context_text:
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 2, line 12, after “ request. ” by striking out “ Data provided under a data use agreement is exempt from disclosure under section 13(1)(d) of the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.243. ”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 2, following line 16, by inserting
“ (3) A data use agreement under subsection (2) may include only the following terms, as applicable:
(a) The withholding of personally identifiable information in the data.
(b) Exclusion of data from certain courts if the de minimus nature of the results would allow for a juvenile to be identifiable. ” and renumbering the remaining subsections.
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:


chamber: senate

result: passed

context_text:
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:
Senate Bill No. 41
Senate Bill No. 94
Senate Bill No. 95
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 41, entitled
A bill to amend 2001 PA 142, entitled “Michigan memorial highway act,” (MCL 250.1001 to 250.2092) by adding section 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:
Cherry Johnson Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Camilleri
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. 94, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” (MCL 333.1101 to 333.25211) by adding section 17757c.
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 Santana’s statement is as follows:
Today I rise to give my opposition to Senate Bill No. 94, not because I’m against the intent of the 340B program, but because this bill fails to address the real concerns about transparency, accountability, and most critically, ensuring that this program serves the patients who need it most. The 340B program is a federal program that was created to provide discounted medications to hospitals and clinics that serve low-income patients. It was a well mentioned effort to stretch scarce federal resources and make lifesaving prescriptions more affordable for those in need. But over the years, we’ve seen where this program has shifted away from the original mission.
The reality is that while some entities reinvest their 340B savings into patient care, too many others do not. There are no guardrails ensuring that the revenue generated is actually used to help the underserved. There are no requirements for how hospitals use the profits they make through the program. There are no rules governing how 340B entities expand, and now only 38 percent of the 340B disproportionate share hospitals are located in medically underserved areas. This means that a program that was originally designed to help vulnerable patients is now, in some ways, contributing to the very inequities it was meant to solve.
Over the last decade, the number of 340B pharmacies in disadvantaged communities has declined, while the number of high income areas has increased. That is a problem. Yet despite the serious concerns, Senate Bill No. 94 does not take the necessary steps to fix them. This bill requires covered entities to provide some disclosure. However, it can be described as anemic at best. It does not require hospitals to disclose how much revenue they generate from the program, how much is siphoned off to third-party actors, or how much is actually reinvested into patient care. Without the level of transparency, we are not ensuring that this program is working as intended. We don’t even know the full impact of the 340B program in Michigan, this Medicaid program. At the time when we should be doing everything we can to safeguard resources, our most vulnerable residents, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the lack of oversight in this system.
Other states are starting to examine the financial realities of the 340B program. Just last year, Minnesota released its first ever 340B covered entity report. It found that 340B providers in states generated at least $630 million in net revenue through the program in a single year. Yet the largest hospital systems which make up to 13 percent of all reported entities, took in 80 percent and that is in revenue. Meanwhile, some of the safety net clinics that serve the most vulnerable actually reported a negative net revenue because they had to make payments to third-party middlemen.
Let’s be clear. When we talk about transparency and accountability in 340B, we are talking about ensuring that the program actually benefits the patients it was designed to help. Unfortunately, Senate Bill No. 94 does not achieve that. It does not require covered entities to explain how they spend their savings, it does not ensure that 340B dollars go towards charity care, or other critical services that understand underserved patients need. It does not close loopholes that allow for bad actors to profit from the program without reinvesting in patient care. Because of these failings, it does not move us closer to a truly equitable system. I have always supported the local hospitals. I recognize the vital role they play in our communities, but I also believe that ethics and transparency should be nonnegotiable. Nobody, whether it’s the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies, the third-party administrators, should be able to operate without accountability when it comes to a program designed to help the low-income patients.
That’s why I cannot support Senate Bill No. 94 in its current form. I hope that this bill moves forward and my colleagues in the House will take a serious look at these concerns and work to strengthen this legislation, because if we are serious about addressing systemic inequities, then we will need to ensure that programs like 340B are working as they were intended to work, not as a revenue stream but as a lifeline to patients who need the help the most.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 95, entitled
A bill to prohibit hospitals from attempting to collect debts incurred when not in compliance with price transparency laws; and to provide remedies.
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. 23, entitled
A bill to amend 1967 PA 288, entitled “Land division act,” by amending section 108 (MCL 560.108), as
added by 1996 PA 591.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator McBroom offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 1, line 4, after “tract,” by inserting “shall result in not more than 10 parcels of 1.5 acres
each if the remainder of the resulting parcels are 3 acres or larger or”.
2. Amend page 2, line 26, after “recorded.” by inserting “This subdivision does not apply to a parcel
created by an exempt split.”.
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:
Bellino Johnson
Excused—1
Camilleri
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. 68, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” (MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303)
by adding section 609k.
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:
Hoitenga
Excused—1
Camilleri
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. 87, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” (MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303)
by adding section 804.
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—0
Excused—1
Camilleri
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. 88, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” by amending section 903b
(MCL 436.1903b), as added by 2016 PA 434.
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 Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time being 10:43 a.m.
10:58 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 96
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 96, entitled
A bill to amend 1972 PA 230, entitled “Stille-DeRossett-Hale single state construction code act,” by amending section 28 (MCL 125.1528), as amended by 2020 PA 155, and by adding section 4i.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Lindsey
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. 97, entitled
A bill to amend 1941 PA 207, entitled “Fire prevention code,” by amending section 22 (MCL 29.22), as amended by 2020 PA 154.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Lindsey
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. 98, 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,” (MCL 722.111 to 722.128) by adding section 3m.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Lindsey
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. 71, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 552c (MCL 750.552c), as added by 2005 PA 305.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


result: failed

context_text:
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Runestad offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 2, following line 5, by inserting:
“ Sec. 201j. (1) Not less than 30 days after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, each community college that receives an appropriation in section 201 must certify to the state budget director that the community college is committed to cooperating with federal immigration officials and that the community college is not a sanctuary campus.
(2) If a community college fails to provide certification under subsection (1), the state budget director must withhold that community college’s monthly installment described in section 206 until the community college provides certification. ”.
2. Amend page 2, following line 9, by inserting:
“ Sec. 236t. (1) Not less than 30 days after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, each public university that receives an appropriation in section 236 must certify to the state budget director that the university is committed to cooperating with federal immigration officials and that the university is not a sanctuary campus.
(2) If a public university fails to provide certification under subsection (1), the state budget director must withhold that public university’s monthly installment described in section 241 until the public university provides certification. ”.
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:
Lindsey
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Albert offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 2, following line 5, by inserting:
“ Sec. 228a. A community college may not use funds appropriated in section 201 for programming, staffing, or other costs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. ”.
2. Amend page 2, following line 9, by inserting:
“ Sec. 275n. A public university may not use funds appropriated in section 236 for programming, staffing, or other costs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. ”.
