In his order, Walker wrote that the new provisions have caused 'an immediate reduction in protected speech' by constraining the campaigns' ability to collect petitions — and volunteers' willingness to help. But Walker said the campaigners didn't prove that their free speech rights had been 'severely burdened.' 'Instead, the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs,' Walker wrote. But there are still free speech concerns to address as the lawsuit moves forward, Walker noted: 'this Court is not suggesting that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their First Amendment challenges to the new deadline and associated fines.' In a statement, Mitch Emerson, the executive director for Florida Decides Healthcare, said he remains optimistic for the legal challenge ahead. 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said. A spokesperson for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
