“An act to protect the environment and natural resources of the state; to codify, revise, consolidate, and classify laws relating to the environment and natural resources of the state; to regulate the discharge of certain substances into the environment; to regulate the use of certain lands, waters, and other natural resources of the state; to protect the people’s right to hunt and fish; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; to provide for certain charges, fees, assessments, and donations; to provide certain appropriations; to prescribe penalties and provide remedies; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”
The Senate agreed to the full title.
Protests
Senators McBroom and Bellino, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4325.
Senator McBroom’s statement, in which Senator Bellino concurred, is as follows:
Mr. President, this bill while, I think, motivated with the best of intentions, misses some very critical questions, in particular in acknowledging that the community of Detroit or anywhere else already has power to raise the fines it’s charging within its own community and could address this and doesn’t need a state mandate to do so. Additionally, in a community such as Detroit, where they offer so much pickup of garbage for free, I fail to understand how increasing the fines and penalties on people is a good solution to a problem. If people can’t already find a way to dispose of these materials for free, why is fining them a better solution, particularly as I work with my colleagues from that area and they’ve expressed the difficulties people have of paying fines, of paying bail, of being put away because of failure to pay bills, the loss of water or other things because they can’t afford to pay for them. I just don’t see how this bill is the right solution to a problem that’s going on in several communities—a problem I acknowledge exists.
I don’t believe this bill properly addresses that, and that’s why I voted “no.”
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 282, entitled
A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 2116c.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: