Senate Bill No. 14, entitled

A bill to amend 1969 PA 306, entitled “Administrative procedures act of 1969,” by amending sections 32 and 45 (MCL 24.232 and 24.245), as amended by 2018 PA 602.

Senator Lauwers offered the following substitute:

Substitute (S-2).

The question being on the adoption of the substitute,

The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 291 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

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

Senator Webber offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 9, following line 22, by inserting:

“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Joint Resolution C of the 102nd Legislature becomes a part of the state constitution of 1963 as provided in section 1 of article XII of the state constitution of 1963.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 292 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

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

Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 3, following line 14, by inserting:

“(8) An agency shall not adopt or promulgate a rule that is more stringent than an applicable federal standard if this state’s unemployment rate is greater than the national average for any consecutive 3-month period in the preceding calendar year. This prohibition continues until this state’s unemployment rate is less than the national average for 3 consecutive months.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 293 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

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

Senator Lauwers offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 9, following line 22, by inserting:

“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless Senate Bill No. 270 of the
102nd Legislature is enacted into law.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 294 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

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

Protests

Senators Chang and Camilleri, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Lauwers to Senate Bill No. 14.

Senator Chang moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the amendment be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Chang’s statement, in which Senator Camilleri concurred, is as follows:

In 1913—110 years ago—California passed the Alien Land Law. It was broadly written to include all immigrants in its exclusion, but at the time it really was focused on Japanese immigrants—Japanese farmers. The Asiatic Exclusion League was the organization pushing this bill at the time back in 1913. They then also advocated for Californians to boycott Japanese-owned restaurants. They used signs saying things like, Save California from the Japs; Japs keep moving, this is a white man’s neighborhood. This Alien Land Law prevented immigrants—Japanese farmers—from owning land in California, and in the 1920s Japanese immigrant landowners lost over 100,000 acres of land. The California Legislature then expanded this law to exclude U.S.-born children of Asian immigrants and Asian-owned businesses.

Regardless of the Senator’s intent—I appreciate our conversation about it—we need to learn our history and we need to make sure we don’t repeat it. We need to be cognizant of the climate we’re in and the impact of the words we use in this chamber, as well as the amendments like this that could do harm. So I encourage my colleagues to vote “no.”

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

Roll Call No. 295 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Lauwers’ statement is as follows:

Protest

Senator Lauwers, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 14 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

I’ve just got to say, I have to agree with my colleague from the U.P. and I also have to explain, I guess, why I’m offering the amendments I am and why I rise—this is my “no” vote explanation. Sometimes we have really good intentions here in the Legislature and there’s a point in history where we really messed up with this experiment once before. It’s one of the reasons I came to Lansing.

Before I came to Lansing, and I think it was actually a Republican Legislature that did this—best intentions in the world—we passed laws that were more stringent than the states around us and the federal government on ballast water discharge for our shipping vessels. Thought we’d lead by example. Thought the other states around us would join us. Thought the feds would join us. Recently we just celebrated the money that’s being put into one of our ports because it’s finally going to reopen. Why is it reopening? Because we put them all out of business with that legislation. We made our laws more restrictive than the feds and more restrictive than the states around us and we watched all of our shipping—you can track it—all our shipping moved out of Michigan and to the states and our neighbors to the east in Canada, we gave them our business.

I came to Lansing and one of the first things I wanted to do was right that. Can’t we change our ballast laws to even at least be in compliance with the other states around us? Not much support for that. Republican administration. Then I was told, Relax, we’re going to adopt the feds’ rules soon. There’s no need for your legislation. We’re going to do what the feds are doing so you have nothing to worry about. The problem is it took so long. That only took six years after I was elected for us to finally—did it the first year I came here, six years later we finally adopted the federal regulations. Now we’re going to go back again and say, Ok, we can put on laws that are more strict than the feds.

Please, think about the unintended consequences of this. Think hard about why we would do this and when we would do this and what impact it will have on our state. We really—I understand the desire to lead by example but when we lead by example, let’s make sure that the example isn’t that we’re going to put Michigan second or last to our competitive neighbors.

Senators Lauwers, Webber, Nesbitt and McCann asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Lauwers’ first statement is as follows:

I don’t believe state regulations should run amok of federal regulations and I fear what this will mean for the businesses in our state. But if the genesis of this bill is rooted in environmental concerns, in a desire to protect Michigan’s environment and natural resources, then that’s what it should be limited to. That’s certainly what all of the testimony we heard in committee was about. So I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment to focus this on just the environment.

Senator Webber’s statement is as follows:

Mr. President, my amendment would tie-bar this bill before us to my constitutional amendment requiring approval by the Legislature of any new rule or regulation with a cost of more than $1 million. Perhaps the majority thinks it’s a good idea to turn Michigan into California, with even more regulations on the books than those imposed by the federal government. I don’t. But if you do, you should be willing to put your names on these regulations and be accountable to the voters, not leave these decisions up to bureaucrats like this bill would do. Because let’s be clear, this bill before us opens the door to a tidal wave of regulations that could cripple small family businesses in this state. Small businesses may not have the ability to pay for lobbyists and lawyers to manage regulations, but small-business owners may or likely have a direct contact to their State Senator or Representative.

Michigan is fortunate to have the JCAR process, which provides an important check on the rules and regulations, if used. However, I don’t have high hopes that the majority will use this oversight tool in the coming years. Now is the time for increased government transparency and accountability, especially as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem intent on growing the size and scope of government. If we are going to continue to grow government, we must increase accountability to the people it serves. Don’t let bureaucrats in Lansing that are unaccountable to voters make decisions that could cripple small businesses across our state. I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment.

Senator Nesbitt’s statement is as follows:

I rise to speak on my amendment and ask for your support. Families in Michigan are still struggling and small businesses are still anxious as inflation rates remain volatile and energy and fuel prices continue to increase. The unpredictable nature of this Biden/Whitmer economy is already threatening enough to those trying to make ends meet. Creating additional, unnecessary, and burdensome regulations at the state level that exceed those at the federal level will only compound the current economic hardships.

Therefore, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits creating a rule that is more stringent than the applicable federal rule if Michigan experiences an unemployment rate greater than the national average for three consecutive months. The prohibition will remain until the unemployment rate falls below the national average for three consecutive months. Colleagues, I ask for your support of my amendment, and ensure we aren’t creating additional barriers on Michigan workers and small businesses.

Senator Lauwers’ second statement is as follows:

My amendment ties the bill before us to my Senate Bill No. 270, which restricts foreign purchases of our farmland. It creates a registry for farmland and allows the process to happen, but it doesn’t prevent it. If my colleagues across the aisle are eager for more regulations, this is one of the few that I am ready to support. This shouldn’t be a partisan matter, either. In February, a bipartisan group of U.S. House members sent a letter to the Agriculture Secretary condemning the federal government’s lack of oversight on such land purchases. Before we start piling additional regulations on Michigan businesses, let’s start with those from outside our shores who are buying up our agricultural land. I ask for support of my amendment.

Senator McCann’s statement is as follows:

I rise in support on Senate Bill No. 14, which would help ensure that Michigan has every tool in our toolbox to protect our state’s environment and public health. Senate Bill No. 14 repeals the no-stricter-than-federal-law, enacted in 2018, that currently keeps Michigan from establishing rules more stringent than those already established by federal law unless it clears a so-called “clear and convincing” mandate. Well this mandate is poorly defined, confusing, and presents a potential lengthy process that prevents Michigan from acting swiftly to address environmental and public health crises.

Prior to 2018, Michigan had the ability to go above federal standards to keep our natural resources and communities safer. We saw that following the Flint water crisis, when Michigan enacted a lead-and-copper rule in 2018 that set the nation’s most stringent standards for lead in drinking water. Or the time further back, when Governor Milliken went above the federal standards that limited the amount of phosphorus flowing into Lake Erie at a time when algae blooms threatened the survival of the lake.

We all know that federal standards are meant as the floor, not the ceiling. They are often the lowest standards for a state to meet. We also know that no state is monolithic, and every state has unique needs. Our Great Lakes State is certainly no exception. With Michigan’s aggressive economic-development push into electrification and the development of industries and suppliers that contribute to it, it will be even more important than ever to rapidly adjust our environmental standards to ensure the health of the Great Lakes watershed.

Every day this Legislature passes bills that recognize Michigan’s unique needs. This bill is simple. It is about restoring the necessary tools that Michigan needs to curb threats to our natural resources, protect the wellbeing of Michigan’s citizens, and be able to act promptly in doing so. Michigan’s economy thrives when our citizens are healthy and our environment is protected. I ask for your support on this.

Senate Bill No. 164, entitled

A bill to amend 1961 PA 120, entitled “An act to authorize the development or redevelopment of principal shopping districts and business improvement districts; to permit the creation of certain boards; to provide for the operation of principal shopping districts and business improvement districts; to provide for the creation, operation, and dissolution of business improvement zones; and to authorize the collection of revenue and the bonding of certain local governmental units for the development or redevelopment projects,” by amending sections 10, 10b, 10c, 10e, 10f, 10g, 10h, 10j, 10k, and 10l (MCL 125.990, 125.990b, 125.990c, 125.990e, 125.990f, 125.990g, 125.990h, 125.990j, 125.990k, and 125.990l), as amended by 2020 PA 91.

The Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss, assumed the Chair.

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

Roll Call No. 296 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:

Protests

Senators Theis and Johnson, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 164 and moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the bill be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

On its face, business improvement zones—or BIZs—seem helpful for doing things in a municipality when the municipality might not do them on its own. It allows businesses to commit to their district that they will pay for improvements as voted by themselves and it seems like a reasonable approach. Except this bill removes the fairness in that process when the express job of the government is to provide equal protection under the law. Passing this bill removes the equitable voting rights within the zoned district. As it stands, each entity has a single, equal vote to authorize, amend, or renew these zones.

We changed to that language in 2020 to make things fair. This language protects the little guy, the mom-and-pop shop. The same small businesses who employ a significant portion of our state’s workers, and those who don’t have the power, the money, or the time to lobby legislators. These small businesses are already struggling under the crushing weight of inflation and a downward-trending economy. They’re desperately trying to find employees and they have no financial cushion, having spent everything to keep going through COVID.

If this bill were to become law and re-establish a weighted voting system, it could crush our small businesses. The big guy gets to vote on what the little guy has to pay, with larger businesses literally having a larger voting share than the smaller ones and being able to determine how the assessing is done, thereby favoring themselves.

Literally two businesses in a zone, if one is large enough, could make the decision to initiate the district using proportional voting and three businesses, if large enough, would be enough to vote it through. Keep in mind, they get to decide what the zone is going to look like, who it will include, and it includes a myriad of ways the assessment can be determined, including a vague “any other factor relating to assessable property identified in the zone plan.”

The assessments that could be levied under this bill on property owners to fund this zone will likely be a significant financial burden, especially for small businesses. The zone plan “may provide for caps on the assessment amounts” but it doesn’t have to—that’s on page 5. Language requiring the assessment be allotted “on the basis of the benefit to assessable property” has been crossed out—that’s page 4. This bill even removes language that requires the project would “enhance the business environment within a zone.” That’s the main point, but we crossed that language out—that’s page 3. Later they provide instead that the benefit is assumed through a rebuttable presumption, meaning that mom-and-pop literally have to get a lawyer and go to court if they’re going to prove that it’s not going to benefit them.

Further, this bill removes the requirement that money paid to the treasurer be first applied to their taxes before the zone—that’s page 14, by the way—thus putting these mom-and pop-shops at real risk of losing their property to tax foreclosure if they can’t pay both the taxes and the assessment—an assessment they very likely voted against, if they’re struggling. To add insult to injury, if they can’t pay the zone can take them to court—with interest, setting up a plausible scenario whereby they’ve paid some money to the treasurer intended for the taxes but it got applied to the zone instead. It might not be enough, so now they go to court with interest to pay the remainder and also they could lose their property because of tax foreclosure. Because they can lose their business if taxes aren’t paid, and there’s a remedy for the unpaid assessment, there is no ethical reason to allow these funds to go to the zone before they go to pay taxes.

We need to stand up for the little guy, the small mom-and-pop shops that are the backbone of our community. I urge a “no” vote.

Senator Johnson’s statement is as follows:

Similar legislation to Senate Bill No. 164 was passed by this body last year during lame duck, but I now have more information and a much clearer understanding of the full effects of this proposal.

As written, this bill would not only allow business improvement zones to make assessments proportionally—either on assessed value, taxable value, square footage, or street footage—but this legislation would also allow them to allocate voting rights of property owners proportionately too.

To me this is a dangerous precedent and it’s un-American. Under this bill, just one large business could have its vote count for up to 25 percent of the overall outcome of an election for a proposed business improvement zone. To me, this disenfranchises small business owners and the mom-and-pop operations who will also be forced to pay these assessments if a business improvement zone is created. In some cases this also would include residents living in mixed-use buildings.

All property owners should have an equal vote in this process. For example, when there’s a countywide millage on the ballot, we don’t give people extra votes because they live in a more valuable home. Yet, this is exactly what this legislation proposes to do to property owners considering a business improvement zone assessment—in essence, a tax increase. I will be voting “no” and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Senator Shink asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Shink’s statement is as follows:

I rise today to ask for everyone’s support on Senate Bill No. 164. Our cities and downtowns are not only commercially important, but are the heart of local culture and history. A flourishing downtown stimulates the local economy, revitalizes surrounding neighborhoods, and is a beneficial driver for local business.

Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Grand Rapids have successfully utilized BIZ zones, adding life and energy to their downtowns. My legislation amends the 1961 PA 120 vote allocation. This amended BIZ legislation allows zones to be created using a variety of weighting tools to determine member votes, to make BIZ zones match their community. Changes to the BIZ law in 2019 removed any ability to use weighted voting, which severely limits the flexibility and value of the BIZ. The bill would eliminate the current provisions requiring business improvement zones to allocate assessments based on the benefit to assessable property. In its place, a zone plan would allocate votes based on assessed value, taxable value, square footage, street frontage, or other factors relating to property. Again, to make it fit the community.

The bill allows for comparative voting for business improvement zones. Since 2019, no BIZs have been created in Michigan. This is reflective of the change in the law. For example, one property owner cannot be allocated over 25 percent of the vote. Any amount apportioned to a property owner more than 25 percent would have to be proportionally reallocated among the remaining property owners based on the assessed value of the remaining property. This bill is supported by many small businesses, including in economically-distressed areas, by Ann Arbor SPARK, Downtown Detroit Partnership and BIZ, the Michigan Municipal League, the city of Ferndale, and the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy.

The bill restores the ability to use assessed or taxable value as a voting mechanism for BIZs which confers local flexibility in how the zones are established and governed. By amending the current bill and measurement of assessable property and adding proportional allocation votes, BIZs will permit greater local autonomy while enhancing the appeal and overall health of a downtown area. I hope all members of this body will join me in supporting this important legislation today.

Recess

Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

The motion prevailed, the time being 11:38 a.m.

12:05 p.m.

The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.

Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bills:

House Bill No. 4244

House Bill No. 4245

House Bill No. 4247

House Bill No. 4281

House Bill No. 4289

House Bill No. 4290

House Bill No. 4292

House Bill No. 4310

The motion prevailed.

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

House Bill No. 4244, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of state police for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Roll Call No. 297 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

House Bill No. 4245, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the judiciary for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

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

Roll Call No. 298 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

House Bill No. 4247, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of corrections for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

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

Roll Call No. 299 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

House Bill No. 4281, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of insurance and financial services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

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

Roll Call No. 300 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

House Bill No. 4289, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of agriculture and rural development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

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

Roll Call No. 301 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

House Bill No. 4290, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of natural resources for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2024; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

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

Roll Call No. 302 Yeas—21

Anthony Cherry McBroom Polehanki

Bayer Geiss McCann Santana

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Irwin McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Klinefelt Moss Wojno

Chang

Nays—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

House Bill No. 4292, entitled

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

Roll Call No. 303 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

House Bill No. 4310, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of health and human services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

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

Roll Call No. 304 Yeas—21

Anthony Cherry Lindsey Polehanki

Bayer Geiss McCann Santana

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Irwin McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Klinefelt Moss Wojno

Chang

Nays—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss

By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of

Resolutions

Senator Klinefelt offered the following resolution:

Senate Resolution No. 53.

A resolution to recognize May 17, 2023, as Older Michiganians Day.

Whereas, According to the 2021 American Community Survey, five-year data set, 2,438,552 Michiganians are age 60 or older, equating to 1 of every 4 citizens being an older adult as defined by the Older Americans Act; and

Whereas, There are more older adults than children under the age of 18 in our state (2,188,856); and

Whereas, There are more older adults than pre-K through 12th grade students in our state (1,624,039); and

Whereas, 10,000 Americans celebrate their 65th birthday every day and become eligible for Medicare; and

Whereas, Older Michiganians are critical to Michigan’s economy, workforce, educational system, faith-based institutions, charitable organizations, and institutions of government; and

Whereas, Many survived the Great Depression, sacrificed at home and abroad to defeat fascism and imperialism in World War II, built the post-war American economy, advocated for civil rights, led our state into the 21st century and have now lived through the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic; and

Whereas, Older adults deserve our utmost respect and gratitude for their many contributions to our communities. Older citizens play vital leadership, volunteer and mentoring roles all across our great state. Their lifetime contributions are immense and immeasurable in sum, while also being deeply personal, impactful, and meaningful on an individual basis; and

Whereas, Older adults are one of our state’s greatest resources for understanding our past and improving our future. They are truly a foundation upon which we can build a better tomorrow; and

Whereas, This invaluable group of citizens is being honored and admired for their many years of service in communities large and small across the entire state of Michigan. They have been an indispensable source of knowledge and inspiration throughout the years; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That the members of this legislative body recognize May 17, 2023, as Older Michiganians Day. We honor our state’s population of older citizens.

Pending the order that, under rule 3.204, the resolution be referred to the Committee on Government Operations,

Senator Singh moved that the rule be suspended.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

The resolution was adopted.

Senators Bayer, Bellino, Brinks, Bumstead, Cavanagh, Chang, Cherry, Damoose, Geiss, Hertel, Irwin, Johnson, Lauwers, McCann, McDonald Rivet, McMorrow, Moss, Outman, Polehanki, Runestad, Santana, Shink, Singh, Webber and Wojno were named co-sponsors of the resolution.

Senator Klinefelt asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Klinefelt’s statement is as follows:

I am going to start by saying, Tomato, tomato; Michigander, Michiganian. It is what it is.

I rise today to speak to Senate Resolution No. 53, which recognizes May 17, 2023, as Older Michiganians Day and I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude to our older residents. I would also like to recognize our older Michiganians who are joining us at the Capitol today. In 2021, older Michiganians were one-in-every-four residents. Our older Michiganians are a living part of our state and nation’s history, and we would not be here without them.

Many of our senior Michiganians survived the Great Depression. They sacrificed at home and abroad in World War II, working as Rosie the Riveters, laboring for the Arsenal of Democracy, and fighting to defend our freedom around the globe. The older Michiganians helped build the post-war American and Michigan economies, and led our state into the 21st century. They deserve our utmost respect and gratitude for their many contributions to our communities.

In honor of all they continue to do to make Michigan a better place, I hope you will all join me in supporting this resolution to celebrate Older Michiganians Day today in Michigan.

Recess

Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

The motion prevailed, the time being 12:23 p.m.

12:29 p.m.

The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.

By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of

Motions and Communications

Senator Singh moved that the rules be suspended and that the following bill, now on Third Reading of Bills, be placed on its immediate passage:

Senate Bill No. 50

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Third Reading of Bills

Senate Bill No. 50, entitled

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

Roll Call No. 305 Yeas—37

Albert Daley Klinefelt Outman

Anthony Damoose Lauwers Polehanki

Bayer Geiss Lindsey Santana

Bellino Hauck McBroom Shink

Brinks Hertel McCann Singh

Bumstead Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Theis

Camilleri Huizenga McMorrow Victory

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Webber

Chang Johnson Nesbitt Wojno

Cherry

Nays—1

Runestad

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Geiss