context_text:
Excused—3
Daley Outman Runestad
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to meet deficiencies in state funds by providing for the imposition, levy, computation, collection, assessment, reporting, payment, and enforcement by lien and otherwise of taxes on or measured by net income and on certain commercial, business, and financial activities; to prescribe the manner and time of making reports and paying the taxes, and the functions of public officers and others as to the taxes; to permit the inspection of the records of taxpayers; to provide for interest and penalties on unpaid taxes; to provide exemptions, credits and refunds of the taxes; to prescribe penalties for the violation of this act; to provide an appropriation; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5099, entitled
A bill to amend 1984 PA 270, entitled “Michigan strategic fund act,” by amending section 9 (MCL 125.2009), as amended by 2021 PA 136.
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:
Excused—3
Daley Outman Runestad
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act relating to the economic development of this state; to create the Michigan strategic fund and to prescribe its powers and duties; to transfer and provide for the acquisition and succession to the rights, properties, obligations, and duties of the job development authority and the Michigan economic development authority to the Michigan strategic fund; to provide for the expenditure of proceeds in certain funds to which the Michigan strategic fund succeeds in ownership; to provide for the issuance of, and terms and conditions for, certain notes and bonds of the Michigan strategic fund; to create certain boards and funds; to create certain permanent funds; to exempt the property, income, and operation of the fund and its bonds and notes, and the interest thereon, from certain taxes; to provide for the creation of certain centers within and for the purposes of the Michigan strategic fund; to provide for the creation and funding of certain accounts for certain purposes; to impose certain powers and duties upon certain officials, departments, and authorities of this state; to make certain loans, grants, and investments; to provide penalties; to make an appropriation; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5100, entitled
A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “Income tax act of 1967,” (MCL 206.1 to 206.847) by adding section 677.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—3
Daley Outman Runestad
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to meet deficiencies in state funds by providing for the imposition, levy, computation, collection, assessment, reporting, payment, and enforcement by lien and otherwise of taxes on or measured by net income and on certain commercial, business, and financial activities; to prescribe the manner and time of making reports and paying the taxes, and the functions of public officers and others as to the taxes; to permit the inspection of the records of taxpayers; to provide for interest and penalties on unpaid taxes; to provide exemptions, credits and refunds of the taxes; to prescribe penalties for the violation of this act; to provide an appropriation; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5101, entitled
A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “Income tax act of 1967,” (MCL 206.1 to 206.847) by adding section 717.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—3
Daley Outman Runestad
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to meet deficiencies in state funds by providing for the imposition, levy, computation, collection, assessment, reporting, payment, and enforcement by lien and otherwise of taxes on or measured by net income and on certain commercial, business, and financial activities; to prescribe the manner and time of making reports and paying the taxes, and the functions of public officers and others as to the taxes; to permit the inspection of the records of taxpayers; to provide for interest and penalties on unpaid taxes; to provide exemptions, credits and refunds of the taxes; to prescribe penalties for the violation of this act; to provide an appropriation; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5102, entitled
A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “Income tax act of 1967,” (MCL 206.1 to 206.847) by adding section 718.
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. 559
Senate Bill No. 562
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 559, entitled
A bill to amend 1984 PA 270, entitled “Michigan strategic fund act,” by amending sections 5, 9, 88s, and 88t (MCL 125.2005, 125.2009, 125.2088s, and 125.2088t), section 5 as amended by 2023 PA 24, section 9 as amended and section 88s as added by 2021 PA 136, and section 88t as added by 2021 PA 134, and by adding sections 88u and 88v.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator McMorrow offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-5).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Now in the meantime, since we first put forward this reform legislation at the end of last year, we’ve seen a lot of coverage of this tool as well as the reports from the Governor’s Growing Michigan Together Council that have told us a lot of the things that we had put in the reform in a really loud and strong voice. We’ve seen examples—and I know many people in this body have heard me talk ad nauseum about the Amazon HQ2 exercise here in Michigan in 2017—where the state of Michigan was prepared to offer about $4 billion in incentives, and Amazon told us that we didn’t even crack the top 20 because we didn’t have transit and we didn’t have talent. Now Virginia on the other hand offered a compelling alternative. They offered a much lower incentive—about $550 million—but paired with more than a billion dollars invested in education, from K-12 through a new campus at Virginia Tech, as well as expanded transit in northern Virginia.
Today the reform before us builds upon the work that we brought forward at the end of last year with a lot of feedback from our colleagues, our members, our stakeholders, and with the new research and recommendations of the Growing Michigan Together Council, which notes in strategy three, one of their three recommendations is to create thriving, resilient communities that are magnets for young talent. This includes developing regional, well-connected public transit systems that allow residents to get to work, school, and amenities by focusing on the fundamentals, including transit, housing, and climate-resilient durable infrastructure, businesses, and talent will seek to locate here and drive further investment and thriving communities.
In that spirit, this reform will put forward the Michigan 360 Fund as one of the three funds under the SOAR program, but it will require that 50 percent of all of the dollars we allocate into the SOAR fund be utilized for these transformative community investments, such as housing, childcare, education, transit, and the things that many of our economic development leaders, our stakeholders, and our communities are telling us that they need to be successful. This is a really exciting opportunity. I’m grateful for the Senate Majority Leader, for everybody in our caucuses—on both sides of the aisle—for your input, your thoughtfulness, and I hope that this is just the start of an ongoing conversation as we remake what holistic economic development looks like in the state of Michigan. I ask for a “yes” vote tonight.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 562, entitled
A bill to amend 2000 PA 489, entitled “Michigan trust fund act,” by amending sections 2 and 4 (MCL 12.252 and 12.254), section 2 as amended by 2022 PA 83 and section 4 as added by 2021 PA 137.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Cavanagh offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-3).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
That’s just a partial list of the economic development schemes we’ve tried in this state over the past several years. Just when you thought the public relations folks had run out of catchy names, they came up with Make it in Michigan. Whatever you call it, it’s the same failed concept—giving tax dollars to massive corporations, some of the most profitable corporations in the world, often foreign companies, in the hopes they’ll create more jobs in Michigan. This is like trying to paint over the name Titanic on the bow before the ship goes under. Change the name; doesn’t change the outcome. Rearranging the chairs on the deck doesn’t change the outcome.
By now we have decades of evidence that these corporate handouts simply do not work. Just last week in fact, Bridge magazine, Bridge Michigan, published a story indicating four in ten jobs created by our current economic development scheme ended up paying less than the median salary in the state. We’ve brought up the reason why SOAR was created originally: because they went to a state that had no income tax, lower energy costs, and was a right-to-work state—that it’s actually in their state constitution now.
Mr. President, I don’t know how many layers of lipstick are on this pig by now, but it’s still a pig and it’s still long past time we put it out to pasture. I thank my colleagues who voted “no.”
The Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss, resumed the Chair.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 600
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 600, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 16g of chapter XVII (MCL 777.16g), as amended by 2023 PA 278.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Geiss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 601, entitled
A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled “The Michigan penal code,” by amending section 147b (MCL 750.147b), as added by 1988 PA 371.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Santana offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-1).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
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:
House Bill No. 4608
Senate Bill No. 706
Senate Bill No. 799
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4608, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 16141 and 16145 (MCL 333.16141 and 333.16145), as amended by 1993 PA 80, and by adding section 16346 and part 183A.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Mr. President, I have the somewhat unusual, rare, and distinguished opportunity here to vote “no” on a bill to reinstate something of a bill I ran in the past to repeal. I’m not sure how many members can ever say they’ve had that privilege. A few years ago, I ran the bill that repealed licensure for dietitians and nutritionists and now all of a sudden I find myself seeing it go back into place. It was a mistake when it was created in the early 2000s and it was the right thing to do to repeal it, and I believe we are making a foolish and rather silly mistake today in bringing back licensure for dietitians and nutritionists.
This is a solution in search of a problem. Where’s the problem in the countryside? What’s going on that needs licensure for dietitians? Sure, they can tell a lot of stories about how this is going to help them get paid, but what it really does is help them get paid and make sure nobody else gets paid because now the government will look for licensure rather than simply qualifications. This is unnecessary government bureaucracy and what is particularly shameful and egregious is in failing to recognize that certain nutritionists have far more experience, credentials, understanding, and competency in these issues and now will not be eligible for licensure. Places that would like to have that person perform the job for them won’t be able to do so because they have to hire a licensed operator who actually has less experience, less schooling, less reason to have the job.
I’m not sure why we’re doing this—why we’re waging in on a turf war over who can give advice on how much vitamin C to take or whether you should eat pasta or red meat or not. This bill is a bit of a joke and I’m sorry to see it happening, but I guess I should feel privileged to have been in the Legislature long enough in the term-limited era to see it come, go, and come back again. I guess I won’t be here to see it leave, but I hope maybe some of you in the room will see that day come when it leaves again.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I sat in committee and listened to the testimony from both sides of this issue. You have the dietitians and you have the nutritionists, and both sides seem to have some good points but definitely for me what resonated most of all was someone who said that we are in desperate need for the services of both of these two different groups. They emphasized we need every soldier on the battlefield to help turn around these very, very difficult ongoing diseases. These diseases are situations you deal with lifelong, and they could be a big, big help, both of these sides, the nutritionists and the dietitians.
When the nutritionists were going through their background, their education, to me it seemed like they had much, much more even than the dietitians. Now this bill is going to say, for purposes of insurance, if you’re a dietitian, whether you get coverage under insurance; if you’re a nutritionist, you’re cut out. Thirteen states, I understand, have a dual path for both so that both of these two groups of professionals can deliver health care to the citizens of Michigan. However, this bill cuts out the nutritionists and I believe that’s simply a matter of stopping competition.
It doesn’t help the citizens of Michigan. There’s no danger with these nutritionists; they do fabulous work. This bill is simply to stop competition from one side to the other—the worst kind of crony corruption that we can pass. I hope my colleagues will vote “no.”
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 706, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 204a, 304, 312f, 320e, 732a, and 904 (MCL 257.204a, 257.304, 257.312f, 257.320e, 257.732a, and 257.904), sections 204a and 320e as amended by 2020 PA 376, section 304 as amended by 2023 PA 125, section 312f as amended by 2022 PA 193, section 732a as amended by 2018 PA 50, and section 904 as amended by 2020 PA 383; 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:
Nays—0
Excused—1
Theis
Not Voting—1
Outman
In The Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 799, entitled
A bill to amend 2008 PA 23, entitled “Enhanced driver license and enhanced official state personal identification card act,” by amending section 4 (MCL 28.304), as amended by 2021 PA 72.
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. 682
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 682
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 682, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” (MCL 257.1 to 257.923) by adding section 628b.
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 McBroom
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:
House Bill No. 5103
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5103, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 303 and 304 (MCL 257.303 and 257.304), section 303 as amended by 2020 PA 376 and section 304 as amended by 2023 PA 125.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—2
Bumstead McBroom
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the registration, titling, sale, transfer, and regulation of certain vehicles operated upon the public highways of this state or any other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles and distressed vehicles; to provide for the licensing of dealers; to provide for the examination, licensing, and control of operators and chauffeurs; to provide for the giving of proof of financial responsibility and security by owners and operators of vehicles; to provide for the imposition, levy, and collection of specific taxes on vehicles, and the levy and collection of sales and use taxes, license fees, and permit fees; to provide for the regulation and use of streets and highways; to create certain funds; to provide penalties and sanctions for a violation of this act; to provide for civil liability of manufacturers, the manufacturers of certain devices, the manufacturers of automated technology, upfitters, owners, and operators of vehicles and service of process on residents and nonresidents; to regulate the introduction and use of certain evidence; to regulate and certify the manufacturers of certain devices; to provide for approval and certification of installers and servicers of certain devices; to provide for the levy of certain assessments; to provide for the enforcement of this act; to provide for the creation of and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to impose liability upon the state or local agencies; to provide appropriations for certain purposes; to repeal all other acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act or contrary to this act; and to repeal certain parts of this act on a specific date,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4596, entitled
A bill to prohibit the sale, offering for sale, and distribution for sale of certain disposable wipes without meeting certain requirements; and to prohibit certain acts and provide civil sanctions.
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 McBroom
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 285
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 285, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” by amending sections 1147 and 1561 (MCL 380.1147 and 380.1561), section 1147 as amended by 2016 PA 192 and section 1561 as amended by 2016 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:
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
House Bill No. 5527
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5527, entitled
A bill to amend 1941 PA 207, entitled “Fire prevention code,” by amending section 19 (MCL 29.19), as amended by 2014 PA 481, and by adding section 19b.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Geiss offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-3).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the prevention of fires and the protection of persons and property from exposure to the dangers of fire or explosion; to authorize the investigation of fires and the discovery of crime or other offenses in relation thereto; to require the razing, repair, or alteration of buildings, and the clearing and improvement of premises which constitute a fire hazard or a menace to the peace, security, or safety of persons or property; to control the construction, use, and occupancy of buildings and premises in relation to safety, including fire safety; to provide for the certification of fire inspectors and the delegation of certain powers to those certified fire inspectors; to provide for the regulation of the storage and transportation of hazardous material; to provide for the issuance of certificates; to prohibit the use of certain fire extinguishers and fire extinguishing agents; to provide immunity from liability for certain persons; to provide for the administration and enforcement of this act; to prescribe penalties; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the assessment of fees; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
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 rise to speak in support of the substitute to House Bill No. 5527, which makes an already good and important bill even better. The S-3 expands AED access use beyond athletes and athletic programs, but to other school-sponsored programs. This means that programs such as marching band, which exists outside the football team and has practices at separate times from football practice, not to mention the other competitions, music festivals, and parades they participate and perform in, would not be excluded as the original text of the bill focused solely on athletic programs. With this substitute, our junior ROTC kids, marching band kids, color guard kids, drama club and theater kids, kids participating in non-physical but high-pressure activities like debate club and so many others, including their spectators, will now too have this important legal and medical protection. I am grateful for the policy team and the sponsor for getting this addition included.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5528, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” (MCL 380.1 to 380.1852) by adding section 1319.
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 Chang offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-1).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Recess
Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The motion prevailed, the time being 2:22 p.m.
