Major education bill advances, would boost starting teacher pay
Photo illustration by Getty Images.
Sen. John Fuller championed a $55 million education bill by reminding the Senate of his fiscally conservative values.
'Some of you may know that I'm so tight, I squeak when I walk, but I do support public education, and I support it fiercely,' Fuller, R-Kalispell, said on Tuesday.
Sen. Sara Novak, a Democrat from Anaconda, said House Bill 252 isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction, and it will help especially small rural schools and young educators.
'It is some much-needed funding to our public schools to directly impact our teacher wages and specifically our beginning teacher wages,' Novak said.
The Senate voted 40-10 in favor of the STARS Act, or Student and Teacher Advancement for Results, sending it to the Senate Finance and Claims Committee for a closer fiscal analysis.
It's among the bills to help public schools that one supporter said bolsters education without adding undue stress to already beleaguered residential property taxpayers.
Montana has struggled to increase starting teacher pay, and a proposal from the 2023 legislative session didn't work as planned.
Backed by the Governor's Office, HB 252 earned bipartisan support, although some critics said it doesn't do enough for veteran teachers, who also need to be paid well.
Sponsor and Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, has said the bill aims to fix an ongoing problem, which is low pay for beginning teachers, and the state doesn't have unlimited funds.
The bill would spend more than $110 million from the general fund in the biennium, according to the most recent fiscal analysis.
It also has other provisions to support education, such as incentives for academic achievement for students and tools to help teachers in areas with high housing costs.
After the Senate floor vote, Lance Melton, with the Montana School Boards Association, said funding proposals before the legislature, including the STARS Act, have been written to guard against a spike in local property taxes.
Property tax income goes in part toward public schools.
'All of those proposals have two — front and center — primary stakeholders, the child and the taxpayer,' Melton said.
The fiscal analysis estimates an increase to local school property taxes of $800,000 a year, but those dollars are associated with housing support voters might approve through local levies, not incentives for teachers.
Melton pointed also to House Bill 483 and House Bill 515, which both passed out of the House with bipartisan support and are in the Senate.
Sponsored by Rep. Courtenay Sprunger, R-Kalispell, HB 483 would take any revenue growth that exceeds the state's obligation to a school equalization fund and return it to taxpayers.
It has other Republicans and Democrats as co-sponsors and passed with a bipartisan 87-11 vote out of the House.
House Bill 515, sponsored by Rep. Linda Reksten, R-Polson, would in part help schools with major maintenance costs without asking property taxpayers for a levy or a bond.
On the House floor, Reksten said it has support from the Governor's Office.
She said the bill transfers $75 million of one-time-only money from the general fund surplus to fill the school facilities trust fund — without affecting property taxpayers.
It passed out of the House on a bipartisan 73-25 vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned
Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Disputes inside the GOP about parts of Trump's major tax bill threaten approval in the Senate and past compromises reached by the Republican-led House. Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk 'disappointed' with Trump's tax bill Elon Musk told CBS he is 'disappointed' with President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill. Republicans begin debate in the narrowly divided Senate with factions seeking to increase spending cuts or curbing tax breaks, which threaten the compromise needed for approval back in the House. Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk complicated the debate by urging lawmakers to kill the bill. Congressional leaders insist approval is still possible despite the fissures in the narrow Republican majorities in each chamber and the unified opposition of Democrats. WASHINGTON – Will President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' go bust? The second-term president's highest-priority legislation is under attack from some Senate Republicans – and from his former billionaire adviser Elon Musk – for costing too much. Complaints are also mounting from Republicans who are opposed to cutting Medicaid health insurance and other popular programs used by many Americans, especially as a way to help pay for tax breaks that would benefit some of the country's highest-income earners. With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill 'We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. More: Everything's an 'emergency': How Trump's executive order record pace is testing the courts Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. 'Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change,' Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. 'I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY,' he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." More: The post-fight fallout from Trump-Musk battle could get even uglier While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? 'This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it,' added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas 'crazy' in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky 'can't stand him.' More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that – in both parties, and everybody – and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. More: Senate Republicans plan to amend SALT tax deduction in Trump's sweeping bill The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election – and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years – in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called 'Profiles in Futility.' Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package.'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong,' Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. 'I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. 'Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises." Contributing: Reuters
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
Conservative Reactions To Trump Vs. Elon Feud
As the whole world knows by now, former besties Donald Trump and Elon Musk have beef. This week, their bromance turned into an online feud after a string of chaotic posts slamming each other went viral, all because of differing views on Trump's "Big, Beautiful, Bill." Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon had a much more dramatic response, immediately calling for Elon Musk's deportation. "They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately," Bannon said in a phone interview with the New York Times. Well, conservative voters (many who claim to have supported Trump) are not holding back their reactions to the Trump vs. Elon feud, and many, surprisingly, are team Elon. Here's what they're saying over on the r/LeopardsAteMyFace and r/Conservative subreddits: This person told Elon to "Burn it down." This MAGA voter took Elon's side, accusing Trump of being immature. "I'm with Elon." "We all know Trump isn't that mature, unfortunately." This user said Trump and Elon need to check their "crazy big egos." This person compared Trump and Elon to "petty immature teenagers." This user claimed the feud won't be a big deal in the long run, and called it "business as usual." This user questioned if the fued was a performance. And finally, "This is how a Democrat gets elected in 2028." What are your thoughts on the Trump vs. Elon feud? Let us know in the comments below.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.