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:
(a) By not later than October 30, 2025, at a public meeting of the board of the district, the board of the district ensures that a presentation is provided to the board, to the parents and legal guardians of pupils enrolled in the district, and to other members of the community. The presentation must include a plan on how funding received under this section will be used to address learning loss.
(b) The board of the district posts the plan described in subdivision (a) on the district’s website.
(c) The board of the district posts any updates to the plan described in subdivision (a), as applicable, on the district’s website.
(3) The amount of funding provided to each eligible district under this section must be an equal amount per pupil in membership.
(4) By not later than August 15, 2026, an eligible district that has received funding under this section shall provide a report to the chairs of the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on school aid, to the house and senate fiscal agencies, and to the state budget director indicating how funds received under this section were spent, detailing the amounts spent, the services provided with the funding, students reached with the funding, and any outcomes that measure how the funds that were used to address learning loss impacted student achievement.
(5) Funds must be spent to increase instructional time to address students that are behind academically. Eligible students are those that can be identified as being in need of increased instructional time by standardized testing, school administrator or teacher recommendation, parent, guardian, or student request, or any other method by which a student can reasonably be determined to be in need of remedial instruction. Eligible uses of these funds include, but are not limited to, tutoring, before- and after-school programming, summer school, or any other use that focuses on offering increased instructional time for academic improvement.
(6) If funds received under this section were not used to address learning loss in accordance with an eligible district’s plan as described in subsection (2)(a), including any updates to the plan, as applicable, as evidenced by findings in the report described in subsection (4), by not later than September 30, 2026, the eligible district shall remit to the department the amount of funds received under this section that were not used to address learning loss.
(7) The funds allocated under this section for 2024-2025 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for 2024-2025 are carried forward into 2025-2026. The purpose of the work project is to continue support for the programs under this section. The estimated completion date of the work project is September 30, 2026. ” and adjusting the totals in enacting section 1 accordingly.
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 Klinefelt
Excused—1
Lindsey
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Webber offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 1, following line 5, by inserting:
“ Sec. 11dd. In addition to the funds appropriated in section 11, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, there is appropriated the sum of $160,000,000.00 from the state school aid fund and the sum of $16,500,000.00 from the general fund for the purposes described in section 31aa .” and adjust the totals in enacting section 1 accordingly.
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:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator McBroom offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 1, following line 5 by inserting:
“ Sec. 11dd. In addition to the appropriations in section 11, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, there is appropriated the sum of $13,744,600.00 from the state school aid fund for the purposes described in section 99mm.
Sec. 99mm. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11dd, there is allocated $13,744,600.00 for 2024-2025 only to Menominee Area Public Schools to cover the cost of an emergency water and asbestos event, cost inflation for unfinished bond work delayed due to asbestos cleanup, and for costs related to consolidation activities.
(2) If, by June 20, 2035, Menominee Area Public Schools receives reimbursement from the settlement of a court case addressing the nonfulfillment of contracted duties regarding an emergency water and asbestos event, Menominee Area Public Schools, not later than 90 days following the receipt of that court settlement amount, must reimburse the department in the amount it received from that settlement, or the full amount received under this section, whichever is less. The department shall determine the mode of payment for the reimbursement.
(3) Notwithstanding section 18a, funds allocated under subsection (1) may be available for expenditure until September 30, 2027. The recipient of funding under subsection (1) must return any unexpended funds to the department in the manner prescribed by the department not later than October 30, 2027.
(4) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department. ” and adjusting the totals in enacting section 1 accordingly.
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:


context_text:
(f) Determine the taxable value payment rate by dividing the amount to be distributed under this subsection by the total statewide adjusted taxable value population as determined under subdivision (e).
(g) Determine the taxable value payment for each county by multiplying the result under subdivision (f) by the adjusted taxable value population for that county.
Sec. 1304. A term that is defined in the Glenn Steil state revenue sharing act, 1971 PA 140, MCL 141.901 to 141.921, has the same meaning when used in sections 950 to 956.
REPEALERS
Sec. 1352. Section 952 of article 5 of PA 121 of 2024 is repealed.
Sec. 1353. Section 954 of article 5 of PA 121 of 2024 is repealed.
Sec. 1354. Section 955 of article 5 of PA 121 of 2024 is repealed.
Sec. 1355. Section 957 of article 5 of PA 121 of 2024 is repealed.”
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:
Appropriated from:
State restricted funds 1% 0
State general fund/general purpose $ 0”.
4. Amend page 21, following line 7, by inserting:
“PART 2A
PROVISIONS CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
Sec. 1201. Pursuant to section 30 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963, total state spending from state sources under part 1 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025 is $0 and total state spending from state sources to be paid to local units of government is $0.
Sec. 1202. From the funds appropriated in part 1, the Civil Service Commission shall require that state employees in the classified civil service perform their work in-person at least four days per week, unless their job duties specifically require work performed off-site.”
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:
Appropriated from:
State general fund/general purpose $ 150,000 ”.
2. Amend page 21, following line 7, by inserting:
“PART 2A
PROVISIONS CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
Sec. 1201. Pursuant to section 30 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963, total state spending from state sources under part 1a for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025 is $150,000.00 and total state spending from state sources to be paid to local units of government is $150,000.00.
Sec. 1202. The appropriations made and expenditures authorized under this part and part 1a and the departments, commissions, boards, offices, and programs for which appropriations are made under this part and part 1a are subject to the management and budget act, 1984 PA 431, MCL 18.1101 to 18.1594.”.
Sec. 1301. From the funds appropriated in part 1 for election administration and services, up to $150,000.00 may be used to reimburse local governments for costs associated with holding a special election in the 35th state senate district during the state fiscal year ending September 30, 2025.”.
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:
Total other state restricted revenues 0
State general fund/general purpose $ 0 ”.
2. Amend page 21, following line 7, by inserting:
“PART 2A
PROVISIONS CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
Sec. 1201. Pursuant to section 30 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963, total state spending from state sources under part 1a for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025 is $0.00 and total state spending from state sources to be paid to local units of government is $0.00.
Sec. 1202. The appropriations made and expenditures authorized under this part and part 1a and the departments, commissions, boards, offices, and programs for which appropriations are made under this part and part 1a are subject to the management and budget act, 1984 PA 431, MCL 18.1101 to 18.1594.
Sec. 1301. The director of the department of natural resources shall not use funds appropriated in part 1 to approve the sale or lease of forested state land for solar projects without an affirmative resolution of support from all affected local units of government.”.
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:
Senator Hauck offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 21, following line 7, by inserting:
“PART 2A
PROVISIONS CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
Sec. 1202. (1) Funds remaining within work project account #20753 shall not be expended and shall remain within the work project until lapsed to the general fund.
(2) Any funds lapsed to the general fund as a result of any lapse described under subsection (1) shall be appropriated and distributed as follows:
(a) 64.2% to the county road commissions, distributed according to the formula established under section 12 of 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.662.
(b) 35.8% to cities and villages for road repairs and reconstructions, distributed according to the formula established under section 13 of 1951 PA 51, MCL 247.663.”.
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:
Sec. 1202. The appropriations made and expenditures authorized under this part and part 1a and the departments, commissions, boards, offices, and programs for which appropriations are made under this part and part 1a are subject to the management and budget act, 1984 PA 431, MCL 18.1101 to 18.1594.
Sec. 1301. (1) From funds appropriated in part 1a for families with young children tax credit, the department of treasury shall implement a tax credit or tax credit grant program as described under subsections (2) through (5)
(2) For tax years that begin on and after January 1, 2024, a qualified taxpayer may claim a credit against the tax imposed under part 1 of the income tax act, 1967 PA 281, MCL 206.1 to 206.847 equal to $5,500.00 for each qualified dependent of the qualified taxpayer for which an exemption was claimed under MCL 206.30(2)(b) for that same tax year.
(3) If the credit allowed under this section exceeds the tax liability of the qualified taxpayer for the tax year, that portion of the credit that exceeds the tax liability must be refunded.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), if an amendment to the income tax act, 1967 PA 281, MCL 206.1 to 206.847 that would effectuate the tax credit described under this section has not been enacted by the effective date of this act, the department of treasury may issue a payment or other direct relief of tax liability as described under subsections (2) and (3) as a grant payment to a qualified taxpayer using the appropriation for families with young children tax credit in part 1a.
(5) If an amendment to the income tax act, 1967 PA 281, MCL 206.1 to 206.847 that would effectuate the tax credit described under this section has been enacted by the effective date of this act, the appropriation in part 1a for families with young children tax credit must not be spent, and must lapse to the state general fund.
(6) Except as otherwise provided under this subsection, terms used in this section mean the same thing as those terms defined under part 1 of the income tax act, 1967 PA 281, MCL 206.1 to 206.847. As used in this section:
(a) “Qualified dependent” means a dependent who is 3 years of age or less on the last day of the tax year for which the credit is claimed.
(b) “Qualified taxpayer” means a taxpayer who is allowed to claim a credit under MCL 206.272 for a tax year on a return filed under this part for the same tax year.”.
The amendments were 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:
During the Committee of the Whole, Senator Geiss entered the Senate Chamber.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:
Senate Bill No. 81
Senate Bill No. 25
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 81, entitled
A bill to amend 2013 PA 93, entitled “Michigan indigent defense commission act,” by amending the title and sections 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 (MCL 780.983, 780.985, 780.987, 780.989, 780.991, 780.993, 780.995, 780.997, 780.1001, and 780.1003), section 3 as amended by 2019 PA 108, sections 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17 as amended by 2018 PA 214, and section 7 as amended by 2018 PA 443, and by adding section 14.
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 Shink asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Shink’s statement is as follows:
I rise in support of Senate Bill No. 81. This bill, which passed the Senate with bipartisan support last session, ensures that children accused of serious crimes have access to competent legal representation regardless of their financial status and ensures that their constitutional rights are protected. This can make the difference between a bright future for young people or a life of struggle and incarceration.
The bill adds a voting member to the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission who has experience defending youth and delinquency proceedings. The bill allows the MIDC to establish standards and procedures for the determination of indigency. These changes will ensure that the fundamental right of legal counsel is accessible to all of Michigan’s children.
I ask that you support this bipartisan bill to ensure that children in Michigan will not be denied their constitutional rights and will be guaranteed fairness, justice, and the brighter future we’d prefer.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 25, entitled
A bill to amend 1974 PA 300, entitled “Motor vehicle service and repair act,” by amending sections 2, 13b, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 32, 32a, 33, and 40 (MCL 257.1302, 257.1313b, 257.1314, 257.1315, 257.1316, 257.1317, 257.1318, 257.1330, 257.1332, 257.1332a, 257.1333, and 257.1340), section 2 as amended by 2020 PA 227 and sections 13b and 32a as added and sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 30, 32, and 33 as amended by 2016 PA 430, and by adding section 30a.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


result: adopted

context_text:
A resolution affirming that the Michigan Senate recognizes diversity, equity, and inclusion as essential foundational principles for achieving the American Dream and encouraging policymakers, educational institutions, workplaces, and other organizations throughout the state and nation to adopt and uphold these principles in their work.
Whereas, The concept of the American Dream embodies the ideals of opportunity, prosperity, and upward mobility, promising that every person in our nation - including Michiganders - should have the chance to achieve personal success and fulfillment through hard work and dedication. Essential to the American Dream is the promise that it belongs to all of us, not just a few; and
Whereas, The principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion perfectly embody the spirit of the American Dream, and our highest achievements as a state and nation have been realized when diversity, equity, and inclusion-informed policies harness the strength of people from all backgrounds. Diversity, equity, and inclusion policies are deeply rooted in America’s founding principles and are embodied in our nation’s long history of civil rights efforts aimed at delivering laws, policies, and initiatives that enable our society to live up to its constitutionally mandated promises. The 19th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, among other diversity, equity, and inclusion-informed legal instruments, reflect the corrective actions taken throughout our nation’s history to guarantee access to the educational, economic, and civil obligations and capacities we have to offer; and
Whereas, Diversity, equity, and inclusion-informed policies are committed to widening pathways for achieving the American Dream in every community so that all our citizens - in Michigan and beyond - can reap the benefits of shared prosperity in our nation. Policies informed by the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion can remove barriers to opportunity, strengthen productivity and morale across workplaces, increase innovation throughout industries, and ultimately bring satisfaction to Americans everywhere as a result of a healthy, vibrant economy open to all of us. Ultimately, adopting and maintaining diversity, equity, and inclusion-informed policies helps ensure that every individual - regardless of cultural, religious, or ethnic background - can fully participate in all aspects of society; and
Whereas, As diversity, equity, and inclusion principles reflect the fundamental rights enshrined in our nation and state’s respective constitutions, we are compelled to adopt and promote them. Freedom of speech and expression are foundational rights at both the state and federal levels; together, they guarantee the right of individuals to voice their ideas and opinions without interference, punishment, or retaliation by the government. Any elected leaders who attempt to prohibit or otherwise limit diversity, equity, and inclusion-informed policies are acting at odds with the principles underlying these essential rights, restricting the ability of individuals to freely express themselves, diminishing the diversity of perspectives that strengthen our society, and undermining the spirit of anti-discrimination laws and policies; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That we affirm our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion as an essential foundation for achieving the American Dream and fostering environments where all individuals have the freedom to be healthy, prosperous, and safe and have the opportunity to realize their full potential; and be it further
Resolved, That we encourage local, state, and federal policymakers, educational institutions, workplaces, and other organizations to adopt and uphold the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion which promote inclusivity, protect freedom of expression, remove barriers, and provide equitable opportunities for every American to pursue their dreams; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Governor, and the Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives.
The question being on the adoption of the resolution,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The resolution was adopted, a majority of the members voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time being 10:25 a.m.
10:32 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Moss.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 105
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 105, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406ss.
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:
Polehanki
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate return to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 83
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 83, entitled
A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending section 27c (MCL 388.1627c), as amended by 2024 PA 120.
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 Irwin Nesbitt Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Polehanki
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. 51, entitled
A bill to declare the powers and duties of the Black leadership advisory council; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state 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:
The Black community is not monolithic, its members hold a wide range of political views, yet the Governor’s 15 appointees do not reflect this diversity. Instead, when looking into the backgrounds, I found that nearly every single member is a vocal partisan Democrat with strong ties to leftist organizations and a history of donating almost exclusively to Democrats. If the council’s purpose is to represent the full spectrum of the Black community, why not include other voices as well? Rather than being a nonpartisan body capable of finding real solutions, this council has become yet another liberal institution funded by Michigan taxpayers. I urge a “no” vote.
Senator Geiss asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Geiss’ statement is as follows:
I would hope that our colleague from the 23rd Senate District would be more consistent into whether he likes diversity or does not like diversity. Yesterday was a whole different story when we had the resolution on promoting and accepting DEI. The Black Leadership Advisory Council is indeed diverse. It’s not meant to be political. It is meant to be about the broad diaspora of the Black community writ large in the state of Michigan.
I was actually one of the people who, in its initial creation, was one of the folks who was a part of the multi-generational, multi-diasporic group that created the language that eventually became the executive order. We’ve been working on this since 2015. The various parts of the Black Leadership Advisory Council are the African diaspora committee, the arts and cultural communications committee, the business leaders committee, the community safety committee, the educational committee, and the health committee, because these were the areas that were determined to be significantly relevant in terms of reducing disparities for members of the Black community, whether they are African American, ADOS, consider themselves just Black, or members of the Caribbean community, or are international members of the community who are from the continent of Africa.
This is one of the cultural commissions in the state of Michigan that is not statutory, and it needs to be. I urge a “yes” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 82, entitled
A bill to protect the safety of judges and certain other individuals; to protect certain information of judges and certain other individuals from disclosure; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and certain other people and entities; and to provide remedies.
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 Lindsey Victory
Bumstead Hoitenga Nesbitt
Excused—1
Polehanki
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. 116, entitled
A bill to amend 2000 PA 92, entitled “Food law,” by amending section 4105 (MCL 289.4105), as amended by 2016 PA 188.
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 introduced
Senate Bill No. 211, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” (MCL 380.1 to 380.1852) by adding section 1138a.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Education.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator McBroom entered the Senate Chamber.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 111, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” (MCL 600.101 to 600.9947) by adding section 2950p.
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.
Protest
Senator Runestad , under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 111.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
Senate Bill No. 111’s—that we just voted on—ostensible purpose was to protect vulnerable adults, and it easily could have been written to accomplish that. Instead, it establishes a system that vastly overextends the purpose of the personal protection orders. Under this bill, a vulnerable adult, which is defined as anyone over 60 years old or their court-appointed guardian, would be able to request a PPO on someone for a vast variety of reasons, up to and including, and most seriously, whether the accused purchases or possesses a firearm. That means if the accuser is able to convince the court that there’s a reasonable cause that the accused might someday buy a firearm, then the court is required to issue the PPO. This is absolutely unconstitutional. A further constitutional concern within the bill is that if a PPO is ordered, then the accused is thereafter barred from purchasing or possessing a firearm. In addition to these very concerning constitutional provisions, the bill does not lay out any clear means to determine relationships between the 60-year-old making the request and the person they’re accusing, as is currently in the PPO bills. This bill is very, very poorly crafted and could easily have been written in such a way to appropriately accomplish its purpose. Instead, it is a grave and dangerous infringement upon our constitutional rights and should have been voted down.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 112, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 159g (MCL 750.159g), as amended by 2022 PA 174.
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 Anthony asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Anthony’s statement is as follows:
I rise to uplift the significance of this bill as well as the entire package to protect our most vulnerable adults and seniors. This issue is something I know we all care about and want to fight for. I’ve been sounding the alarm on this issue since the early days of my elected service in this Capitol back when I served in the House in 2018, and I wish I could say that the problem has gotten better, but unfortunately it has not.
Year after year we have heard the stories of men and women across the state, and the heartbreak continues. We hear from seniors who have spent their entire lives working hard, saving diligently, hoping for a retirement filled with peace and security, only to have their savings stolen by someone they trusted. We’ve heard from those who have devoted themselves to raising families and caring for their communities, only to be met with neglect and mistreatment when their own health begins to decline. This isn’t just about policy; it’s very personal. These are our parents and grandparents, our neighbors, and our mentors; the very people who raised us, who taught us, and built our communities. Right now, too many of them are being targeted by scams, fraud, and financial predators who seek out vulnerability as an opportunity. That’s why we’ve reintroduced this critical bill package time and time again.
Now, it’s long overdue that our state and communities have the tools they need to better protect our seniors and vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. It’s about creating a system that doesn’t just respond to abuse but actively prevents it. It’s more important than ever as our seniors and most vulnerable are seeing federal programs and resources slashed. This is one way we can tell our seniors, We see you, we value you, and we are fighting for you.
I urge a “yes” vote so that we can stand up for our most vulnerable populations.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 113, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 174a (MCL 750.174a), as amended by 2013 PA 34.
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
Nays—0
Excused—0
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. 114, entitled
A bill to provide for the creation of a vulnerable adult multidisciplinary team; to prescribe the powers and duties of a vulnerable adult multidisciplinary team; 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:
Senator Hoitenga asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Hoitenga’s statement is as follows:
Today I rise to urge your support for a resolution commemorating April 18 as Lineman Appreciation Day. As some of you may have heard, over the course of the last few weeks, northern Michigan was devastated by a catastrophic storm, an ice storm that wreaked havoc on our infrastructure grid leaving 12 Michigan counties in a state of emergency and thousands of families in the dark. The storm not only highlighted the power of nature and the fragility of our infrastructure, but it spotlighted the bravery of our linemen. In the face of extreme weather and treacherous conditions, these linemen and women answered the call with a focus on one thing: turning our lights on as quickly and safely as possible. The relentless commitment and skill during a crisis exemplify the very best of public service.
But linemen don’t just work during emergencies. Every day, they maintain the electrical grid that powers our lives, our homes, our schools, and hospitals. I urge you support me in declaring April 18 as Lineman Appreciation Day to recognize the vital role they play in keeping our communities safe and connected.
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. 129, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 267, entitled “Open meetings act,” by amending section 3a (MCL 15.263a), as amended by 2023 PA 214.
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:
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protests
Senators Runestad , Bellino and Theis, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 129.
Senator Runestad’s statement, in which Senators Bellino and Theis concurred, is as follows:
Across the state of Michigan, employees have to have a note when they are off work for a period of time. They may be required to bring in a doctor’s note. This is not unusual. In a case where somebody’s appointed to a commission in Michigan, the whole purpose of our Open Meetings Act is to ensure the public has the ability to communicate with these people, to confront them, to ask questions. That’s the purpose. This bill is written sloppily, as seems like all the Democratic bills are, is allowing a person to just simply say, I have some kind of disability and thus can go remote and not have to face the public. The one that comes to mind most frequently to me, the one I hear the biggest complaint about, is the Michigan Public Service Commission. These people should be required to face the public and answer questions. The way this bill is written is basically that they can simply, anyone, on any commission, anywhere, can make any kind of claim at all and now go around the Open Meetings Act.
I don’t understand why the Democratic policies will not make it clear that these things we can all agree on, putting some provisions in here to make sure a person actually does have a condition that would prohibit them from showing up, is included in the bill, but once again, that is not the case. That’s why I voted “no.”
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 93, entitled
A bill to amend 2000 PA 92, entitled “Food law,” by amending section 4105 (MCL 289.4105), as amended by 2016 PA 188.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 18, entitled
A bill to amend 1994 PA 203, entitled “Foster care and adoption services act,” (MCL 722.951 to 722.960) by adding section 8f.
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 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 ask for your support of my bill, Senate Bill No. 18. What Senate Bill No. 18 does is it rights a longstanding wrong in our state foster care system. You may remember this bill from last fall. It passed this chamber with great bipartisan support, and I thank my colleagues for that, but here it is again, hoping to get this important issue done.
Here’s what happens today: Today in Michigan, if you’re a foster kid, if you’re a kid in foster care, and you have some sort of income, perhaps from Social Security due to a deceased parent, that income is taken by the state, brought into the state budget, and used for the foster care system. I think that’s wrong. I think the income of these foster care kids is their income and it should be reserved for their needs. Also, we know that when kids in foster care age out of the system, they often hit a cliff. They hit a financial cliff. They often don’t have people in their lives who can help them financially, emotionally, or psychologically with good advice. That’s why so many foster care youths end up in the criminal justice system or end up struggling with housing—end up homeless. We need to remember that these youth in foster care are kids we’ve taken into our care as the state of Michigan. In a certain way, they are our kids, and we owe it to them to treat them with the utmost respect.
That’s why I’ve introduced this legislation to try to restore the income of these kids, make sure they can keep it, make sure DHHS, instead of spending it now, reserves that income so if they need it during their care, or when they age out, they’ve got something to help them attain education, attain housing, get some solid footing, and have a greater chance at success in our great state. I welcome your support of this legislation. I’m hoping we can get it done this year for the youth in foster care in our state.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 29, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 2227, 2617, 2617a, and 2618 (MCL 333.2227, 333.2617, 333.2617a, and 333.2618), section 2227 as added by 2006 PA 653 and section 2617a as added by 2016 PA 479, and by adding section 2617b.
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 Geiss asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Geiss’ statement is as follows:
Today marks a significant mile marker along the Michigan “ momnibus ” route. These bills were introduced last term and passed with bipartisan support last fall, but sadly did not make it through the House thanks to circumstances beyond our control. Senate Bill Nos. 29 through 34 and 36 through 39 pave the way for positive birthing experiences that are grounded in joy and love. By dismantling systemic barriers that disproportionately impact Black and brown birthing people, the Michigan “ momnibus ” brings us one step closer to achieving equity and justice in reproductive and obstetric care. It is a multifaceted bill package that works to improve integrity and accountability in Michigan’s maternal health care system, ensuring that every family has an equitable opportunity to have a healthy, joyful pregnancy, birthing, and postpartum experience that truly centers their needs.
Together the bill package works to improve prenatal and perinatal health outcomes in Michigan through requiring DHHS to include studies and reports on biased or unjust perinatal care, including but not limited to instances of obstetric violence or racism on their website. This bill in the package also codifies the use and duties of the maternal mortality review team. It creates the unbiased and unjust care reporting act and directs DHHS to create a tool for patients to self-report experiences of obstetric racism. It requires hospitals to provide LARA with evidence that they have policies in place to support patient protections and ensure patients can bring their doula, spouse, or companion with them during labor. Upon request from DHHS, the Department and Insurance and Financial Services—DIFS—will collect information on medical malpractice insurers’ policies related to perinatal care services.
It also ensures pregnancy status does not affect the right for a designated patient advocate to make life-sustaining treatment decisions. It amends the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to make clear that sex includes but is not limited to pregnancy or lactation status in public places and in the workplace, amends the Public Health Code to add licensed midwives and midwifery programs to the Michigan essential health provider repayment program, requires private insurers to reimburse licensed midwives for services, expands Medicaid coverage for perinatal and gynecological services, and requires Medicaid coverage for offsite or remote ultrasound procedures and fetal nonstress tests.
This has been a long road for the Michigan “ momnibus ” but by keeping the “ momnibus ” moving, we can affirm a commitment to ensuring healthy pregnancies and equitable care must transcend partisan, racial, class, and economic divides as every family deserves access to the care they need to thrive. When it passed our chamber last fall, it was nothing short of magical, for the Michigan “ momnibus ” has been the legislative child of the community. The state of birth justice and their partners and my partnering colleagues, the Senators from the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 21st Senate districts. Today on this last day of Black Maternal Health Week, my four colleagues and I are all figurative legislative doulas and midwives. I urge passage of this important work.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 30, entitled
A bill to create the biased and unjust care reporting act; and to provide for the powers and duties of certain state 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:
Bumstead Lauwers Outman Victory
Daley Lindsey
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 31, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 20201 and 21513 (MCL 333.20201 and 333.21513), section 20201 as amended by 2016 PA 499 and section 21513 as amended by 2022 PA 265, and by adding section 21538.
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 Lauwers Outman Victory
Daley Lindsey
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 32, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending section 2434 (MCL 500.2434), as added by 1986 PA 173.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 33, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 386, entitled “Estates and protected individuals code,” by amending sections 5507 and 5509 (MCL 700.5507 and 700.5509), section 5507 as amended by 2024 PA 1 and section 5509 as amended by 2004 PA 532.
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:
Daley Lauwers Outman Webber
Damoose
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 34, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 453, entitled “Elliott-Larsen civil rights act,” by amending sections 201 and 301 (MCL 37.2201 and 37.2301), section 201 as amended by 2023 PA 31 and section 301 as amended by 2023 PA 6.
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 Lauwers Outman Victory
Daley Lindsey
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 36, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 2701, 2705, 2709, and 2723 (MCL 333.2701, 333.2705, 333.2709, and 333.2723), section 2701 as amended by 2022 PA 38, section 2705 as amended by 2022 PA 37, section 2709 as added by 1990 PA 16, and section 2723 as amended by 2014 PA 173.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 37, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406cc.
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 Lindsey Nesbitt Theis
Bumstead
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 38, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” by amending section 109 (MCL 400.109), as amended by 2024 PA 248.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 39, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” (MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding sections 109q and 109r.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 135, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending sections 3403, 3406z, 3406bb, 3406hh, and 3406ii (MCL 500.3403, 500.3406z, 500.3406bb, 500.3406hh, and 500.3406ii), section 3403 as amended by 2023 PA 158, section 3406z as added by 2023 PA 159, section 3406bb as added by 2023 PA 160, section 3406hh as added by 2024 PA 41, and section 3406ii as added by 2023 PA 157.
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 Irwin Outman Wojno
Nays—0
Excused—1
Johnson
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. 136, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 13501, 13521, 13522, and 13523 (MCL 333.13501, 333.13521, 333.13522, and 333.13523), sections 13501 and 13523 as amended by 1994 PA 100, section 13521 as amended by 2018 PA 544, and section 13522 as amended by 2023 PA 138; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
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:
Pursuant to Senate Rule 3.203, I respectfully request that Senate Bill No. 216, which was referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, be rereferred to the Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Winnie Brinks
Senate Majority Leader
The communication was referred to the Secretary for record.
Third Reading of Bills
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 107, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406ss.
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—2
Albert Lindsey
Excused—1
McBroom
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. 144, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 17801, 17820, 17822, 17824, and 17825 (MCL 333.17801, 333.17820, 333.17822, 333.17824, and 333.17825), section 17801 as amended and section 17825 as added by 2009 PA 55, sections 17820 and 17822 as amended by 2016 PA 499, and section 17824 as amended by 2014 PA 260, and by adding section 17825a.
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 Shink asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Shink’s statement is as follows:
I want to take a moment today to thank Devon Pomeroy-Ruppert for his service in my office and to the state of Michigan. Devon has been an intern in my office since the fall of last year. He is completing his degree in public and nonprofit administration at Central Michigan University and he will be graduating very soon.
He’s been invaluable to our work, especially in researching policy areas and addressing constituent concerns. Devon’s smiling face, joyful spirit, and calm demeanor will be missed around the office. We are looking forward to hearing about his successes as he steps into the bright future before him.
Thank you, Devon. As a token of our gratitude, a seal.
Third Reading of Bills
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 102, entitled
A bill to amend 1895 PA 161, entitled “An act to require county treasurers to furnish transcripts and abstracts of records, and fixing the fees to be paid therefor,” by amending section 1 (MCL 48.101), as amended by 2022 PA 215.
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:
He’s going to take all of those experiences with him. He used them to write a research project that had to do with Senate voting history based on party alignment. We’ve absolutely enjoyed having him and we’re going to miss him tremendously.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:
Senate Bill No. 99
Senate Bill No. 100
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 99, entitled
A bill to amend 2023 PA 281, entitled “Public officers financial disclosure act,” by amending sections 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 15 (MCL 15.703, 15.705, 15.707, 15.711, 15.713, and 15.715).
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—1
Bellino
Excused—1
Theis
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. 100, entitled
A bill to amend 2023 PA 282, entitled “Candidate for office financial disclosure act,” by amending sections 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 (MCL 169.303, 169.305, 169.307, 169.311, and 169.313).
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:
“(k) The average monetary price concession, discount, or rebate that is retained by pharmacy benefit managers in this state compared to the average monetary price concession, discount, or rebate that is passed on to prescription drug product purchasers.
( l ) The average monetary concession, discount, or rebate that prescription drug product purchasers retain compared to the average monetary concession, discount, or rebate that is passed on to patients.” and relettering the remaining subdivision.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 16, following line 7, by inserting:
“Sec. 27. This act does not apply beginning 3 years after the effective date of this act.”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Webber offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 4, line 15, after “administration.” by inserting “At least 1 member of the board must be an individual who advocates for patients.”.
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 federal government has invested billions, hundreds of billions of dollars in the research that led directly and indirectly to the development and production of so many of these drugs. I think that’s a wise investment since the public health has always been a national priority, but the minute that capital was invested into the process, the idea of the free market disappeared entirely from the discussion. The minute regulations, patent protections, government grants, congressional-directed spending, and so much more government influence entered the equation, rightly or wrongly. The idea of the free market no longer applied. Since the American taxpayers are the ones who made that investment, there should be a dividend in terms of more affordable access to those drugs. It’s unconscionable in my mind that those within the nation who supported the development and production of the most incredible body of medical advancement the world has ever seen would pay more than anyone else to access the benefits of those very prescription drugs.
This board isn’t about setting prices, it’s about reviewing specific drugs under specific circumstances—where our citizens, frankly, aren’t getting as good a deal as everyone else. I think, as we look to level the playing field across the world, this is just one program we seem to need in order to stand up for our own residents.
Senator Irwin’s statement is as follows:
What we have before us today is legislation that seeks to address one of the most important problems facing our residents here in Michigan, and that is the epidemic of high prescription drug prices. This is a huge problem in my district. I don’t want to presume anything about your districts, but if your district is like mine, you’ve been hearing regularly from residents who are frustrated with the high cost of drug prices and the associated high cost of insurance premiums. We have people who are unable to afford their insurance. We have people who are unable to afford their co-pays.
We heard yesterday testimony from doctors who are saying that they would prescribe a course of treatment; they would prescribe medicine for individuals who were simply unable to fill those prescriptions, and, as a result, would not take those prescriptions and would end up later in greater misery, incurring greater cost to the system, showing up in our emergency departments. We heard yesterday from insurers who said that runaway drug prices are the largest driver of increases in our health insurance premiums. Out of control drug prices are driving up healthcare costs—they’re causing people to split pills in half or not take medicine, causing conditions of our residents to get worse, driving up costs in our ER, and it’s a disaster. It’s a disaster that I want to thank and send appreciation to my colleagues who sponsored this legislation, because they’re trying to do something about a problem that is central to the needs of our residents.
One of the things we know about the healthcare system here in America is that it’s not a free market. Our healthcare system is a rigged market. It’s a system whereby the public invests, and private interests profit. In a system like that, it’s essential that we create a board, like this prescription drug advisory board, that has as its mission to identify those outlier cases, those drugs that are driving costs, those drugs that are the ones where our customers and our residents are getting gouged when they seek to fill their prescriptions. I think it’s an obligation of this Legislature to form a board like this, to go out there and look for the worst abuses in the prescription drug industry, and to make sure that those worst abuses are reigned in. Putting an upper limit on the cost of drugs when those drug prices are rising unreasonably, when the prices are being rigged to increase the profits of drug manufacturers at the expense of our residents—those are exactly the cases where we should make sure that those abuses are identified, that the public is made aware of those price gougings , and that we set an upper limit to make sure that our residents are not continually abused by this industry that charges lower prices all around the world but drives their profit up here in states like Michigan.
So once again, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. High prescription drug prices are hurting my residents, they’re hurting your residents, and it’s time we do something about it.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 4, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406tt.
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:
Daley Lauwers Outman
Excused—1
Theis
Not Voting—1
Huizenga
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 5, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” (MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding section 109o.
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:
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:
Senate Bill No. 130
Senate Bill No. 131
Senate Bill No. 147
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 130, entitled
A bill to amend 1979 PA 152, entitled “State license fee act,” by amending sections 9 and 25 (MCL 338.2209
and 338.2225), section 9 as amended by 1988 PA 461 and section 25 as amended by 2023 PA 131.
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 Outman
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:
Senate Bill No. 131, entitled
A bill to amend 1980 PA 299, entitled “Occupational code,” (MCL 339.101 to 339.2677) by adding
section 1205b.
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 Lindsey 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:
Senate Bill No. 147, entitled
A bill to amend 1961 PA 236, entitled “Revised judicature act of 1961,” by amending section 2534
(MCL 600.2534), as amended by 2017 PA 82.
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 ask my colleagues to join me in saying farewell to a very important part of my office. Conner Reagan has been working with the residents of the 15th District and with our office team to try and serve those residents. We’re unfortunately going to have to say goodbye to Conner because he graduated last week—congratulations, Conner—from the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts in the honors program with a B.A. in philosophy, politics, and economics. Conner also was not only the point guard for the U of M club basketball team but he also played point guard for the school judiciary—he was the chief justice of the U of M student government supreme court.
We really appreciate Conner’s service at the University of Michigan, we appreciate his service here in the Michigan Senate, and we hope that Conner will come back to Michigan and continue offering his service and skills to the great people of our state. Thank you, Conner.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 240
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 240, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 362 and 370 (MCL 168.362 and 168.370), section 362 as amended by 1980 PA 112 and section 370 as amended by 2022 PA 104.
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
Nays—0
Excused—0
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. 241, entitled
A bill to amend 1909 PA 278, entitled “The home rule village act,” (MCL 78.1 to 78.28) by adding section 24e.
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
Nays—0
Excused—0
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. 242, entitled
A bill to amend 1895 PA 3, entitled “The general law village act,” by amending sections 4, 5, and 13 of chapter II and section 3 of chapter V (MCL 62.4, 62.5, 62.13, and 65.3), sections 4 and 5 of chapter II and section 3 of chapter V as amended by 2012 PA 551 and section 13 of chapter II as amended by 2003 PA 305.
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
Nays—0
Excused—0
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. 243, entitled
A bill to amend 1909 PA 279, entitled “The home rule city act,” (MCL 117.1 to 117.38) by adding section 3c.
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:
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 234, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” (MCL 380.1 to 380.1852) by adding section 1304.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 2, following line 28, by inserting:
“ (6) If a wireless communications device policy implemented under this section allows pupils to use a wireless communications device in a classroom for reasons not exempted under subsection (4), then the board of the school district or board of directors of the public school academy that implemented the policy shall report the justification for that policy to the department by the end of the calendar year. ” and renumbering the remaining subsection.
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:


context_text:
Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time being 10:29 a.m.
10:34 a.m.
The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Moss.
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. 160, entitled
A bill to enact the uniform premarital and marital agreements act; and to determine how and when a
premarital or marital agreement is enforced.
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 question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Albert offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 29, line 22, by striking out all of subsection (4).
2. Amend page 29, line 29, by striking out “(5)” and inserting “(4)”.
3. Amend page 30, line 22, by striking out all of section 217f.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 30, line 7, after “ 2025. ” by inserting “ The report must include the total spending by the college on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs during the college’s prior fiscal year . ”.
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:
Bayer Cherry McCann Shink
Brinks Geiss McMorrow Singh
Camilleri Hertel Moss Wojno
Cavanagh Irwin Polehanki
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 15, line 22, by striking out “ infrastructure. ” and inserting “ infrastructure, to repay debt, or to demolish unused or blighted facilities. ”.
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:


context_text:
2. Amend page 10, line 8, by striking out “(12)” and inserting “(11)”.
3. Amend page 10, line 14, by striking out “(13)” and inserting “(12)”.
4. Amend page 10, line 23, by striking out “(14)” and inserting “(13)”.
5. Amend page 12, line 5, by striking out “(15)” and inserting “(14)”.
6. Amend page 12, line 11, by striking out “(16)” and inserting “(15)”.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 53, line 23, after “ 2025. ” by inserting “ The report must include the total spending by the university on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs during the university’s prior fiscal year. ”.
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:
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 54, following line 1, by inserting:
“ Sec. 275p. (1) Each university that receives an appropriation in section 236(2) must produce a report containing the following information:
(a) An itemized list of funds received by the university from entities located outside the United States, including funds received for research.
(b) A description of expenditures made, or expenditures that are planned to be made from funds described in subdivision (a).
(c) A description of any research conducted or intended to be conducted using funds described in subdivision (a).
(2) By March 15, 2026, each university must submit the report described in subsection (1) to the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on higher education, the house and senate fiscal agencies, and the state budget director . ”.
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:
1. Amend page 54, following line 1, by inserting:
“ Sec. 275q. (1) To receive an operations increase payment under section 236, each public university must do the following by October 10, 2025:
(a) Submit to the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on higher education, the house and senate fiscal agencies, and the state budget director a report listing all university-sanctioned student organizations.
(b) Certify to the state budget director that no organization identified in the report required under subdivision (a) has a demonstrated history of supporting terrorist organizations or threats of physical violence toward others.
(2) If a public university does not fulfill the requirements under subsection (1), the state budget director must not provide that university with payment of the operations increase appropriated under section 236, and must notify the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on higher education within 30 days of determining that such payment must be withheld.
(3) As used in this section and section 275r, “terrorist organization” means a foreign organization that is designated by the United States secretary of state in accordance with section 219 of the immigration and nationality act, 8 USC 1189, as amended.
Sec. 275r. (1) A student found to be in violation of the student code of conduct of the postsecondary education institution the student attends may not receive an award under a scholarship program receiving an appropriation under section 236(7), if the violation of the student code of conduct is determined to be a result of the student’s support of a terrorist organization.
(2) By September 30, 2026, any postsecondary education institution that suspended or denied a scholarship award under subsection (1) must provide a report disclosing the number of students who had a scholarship suspended or denied under this section to the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on higher education, the house and senate fiscal agencies, and the state budget director. ”.
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—18
Anthony Chang McCann Santana
Bayer Cherry McMorrow Shink
Brinks Geiss Moss Singh
Camilleri Irwin Polehanki Wojno
Cavanagh Klinefelt
Excused—0
Not Voting—1
Hertel
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:
Senate Bill No. 163
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 163
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 163, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026 for capital outlay to finance projects to demolish, construct, renovate, or equip buildings and facilities on state property, property owned by institutions of higher education and community colleges, and property under the control of the state building authority; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
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. 179, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of labor and economic opportunity for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 32, following line 15, by inserting:
“Sec. 311. (1) Funds appropriated in part 1 shall not be allocated, awarded, or loaned to a company that has financial ties or is partially owned by a hostile foreign nation or a company that is located in a hostile foreign nation.
(2) As used in this section, “hostile foreign nation,” mean a nation on the list of counties of particular concerns, special watch list counties, or affiliated with entities of particular concern as defined by the infrastructure investment and jobs act, by the United States Department of Energy.”
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:
Not Voting—1
Hertel
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Bellino offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 5, line 24, by striking out “16” and inserting “15”.
2. Amend page 5, line 24, by striking out “44,111,500” and inserting “43,961,500”.
3. Amend page 6, line 27, by striking out “12,643,300” and inserting “12,493,300” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
4. Amend page 100, line 12, through page 100, line 21 by striking out all of section 952.
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:
2. Amend page 5, line 14, by striking the line.
3. Amend page 12, line 17, by striking the line.
4. Amend page 12, line 18, by striking out “278,004,100” and inserting “298,004,100” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
5. Amend page 31, line 3, through page 32, line 9 by striking out section 309.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Bellino offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 99, following line 29, by inserting:
“Sec. 950. The funds appropriated in part 1 for office of global Michigan shall only be expended to provide immigration services to individuals with documentation that allows them to be in this country legally.”.
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 Damoose offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 9, line 18, by striking out “21,000,000” and inserting “50,000,000”.
2. Amend page 10, line 13, by striking out “144,811,200” and inserting “173,811,200” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 32, following line 15, by inserting:
“Sec. 311. (1) Funds appropriated in part 1 shall not be allocated, awarded, or loaned to a company that has financial ties or is partially owned by a hostile foreign nation or a company that is located in a hostile foreign nation.
(2) As used in this section, “hostile foreign nation,” mean a nation on the list of countries of particular concerns, special watch list countries, or affiliated with entities of particular concern as defined by the infrastructure investment and jobs act, by the United States Department of Energy.”
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:
A bill to make appropriations for the department of health and human services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Huizenga offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 16, line 6, after “43.0” by striking out “19,364,600” and inserting “19,864,600”.
2. Amend page 16, line 8, after “$” by striking out “201,609,500” and inserting “202,109,500”.
3. Amend page 16, line 18, after “$” by striking out “84,813,700” and inserting “85,313,700” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
4. Amend page 151, following line 21, by inserting:
“Sec. 1183. From the funds appropriated in part 1 for PFAS and environmental contamination response, the department shall allocate $500,000.00 to implement Senate Bill No. 298 and Senate Bill No. 299 of the 103rd Legislature. The funds must be used to establish and administer a grant program to provide 1 or more grants to a research institution to conduct a pilot program to assess the level of PFAS in the blood of and study the effects of PFAS on qualified study participants in this state.”.
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:
3. Amend page 11, line 9, after “25.0” by striking out “3,563,200” and inserting “3,892,200”.
4. Amend page 11, line 12, after “$” by striking out “283,588,200” and inserting “283,917,200”.
5. Amend page 11, line 21, after “$” by striking out “44,610,300” and inserting “44,939,300”.
6. Amend page 11, line 27, after “$” by striking out “291,153,400” and inserting “305,979,200” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
7. Amend page 12, line 25, after “positions” by striking out “2,546.6” and inserting “2,691.6”.
8. Amend page 13, line 17, after “FTEs” by striking out “786.2” and inserting “931.2”.
9. Amend page 13, line 17, after “786.2” by striking out “119,200,600” and inserting “134,026,400”.
10. Amend page 13, line 19, after “$” by striking out “381,653,400” and inserting “396,479,200”.
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:
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Outman offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 11, line 10, after “2.0” by striking out “112,157,200” and inserting “218,157,200”.
2. Amend page 11, line 12, after “$” by striking out “283,588,200” and inserting “389,588,200”.
3. Amend page 11, line 20, after “revenues” by striking out “57,380,100” and inserting “163,380,100”and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
4. Amend page 121, line 9, after “allocate” by striking out “$45,000,000.00” and inserting “$151,000,000.00”.
5. Amend page 123, following line 13, by inserting:
“(j) $106,000,000.00 to support the priorities and short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations of the Opioid Advisory Commission identified in the Opioid Advisory Commission 2025 Annual Report, including funds for life-saving programs.”.
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:
Cavanagh Irwin Polehanki
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Victory offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 19, line 11, after “$” by striking out “61,047,200” and inserting “65,047,200”.
2. Amend page 19, line 16, after “$” by striking out “127,853,500” and inserting “131,853,500”.
3. Amend page 19, line 24, after “$” by striking out “52,897,400” and inserting “56,897,400” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
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:
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Johnson withdrew the amendment.
Senator Huizenga offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 21, line 8, after “elderly” by striking out “284,291,100” and inserting “290,089,800”.
2. Amend page 21, line 12, after “$” by striking out “23,268,014,200” and inserting “23,273,812,900”.
3. Amend page 21, line 15, after “revenues” by striking out “16,601,461,700” and inserting “16,605,248,300”.
4. Amend page 21, line 21, after “$” by striking out “2,823,916,800” and inserting “2,825,928,900” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
5. Amend page 192, line 26, by striking out “8,597” and inserting “8,651”.
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:
(a) The purpose of the project is to offer community-based, compassionate, best-practice/evidence-based services to those suffering from addiction, as well as their loved ones, and to erase the stigma of addiction and instill compassion and hope.
(b) The project will be accomplished by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.
(c) The estimated cost of the project is $12,000,000.00
(d) The tentative completion date is September 30, 2030.”.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Webber offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 138, following line 21, by inserting:
“Sec. 1053. By December 1 of the current fiscal year the department shall submit to the standard report recipients and post on the department’s website a copy of the work rules covering employee conduct that applies to employees at state psychiatric hospitals.”.
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:
“Sec. 2011. From the funds appropriated in part 1 for hospital grant matching funds, the department shall allocated $10,000,000.00 to a hospital located in a village with a population between 250 and 1,000 within a county with a population between 61,300 and 63,900 according to the most recent federal decennial census as matching funds for a Federal grant.”.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 115, after line 28, by inserting:
“Sec. 903. The department shall provide reimbursement to a CMHSP or PIHP for provision of a service, in an amount equal to or above the mandatory minimum rate set for those services paid to the provider.”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Johnson offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 114, line 17, after “than” by striking out “30” and inserting “15”.
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: