
Two bills focused on supporting North Dakota's rural regions see forward motion in Bismarck
Apr. 14—BISMARCK — Two bills focused on serving North Dakota's rural regions are in the midst of being seen by committees. One, targeted focused on assisting North Dakota's eight regional councils, has been discussed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, while another hoping to create a rural catalyst committee is being seen by House Appropriations.
Both bills, and the legislative session in general, have drawn eyes to North Dakota's rural areas and the councils that serve them, said Dawn Mandt, executive director of the Red River Regional Council.
"I feel like we're finally finding a seat at the table and trying to be a part of those conversations," she said.
House Bill 1524, sponsored by Rep. David Monson, R-Osnabrock, has most recently received an amendment by the Senate Appropriations Committee to alter the nature of its funding to regional planning councils. The bill initially asked to provide $8 million to the North Dakota Department of Commerce to fund regional planning councils, before the funding was reduced to $2.4 million. On Wednesday, April 9, Senate Appropriations amended the bill from specific funding to instead say the commerce department may "award grants to regional planning councils ... to support local and regional implementation of state-authorized programs and initiatives."
The amendment was introduced by Sen. Michael Dwyer, R-Bismarck, from the Senate Appropriations Government Operations Division Committee.
"We understood the sentiment behind providing some additional support to the regional councils so they could be the local entity to implement all of the grant programs that the Department of Commerce has," he said.
The amendment passed unanimously, and the bill received a "do pass" recommendation with a vote of 14-2.
Senate Bill 2390, which has been seeking to create a rural catalyst committee, grant program and fund to support small North Dakota towns, was introduced to House Appropriations on Monday, April 7. Sponsored by Sen. Terry Wanzek, R-Jamestown, the bill was introduced by Rep. Donald Longmuir, R-Stanley. Longmuir said the bill would create a rural catalyst committee consisting of one member from each of the eight regional councils, two members at large from the rural communities appointed by the governor, one member of the Legislative assembly, the governor or his designee and the commissioner of commerce or his designee. The committee would have $5 million to support North Dakota towns of 8,500 or fewer, with 50% of the funds having to go to towns of less than 1,500, and the maximum amount of money that can be given through a grant would be 500,000.
Longmuir and members of the House Appropriations Committee compared SB 2390 to Senate Bill 2097, which relates to creating a rural community endowment fund and committee, and Senate Bill 2225, which relates to creating a housing for opportunity, mobility and empowerment program. When asked which bill Longmuir preferred, he voiced support for them all, though said if he had to pick, he'd choose SB 2390.
"I think 2390 has a better structure to it, in that it's already maintaining some of the things that we already have in place, so we're not creating a new level of bureaucracy," he said. "We're working with assets we already have in place, so we're not tripping on toes."
House Appropriations decided SB 2390 will be discussed more at a later date.
Mandt, who has provided testimony on both SB 2390 and HB 1524, said it's time to leave the bills in the hands of Appropriations.
"We've been on pins and needles," she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
‘Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises
Gov. Kelly Armstrong speaks during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Legal staff for North Dakota's legislative branch concluded the 'prudent remedy' to correct an error with Gov. Kelly Armstrong's line-item veto would be for the governor to call a special session, according to a memo issued Friday. But Attorney General Drew Wrigley, who is working on a separate opinion, maintains that Legislative Council has no role in determining the execution of the governor's veto. Armstrong announced May 22 a 'markup error' with a line-item veto that crossed out $35 million for a state housing development fund. The red X over the funding did not match what Armstrong indicated in his veto message that explained his reasoning. North Dakota governor unintentionally vetoes $35 million for housing programs A Legislative Council memo distributed to lawmakers Friday concluded that legal precedent supports the marked-up bill as the official veto document. 'Engaging in interpretive gymnastics' to disregard the markings on the bill could lead to unintended consequences in the future, Legislative Council concluded. Emily Thompson, legal division director for Legislative Council, said the Legislature needs to have an objective document to clearly illustrate what was vetoed, such as the specific veto markings on the bill, so lawmakers can exercise their veto override authority effectively. Lawmakers have six days remaining in their 80-day limit and could call themselves back into session to address the veto. However, the memo cautions that the Legislature may need those days to reconvene to respond to federal funding issues or other unforeseen reasons. Legislative Council recommends the governor call a special session, which would not count against the 80-day limit. A special session of the Legislature costs about $65,000 per day, according to Legislative Council. Armstrong is waiting for an attorney general's opinion to determine the next steps, according to a statement from his office. He previously said he would call a special session if necessary. Wrigley said Friday it's up to his office to assess the situation and issue an opinion on the governor's question. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' Wrigley said. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong on May 19 issued two line-item vetoes in Senate Bill 2014, the budget for the state Industrial Commission. His veto message explained his reasons for objecting to a $150,000 one-time grant for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But the marking also crossed out $25 million for housing projects and programs and $10 million to combat homelessness, which he later said he did not intend to veto. Chris Joseph, general counsel for Armstrong, wrote in a request for an attorney general's opinion that the markings served as a 'color-coded visual aid,' and the veto message should control the extent of the veto. Wrigley said his office is working on the opinion and aware that resolution of the issue is time sensitive. Bills passed by the Legislature with appropriations attached to them, such as the Industrial Commission budget, go into effect July 1. 'I look forward to publishing my opinion on that at the earliest possible time,' he said. The Legislative Council memo states, 'It would not be appropriate to allow the governor and attorney general to resolve the ambiguity by agreement.' In addition, Legislative Council concluded that if the governor's veto message is to be considered the controlling document for vetoes in the future, more ambiguities would likely be 'inevitable and frequent' and require resolution through the courts. The memo cites a 2018 North Dakota Supreme Court opinion involving a case between the Legislature and then-Gov. Doug Burgum that ruled 'a veto is complete and irrevocable upon return of the vetoed bill to the originating house,' and further stated the governor does not have the power to 'withdraw a veto.' 'Setting a precedent of the attorney general issuing a letter saying we can just go ahead and interpret the governor's veto message to mean what was, or was not, vetoed, that's a really concerning precedent to set,' Thompson said in an interview. Wrigley said any issues resulting from the opinion could be addressed by the courts. 'I sincerely hope that they (Legislative Council) are not trying to somehow publicly advocate, or attempt to influence a process for which they have no role,' Wrigley said. Legislative Council memo SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Epoch Times
4 days ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Admin Is Renegotiating CHIPS Act Deals to Secure More Investment, Lutnick Says
The Trump administration is reworking deals made with semiconductor makers under the Biden-era CHIPS Act to secure better terms that would bring more investment to the United States, according to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. At a Senate Appropriations Committee
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
GOP Senator Rips Howard Lutnick for Bonkers Logic on Trump Tariffs
Senator John Kennedy tore into Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Thursday over his nonsensical answer on the logic of Donald Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariff policy. During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the Louisiana Republican described his experience questioning Lutnick during a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee the day before. 'Well, it's clear that President Trump listens to Secretary Lutnick, so I spent the time I had trying to figure out where he's coming from. And I don't understand,' Kennedy said. 'I mean my vision of reciprocity, which I think is a good thing, is to lower tariffs if you can to zero on both sides. And let there be a free exchange of services on both sides, and let there be a free exchange of goods and services, and let the best product and the best service win. And I thought that's where Secretary Lutnick was going,' Kennedy explained. But that was in fact not what Lutnick had in mind at all. When asked if he would take a hypothetical deal with Vietnam where the tariffs on both sides went down to zero, Lutnick replied that accepting such a deal would be 'the silliest thing we could do.' Lutnick's baffling answer exposed that the goal of the ongoing tariff talks was not to ensure reciprocity, or even to reduce foreign tariffs on U.S. goods. 'So the obvious question is who's on first, what's on second, why are we having these trade talks? And I don't understand based on his answers,' Kennedy explained. Lutnick's poor response Wednesday undermined the ultimate purpose of the tariff-induced trade talks, and the tariffs themselves. 'Can you get a sense, what is the point of these tariffs?' MSNBC co-host Jonathan Lemire asked. 'Well, I know what the point is for me. It's reciprocity. But clearly the markets haven't figured that out yet,' Kennedy replied. 'What I was trying to do with Mr. Lutnick was sort of flesh out, where are we going here? Where are we going here? And I don't know whether he doesn't know, I'm going to assume he was being purposefully evasive, but the uncertainty is hurting us,' he added. The Trump administration has come a long way from its pledge to complete 90 deals during the 90-day pause on Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs. So far, Trump has only announced one deal with the U.K.—and that deal wasn't even finished. Earlier this week, the U.S. sent out a friendly reminder to other countries urging them to formulate their best offers by Wednesday, but with Trump's ever-vacillating tariff policies, it's unclear why any country would take that request seriously.