logo
Senate pushes $250M bill for new women's prison, $6M bill for closed sawmills

Senate pushes $250M bill for new women's prison, $6M bill for closed sawmills

Yahoo24-04-2025

The Montana Women's Prison in BIllings (Photo by Darrell Ehrlick of the Daily Montanan).
The tension about property taxes is filtering into debates about other bills including a proposal to spend $250 million on a new women's prison and another bill to allocate $6 million for sawmill revitalization.
Both proposals, however, advanced this week.
House Bill 833 would set aside money for a new prison, and in an interview Wednesday, sponsor and Rep. John Fitzpatrick, R-Anaconda, said the women's prison in Billings is well over capacity.
It houses 240 people, but he said Montana needs beds for at least 400, possibly 500.
'Unlike the men, we have no place to put them out of state,' he said, referring to a contract with CoreCivic that sends male inmates to prisons in Arizona and Mississippi.
Fitzpatrick said the bill includes a study the Department of Corrections will lead to determine a new location for a women's prison — not excluding Billings or Deer Lodge, where the men's prison is located, but not favoring them either, he said.
'It could be anywhere,' Fitzpatrick said.
He anticipates that study should be complete by the end of the calendar year, and a groundbreaking could take place in roughly a year. He said the current women's prison likely would be eventually repurposed by the state.
On the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. John Esp, R-Big Timber, said the female population with the Department of Corrections has been rising faster than the male population, and just one 'relatively small' facility houses women in the state.
'There's no option to contract with others for this population,' Esp said.
Esp said the waiting list for the women's prison in Billings has about 85 people, and the facility is probably eight to 10 people over capacity.
'And they don't turn over very fast,' Esp said.
The bill would allow the state to build a new facility, or a private contractor to do so and sell or lease it back to the state, Esp said.
Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, said he acknowledged the problem, but he had a hard time spending so much money with property taxes yet to be resolved.
'We're going to spend $250 million on prisons before we figure out what we're going to do with property taxes,' said Trebas, who voted against the bill.
On a final 46-4 vote Wednesday, the Senate approved HB 833, including with support from all Billings legislators. The bill earlier passed the House 86-12, also with support from Billings legislators.
It is included in the governor's budget.
Later the same day, the Senate also advanced a major property tax bill, House Bill 231, and the House advanced another one, Senate Bill 542, but both proposals still need to clear multiple votes to pass.
The Senate also approved House Bill 876, the Sawmill Revitalization Act, sponsored by Rep. Fitzpatrick and Rep. Connie Keogh, D-Missoula.
It passed 29-21 on Wednesday, and also raised questions about property tax bills.
The bill sets aside $6 million for loans with interest rates of a maximum 4% 'to parties with the capacity to revitalize a closed sawmill and return it to commercial operation.'
Originally, the bill had given priority to sawmills that had closed in the 12 months before Jan. 1, 2025.
In March 2024, Pyramid Mountain Lumber announced it would close its Seeley Lake mill.
In the Senate Finance and Claims Committee, however, Esp proposed an amendment to strike that limitation, and the committee approved it.
On the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Mike Cuffe, R-Eureka, said in the 1970s, Montana had more than 50 operating mills, and it now has just five major ones.
In the last three years, mills closed in St. Regis and Seeley Lake, and Cuffe said the closures represent 'major lost economic activity.'
Sen. Becky Beard, however, said the mill in Seeley Lake is pretty much dismantled, and it would take at least $40 million to get it up and running again, not just $6 million.
'There is not really anything left there except the shells of the buildings where the machinery was housed,' said Beard, R-Elliston, who voted against it.
Sen. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula, said Montana has the lumber for the Seeley Lake mill, but it needs staffing, and the bill would help.
'We have people ready to come and do the work in Montana to get these facilities up and running. I think that's a great thing for us,' Morigeau said.
Sen. Willis Curdy, D-Missoula, said the state sells roughly 60 million board feet of lumber a year, and the mill is located close to state trust land timber.
He said every mile needed to move a log to a sawmill makes the lumber worth less to the state.
'This mill is located in a strategic location for the taxpayers of the state of Montana,' Curdy said.
But Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, said the $6 million shouldn't be spent that way.
Regier said he supports the industry and remembers seeing homemade signs in the Flathead in the 1990s that said, 'This Family Supported by the Timber Industry.'
At the time, however, he said that industry supported itself.
'We're spending taxpayer dollars to do what loggers did in the '90s,' Regier said.
Sen. Barry Usher, R-Billings, said even as the Senate tried to help a sawmill, it was contemplating a bill that would hurt commercial businesses.
He pointed to HB 231, which aims to support residential property taxpayers, but passes on increases to other groups, including commercial property taxpayers, he said.
Usher said he was told many people were lined up to try to help revitalize the sawmill at Seeley Lake, and he had a question:
'Were they advised in advance that if House Bill 231 passes, that their commercial property taxes are going up?'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

time43 minutes ago

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. 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 .

Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates
Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates

Two House Republicans drew firm red lines Friday on changes to the House GOP megabill, threatening to vote 'no' if the Senate made any changes whatsoever to key provisions. Rep. Nick LaLota of New York warned GOP senators against lowering the House's $40,000 cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction, while Rep. Chip Roy of Texas vowed to oppose any attempt to delay or otherwise water down the phaseout of clean-energy tax credits provided for in the House-passed megabill. 'If the Senate waters it down by a dollar, I'm a no,' LaLota posted on X, arguing that the SALT cap as it stands is 'unfair' to his constituents. Roy was equally strict about GOP senators' hesitations on quickly phasing out clean-energy tax credits signed into law under former President Joe Biden — even calling out skeptical Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) by name in a floor speech Friday. Tillis has been critical of the phaseouts, saying the House bill is 'void of any understanding of just how these supply chains work.' 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Roy said. 'Because those god-forsaken subsidies are killing our energy, killing our grid, making us weaker, destroying our landscape, undermining our freedom. I'm not going to have it.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store