2:40 p.m.
The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Madam President, when I enrolled in the university, at Northern Michigan University, the cost you expect is the tuition and your room and board, and you pay these things, but what you don’t expect is all the fees, right? That’s what they really get you with is one fee after another—here’s a fee for student athletics, here’s a fee for the student activities, here’s a fee to pay for parking, and there’s all these fees. Anybody who’s got a credit card knows fees, we all hate fees, which are simply additional payments by some other name, but they are still the payment. Why not roll it all into one, right? That’s what we say when we talk about helping students with universities. Here’s how much you pay, plus fees, so that’s really actually what I’m paying. You can’t get out of paying the fees, you can’t forego paying the fees, it’s just more payment.
When it comes to what we expect of our prisoners and those who are being punished by the state, to say that somehow the fees they have to pay is anything other than additional fineage, I think, is a dangerous game of semantics. It is a game of words. A fee by any other name is still a fee, a fine by any other name is still a fine, and fines and fees are the same thing. What does our Constitution say? Our Constitution says, “All fines assessed and collected in the several counties, townships and cities for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclusively applied to the support of such public libraries, and county law libraries as provided by law.” That’s where the money goes. Why do we do this? Why have we done this since one of our earliest constitutions in this state—more than 100 years ago? Because we recognize the danger of giving the one with the sword the power to profit by the sword. It is a dangerously unethical principle to allow the police powers of the state to profit through the execution of those police powers.
That is why I’ve been so proud to stand against the use of asset forfeiture, which was another great immorality foisted on the people of this state for decades that we have fortunately rolled back, and why I’ve been grateful to the courts for recognizing that what we were doing with these fines and fees was wrong, and why I have voted against these bills in the past and vote against the sunset extension today, or any other program that poses itself as something other than fines so we can do what we please with the money when it’s so clear what we’re supposed to do with fines.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5534, entitled
A bill to require the supreme court to analyze certain trial court costs and revenue sources; to develop and recommend a certain trial court fee schedule; to develop and recommend a certain trial court debt collection system; and to develop and recommend certain legislative proposals to change trial court funding.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Chang offered the following substitute:
Substitute (S-1).
The substitute was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Substitute (S-1) .
The Senate agreed to the substitute recommended by the Committee of the Whole, and the bill as substituted was placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.
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. 603
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 603, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 2, 822, 825, 827, 828, 842, 861, 862, 863, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 873, 874, 875, 876, 878, 879, 880, 880a, 881, 882, 883, 884, 887, 888, 889, 890, and 892 (MCL 168.2, 168.822, 168.825, 168.827, 168.828, 168.842, 168.861, 168.862, 168.863, 168.865, 168.866, 168.867, 168.868, 168.869, 168.870, 168.871, 168.873, 168.874, 168.875, 168.876, 168.878, 168.879, 168.880, 168.880a, 168.881, 168.882, 168.883, 168.884, 168.887, 168.888, 168.889, 168.890, and 168.892), section 2 as amended by 2023 PA 87, sections 822, 842, and 882 as amended by 2023 PA 269, sections 862 and 879 as amended by 2018 PA 128, section 863 as amended by 2012 PA 586, sections 866 and 868 as amended by 2013 PA 51, sections 867 and 881 as amended by 2018 PA 130, section 871 as amended by 2012 PA 272, and sections 874, 875, and 890 as amended by 1995 PA 261, and by adding sections 861a and 883a; 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:
I’ve introduced legislation to address this particular issue several terms in a row, and this term, in our conversations with the Secretary of State’s office, clerks and various organizations, realized that there were many other areas of the recount law that needed to be modernized. I want to thank the Secretary of State, her staff, the county clerks, Promote the Vote, and many other stakeholders we worked with over several months—and also the chair of our committee for his partnership.
I want to clarify two things. One, if someone wants to petition for a recount because they believe there was a fraud or error or anything that calls them to ask for a recount, they still do under the passage of this bill. And two, I want to be clear that our bipartisan county boards of canvassers are not responsible, have never been responsible, and will continue to not be responsible for investigations of election fraud. We have law enforcement who are well-equipped, trained, and responsible for these investigations.
I want to talk about three main themes of these bills. First, the issue of frivolous recounts. We remember past election cycles when a campaign requested a recount that was very costly and had zero chance of changing the outcome in that race. These types of frivolous recounts will be avoided in our legislation by ensuring that the candidate filing for a recount must do so in good faith and that the number of votes requested to be recounted must be, at minimum, greater than the difference in votes between the petitioning candidate and the winning candidate.
The second theme I’ll highlight is that we clearly define what a recount is. We define a recount as an administrative process to determine votes cast for a candidate or ballot question, and we make clear that a recount is not an audit and not an investigation. These words are not interchangeable, and this clarification is important to minimize confusion.
Lastly, the bill also addresses the issue that initially piqued my interest in the recount law, the recountability. We’ve heard from clerks that in some cases the zip-ties or other sealing devices on a container might become more fragile in extreme temperatures or that they are just not strong enough. Sometimes they might snap, even if it’s just because a clerk is loading or unloading and there are witnesses that indicate that no tampering occurred. Right now, under law, those counts can’t be recounted.
We’ve also heard numerous times where the number of ballots on the pollbook didn’t exactly match the number on the tabulator tape and it’s because the voter went to the wrong polling location and before they left, their name didn’t get crossed off; or maybe that person came in to vote and walked out with a ballot still in hand. We are currently fixing that so that the number of ballots, if it’s off by a small amount and there is a satisfactory explanation, the board of canvassers can choose to still recount that precinct.
I believe that these bills achieve critical goals of protecting the security of every vote and ensuring that our recounts achieve our intended goals. I encourage my colleagues to support Senate Bill Nos. 603 and 604.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 604, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled “The code of criminal procedure,” by amending section 11d of chapter XVII (MCL 777.11d), as amended by 2023 PA 266.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


result: failed

context_text:
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Albert offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 2, line 11, after “means” by striking out the balance of the subdivision and inserting “any officer, school board, board or commission of the state, or a state institution supported in whole or in part by state funds, authorized to enter into a contract for a state project or to perform a state project by the direct employment of labor.”.
2. Amend page 2, line 24, after “ facility ” by inserting “ that meets both of the following conditions:
( i ) Is authorized by a contracting agent.
( ii ) Is sponsored or financed in whole or in part by this state. ”.
3. Amend page 3, line 11, by striking out all of subdivisions (i) and (j) and relettering the remaining subdivisions.
4. Amend page 4, line 14, after “a” by striking out “ public ”.
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:
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 7, line 24, after “ for ” by striking out the balance of the line through “ registrations ” on line 26 and inserting “ 10 years ”.
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:
Damoose Lauwers
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:
Similar to my colleague, I’d like to hearken back when we included prevailing wage in our laws we passed in the fall for our clean energy projects. Part of the reasoning behind that was because we understand when we do work using trained, well-paid workers, it’s cheaper than doing the same work twice with untrained, poorly-paid workers. I would contend that actually by allowing our agency to enforce the laws we passed in the fall, we are actually holding down the cost of our transition by making sure we’re doing that work most efficiently and with well-trained workers.
Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:
Mr. President, I’d like to address the idea that somehow the characterization that some of what is established through prevailing wage programs is not artificial as we heard someone claim just a little bit ago. The fact is that in many areas of the state, such as the Upper Peninsula, the wages that are established are entirely artificially established wages that are not representative of the prevailing wage in that community at all. Due to the way we have structured our prevailing wage law in this state, they are indeed not the actual prevailing wages for that community but are taken from communities ten hours away—nearly 500 miles away. They don’t compare to the wages that are paid on other jobs locally, even union labor jobs. We have created a system that does not do what it’s supposed to do, and when we voted on prevailing wage months ago, I spoke to it then—about the opportunities we had to make a better program that actually represented that and provided the important protections that prevailing wage has been created to do, the important protections it’s provided to create safer projects for our state to invest in, and safer conditions. I’m not opposed to the idea of prevailing wage. However, the way that the program is structured is not fully vetted, it’s not fully matured to deliver what it promises, and that’s why I believe we should support Senator Albert’s amendment.
Senator Albert’s second statement is as follows:
Today this legislation creates a new bureaucracy that will take time and added cost for businesses seeking to participate in state-funded projects or wind and solar energy projects. I guess it’s important to make note that this is not just applying to the wind and solar projects—this is for all prevailing wage projects, this provision. It creates a state project registration mandate for contractors on all state-financed projects and for contractors on these new wind and solar projects. As outlined in the bill, the registration would be valid for only one year at which point it would need to be renewed.
This amendment would ease the registration requirement to once every ten years to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. Thank you, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4331, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” by amending section 2227 (MCL 500.2227), as amended by 2014 PA 509.
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
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to revise, consolidate, and classify the laws relating to the insurance and surety business; to regulate the incorporation or formation of domestic insurance and surety companies and associations and the admission of foreign and alien companies and associations; to provide their rights, powers, and immunities and to prescribe the conditions on which companies and associations organized, existing, or authorized under this act may exercise their powers; to provide the rights, powers, and immunities and to prescribe the conditions on which other persons, firms, corporations, associations, risk retention groups, and purchasing groups engaged in an insurance or surety business may exercise their powers; to provide for the imposition of a privilege fee on domestic insurance companies and associations and the state accident fund; to provide for the imposition of a tax on the business of foreign and alien companies and associations; to provide for the imposition of a tax on risk retention groups and purchasing groups; to provide for the imposition of a tax on the business of surplus line agents; to provide for the imposition of regulatory fees on certain insurers; to provide for assessment fees on certain health maintenance organizations; to modify tort liability arising out of certain accidents; to provide for limited actions with respect to that modified tort liability and to prescribe certain procedures for maintaining those actions; to require security for losses arising out of certain accidents; to provide for the continued availability and affordability of automobile insurance and homeowners insurance in this state and to facilitate the purchase of that insurance by all residents of this state at fair and reasonable rates; to provide for certain reporting with respect to insurance and with respect to certain claims against uninsured or self-insured persons; to prescribe duties for certain state departments and officers with respect to that reporting; to provide for certain assessments; to establish and continue certain state insurance funds; to modify and clarify the status, rights, powers, duties, and operations of the nonprofit malpractice insurance fund; to provide for the departmental supervision and regulation of the insurance and surety business within this state; to provide for regulation over worker's compensation self-insurers; to provide for the conservation, rehabilitation, or liquidation of unsound or insolvent insurers; to provide for the protection of policyholders, claimants, and creditors of unsound or insolvent insurers; to provide for associations of insurers to protect policyholders and claimants in the event of insurer insolvencies; to prescribe educational requirements for insurance agents and solicitors; to provide for the regulation of multiple employer welfare arrangements; to create an automobile theft prevention authority to reduce the number of automobile thefts in this state; to prescribe the powers and duties of the automobile theft prevention authority; to provide certain powers and duties upon certain officials, departments, and authorities of this state; to provide for an appropriation; to repeal acts and parts of acts; and to provide penalties for the violation of this act,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4332, entitled
A bill to amend 1909 PA 279, entitled “The home rule city act,” by amending section 4q (MCL 117.4q), as amended by 2013 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:
House Bill No. 4360
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4360, entitled
A bill to amend 1988 PA 57, entitled “An act to provide for the incorporation by 2 or more municipalities of certain authorities for the purpose of providing emergency services to municipalities; to provide for the powers and duties of authorities and of certain state and local agencies and officers; to provide for certain condemnation proceedings; to provide for fees; to provide for the levy of property taxes for certain purposes; to authorize the issuance of bonds, notes, and other evidences of indebtedness; and to prescribe penalties and provide remedies,” by amending section 2 (MCL 124.602).
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Hoitenga offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 3, following line 12, by inserting:
“ (5) Notwithstanding section 13, if an incorporated municipality or a municipality otherwise granted taxing authority under state law is a member of an authority to provide emergency services under this section and the territory under the authority’s jurisdiction does not include all taxable property within the municipality, the municipality shall not tax the property owners that are not within the territory under the jurisdiction of the authority to fulfill the municipality’s obligation to the authority. The property owners that are not within the territory under the jurisdiction of the authority are not subject to assessments by the municipality to pay for the obligations of the authority. ”.
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:
Chang Johnson Outman Wojno
Cherry Klinefelt
Nays—0
Excused—0
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: President
The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 817, entitled
A bill to make, supplement, and adjust appropriations for certain capital outlay projects and the department of natural resources for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024; to provide for expenditure of the appropriations; and to prescribe certain conditions for 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 Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:
Senate Bill No. 758
Senate Bill No. 759
Senate Bill No. 764
Senate Bill No. 765
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 758, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of agriculture and rural development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; 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:
9. Amend page 7, line 13, after “fund” by striking out “73,900” and inserting “72,800”.
10. Amend page 7, line 14, after “fund” by striking out “22,500” and inserting “22,200”.
11. Amend page 7, line 15, after “fund” by striking out “177,700” and inserting “175,100”.
12. Amend page 7, line 16, after “fund” by striking out “2,966,900” and inserting “2,923,600”.
13. Amend page 7, line 17, after “fund” by striking out “75,500” and inserting “74,400”.
14. Amend page 7, line 18, after “revenue” by striking out “752,900” and inserting “741,900”.
15. Amend page 7, line 19, after “fund” by striking out “1,202,300” and inserting “1,184,800”.
16. Amend page 7, line 20, after “ $ ” by striking out “19,312,000” and inserting “20,517,400” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
17. Amend page 29, line 27, after “No.” by striking out the balance of the page and inserting “497.”.
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:
Thank you, and I ask for support of my amendment.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 764, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of licensing and regulatory affairs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 23, following line 17, by inserting:
“Sec. 231. It is the intent of the legislature that the department establish an employee performance monitoring process that is consistent throughout the department, in addition to current civil service commission evaluations. The department shall submit an annual report on changes to the employee performance monitoring process that are planned or implemented, as well as the number of employee evaluations performed.”.
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:
Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:
This amendment would reinsert language requiring LARA to establish an employee performance monitoring process. The Legislature has long required the department to establish consistent methods of evaluating employee performance and should continue to do so. Government workers should be held to the same standard as private sector workers. People working in the private sector can be fired if they don’t do their job well, and the same should be true for government sector workers. These standards ensure accountability and efficiency in serving the public. It is our responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used effectively and that residents can access the services they need. I ask for support of my amendment.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 765, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of insurance and financial services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 10, following line 18, by inserting:
“Sec. 217. Appropriations in part 1, to the extent possible by the department, must not be expended until all existing work project authorization available for the same purposes is exhausted.”.
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:
Senate Bill No. 762, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of military and veterans affairs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 5, after line 11, by inserting:
“National Guard deployment to southern border 8,000,000”.
2. Amend page 5, line 15, by striking out “21,000,000” and inserting “29,000,000.”
3. Amend page 5, line 18, by striking out “21,000,000” and inserting “29,000,000” 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:
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 5, after line 10, by inserting:
“Early cancer screening pilot project 1,000,000”.
2. Amend page 5, line 15, by striking out “21,000,000” and inserting “22,000,000”.
3. Amend page 5, line 18, by striking out “21,000,000” and inserting “22,000,000” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
4. Amend page 38, after line 11, by inserting:
“Sec. 703. (1) From the funds provided in part 1 for early cancer screening pilot project the department shall provide outreach and support services to promote and expand early and regular cancer screenings among veterans. The pilot project should seek demonstratable increases in veteran early cancer screenings that may be achieved through promotion and outreach activities, low or no-cost screening, the facilitation of access to services, or other avenues.
(2) By not later than March 1, 2025, the department shall communicate to the appropriate committees and subcommittees of the Senate and House of Representatives the detailed plan to provide and promote increased early cancer screenings.”.
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:
2. Amend page 4, line 2, by striking out “25,649,700” and inserting “25,927,700”.
3. Amend page 4, line 3, by striking out “31,961,000” and inserting “38,827,500”.
4. Amend page 4, line 5, by striking out “3,680,700” and inserting “4,622,600”.
5. Amend page 4, line 7, by striking out “92,601,000” and inserting “103,713,700”.
6. Amend page 4, line 15, by striking out “35,931,800” and inserting “47,044,500”.
7. Amend page 5, after line 8, by striking out all of lines 9 through 12.
8. Amend page 5, line 15, by striking out “21,000,000” and inserting “16,500,100”.
9. Amend page 5, line 18, by striking out “21,000,000” and inserting “16,500,100” 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:
Nays—20
Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Cherry McCann Santana
Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—2
Johnson Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 763, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of state police for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; 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 10, line 28, by striking out “2,000,000” and inserting “10,000,000”.
2. Amend page 11, line 4, by striking out “2,500,000” and inserting “10,500,000”.
3. Amend page 11, line 6, by striking out “2,500,000” and inserting “10,500,000” 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:
“(4) The department must require that all new vehicles for use by motor carrier officers not be painted to look similar to those used by Michigan state police officers and that the motor carrier division develop and display a division logo that is significantly dissimilar to that used by Michigan state police.”.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Albert offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 8, line 12, by striking out “500,000” and inserting “921,600”.
2. Amend page 8, line 13, by striking out “171,861,400” and inserting “172,283,000”.
3. Amend page 9, line 13, by striking out “57,792,500” and inserting “58,214,100” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
4. Amend page 44, line 28, after “implementation costs if” by striking out “the”.
5. Amend page 44, line 29, by striking out all of line 29 and inserting “Senate Bill No. 497 of the 102nd Legislature is enacted into law.”.
6. Amend page 45, by striking out all of lines 1 through 3.
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:
However, not one of them gets to dress up and be a police officer. Not one of them can come in and pretend to be a police officer or look like a police officer, except for one set of inspectors in this state, and that’s the Motor Carrier Division. The Motor Carrier Division officers dress up like State Police officers and they come and pull people over, and they inspect vehicles—not just commercial vehicles either, but other vehicles as well. I think that is an egregious abuse of power that they’re able to look like police officers and it automatically puts them in an intimidating position with the citizens who are supposed to be being regulated, not being treated as if they’re committing crime. I think it would be wise for us, and my amendment proposes that they not dress in the State Police blue uniforms and they not have the insignias of the State Police on those uniforms so they are clearly not police officers when members of the public are forced to deal with them, just like it is when you deal with any other state inspector or regulator who comes to your business or to your home. I recommend a “yes” vote.
Senator McBroom’s second statement is as follows:
Mr. President, this amendment, similar to the previous one, but this time in regard to the vehicles that Motor Carrier drives.
Once again, they drive in vehicles that are to any eye identical to the vehicles our state troopers drive around. While there is a slight label on the back side of the vehicle that tells you it’s Motor Carrier Division, that’s not something you can tell in your rearview mirror when they pull you over. I’ve seen so many hardworking citizens of Michigan—truck drivers, people with lawn care businesses, farmers—pulled over on the side of the road and dealing with someone who’s dressed like a policeman, who’s driving a car with red flashing lights like a policeman. If anybody else did these things, they’d be arrested for impersonating an officer. It’s not the right thing for our citizens to do, it’s not good for morale or for citizen understanding of their rights to be pulled over by somebody who looks like a policeman and put in a situation where they feel like they’re being treated by a policeman when it’s not a police officer, it’s a state inspector checking over a vehicle for deficiencies. We should be painting these cars a different color.
My amendment doesn’t propose that we change this all at once, but as we acquire new vehicles in the future that we remove the State Police insignia, badges, and colors from these cars and that they come up with a different appearance that does not make it look like it’s State Police. I recommend a “yes” vote.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the troopers who are out on the streets protecting us everyday but there are so many issues with the higher-ups at the Michigan State Police. The Free Press did a complete exposé on issue after issue, issue of favoritism, there were allegations of people getting special treatment by getting answers to the tests in order to be promoted. People who had very little ability in terms of experience that were jumped over—many, many officers to get higher-level positions. This is something really, I believe, that we should be looking at as a Legislature, investigating the higher-ups in the Michigan State Police. The one who had resigned when the troopers thought they were going to get a much better situation with the individual who replaced them and they said it’s as bad or worse. There are so many issues. I’ll speak on this when I have my notes in front of me to walk through line by line every one of these issues, but again, I 100 percent support the troopers but there’s major, major issues that need to be dealt with at the high end of the Michigan State Police.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 757, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the judiciary for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; 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:
Senator Outman’s statement is as follows:
Mr. President, a transparent and open judicial system is key to maintaining public trust. Removing tracking metrics and funding for statewide court transparency undermines the fundamental principles of accountability upon which our legal framework is built. I hope we can reconsider this course of action and instead seek ways to enhance transparency. Doing so will strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our judicial system. I ask for a “no” vote.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 756, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of corrections for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Outman offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 2, line 21, after “program” by striking out “14,814,600” and inserting “17,314,600” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 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 Albert offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 3, line 3, after “costs” by striking out “16,450,000” and inserting “30,321,400”.
2. Amend page 29, line 14, after “costs” by striking out the balance of the line through “bills” on line 15 and inserting “if Senate Bill No. 497”.
3. Amend page 29, line 15, after the first “Legislature” by striking out “are” and inserting “is”.
4. Amend page 29, line 15, after “law” by inserting a period.
5. Amend page 29, line 15, after “law” by striking out the colon through “167.” on line 18.
The question being on the adoption of the amendments,
Senator Singh 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 Huizenga McMorrow Webber
Chang Irwin Moss Wojno
Excused—2
Johnson Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator McBroom offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 49, following line 19, by inserting:
“Sec. 606a. From the funds appropriated in part 1, the department shall provide a report by April 1 for the preceding 12 month period on the number of prisoners, that have been incarcerated for a minimum of 5 years, who received suboxone upon release from a correctional facility.”.
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 37, following line 25, by inserting:
“Sec. 1103. The funds appropriated in part 1 for chronic absenteeism task force shall be appropriated to support the costs of a task force with the goal of identifying policies that could help lower the statewide chronic absenteeism rate for Michigan. Funds shall be expended when the governor has established the taskforce with the following members:
(a) A member from each party of the house of representatives.
(b) A member from each party of the senate.
(c) A representative from the department.
(d) A representative from an organization that represents school boards.
(e) A representative from an organization that represents school administrators.
(f) Two representatives from a union for teachers.”.
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:
Anthony Cherry Klinefelt Polehanki
Bayer Geiss McCann Santana
Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Shink
Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Singh
Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno
Chang
Excused—2
Johnson Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Senate Bill No. 761, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the state transportation department for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Hauck offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 10, line 26, by striking out all of line 26.
2. Amend page 10, line 28, after “ $ ” by striking out “195,990,100” and inserting “190,990,100”.
3. Amend page 11, line 4, after “ $ ” by striking out the balance of the bill and inserting “170,000,100” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
4. Amend page 38, line 8, by striking out all of section 1006.
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 Hauck offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 6, line 19, after “construction” by striking out “411,168,800” and inserting “451,168,800”.
2. Amend page 6, line 25, after “ $ ” by striking out “4,153,822,600” and inserting “4,193,822,600”.
3. Amend page 7, line 6, after “ $ ” by striking out “0” and inserting “40,000,000”.
4. Amend page 8, line 13, after “$” by striking out “261,750,000” and inserting “221,750,000”.
5. Amend page 8, line 15, after “ $ ” by striking out “302,376,500” and inserting “262,376,500”.
6. Amend page 8, line 20, after “ $ ” by striking out “40,000,000” and inserting “0” 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:
Mr. President, I know that everyone in this chamber agrees that our roads are in desperate need of repair. Last year, I spoke before this body about the need for a comprehensive transportation plan that prioritizes fixing our local roads and bridges in a way that addresses the needs of all of our Michigan families in all of our geographic locations, not just the high population locations, but critically important regions like the Upper Peninsula and the towns and villages that dot the map throughout northern Michigan. It seems we are actually making some progress on some of our MDOT roads, but let’s not forget that most of the real problems can be found in our local roads, which counties and townships simply do not have the resources to address.
We also have desperate needs to keep our critically important industries, not the least of which is our logging and timber industry which is in serious need of additional Category E funding for seasonal roads that has not been increased since the 1980s. So, we still have some more work to do in this budget and I hope some of these ideas and some of the ideas proposed in the amendments today will be considered as the final budget is crafted. That said, I will be supporting this budget today as a solid first step, and appreciate the chair’s commitment to work together on this budget, but hope we can continue to make improvements to help better serve all of the people of this great state.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 768, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of environment, Great Lakes, and energy for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; 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 18, line 19, after “$” by striking out “83,000,000.00” and inserting “3,000,000.00”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Excused—2
Johnson Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Bellino offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 14, line 17, by striking out all of line 17.
2. Amend page 14, line 20, after “initiative” by striking out “10,000,000” and inserting “25,000,000”.
3. Amend page 37, line 24, by striking out all of section 1003.
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:
1. Amend page 3, line 3, after “State employees retirement system implementation costs” by striking out “50,000” and inserting “92,200” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
2. Amend page 30, line 2, after “No.” by striking out the balance of the line through “167.” on line 4 and inserting “497”.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Hauck offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 14, line 16, by striking out all of line 16.
2. Amend page 14, following line 17, after “infrastructure”, by inserting “$”.
3. Amend page 14, line 18, after “infrastructure” by striking out “25,000,000” and inserting “35,000,000”.
4. Amend page 38, line 25, by striking out all of section 1004.
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:
Johnson Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Outman offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 14, following line 19, by inserting:
Wastewater infrastructure project 9,000,000”.
2. Amend page 14, line 25, after “funds” by striking “0” and inserting “9,000,000” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.
3. Amend page 40, following line 6, by inserting:
“ Sec. 1006. From the funds appropriated in part 1 for wastewater infrastructure project, $9,000,000.00 shall be awarded to a wastewater infrastructure project located in a city with a population between 5,900 and 6,000 and in a county with a population of between 66,800 and 67,000 according to the most recent federal decennial census that supports a wastewater infrastructure project but due to cost increases resulting from inflation, supply chain, or other impact have been awarded funding amounts that are insufficient to complete the approved project.”.
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:
I just want to let members know that this budget line item does not actually authorize any new fees. When you vote on this item, you should know that the previous speaker and those comments were not in line with what’s in the bill. This does not authorize any fees; in fact, the Legislature would have to authorize those fees. I hope it’s a discussion we have here because out-of-state trash and the fact Michigan is a huge magnet for out-of-state trash is a problem that this Legislature has been wrestling with for years. This budget does not fix that, this line does not increase any fees, and that discussion will happen elsewhere.
Senator Bellino’s statement is as follows:
Just like millions of families, many local communities across our state continue to struggle with increased costs. We should be helping our locals maintain the level of service their residents need or improve the aging water infrastructure their families rely on. Instead, this budget subsidizes the higher cost of electric vehicles for local fleets. If a community wants to buy EVs, then they should use their own resources to cover the extra cost, not get a bailout by the taxpayers. My amendment would take the $10 million dedicated in this budget for “clean fleet” grants to government bodies and repurpose it for lead line replacement services. I urge a “yes” vote on my amendment.
Senator Hauck’s statement is as follows:
Mr. President, many communities across our state continue to struggle to afford to improve their aging water infrastructure. This is the type of critical priority where we can make long-term investments and improve the lives of millions of Michigan families. My amendment would cut $15 million in this budget for clean fuel and charging infrastructure, and dedicate it to water infrastructure. Focusing on safe drinking water for all is a more responsible use of public funds, ensuring essential resources that benefits all Michiganders, not just those who can afford an electric vehicle. I urge my members to meet our current needs by voting “yes” on this amendment.
Senator Outman’s statement is as follows:
Mr. President, it’s no secret that inflation has increased the cost of virtually everything in recent years. Just like families have been grappling with these added expenses, local governments find themselves facing similar challenges. This project has already been approved and we should protect the health of these residents and avoid penalizing this community for factors beyond their control. My amendment would fund the shortfall and ensure this critical project can be completed as originally planned. I ask for your support on this amendment.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 748, entitled
A bill to make appropriations for the department of lifelong education, advancement, and potential for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; 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:
A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending sections 236, 236b, 236c, 236j, 236m, 241, 241a, 241c, 244, 248, 248a, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 263, 263b, 264, 268, 269, 270c, 275b, 275k, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, and 282 (MCL 388.1836, 388.1836b, 388.1836c, 388.1836j, 388.1836m, 388.1841, 388.1841a, 388.1841c, 388.1844, 388.1848, 388.1848a, 388.1850, 388.1851, 388.1852, 388.1853, 388.1855, 388.1856, 388.1858, 388.1859, 388.1860, 388.1863, 388.1863b, 388.1864, 388.1868, 388.1869, 388.1870c, 388.1875b, 388.1875k, 388.1876, 388.1877, 388.1878, 388.1879, 388.1880, 388.1881, and 388.1882), sections 236, 236m, and 248 as amended by 2023 PA 320, sections 236b, 236c, 236j, 241, 248a, 251, 252, 256, 259, 260, 263, 264, 268, 269, 270c, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, and 282 as amended and sections 241a, 241c, 263b, and 275k as added by 2023 PA 103, section 244 as amended and section 250 as added by 2017 PA 108, sections 253 and 255 as amended by 2012 PA 201, section 258 as amended by 2013 PA 60, and section 275b as amended by 2022 PA 144, and by adding sections 236q, 236r, 241e, 247, 270, 275l, 275m, and 275n; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Huizenga offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 7, line 25, after “grants,” by striking out “ $34,925,900.00 ” and inserting “$42,021,500.00”.
2. Amend page 8, line 13, by striking out “ $500,656,800.00 ” and inserting “ $507,752,400.00 ”.
3. Amend page 14, line 29, after “ 2025, ” by striking out “ $500,656,800.00 ” and inserting “ $507,752,400.00 ” and adjusting the subtotals and totals in section 236 and enacting section 1 accordingly.
4. Amend page 45, line 13, after “year.” by striking out the balance of the subsection.
5. Amend page 47, line 14, by striking out all of subsection (9) .
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 Moss Wojno
Excused—2
Johnson Victory
Not Voting—0
In The Chair: Moss
Senator Webber offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 24, line 29, after “than” by striking out “4.5%” and inserting “ 2.5% ”.
2. Amend page 24, line 29, after “or” by striking out “ $703.00 ” and inserting “ $391.00 ”.
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 6, line 29, after “from” by striking out the balance of the page through “State” on line 2 of page 7 and inserting “ state ”.
4. Amend page 7, line 2, after “money” by striking out the balance of the line through “ $1,270,619,000.00. $1,314,162,400.00. ” on line 3 and inserting a period.
5. Amend page 8, line 20, after “state” by striking out the balance of the sentence and inserting “ general fund/general purpose money. ”.
The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Senator Albert offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 66, following line 7, by inserting:
“ Sec. 275o. (1) To receive funds under section 236(2), a public university may not spend more than 2.0% of its total general fund operations revenue from all sources on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or programs, including staff salaries, benefits, and program operations.
(2) By March 15, 2025 each university with a diversity, equity and inclusion program must report to the house and senate appropriations committees on their total diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives spending. The reporting must include, but is not limited to, a description of program goals, number of employees, and an overview of staff salaries and benefits.”.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator Lauwers requested the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
I know we’re discussing the higher education budget, and while there’s lots of pontification, and what seems as though we just sat through, a lecture, an uninformed lecture, I believe that the Senator who just spoke has no experience, no formal education in diversity, equity, and inclusion. In fact, none of those remarks were actually germane to the amendment that we were discussing. So if that member, or any member of this chamber, has an honest assessment, an honest heart or an open mind to understanding the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our higher education institutions, or how it can manifest in spaces like this, I urge them to pick up a book. Attend a lecture at one of our institutions of higher learning, but at this moment, I ask for a “no” vote on this amendment, and really any amendments that are as ridiculous as what we just heard. Thank you.
Senator Lindsey offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 66, following line 7, 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, 2025, 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:
Senator Bellino offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 66, following line 7, by inserting:
“ Sec. 275q. (1) To receive an operations increase payment under section 236, each public university must do the following by October 10, 2024:
(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, “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.
The question being on the adoption of the amendment,
The Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss, assumed the Chair.
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:
Throughout our country’s history, student protests from the Civil Rights Movement, to the war in Vietnam, to the South Africa Anti-Apartheid Movement, have changed our domestic foreign policy for the better. This moment in time is no different. History repeats itself, and in like every other social movement, attacking and misconstruing the message of student protestors by those in positions of privilege is a sad but time-honored tradition. If you followed the Civil Rights Movement at the time, MLK was seen as a controversial figure, and his tactics were sometimes unpopular. In fact, a 1961 Gallup poll found that 57 percent of Americans thought that sit-ins at the lunch counters hurt the chances of integration in the south. Right here in Michigan, in 1937, the Flint Sit-Down strikers were led by workers who occupied and demanded changes in their workplace. The 1965 march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, something that is brought to our attention every year, was technically trespassing. There are a lot of people who saw that as an act that was so confrontational at the time, but now those tactics we know forced a conversation that required our country to look itself in the mirror—to make ourselves better by questioning long-held assumptions about our society and our role in the world. And in retrospect, these movements have consistently been on the right side of history.
The students protesting today come from all backgrounds and religions. They see the war in Gaza as a human-rights issue. They’re using their voices to call for a change in the U.S. policy, because over 40,000 innocent Palestinians—largely women and children—have been crushed under the rubble of bombed buildings, or shot in the street as they are seeking refuge. We have seen these images across social media: the starvation, the makeshift camps, the injuries, the destruction, the death, and the mass graves, which has only fueled students’ drive to seek an end to the occupation, war crimes, and genocide—just like they did in the past.
The tactics of student protestors are working now. Just last night we saw an important shift in U.S. policy toward this conflict. I refuse to live in a state where we weaponize our budget to go after students who are peacefully protesting. These demonstrations are overwhelmingly focused on safeguarding human rights and dignity for all, no matter their race, religion, or nationality. Those are American values. I urge my colleagues to focus more of their attention on the tens of thousands of lives that have been lost rather than how students are exercising their First Amendment rights.
Senator Theis offered the following amendment:
1. Amend page 66, following line 7, by inserting:
“ 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, 2025, 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.
(3) As used in this section, “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. ”.
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 Albert withdrew the amendments.
Senator Albert offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 65, line 27, after “ 275n. ” by inserting “ (1) ”.
2. Amend page 65, line 29, by striking out the balance of the line through “ The ” on page 66, line 3 and inserting “ if ”.
3. Amend page 66, line 5, by striking out the balance of the section and inserting “ nondiscrimination.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) “Inclusion” means a core belief that each individual person has infinite dignity and must have equal opportunity based on challenges bested, skills built, and lessons learned.
(b) “Nondiscrimination” means a principle that ensures each student is protected under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution.
(3) The legislature finds and declares that in the spirit of inclusivity, no student should have a scholarship award withheld because that student is enrolled in a program of study leading to a degree in theology, divinity, or religious education, and that all religions and creeds are welcome to be studied. It is the intent of the legislature to support and defend the American ideal of religious tolerance which has been a pillar of our democratic republic and an example of true freedom and liberty since the nation was founded. The legislature further intends that each student’s pursuit of truth, beauty, and goodness through their chosen course of study be a benefit to all Michigan residents through the spread of faith, hope, and love. ”.
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:
Senator Singh moved that Senator Chang be excused from the balance of today’s session.
The motion prevailed.
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. 237
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 237, entitled
A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 4cc (MCL 205.94cc), as added by 2015 PA 252.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


result: unknown

context_text:
By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Messages from the House
Senate Bill No. 227, entitled
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 1, 2b, and 2c (MCL 722.111, 722.112b, and 722.112c), section 1 as amended by 2022 PA 208, section 2b as amended by 2007 PA 217, and section 2c as amended by 2017 PA 257.
The House of Representatives has substituted (H-1) the bill.
The House of Representatives has passed the bill as substituted (H-1), ordered that it be given immediate effect and amended the title to read as follows:
A bill to amend 1973 PA 116, entitled “An act to provide for the protection of children through the licensing and regulation of child care organizations; to provide for the establishment of standards of care for child care organizations; to prescribe powers and duties of certain departments of this state and adoption facilitators; to provide penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 1, 2b, and 2c (MCL 722.111, 722.112b, and 722.112c), section 1 as amended by 2023 PA 173, section 2b as amended by 2007 PA 217, and section 2c as amended by 2017 PA 257.
Pending the order that, under rule 3.202, the bill be laid over one day,
Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute made to the bill by the House,
The substitute was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:


context_text:
Third Reading of Bills
Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 753
The motion prevailed.
The following bill was announced:
Senate Bill No. 753, entitled
A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending sections 201, 205, 206, 207a, 207b, 207c, 216c, 217, 217b, 222, 223, 229, 229a, and 230 (MCL 388.1801, 388.1805, 388.1806, 388.1807a, 388.1807b, 388.1807c, 388.1816c, 388.1817, 388.1817b, 388.1822, 388.1823, 388.1829, 388.1829a, and 388.1830), section 201 as amended by 2023 PA 320, sections 205 and 217 as amended by 2020 PA 165, sections 206, 207a, 207b, 207c, 223, 229a, and 230 as amended by 2023 PA 103, sections 216c and 217b as added by 2023 PA 103, section 222 as amended by 2021 PA 86, section 229 as amended by 2022 PA 144, and by adding sections 216e, 217c, and 217d; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
(This bill was read a third time on Thursday, May 9, amendments offered and consideration postponed. See Senate Journal No. 44, p. 529.)
The question being on the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Webber,
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:
“Sec. 216c. (1) Subject to subsection (2), funds appropriated in section 201(7) for debt, infrastructure, technology, equipment, maintenance, safety, and capital outlay grants are intended to be used for necessary improvements and deferred maintenance of community college buildings, facilities, and other physical infrastructure; necessary improvements and deferred maintenance of information technology, other technology infrastructure, and other equipment; and other purposes related to infrastructure, technology, equipment, and maintenance. A community college may also use these funds for debt or to upgrade safety and security infrastructure. These funds are not intended to be used for any other purpose than what is specified in this section.
(2) Each community college must receive grant awards under this section as follows:
(a) A capital outlay grant of $345,000.00 that may be used for any purpose allowed under section 237a of the management and budget act, 1984 PA 431, MCL 18.1237a.
(b) A debt, infrastructure, equipment, maintenance and safety grant equal to $5,340,000.00 multiplied by each community college’s respective share of total fiscal year equated students as reported to the Michigan community college data inventory for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023 for all community colleges that receive a payment under this section. A grant under this subdivision may be used for any purpose detailed under subsection (1). Not less than 15% of grant funds received under this subdivision must be used to repay debt.
(3) Payments to community colleges under this section must be distributed in 1 lump sum to each institution with the October 16, 2024 payment described in section 206(1).
(4) By September 30, 2025, each community college that receives a grant under this section must submit a report to the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on higher education, the house and senate fiscal agencies, and the state budget director that details the use of funds received under this section. If, at the time the report is submitted, a community college has unspent grant funds received under this section, the community college must indicate that in the report, and provide a summary of the purposes for which the community college intends to use those funds, if an intended use has been identified.
(5) It is the intent of the legislature that capital outlay grants as described under subsection (2)(a) be included as an ongoing appropriation for future fiscal years, and that those grants be used to replace bonds issued by the state building authority as the financing mechanism for the state’s share of capital outlay project costs. ”.
11. Amend page 35, line 4, after “at” by striking out “$470,341,700.00” and inserting “$485,341,600.00”.
12. Amend page 35, line 6, after “at” by striking out “$469,491,700.00.” and inserting “$484,491,600.00.”.
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:
1. Amend page 12, following line 8, by inserting:
“Fentanyl mitigation and prevention grants 500,000,000”.
2. Amend page 12, following line 14, by inserting:
“Strategic outreach and attraction reserve fund 500,000,000”.
3. Amend page 112, following line 5, by inserting:
“Sec. 1022. (1) The funds appropriated in part 1 for fentanyl mitigation and prevention grants, $250,000,000 shall be allocated to local health departments to respond to public health effects of fentanyl use. The funding provided in this section shall be distributed in the same manner as the distribution formula for allocating essential local public health services funding to local health departments in made in the current fiscal year. Funds made available in this section shall be used for, but is not limited to, the adoption of comprehensive public health approaches to address the fentanyl crisis and to establish treatment and prevention services to avert future crises. The department may work with DHHS for assistance in distributing funds to local health departments.
(2) The funds appropriated in part 1 for fentanyl mitigation and prevention grants, $250,000,000 shall be allocated to local law enforcement agencies to assist in local efforts to address fentanyl mitigation activities. The department may work with the department of state police and the ANGEL program to assist in the allocation of funds to the communities most in need.
(3) Funds in the strategic outreach reserve fund shall be reduced by an equal amount.”.
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 Hauck offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 12, following line 8, by inserting:
“Bridge repair fund 1,000,000,000”.
2. Amend page 12, following line 14, by inserting:
“Strategic outreach and attraction reserve fund 1,000,000,000”.
3. Amend page 112, following line 5, by inserting:
“Sec. 1020. From the funds appropriated in part 1 for bridge repair fund, up to $1,000,000,000.00 is deposited into the bridge repair fund upon enactment of Senate Bill Nos. 852 and 853 of the 102nd Legislature. Funds in the strategic outreach and attraction reserve funds shall be reduced by an equal amount. Funds appropriated in this section must be used to support the activities outlined under Senate Bill No. 853 of the 102nd Legislature.”.
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 Huizenga offered the following amendments:
1. Amend page 12, following line 8, by inserting:
“Reading scholarships 500,000,000”.
2. Amend page 12, following line 14, by inserting:
“Strategic outreach and attraction reserve fund 500,000,000”.
3. Amend page 112, following line 5, by inserting:
“Sec. 1022. The funds appropriated in part 1 for reading scholarships shall be allocated on an equal per-pupil basis to all districts and public school academies to support reading tutors and scholarships for reading services to the pupils enrolled in those districts and public school academies. Funds in the strategic outreach reserve fund shall be reduced by an equal amount.”.
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: