context_text:
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4004, entitled
A bill to amend 1947 PA 336, entitled “An act to prohibit strikes by certain public employees; to provide review from disciplinary action with respect thereto; to provide for the mediation of grievances and the holding of elections; to declare and protect the rights and privileges of public employees; to require certain provisions in collective bargaining agreements; to prescribe means of enforcement and penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act; and to make appropriations,” by amending sections 9, 10, and 15 (MCL 423.209, 423.210, and 423.215), as amended by 2014 PA 414.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 3, line 22, after “ representative. ” by inserting “ An agreement described in this subdivision must provide for both of the following:
( i ) That if an officer of the exclusive bargaining representative for the unit is convicted of a felony related to the finances of the exclusive bargaining representative, a public employee in the unit is not required to pay any dues or fees to the exclusive bargaining representative.
( ii ) That if an officer of the regional or national office of the exclusive bargaining representative is convicted of a felony related to the finances of the exclusive bargaining representative, a public employee in the unit is not required to pay to the exclusive bargaining representative the portion of the public employee’s dues or fees that would otherwise be remitted to the regional or national office. ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


chamber: senate

result: failed

context_text:
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 9, following line 9, by inserting:
“ Sec. 10a. A bargaining representative shall provide to each public employee in the bargaining unit that the bargaining representative represents, not later than 90 days after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section or at the time the public employee becomes employed in that unit, the following statement in writing: “Under the United States Supreme Court decision Janus v AFSCME , Council 31, ___US___; 138 S Ct 2448 (2018), it is a violation of a public employee’s first amendment free speech rights for a public-section bargaining representative to extract agency fees or union security fees from the public employee unless the public employee consents.” .”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Daley offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 9, following line 9, by inserting:
“ Sec. 12a. Notwithstanding section 14, the commission shall issue an order directing an election in any existing certified appropriate unit once every 2 years following the later of the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section or the date of initial certification of a bargaining representative. If the existing certified bargaining representative receives a majority of the votes cast and the majority represents at least 50% of the public employees in the unit, the existing certification continues. If the certified bargaining representative does not receive a majority vote representing 50% of the public employees in the unit, the existing certification terminates. If certification is terminated, the terms of the existing contract between the public employees represented by the bargaining representative and the public employer continue in effect for the remaining contract term except for any provisions that involve the duties of or obligations to the bargaining representative, such as union security, dues and fees, and involvement in grievance and arbitration procedures. ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
(a) Organize together or form, join, or assist in labor organizations; engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective negotiation or bargaining or other mutual aid and protection; or negotiate or bargain collectively with their public employers through representatives of their own free choice.
(b) Refrain from any or all of the activities identified in subdivision (a).
(2) No person shall by force, intimidation, or unlawful threats compel or attempt to compel any public employee to do any of the following:
(a) Become or remain a member of a labor organization or bargaining representative or otherwise affiliate with or financially support a labor organization or bargaining representative.
(b) Refrain from engaging in employment or refrain from joining a labor organization or bargaining representative or otherwise affiliating with or financially supporting a labor organization or bargaining representative.
(c) Pay to any charitable organization or third party an amount that is in lieu of, equivalent to, or any portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses required of members of or public employees represented by a labor organization or bargaining representative.
(d) Pay the costs of an independent examiner verification as described in section 10(9). 10(4) .
(3) A person who violates subsection (2) is liable for a civil fine of not more than $500.00. A civil fine recovered under this section shall be submitted to the state treasurer for deposit in the general fund of this state. ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 9, following line 9, by inserting:
“ (7) Every calendar quarter, each exclusive bargaining representative that represents public employees in this state shall provide a written report to every public employee in every unit that the exclusive bargaining representative represents and post the report on its website. Each report must include all of the following information for the immediately preceding calendar quarter:
(a) The name, salary, and amount of fringe benefits of each officer of the exclusive bargaining representative.
(b) The amount of money that the exclusive bargaining representative paid for all of the following, delineated by each payment:
( i ) Political organizations or activities.
( ii ) Charities.
(c) An itemized list of all of the exclusive bargaining representative’s expenditures not described in subdivision (b). ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 9, following line 9, by inserting:
“ Sec. 10a. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, a bargaining representative shall not pay compensation to an individual who is employed by the bargaining representative that is more than 2 times the average compensation of all the public employees that are members of the bargaining representative. ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 9, following line 9, by inserting:
“ Sec. 10b. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, a public employee may choose to bargain independently. A public employer shall not refuse to bargain independently with a public employee and an exclusive bargaining representative shall not represent a public employee who has chosen to bargain independently. An agreement between a public employer and an exclusive bargaining representative does not apply to a public employee who has chosen to bargain independently.
(2) As used in this section, “independent bargaining” or “to bargain independently” means bargaining between a public employer and a public employee with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment without the intervention of a labor organization, bargaining agent, or exclusive bargaining representative. Independent bargaining does not grant any greater or lesser rights or privileges to a public employee who has chosen to bargain independently in a unit with an exclusive bargaining representative than a public employee in a unit without an exclusive bargaining representative. Independent bargaining does not impose any greater or lesser duties or obligations for a public employer to a public employee who has chosen to bargain independently in a unit with an exclusive bargaining representative than those duties or obligations that the public employer or public school employer owes to a public employee in a unit without an exclusive bargaining representative. ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 8, line 26, by striking out the balance of the section.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


result: passed

context_text:
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 6, entitled
A bill to require prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects; to establish the requirements and responsibilities of contracting agents and bidders; to make appropriations for the implementation of this act; and to prescribe penalties.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator McBroom offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 3, line 23, after the first “the” by striking out “same or”.
2. Amend page 3, line 24, by striking out “nearest and most similar neighboring”.
3. Amend page 3, line 24, after “locality” by striking out “in” and inserting “for”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 4, following line 29, by inserting:
“Sec. 8a. A contracting agent may exempt itself from the requirements of this act by doing 1 of the following:
(a) If the contracting agent has a governing body, by a majority vote of its governing body.
(b) If the contracting agent does not have a governing body, by submitting a written statement to the commissioner.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 5, following line 12, by inserting:
“Sec. 11. By 30 months after the effective date of this act, the commissioner shall submit a report to the legislature about the impact of this act.
Sec. 12. This act does not apply 3 years after the effective date of this act.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator McBroom offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 2, line 18, after “which” by striking out “is sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the” and inserting “receives $250,000.00 or more in funding from this”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


motion_text: The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
1. Amend page 1, line 2, after “the” by inserting “supervisor”.
2. Amend page 1, line 2, after “ and ” by inserting “ or ”.
3. Amend page 2, line 27, after “the” by inserting “supervisor or”.
4. Amend page 3, line 1, after “the” by inserting “supervisor or”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Singh moved that further consideration of the bill be postponed temporarily.
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 52, entitled
A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural resources and environmental protection act,” by amending section 40118 (MCL 324.40118), as amended by 2022 PA 23.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
For these reasons, I urge a “no” vote.
Senator McBroom asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:
I’d like to speak a word of support for doing this survey. The critical nature of understanding this information is not just to protect the department but it protects the citizens of this state from a department that might otherwise skew those numbers with its own agenda. Having solid data for us to manage the deer herd is absolutely critical. It’s critical for our farmers who depend on crop damage tags and who have difficulty accessing them if the department has decided that there aren’t enough deer in that area already. A real genuine survey is something that other states have been doing for a very long time. Wisconsin in particular has had a robust survey of deer harvest for decades which allows them better to be able to manage the herd and to manage the human-deer interactions that occur, especially on the agricultural side.
Michigan is far, far behind on this curve with the silly camp survey we’ve been doing for decades now that’s filled out by a tiny percentage of the hunters, and then by counting deer on the hoods of cars that cross the Mackinac Bridge as if that was ever a good methodology and it’s certainly become a completely worthless methodology at this point. This is a great change, I’m glad that we’re doing this survey now. I’m not happy with how it’s been rolled out and with this penalty so this is a good step in making sure that the survey is done in a fairer way to get the data we need to properly manage the deer herd.
I encourage a “yes” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 101, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending sections 5228, 5230, and 5245 (MCL 500.5228, 500.5230, and 500.5245), as amended by 2020 PA 266.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senate Bill No. 55, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending sections 7u and 53b (MCL 211.7u and 211.53b), section 7u as amended by 2020 PA 253 and section 53b as amended by 2022 PA 141.
(This bill was read a third time earlier today, amendments offered and consideration postponed. See p. 381.)
The question being on the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator McBroom,
Senator McBroom withdrew the amendments.
Senator McBroom offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 1, line 2, after “the” by inserting “supervisor and”.
2. Amend page 2, line 27, after “the” by inserting “supervisor or”.
3. Amend page 3, line 1, after “the” by inserting “supervisor or”.
The amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 76, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending sections 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 12, and 14a (MCL 28.421, 28.422, 28.422a, 28.422b, 28.432, and 28.434a), section 1 as amended by 2017 PA 95, section 2 as amended by 2015 PA 200, section 2a as amended by 2016 PA 301, section 2b as amended by 2014 PA 205, section 12 as amended by 2010 PA 209, and section 14a as added by 2010 PA 295.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Webber offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 24, following line 18, by inserting:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. 184 of the 102nd Legislature is enacted into law.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 24, following line 18, by inserting:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. 181 of the 102nd Legislature is enacted into law.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
You see, it’s simple. Background checks save lives. They keep guns out of the hands of individuals who should not have them. They are widely supported across party lines, and they are good public policy to protect the health and safety of folks across our communities. I ask that my colleagues join me and the majority of Michiganders in supporting these bills today.
Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:
In reference to Senate Bill No. 76, you do not need a license to carry a firearm. I will just read from the bill. There are folks who are exempted from having a license to purchase, carry, possess, use or transport a firearm and, specifically, if you purchase a firearm and received a background check, you are not required to have that license. So, there is no what-is-called registration requirement for these bills. I just want to make that clear for folks. I also wanted to make sure that it is clear that there also is an exemption in the safe storage bill for minors that are hunting, or shooting, or that are going about their employment and require the use of a gun, that you might need it in farming or what have you, so long as there is adult supervision associated with it. So I just want to make sure that it is clear that we are not impacting hunters and their ability to hunt in this bill package.
Senator Moss’ statement is as follows:
It’s worth repeating one last time. I joined a handful of colleagues to establish our gun violence prevention caucus in June 2016, and for nearly seven long years we put forward these solutions to mitigate these crises in our communities and reduce gun deaths and injuries. And in that time, from Pulse to Tree of Life, from Oxford to MSU, too many tragic mass shootings and everyday gun violence. The previous majority refused to even hold a hearing on our legislation. In many regards, the last majority headed in the wrong direction. I heard the previous speaker’s remarks about enforcing the laws we have, particularly regarding the shooting at MSU, and we can debate the policy merits of how the shooter was able to possess a firearm after previous charges, but the charge he had was for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Republicans have been pushing to eliminate these permits altogether. If you had your way, there would be no laws to enforce at all. The only bill I can think of that moved in the last term in response to these shootings was a law to allow the licensing of a device to lock the classroom door during an active school shooting. What a sign from a failed Legislature to students all over our state. When they endure a school shooting, you gave them a product designed to lock their door but never a requirement to lock the gun. A failure in policy and priorities.
But our caucus still pushed, even when it wasn’t popular in this building. I have to acknowledge someone who persisted fearlessly and took so much heat from Republicans, from community members, and even from some Democrats—our gun violence prevention caucus founder, former State Representative Robert Wittenberg. He worked tirelessly on research and convened with groups all across the country. He took policy feedback from law enforcement; he met with the NRA and heard their concerns. He joined the Legislature’s Second Amendment caucus while convening meetings for our gun violence prevention caucus. He applied for a CPL and trained with a firearm. These bills were never against responsible gun owners. These bills are against gun violence. Thank you, Robert, for getting us here.
Now the bills in this package are some of the most popularly supported legislation we’ve introduced, including my bill in the package before us. We are ready to enact these laws that the public demands and safe communities require. Every Michigander deserves to live without fear. I urge a “yes” vote on the package.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 77, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending sections 223 and 232a (MCL 750.223 and 750.232a), section 223 as amended by 2012 PA 242 and section 232a as amended by 1990 PA 321.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion did not prevail, 2/3 of the members serving not voting therefor.
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, assumed the Chair.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 78, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending sections 11b and 16m of chapter XVII (MCL 777.11b and 777.16m), section 11b as amended by 2016 PA 234 and section 16m as amended by 2018 PA 637.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 79, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending section 15 (MCL 28.435), as added by 2000 PA 265, and by adding section 9.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Johnson offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 9, following line 15, by inserting:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. 184 of the 102nd Legislature is enacted into law.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
I just wanted to share a little something in my life before the vote on this. Back when my son was in kindergarten which was so long ago, kindergartners used to walk to school. We lived about a block from the school, so my son used to walk to school and he started coming home with a big kid. Back then, big was 4th or 5th grade. I said, What are you doing with this big kid? You shouldn’t be hanging around the big kids. He said, His name is Bobby. Kids were picking on me after school and they were bullying me so he walks me home every day and nobody picks on me anymore. I thought, Wow. He didn’t even know my son; that was so kind.
A couple years later, Bobby’s brother—his younger brother—shot and killed him with a gun that was left out by his father in his home. My son is 35. Bobby will always be a kid. So, on the safe storage, Senate Bill No. 79, I’m asking all my colleagues in honor of Bobby and every other child who has died this way to please support safe storage.
Senator Chang’s statement is as follows:
I want to make a couple of things clear. One, these bills will absolutely make an impact and they will save lives. The reason that we know that the extreme risk protection order bills, as others have made some comments about whether they will be effective and commented on various critiques that they have—it’s actually very clear that extreme risk protection orders work. We have seen that from other states. Suicide rates in states like Connecticut and Indiana went down by 14 percent and by 7.5 percent. I also wanted to make it really clear that in the extreme risk protection order bill that if a person files a false report there is a criminal penalty. I don’t think from the evidence that we’ve seen from the other states and just from common sense that people are going to be filing false reports. I think that is a false narrative.
I also want to just address this last point about women and empowerment. I think that the greatest thing we can do in terms of empowering women when it comes to gun violence is to make sure that we take the guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to them. We know the bills that are before us—whether it’s the extreme risk protection order or universal background checks—will actually save women’s lives in domestic violence situations and in many others. So to me it is very clear that if we want to move forward with empowering women, we have to start by ensuring we are protecting people’s lives.
Lastly, this package of bills is common-sense gun violence prevention. We all know that not only are these bills overwhelmingly supported by the majority of Michiganders, but these are bills that have been thought out. They have been well researched. We have data from all across the country that shows that these bills will absolutely make an impact.
I want to thank the individuals who came to committee and shared their tragic, heart-wrenching stories of losing their loved ones to gun violence. I want to thank especially those who shared about how, if we had passed an extreme risk protection order bill already, two of their children would still be alive today. So I think folks on the other side may have critiques, may have these ideas about what might happen or what might not happen, but I think that we need to really remember that the votes that we're taking today are history making, they are long overdue, and they absolutely will save lives and are common sense.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 80, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 11b of chapter XVII (MCL 777.11b), as amended by 2016 PA 234.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The other piece of it that I would urge folks to consider is the role that firearms play in suicide in particular—adolescent suicide—and the ability in a moment of despair for young children, young adults to get their hands on a weapon, that had there been some space and time, they may have reconsidered. It’s estimated that 62 percent of adolescent firearm suicides involve a gun belonging to a family member, and 80 percent of school shooters—80 percent of school shooters—under 18 access a firearm from their own home. It is unconscionable for this to be used as a political suicide. Well, gun violence has become the number one death of children in our country.
We were elected to serve this state, to serve families and represent our communities, to keep them safe. This is common sense and I urge a “yes” vote from every member in the chamber today.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 81, entitled
A bill to amend 1933 PA 167, entitled “General sales tax act,” (MCL 205.51 to 205.78) by adding section 4 ll .
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Huizenga offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-3).
The question being on the adoption of the substitute,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—19
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McBroom Shink
Brinks Geiss McCann Singh
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Wojno
Cavanagh Irwin Moss
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Mr. President, the bill as written before us only applies to the tax exemption for the purchasing of safety devices for a single year. My substitute would apply this exemption permanently and fully remove any state-imposed financial barriers to purchase the safety devices in question. This impactful change is aimed at incentivizing the purchase and usage of these devices while also supporting the Michigan taxpayers by keeping more money in their pockets, and not the exceedingly-full coffers of this state. I ask for a “yes” vote on my substitute to make these exemptions permanent.
Senator Irwin’s statement is as follows:
Very often in the Legislature we sunset provisions so that the Legislature can come back and take another look at them. I think it’s important, and I’m urging colleagues to vote “no” on this substitute — that we come back in this Legislature and consider whether this is an exemption that needs to continue, consider how successful it’s been, and I would also hate to rob a future group of legislators of the opportunity to extend this and for someone else to get a bill passed. For those reasons, I encourage everyone to vote “no.”
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 82, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” (MCL 205.91 to 205.111) by adding section 4 ll .
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Huizenga offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-3).
The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 83, entitled
A bill to provide for the issuance of restraining orders prohibiting certain individuals from possessing or purchasing firearms and ordering the surrender and seizure of a restrained individual’s firearms; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to prescribe penalties; and to provide remedies.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Bellino offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 21, following line 18, by inserting:
“(c) Senate Bill No. 184.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Chang offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 11, line 9, by striking out “issued” and inserting “served or the restrained individual receives actual notice of the order”.
2. Amend page 16, line 14, by striking out “immediately”.
3. Amend page 17, line 10, after “expires” by inserting “or is terminated”.
The amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
Senator McMorrow offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 10, following line 3, by inserting:
“(h) If the court has ordered the restrained individual to surrender the individual’s firearms and ammunition immediately, a statement that the law enforcement agency designated under subdivision (g) shall proceed to seize the restrained individual’s firearms and ammunition not later than 24 hours after the restrained individual is served with or receives actual notice of the extreme risk protection order, after first giving the restrained individual an opportunity to surrender the firearms and ammunition.” and relettering the remaining subdivisions.
The amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Bellino’s statement is as follows:
Mr. President, I had a speech ready here for this amendment to invest more money in school safety, but a previous speaker’s comments changed my plans. A member of this chamber stood up earlier and said that an amendment similar to this one—to invest $800 million into school safety measures—is, quote, unnecessary. Unnecessary, Mr. President? What world can we possibly be living in? Door locks? Cameras? ID cards? Unnecessary? We just had an incident in our state where a gunman walked right into an open school building and we don’t think we need to invest more money in security?
I’m sorry, Mr. President. This is unconscionable. We need to do more to help our students. I ask for a “yes” vote on this amendment to make our schools safer from gun violence.
Senator McMorrow’s statement is as follows:
Back in 2019 after we first introduced a version of this legislation alongside then-State Representative Robert Wittenberg who himself had introduced earlier versions of extreme risk protection orders years before, I hosted a roundtable discussion on red flag laws in my district in Berkley. This panel intentionally featured no legislators, but did include a woman named Mary Miller Strobel. Mary spoke about her brother Ben. She said, “My brother and I started the summer each year jumping into Lake Michigan on Memorial Day weekend. He was my hero,” she said. “He was a hero to a lot of other people too. Ben was a combat veteran. After he returned home, he was suffering. Ben had lost 30 pounds after his tour. Returning home, his father asked him about the weight loss and Ben replied that he couldn’t eat. He said, ‘It’s just too hard out there, dad. It smells like death.’ Ben was seeking treatment at the local VA but his family, including Mary, worried. Mary said that she and her dad drove to every local gun store showing the owners pictures of Ben. They pleaded with the owners. ‘If Ben comes in, please, please do not sell him a gun.’ Ben died by suicide using a gun he bought at a local gun store.” Mary and her dad knew. They saw the warning signs. They knew Ben needed help. He needed time.
A red flag law could have bought them that time. A red flag law could have saved Ben’s life. A few weeks ago in committee we met Karen and Michael Kobaleck whom Senator Bayer previously spoke about. Karen said, “I am a mother of triplets who should be turning 23 next week. Last year my child Ruby shot and killed my son Bishop, then shot and killed their significant other, then shot and killed themselves.” Karen went on to explain that she was not here to excuse Ruby’s behavior but she knows it did not need to happen—not like this. Karen learned that when Ruby turned 21, she bought a gun. This was after Karen had explained that Ruby had suffered from mental illness from a young age. She had a spectrum disorder, major depressive disorder, and a history of self-harming, among others. Karen said, “I subscribe to the philosophy, ‘Know something, say something.’ So I called the police over and over and over again. And every single time, I was told they could not and would not revoke Ruby’s Second Amendment right to own a gun.” She said through tears, “I am Ruby’s mother. I knew something was seriously wrong and this was a dangerous situation.” Only a few weeks prior to this horrific event, Ruby was involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital. I called the police again and again and I begged them to take Ruby’s guns away. I was still denied. She said their whole family tried to help Ruby and within weeks of discharge, Ruby went to a gun store and bought another gun. Michael, the husband, said, “In my wildest imagination, I would never think that I would be sitting here today in front of you today talking about this. I am also a firearm owner and a CPL holder and frankly before all this, I thought procedures were in place to have prevented this. Had the ERPO been in place, three people would be alive today,” he told us.
These are the lives that could have been saved with the legislation we have before us today. Extreme risk protection orders can and do save lives. Six out of every ten gun deaths in the United States are suicides and of those who attempt suicide by firearm, 90 percent are successful. A significantly higher percentage than attempts made via any other method. In fact, the vast majority of those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by a subsequent suicide, meaning that moment and the result of that first attempt is critical in determining the ultimate outcome for an individual who is in crisis. Red flag laws create a preventative tool, a stopgap for loved ones, judges, and law enforcement and while it is difficult to measure events that did not happen, evidence shows that these extreme risk protection orders can and do save lives. Here in Michigan, approximately half of all suicides are by firearm, and by 2019 there were 742 suicides by firearm including 31 children. Based on what we’ve learned from states like Indiana and Connecticut, implementation of similar laws in Michigan could have resulted in dozens of these victims still being alive today. I ask for a “yes” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 84, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending sections 2, 2b, 5b, and 8 (MCL 28.422, 28.422b, 28.425b, and 28.428), section 2 as amended by 2015 PA 200, section 2b as amended by 2014 PA 205, and sections 5b and 8 as amended by 2017 PA 95.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion did not prevail, 2/3 of the members serving not voting therefor.
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 85, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” (MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 15e to chapter XVII.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
As we stand here and debate these historic gun safety bills — bills that have been proven to be effective in saving lives in other states — I keep hearing concerns, complaints, maybe even excuses that gun safety bills won’t prevent every instance of gun violence, that these gun safety bills won’t stop every kid from being a victim of an accidental shooting, that they won’t protect every domestic violence victim from violence. And this is all coming from people who seem to think that thoughts and prayers are a sufficient answer to the scourge of gun violence in our nation. People who also had the power to work on gun safety, work on mental health, work on school safety for years and neglected that responsibility. I hope you don’t feel the same way about seatbelts or contraception. None of these things are 100 percent effective and we can’t promise in a free society that any particular law is going to be obeyed 100 percent of the time. We don’t take that approach to murder, we don’t take that approach to robbery, we don’t take that approach to speed limits, we don’t take that approach to literally any law. That’s why, to people like me, it just sounds like an excuse for inaction.
I also hear people blaming law enforcement, blaming schools, but I can tell you I’ve been listening to the people of Michigan and I can tell you that they’ve been blaming this Legislature. They’ve been blaming this very Senate who for decades refused to do anything to prevent gun violence. Well, that’s not what we seem to be doing here today. It seems like the winds of change are blowing and I am hearing a lot of support from Michigan citizens who say, Finally. Finally in the wake of these tragedies the Legislature is doing something to reduce gun violence, and I am particularly proud to be standing here voting for bills that have proven to save lives in other states.
The final thing I want to say is while I hear people blaming law enforcement and trying to find all sorts of excuses about what happened at MSU, saying these bills wouldn’t have done anything to address that concern, but what I heard in committee from law enforcement was that they needed tools and they need tools to take guns out of the hands of people who have been proven to be dangerous. This shooter at MSU was waving red flags all over the place. He was waving them around town, he was waving them around his neighborhood, and this legislation we’re voting on today would have given his father who expressed concerns the opportunity to do something, to say something. So, when you say these bills wouldn’t have done anything, when there were red flags waving everywhere, that just doesn’t wash with me. It doesn’t make any sense. That’s why I’m proud to be standing here today voting in favor of a broad set of gun safety bills, voting in favor of extreme risk protection orders that are going to save some lives here in this state.
Senator Bayer’s statement is as follows:
Just briefly, we’ve heard many, many comments from that side of the room again and again suggesting that these bills aren’t proven to do anything, these bills won’t make any difference, when the fact is if you could bother to read the data, these bills do make a difference in other states. These bills do reduce violence in other states. This is a U.S.-only problem, this gun thing that’s happening here. Countries—whole countries—don’t see anything like this kind of issue going on and it’s because they regulate firearms. We are the ones. We have far and away multiple times as many gun violence incidents as any other country. There’s no reason for this except that we have no regulation. We do not adequately take care of the people in our state and in our country. We have the opportunity to finally make a change here with things that are proven to work in the United States with other states like us. It’s time to take this action, do the right thing by the people who elected us. Thank you.
Senator McDonald Rivet’s statement is as follows:
I rise again around this package of bills with a simple question. Were you listening when the students gathered on the steps of this Capitol and begged us to take action? Were you listening when the moms for decades have been in this building begging us to take action? Were you listening when your coffee hours were flooded, when your offices were flooded begging to have action taken to protect our children? And for those who rise in this chamber with the audacity to point their fingers at prosecutors, at teachers, at community members as a justification for not voting for these bills, I would say it is time to do our jobs. We have to get this done and protect the children and citizens in our state.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 86, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending sections 1908, 2529, and 2559 (MCL 600.1908, 600.2529, and 600.2559), section 2529 as amended by 2014 PA 532 and section 2559 as amended by 2018 PA 261.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
A bill to amend 1976 PA 453, entitled “Elliott-Larsen civil rights act,” by amending sections 201 and 202 (MCL 37.2201 and 37.2202), section 201 as amended by 1980 PA 202 and section 202 as amended by 2009 PA 190.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Johnson offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 1, following “ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT: ” by inserting:
“ Sec. 102a. This act does not apply to any claim of discrimination subject to the ministerial exception described in Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v Morrissey-Berru , 140 S Ct 2049 (2020), and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch v EEOC , 565 U.S. 171 (2012). ”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 2, line 14, after “ pregnancy ” by inserting “ prior to fetal viability ”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
I am offering an amendment to Senate Bill No. 147 and ask for your support. As it stands right now, this legislation appears to open the door to mandating that employers treat abortion the same as they do pregnancy and childbirth. My amendment is simple. It affirms that abortion should not be allowed after a baby has reached viability and could survive outside the womb. If you vote against this amendment, you are saying you support abortion in instances where the baby has reached viability and could survive outside the womb. I urge you to support this amendment.
Senator Geiss’ second statement is as follows:
This amendment which is based on things that are conjured and imagined, scenarios remarkably unmoored from reality that do not happen, they’re not rooted in medical science, or anything related to OB care, and is remarkably cruel. The point in time that the amendment sponsor is referring to is among the most devastating medical things occurring prenatally that an expectant person could be going through. Trying to insert further, traumatizing the people by allowing employers to retaliate and discriminate against them is just so twisted. I urge a “no” vote on this amendment. It flies in the face of protecting people who are in any scope of reproductive care from discrimination and from retaliation from their employers.
Senator Geiss’ third statement is as follows:
It is always a good day when we are expanding civil rights protections, not urging people to rally against them. I am very proud that we have this bill before us today to expand civil rights protections, to protect people who are pregnant—who are in any form within their reproductive healthcare. Senate Bill No. 147 is a clear and simple bill to amend sections 201(d) and 202(d), thus providing people with protections from discrimination and retribution for pregnancy, childbirth, the termination of a pregnancy, or a related medical condition under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
Elliott-Larsen currently has a carve out that would allow employers to fire an employee arbitrarily based on their own opinions, ideas, imaginations—whatever—for having an abortion. Given the passage of Proposal 3 in November, that was the state wide conversation that we had. It is necessary to ensure that this loophole is closed so that employers who are hostile to abortion—believe they need to insert themselves in peoples’ reproductive healthcare decisions—do not violate the state Constitution. The people of Michigan spoke loudly and clearly with the passage of Proposal 3 in 2022. Nothing anyone in this room—anyone who doesn’t like that—can do, is going to happen.
It is up to us to ensure that laws are updated to reflect the will of the people who voted for Proposal 3. We are going to protect not only their constitutional rights but also their civil rights. I urge and support swift passage of Senate Bill No. 147.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 158, entitled
A bill to amend 1933 PA 167, entitled “General sales tax act,” by amending sections 1 and 25 (MCL 205.51 and 205.75), section 1 as amended by 2018 PA 2 and section 25 as amended by 2021 PA 108.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—1
Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion did not prevail, 2/3 of the members serving not voting therefor.
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 159, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending sections 2 and 21 (MCL 205.92 and 205.111), section 2 as amended by 2018 PA 1 and section 21 as amended by 2021 PA 109.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Huizenga asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Huizenga’s statement is as follows:
I just wanted to provide some clarification as this bill provides clarity for many of the businesses across our great state. The substitutes that we voted on earlier add limited liability companies to the definition for the purposes. It also includes sales and tax exemptions that don’t apply to the sale of electricity, natural gas, and artificial gas as a utility. It cancels out outstanding audits that Treasury has as ongoing for the delivery and installation of their taxes, it cancels out the balance that entity owes to Treasury from the delivery of sales tax determination, and includes clarifying language to ensure the school aid fund is held harmless.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 160, entitled
A bill to amend 1979 PA 72, entitled “An act to require the governor to report certain tax information with the annual budget message to the legislature,” by amending section 6 (MCL 21.276), as amended by 1983 PA 7.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
House Bill No. 4007
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4007, entitled
A bill to require prevailing wages and fringe benefits on state projects; to establish the requirements and responsibilities of contracting agents and bidders; to make appropriations for the implementation of this act; and to prescribe penalties.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 11, following line 6, by inserting:
“Sec. 9. The governor shall issue an updated budget recommendation that accurately reflects the negative fiscal impact of this act.”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


result: unknown

context_text:
The House of Representatives has passed the bill and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
The bill was referred to the Secretary for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
Senate Bill No. 34, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 176, entitled “An act to create a commission relative to labor disputes, and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide for the mediation and arbitration of labor disputes, and the holding of elections thereon; to regulate the conduct of parties to labor disputes and to require the parties to follow certain procedures; to regulate and limit the right to strike and picket; to protect the rights and privileges of employees, including the right to organize and engage in lawful concerted activities; to protect the rights and privileges of employers; to make certain acts unlawful; to make appropriations; and to prescribe means of enforcement and penalties for violations of this act,” by amending sections 1, 2, 14, and 17 (MCL 423.1, 423.2, 423.14, and 423.17), as amended by 2012 PA 348.
The House of Representatives has amended the bill as follows:
1. Amend page 6, line 9, after “ year ” by striking out “ 2023-2024, ” and inserting “ 2022-2023, ”.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as amended and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the amendment made to the bill by the House,
The amendment was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
House Bill No. 4004, entitled
A bill to amend 1947 PA 336, entitled “An act to prohibit strikes by certain public employees; to provide review from disciplinary action with respect thereto; to provide for the mediation of grievances and the holding of elections; to declare and protect the rights and privileges of public employees; to require certain provisions in collective bargaining agreements; to prescribe means of enforcement and penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act; and to make appropriations,” by amending sections 9, 10, and 15 (MCL 423.209, 423.210, and 423.215), as amended by 2014 PA 414.
Senator Singh moved that rule 3.311 be suspended to permit reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was passed.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
Senator Singh moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Cherry offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 8, line 26, after “ year ” by striking out “ 2023-2024 ” and inserting “ 2022-2023 ”.
The amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The motion prevailed.
Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:
One more time, just one more time I implore you. We are putting an appropriation in a policy bill, attempting to make it referendum-proof—well, it will succeed in making it referendum-proof. You know, public, private, this is what we are dealing with here. Could we pretty please have some intellectual honesty from what it was we said we stood for before? Please vote “no.”
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:
House Bill No. 4039
House Bill No. 4253
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4039, entitled
A bill to amend 1933 PA 167, entitled “General sales tax act,” by amending sections 1 and 25 (MCL 205.51 and 205.75), section 1 as amended by 2018 PA 2 and section 25 as amended by 2021 PA 108.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the raising of additional public revenue by prescribing certain specific taxes, fees, and charges to be paid to the state for the privilege of engaging in certain business activities; to provide, incident to the enforcement thereof, for the issuance of licenses to engage in such occupations; to provide for the ascertainment, assessment and collection thereof; to appropriate the proceeds thereof; and to prescribe penalties for violations of the provisions of this act,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4253, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending sections 2 and 21 (MCL 205.92 and 205.111), section 2 as amended by 2018 PA 1 and section 21 as amended by 2021 PA 109.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senate Bill No. 43
Senate Bill No. 129
Senate Bill No. 130
Senate Bill No. 131
Senate Bill No. 132
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
Third Reading of Bills
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 137, entitled
A bill to amend 2008 PA 260, entitled “Guardianship assistance act,” by amending sections 5, 5a, 5b, and 6 (MCL 722.875, 722.875a, 722.875b, and 722.876), section 5 as amended by 2009 PA 15 and sections 5a, 5b, and 6 as amended by 2015 PA 227.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 138, entitled
A bill to amend 2008 PA 260, entitled “Guardianship assistance act,” by amending sections 2, 3, and 4 (MCL 722.872, 722.873, and 722.874), section 2 as amended by 2022 PA 210, section 3 as amended by 2015 PA 227, and section 4 as amended by 2019 PA 95.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Irwin asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Irwin’s statement is as follows:
I rise to speak in favor of my legislation to fix this loophole in the Guardianship Assistance Program. This bill, together with the other bill in the package, will ensure that guardianships that are ordered by tribal courts and by courts out of Michigan are afforded the same sort of support; the families that take on these children are afforded the same sort of financial support from the state that they would otherwise be eligible if they were to stay as foster parents or if the guardianship was effectuated by a state court. So this bill just establishes fairness for our tribal communities and I really appreciate the support on the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 87, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending section 234 (MCL 257.234), as amended by 2002 PA 552.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Nays—6
Albert Hoitenga Runestad Theis
Bumstead Lindsey
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 141, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” by amending section 537a (MCL 436.1537a), as amended by 2021 PA 64.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Health Policy.
House Bill No. 4199, entitled
A bill to amend 2014 PA 259, entitled “Michigan national guard tuition assistance act,” by amending the title and sections 3 and 4 (MCL 32.433 and 32.434), section 3 as amended by 2016 PA 531.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Veterans and Emergency Services.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 43, entitled
A bill to amend 1917 PA 165, entitled “An act to authorize highway officials to close roads under construction, improvement or repair, or any portion of a highway whereon a bridge is being constructed or repaired; to require such officials to place in good repair and to mark by proper signs suitable detours around roads, or portions of roads, which are closed hereunder; to provide suitable barriers, and lights shall be maintained at the end of such roads or portions of roads which are thus closed and at the intersections thereof with other roads; to require the removal of signs and barriers located and placed hereunder; and to provide a penalty for a violation of the provisions hereof,” by amending section 1 (MCL 247.291) and by adding sections 1a and 1b.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protest
Senator McBroom, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 43.
Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:
Madam President, Senate Bill No. 43 while a bill with good intention I think is certainly unnecessary and potentially creates additional costs and burdens on the state of Michigan. The Department of Transportation can already place these barriers, initiate policy, and utilize its discretion as much as it needs to determine what safety needs there are. There is not a need for us to pass this bill and mandate these be placed everywhere on some rigid circumstance rather than allowing the department to continue to do this. In the committee process, when asked about this the department had no explanation to give us as to why they need this to be put in a statute versus what they’re already doing. There was instead some vague thing about creating a standardized process but they’re the only Department of Transportation we have so who are we trying to standardize with? When I brought these issues up, I was accused by the department of not caring about the lives of highway construction workers, which is simply untrue.
The department seemed to say, and they did say, that I’m putting a price on saving peoples’ lives which is incredibly insulting but is also assuming, somehow or other, that the department doesn’t place a price and a cost on its own workers’ lives, which it obviously does because if it spared no expense to protect highway workers’ lives, it would close down every single road it ever works on. It would simply tell the public, Well, good luck finding your own route to this place because for now in the name of safety and saving lives, this road is closed. But they don’t do that. They keep roads open. They pave extra lanes temporarily. They move traffic temporarily because they themselves recognize what everybody recognizes in the whole wide world, that you can’t do everything to do something. There’s limits on time, there’s limits on cost, there’s limits on materials. It was very insulting for the department to imply that I or anyone else who just voted “no” on Senate Bill No. 43 does not care about the lives of highway workers. That allegation could be thrown right back on them for their failure to do everything they could possibly do.
That’s why I voted “no” and why I encourage this bill not to proceed beyond this point today.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 129, entitled
A bill to amend 1996 PA 381, entitled “Brownfield redevelopment financing act,” by amending the title and sections 2, 8, 8a, 13, 13b, 13c, 14, 14a, 15, and 16 (MCL 125.2652, 125.2658, 125.2658a, 125.2663, 125.2663b, 125.2663c, 125.2664, 125.2664a, 125.2665, and 125.2666), the title as amended by 2003 PA 259, section 2 as amended by 2022 PA 178, sections 8, 13, 13b, 15, and 16 as amended by 2020 PA 259, section 8a as amended by 2017 PA 46, sections 13c and 14a as amended by 2021 PA 138, and section 14 as amended by 2016 PA 471.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Singh asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Singh’s statement is as follows:
Affordable housing is a major concern in every Senator’s district throughout our state, and this legislation will provide a tool and a first step to address that issue head-on. Partnering with the leadership at MSHDA, these bills will create the second residential tax increment financing program in the entire country and the first to allow for large development projects in our communities. This legislation is an opt-in for local governments; it provides flexible options to partner with builders, owners, and other housing providers to address the housing crisis with a solution that will work to rehabilitate blighted property in any community.
Senate Bill No. 129 amends the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act that we have all come to work with for many years throughout our state, especially those who are doing economic development. It adds eligible activities to include housing assistance and housing development. In the end, to speak towards the previous speaker’s concerns, all of these happen at the local level. Your local community has to develop a plan. They also have to ask, How is this going to impact affordable housing? So every year that that TIF is in place, the local government has to actually respond and share information with MSHDA and others to say that the affordable housing is continuing. In the end, the final decision once the local government has said this is something we want to do with our tax increment financing system, then it has to come to MSHDA. And MSHDA, again, has obviously been working for years to focus on making sure that housing is affordable and they will never support a project that doesn’t move—that takes advantage of renters and other people of low-income means.
I am excited about this package because of its unique nature. I think every local government I’ve had the opportunity to work with in my previous four years has told me that affordable housing is a major concern in every community. In the end, I’d like to thank my colleagues that have been part of this package—the Senators from Districts 6, 14, and 35. I want to thank the chair of the Housing and Human Services Committee for his leadership and partnership through the process of making these bills even better throughout the process. And thanks to our friends and colleagues over at MSHDA and Treasury and other places that helped make this legislation possible. What this is going to provide for us is one of the first in the country—technically, second in the country—opportunities for us to allow local governments, your local communities, an opportunity to do affordable housing. I thank you very much for the time and I urge a “yes” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 130, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending section 7gg (MCL 211.7gg), as added by 2003 PA 261.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Bumstead Johnson McBroom Runestad
Daley Lauwers Nesbitt Theis
Hauck
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 131, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 4dd (MCL 205.94dd), as added by 2017 PA 49.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Bumstead Johnson McBroom Runestad
Daley Lauwers Nesbitt Theis
Hauck
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 132, entitled
A bill to amend 1933 PA 167, entitled “General sales tax act,” by amending section 4d (MCL 205.54d), as amended by 2017 PA 48.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The House of Representatives has passed the bill, ordered that it be given immediate effect and pursuant to Joint Rule 20, inserted the full title.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The bill was referred to the Secretary for enrollment, printing and presentation to the Governor.
Senate Bill No. 79, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending section 15 (MCL 28.435), as added by 2000 PA 265, and by adding section 9.
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-2) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-2) and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The bill was referred to the Secretary for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
Senate Bill No. 80, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 11b of chapter XVII (MCL 777.11b), as amended by 2016 PA 234.
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-2) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-2), ordered that it be given immediate effect and pursuant to Joint Rule 20, inserted the full title.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Motions and Communications
Senator Singh moved that the rules be suspended and that the following bills, now on Third Reading of Bills, be placed on their immediate passage:
House Bill No. 4138
House Bill No. 4142
House Bill No. 4143
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
Third Reading of Bills
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4138, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending sections 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 12, and 14a (MCL 28.421, 28.422, 28.422a, 28.422b, 28.432, and 28.434a), section 1 as amended by 2017 PA 95, section 2 as amended by 2015 PA 200, section 2a as amended by 2016 PA 301, section 2b as amended by 2014 PA 205, section 12 as amended by 2010 PA 209, and section 14a as added by 2010 PA 295.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory
Daley Johnson Outman Webber
Damoose Lauwers
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4142, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending sections 223 and 232a (MCL 750.223 and 750.232a), section 223 as amended by 2012 PA 242 and section 232a as amended by 1990 PA 321.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Damoose Lauwers
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to revise, consolidate, codify, and add to the statutes relating to crimes; to define crimes and prescribe the penalties and remedies; to provide for restitution under certain circumstances; to provide for the competency of evidence at the trial of persons accused of crime; to provide immunity from prosecution for certain witnesses appearing at criminal trials; to provide for liability for damages; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4143, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending sections 11b and 16m of chapter XVII (MCL 777.11b and 777.16m), section 11b as amended by 2016 PA 234 and section 16m as amended by 2018 PA 637.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Messages from the House
Senate Bill No. 83, entitled
A bill to provide for the issuance of restraining orders prohibiting certain individuals from possessing or purchasing firearms and ordering the surrender and seizure of a restrained individual’s firearms; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to prescribe penalties; and to provide remedies.
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-5) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-5) and ordered that it be given immediate effect.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senate Bill No. 56
Senate Bill No. 59
Senate Bill No. 259
House Bill No. 4146
House Bill No. 4147
House Bill No. 4148
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4045, entitled
A bill to create the volunteer employee criminal history system program; to impose a fee for conducting a national and state criminal history record information check; and to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Geiss Lindsey
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4219, entitled
A bill to amend 1984 PA 270, entitled “Michigan strategic fund act,” by amending section 5 (MCL 125.2005), as amended by 2014 PA 507.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act relating to the economic development of this state; to create the Michigan strategic fund and to prescribe its powers and duties; to transfer and provide for the acquisition and succession to the rights, properties, obligations, and duties of the job development authority and the Michigan economic development authority to the Michigan strategic fund; to provide for the expenditure of proceeds in certain funds to which the Michigan strategic fund succeeds in ownership; to provide for the issuance of, and terms and conditions for, certain notes and bonds of the Michigan strategic fund; to create certain boards and funds; to create certain permanent funds; to exempt the property, income, and operation of the fund and its bonds and notes, and the interest thereon, from certain taxes; to provide for the creation of certain centers within and for the purposes of the Michigan strategic fund; to provide for the creation and funding of certain accounts for certain purposes; to impose certain powers and duties upon certain officials, departments, and authorities of this state; to make certain loans, grants, and investments; to provide penalties; to make an appropriation; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 161, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” by amending sections 1526, 1531, 1531d, 1531j, and 1531k (MCL 380.1526, 380.1531, 380.1531d, 380.1531j, and 380.1531k), section 1526 as amended by 1995 PA 289, section 1531 as amended by 2018 PA 235, section 1531d as added by 2003 PA 18, and sections 1531j and 1531k as amended by 2018 PA 234.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protest
Senator Runestad, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 161 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I rise to give my “no” vote explanation on Senate Bill No. 161, which overall I support. I think it’s a good idea we need more teachers here in Michigan, but I don’t understand the provision that removes references to the time spent engaging with local employers or technical centers as counting toward certification. I have a teaching degree; I went through the whole teaching program and all the teaching classes. A lot of them, frankly, were worthless. My father was a teacher and principal, my mom was a teacher, my sister was a teacher, so I have a lot of experience in this.
One of the things, though, that was not worthless was the time I spent at a technical center in Genesee County. It was spectacular and some of the issues that were raised being in a voc ed or technical program versus a regular school were completely different. There’s enormous value in a teacher spending time in a voc ed center. Most of them have no experience, but the ones who do, I think, add a lot of value. Same thing I’ve heard from a lot of employers that a lot of academics simply have no idea what it’s like in the workplace. They say they have students coming in who are so dysfunctional and they need a lot of emotional support if a counselor or a teacher has experience working in the workplace should be valued. That should be expanding the number of teachers and this provision limits the number of teachers and very valuable teachers, so I will be a “no” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 162, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” by amending section 1233 (MCL 380.1233), as amended by 2021 PA 149.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 56, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 335 (MCL 750.335), as amended by 2002 PA 672.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
This was not the only law that we have had that has endeavored to strengthen families. Even the tax code, which is now being used as an excuse to repeal this law, was structured to reward, enhance, and promote strong families, built on a foundation of marriage that has been provided for millennia across the world.
This bill is very representative of where we are as a nation and as a culture. It signifies the willingness to neglect a maintenance of effort for good policy by taking the easy way rather than doing the hard work. It also demonstrates the willful and persistent unwillingness to consider history. Finally, it shows a lack of understanding of the principles of government.
Senator Chang asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Chang’s statement is as follows:
I wasn’t anticipating a floor discussion about this bill, but figured I would take the opportunity to say a few things. This bill is not about a moral issue, it’s not about changing people’s behavior, it’s not about marriage rates; it’s really just about bringing us into the 21st century. Michigan is one out of only two states in this whole country that still has this law that prohibits people who are unmarried men and women from living together. This issue was actually brought to me not by folks who were concerned about people’s behavior; it was really, actually came from a tax professional. The accountant who came to me talked about how this was having real-life implications for the couples who choose to live together for whatever reason. Some people just don’t want to get married, but they are committed partners to one another.
As mentioned by an earlier speaker, the IRS tax code says that, “[a]n individual shall not be treated as a member of the taxpayer’s household if at any time during the taxable year of the taxpayer the relationship between such individual and the taxpayer is in violation of local law.” This law will help some individuals in our state by reducing their taxpayer burden, it’ll place unmarried Michigan taxpayers on equal footing with taxpayers in almost every other state, and, again as mentioned, it will bring us to our current century and really just update our laws. I would welcome your support.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 59, entitled
A bill to amend 1974 PA 258, entitled “Mental health code,” by amending section 100c (MCL 330.1100c), as amended by 2020 PA 285.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 259, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 759a and 764a (MCL 168.759a and 168.764a), section 759a as amended by 2022 PA 197 and section 764a as amended by 2020 PA 177.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Bellino Hauck Nesbitt Theis
Bumstead Hoitenga Outman Victory
Daley Lauwers
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4146, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending sections 2, 2b, 5b, and 8 (MCL 28.422, 28.422b, 28.425b, and 28.428), sections 2 and 2b as amended by 2023 PA 19 and sections 5b and 8 as amended by 2017 PA 95.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory
Daley Johnson Outman Webber
Damoose Lauwers
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4147, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending sections 1908, 2529, and 2559 (MCL 600.1908, 600.2529, and 600.2559), section 2529 as amended by 2014 PA 532 and section 2559 as amended by 2018 PA 261.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Damoose Lauwers
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to revise and consolidate the statutes relating to the organization and jurisdiction of the courts of this state; the powers and duties of the courts, and of the judges and other officers of the courts; the forms and attributes of civil claims and actions; the time within which civil actions and proceedings may be brought in the courts; pleading, evidence, practice, and procedure in civil and criminal actions and proceedings in the courts; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state governmental officers and entities; to provide remedies and penalties for the violation of certain provisions of this act; to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with or contravening any of the provisions of this act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4148, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” (MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 15e to chapter XVII.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senate Bill No. 88, entitled
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 1 (MCL 722.111), as amended by 2022 PA 208, and by adding sections 3i, 3j, 3k, and 3 l .
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Santana offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-3).
The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Singh moved to reconsider the vote by which the substitute was not adopted.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the adoption of the substitute,
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 89, entitled
A bill to create a program to assist certain child care centers and schools with the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of certain filtered water stations and faucets; to provide for the sampling and testing of water from certain water outlets; to create certain funds; and to provide for the duties of certain state departments and officers.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Cherry offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-2).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Bumstead Hoitenga Lindsey Theis
Hauck Johnson Runestad
Excused—1
McBroom
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4054, entitled
A bill to amend 1933 PA 167, entitled “General sales tax act,” by amending section 4t (MCL 205.54t), as amended by 2015 PA 205.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the raising of additional public revenue by prescribing certain specific taxes, fees, and charges to be paid to the state for the privilege of engaging in certain business activities; to provide, incident to the enforcement thereof, for the issuance of licenses to engage in such occupations; to provide for the ascertainment, assessment and collection thereof; to appropriate the proceeds thereof; and to prescribe penalties for violations of the provisions of this act,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 97, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 4o (MCL 205.94o), as amended by 2015 PA 204.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: