No. 91
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOURNAL
OF THE
House of Representatives
98th Legislature
REGULAR SESSION OF 2015
House Chamber, Lansing, Tuesday, November 3, 2015.
1:30 p.m.
The House was called to order by the Speaker.
The roll was called by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, who announced that a quorum was present.
Afendoulis—present Garcia—present LaFontaine—present Price—present
Banks—present Garrett—present Lane—present Pscholka—present
Barrett—present Gay-Dagnogo—present Lauwers—present Rendon—present
Bizon—present Geiss—present LaVoy—present Roberts, B.—present
Brinks—present Glardon—present Leonard—present Roberts, S.—present
Brunner—present Glenn—present Leutheuser—present Robinson—present
Bumstead—present Goike—present Liberati—present Runestad—present
Byrd—present Graves—present Love—present Rutledge—present
Callton—present Greig—present Lucido—present Santana—present
Canfield—present Greimel—present Lyons—present Schor—present
Chang—present Guerra—present Maturen—present Sheppard—present
Chatfield—present Heise—present McBroom—present Singh—present
Chirkun—present Hoadley—present McCready—present Smiley—present
Clemente—present Hooker—present Miller, A.—present Somerville—present
Cochran—present Hovey-Wright—present Miller, D.—present Talabi—present
Cole—present Howrylak—present Moss—present Tedder—present
Cotter—present Hughes—present Muxlow—present Theis—present
Cox—present Iden—present Neeley—present Townsend—present
Crawford—present Inman—present Nesbitt—present Vaupel—present
Darany—present Irwin—present Outman—present VerHeulen—present
Dianda—present Jacobsen—present Pagan—present Victory—present
Driskell—present Jenkins—present Pagel—present Webber—present
Durhal—present Johnson—present Pettalia—present Wittenberg—present
Faris—present Kelly—present Phelps—present Yanez—present
Farrington—present Kesto—present Plawecki—present Yonker—present
Forlini—present Kivela—present Poleski—present Zemke—present
Franz—present Kosowski—present Potvin—present
e/d/s = entered during session
Rep. Tom Cochran, from the 67th District, offered the following invocation:
“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds... to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. —- Abraham Lincoln”
______
The Speaker called Associate Speaker Pro Tempore Franz to the Chair.
Motions and Resolutions
Reps. Wittenberg, Liberati, Plawecki, Greig, Cochran, Chirkun, Byrd, Robinson, Schor, Zemke, Dianda, Driskell, Townsend, Sarah Roberts, Darany, Faris, Moss, Hoadley, Brinks, Smiley, Brunner, Chang, Gay-Dagnogo, Banks, Hovey‑Wright, Love, Pagan, Derek Miller, Singh, Yanez, Clemente and LaVoy offered the following resolution:
House Resolution No. 181.
A resolution to memorialize the Congress of the United States to adopt Election Day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, as a national holiday.
Whereas, Voting is the cornerstone of our democratic republic. Through voting, we elect leaders and lawmakers, make public policy decisions, and express opinions at the national, state, and local levels. Respecting and championing the vote is central to maintaining the highest ideals of the United States—liberty, justice, and equality; and
Whereas, As a momentous part of our nation and identity, voting deserves to be celebrated and encouraged through a national holiday. The country has many distinct days that honor great people and events, which are appropriately distinguished as national holidays. However, there is not a national holiday specifically centered on voting and its significance to our society and its founding principles; and
Whereas, A national holiday designation would ease obstacles to voting and increase election participation. Voter turnout in the 2014 general election was the lowest it has been in several decades, partly due to time constraints and related barriers. By making the November election a holiday, issues like excessively long morning and evening lines at some polling places would be mitigated. With more time to cast their ballots, voters would be better able to exercise their democratic rights. And with more citizens voting, our elections would be more representative of the country and its communities; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we memorialize the Congress of the United States to adopt Election Day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, as a national holiday; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
Reps. Sarah Roberts, Irwin, Chang, Talabi, Singh, Plawecki, Hoadley, Brunner, Smiley, Wittenberg, Liberati, Cochran, Yanez, Greig, Byrd, Gay-Dagnogo, Townsend, Hovey-Wright, Love, Moss, Darany, Pagan, Garrett, Durhal and Zemke offered the following resolution:
House Resolution No. 182.
A resolution to urge the Governor and Attorney General to exercise their authority to terminate the 1953 easement and shut down Enbridge Energy Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac.
Whereas, The Enbridge Energy Line 5 pipeline under the Great Lakes is 62 years old, carries nearly 23 million gallons of light crude oil and natural gas liquids each day, and is within a few miles of the Mackinac Bridge and Mackinac Island, two of Michigan’s most recognizable landmarks; and
Whereas, The original agreement with the state of Michigan called for a maximum flow of 300,000 barrels per day, but has since been raised to 540,000 barrels per day, well above the intended amount when originally built; and
Whereas, Corrosion is the number one reason that pipelines fail. Between 1996 and 2013, Enbridge’s entire system of pipelines had 1,244 reportable spills, leaks, and releases. A University of Michigan study indicates the Straits of Mackinac are the “worst possible place” for an oil spill in the Great Lakes; and
Whereas, The United States Coast Guard testified before Congress in 2015 that the Coast Guard would be unable to respond effectively to an open water oil spill in the Great Lakes and that no plan exists for how to recover oil from a leak during the winter when the lake is covered in ice; and
Whereas, The Great Lakes provide immeasurable value to Michigan and are deeply rooted in the state’s culture, heritage, and economy. The state’s water resources are vital for agriculture, fishing, irrigation, drinking water, electric generation, mining, manufacturing, and wildlife. The state has more than 3,200 miles of freshwater coastline. Leveraging this important natural resource and ensuring its long-term sustainability are critical to prosperity in Michigan; and
Whereas, An oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac would have catastrophic results for the environment and economy in Michigan and would devastate fisheries in the Great Lakes, including the tribal fishing grounds of five federally recognized tribes. Communities that rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water would be negatively affected. A significant spill could result in serious economic consequences for the entire state, as one in five Michigan jobs are connected to the Great Lakes and other water resources; and
Whereas, Enbridge’s easement with the state of Michigan states that Enbridge “shall follow the usual, necessary and proper procedures for the type of operation involved, and at all times shall exercise the due care of a reasonably prudent person for the safety and welfare of all persons and all public and private property”; and
Whereas, Because of insufficient anchoring, the advanced age of the pipeline, the lack of midstream shutoff valves, and insufficient emergency response plans, Enbridge is not operating the pipeline in accordance with the due care of a reasonably prudent person for the safety and welfare of all public and private property; and
Whereas, Enbridge was found in 2014 to be in violation of its 1953 easement with the state of Michigan for their anchor spacing requirements; and
Whereas, Enbridge’s easement with Michigan requires a liability bond of $1,000,000 and a surety bond of $100,000, amounts that are woefully outdated and ineffective in the event of a catastrophic spill. According to the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report, Enbridge has yet to document that it is in compliance with the easement requirement to cover all damages and losses; and
Whereas, The Governor and Attorney General have a perpetual and continuing duty to protect sources of drinking water, fishing, swimming, navigation, commerce, recreation, and ecological values; and
Whereas, The Attorney General stated on July 14, 2015, that the pipeline’s days were numbered and that the state would be unlikely to approve a pipeline of this nature if it were proposed today; and
Whereas, The Enbridge Energy Line 5 pipeline is a threat to our public waters and the Governor and Attorney General have an obligation to take action to ensure that the pipeline does not rupture and create an environmental and economic disaster; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we urge the Governor and Attorney General to exercise their authority to terminate the 1953 easement and shut down Enbridge Energy Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Governor and Attorney General.
The resolution was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Reps. Irwin, Sarah Roberts, Chang, Talabi, Singh, Plawecki, Hoadley, Brunner, Smiley, Liberati, Wittenberg, Cochran, Yanez, Greig, Byrd, Gay-Dagnogo, Townsend, Hovey-Wright, Love, Moss, Darany, Pagan, Garrett, Durhal and Zemke offered the following concurrent resolution:
House Concurrent Resolution No. 15.
A concurrent resolution to urge the Governor and Attorney General to exercise their authority to terminate the 1953 easement and shut down Enbridge Energy Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac.
Whereas, The Enbridge Energy Line 5 pipeline under the Great Lakes is 62 years old, carries nearly 23 million gallons of light crude oil and natural gas liquids each day, and is within a few miles of the Mackinac Bridge and Mackinac Island, two of Michigan’s most recognizable landmarks; and
Whereas, The original agreement with the state of Michigan called for a maximum flow of 300,000 barrels per day, but has since been raised to 540,000 barrels per day, well above the intended amount when originally built; and
Whereas, Corrosion is the number one reason that pipelines fail. Between 1996 and 2013, Enbridge’s entire system of pipelines had 1,244 reportable spills, leaks, and releases. A University of Michigan study indicates the Straits of Mackinac are the “worst possible place” for an oil spill in the Great Lakes; and
Whereas, The United States Coast Guard testified before Congress in 2015 that the Coast Guard would be unable to respond effectively to an open water oil spill in the Great Lakes and that no plan exists for how to recover oil from a leak during the winter when the lake is covered in ice; and
Whereas, The Great Lakes provide immeasurable value to Michigan and are deeply rooted in the state’s culture, heritage, and economy. The state’s water resources are vital for agriculture, fishing, irrigation, drinking water, electric generation, mining, manufacturing, and wildlife. The state has more than 3,200 miles of freshwater coastline. Leveraging this important natural resource and ensuring its long-term sustainability are critical to prosperity in Michigan; and
Whereas, An oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac would have catastrophic results for the environment and economy in Michigan and would devastate fisheries in the Great Lakes, including the tribal fishing grounds of five federally recognized tribes. Communities that rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water would be negatively affected. A significant spill could result in serious economic consequences for the entire state, as one in five Michigan jobs are connected to the Great Lakes and other water resources; and
Whereas, Enbridge’s easement with the state of Michigan states that Enbridge “shall follow the usual, necessary and proper procedures for the type of operation involved, and at all times shall exercise the due care of a reasonably prudent person for the safety and welfare of all persons and all public and private property”; and
Whereas, Because of insufficient anchoring, the advanced age of the pipeline, the lack of midstream shutoff valves, and insufficient emergency response plans, Enbridge is not operating the pipeline in accordance with the due care of a reasonably prudent person for the safety and welfare of all public and private property; and
Whereas, Enbridge was found in 2014 to be in violation of its 1953 easement with the state of Michigan for their anchor spacing requirements; and
Whereas, Enbridge’s easement with Michigan requires a liability bond of $1,000,000 and a surety bond of $100,000, amounts that are woefully outdated and ineffective in the event of a catastrophic spill. According to the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report, Enbridge has yet to document that it is in compliance with the easement requirement to cover all damages and losses; and
Whereas, The Governor and Attorney General have a perpetual and continuing duty to protect sources of drinking water, fishing, swimming, navigation, commerce, recreation, and ecological values; and
Whereas, The Attorney General stated on July 14, 2015, that the pipeline’s days were numbered and that the state would be unlikely to approve a pipeline of this nature if it were proposed today; and
Whereas, The Enbridge Energy Line 5 pipeline is a threat to our public waters and the Governor and Attorney General have an obligation to take action to ensure that the pipeline does not rupture and create an environmental and economic disaster; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we urge the Governor and Attorney General to exercise their authority to terminate the 1953 easement and shut down Enbridge Energy Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Governor and Attorney General.
The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Reports of Standing Committees
The Speaker laid before the House
House Resolution No. 144.
A resolution to urge the President of the United States and Congress to support the National Breast Cancer Coalition’s goal of knowing how to end breast cancer by 2020.
(For text of resolution, see House Journal No. 70, p. 1614.)
(The resolution was reported by the Committee on Health Policy on October 27, with substitute (H-1).)
(For substitute, see House Journal No. 88, p. 1902.)
The question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-1) recommended by the Committee,
The substitute (H-1) was adopted, a majority of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on the adoption of the resolution,
The resolution was adopted.
Messages from the Senate
The Speaker laid before the House
House Bill No. 4134, entitled
A bill to amend 1965 PA 290, entitled “Boiler act of 1965,” by amending sections 2 and 13d (MCL 408.752 and 408.763d), as amended by 2013 PA 167.
(The bill was received from the Senate on October 28, with substitute (S-1), title amendment and immediate effect given by the Senate, consideration of which, under the rules, was postponed until October 29, see House Journal No. 89, p. 1926.)
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-1) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-1) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 404 Yeas—106
Afendoulis Garcia LaFontaine Potvin
Banks Garrett Lane Price
Barrett Gay-Dagnogo Lauwers Pscholka
Bizon Geiss LaVoy Rendon
Brinks Glardon Leonard Roberts, B.
Brunner Glenn Leutheuser Roberts, S.
Bumstead Goike Liberati Runestad
Byrd Graves Love Rutledge
Callton Greig Lucido Santana
Canfield Greimel Lyons Schor
Chang Guerra Maturen Sheppard
Chatfield Heise McBroom Singh
Chirkun Hoadley McCready Smiley
Clemente Hooker Miller, A. Somerville
Cochran Hovey-Wright Miller, D. Talabi
Cole Howrylak Moss Tedder
Cotter Hughes Muxlow Theis
Cox Iden Neeley Townsend
Crawford Inman Nesbitt Vaupel
Darany Irwin Outman VerHeulen
Dianda Jacobsen Pagan Victory
Driskell Jenkins Pagel Webber
Durhal Johnson Pettalia Wittenberg
Faris Kelly Phelps Yanez
Farrington Kesto Plawecki Yonker
Forlini Kivela Poleski Zemke
Franz Kosowski
Nays—1
Robinson
In The Chair: Franz
The House agreed to the title as amended.
The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
______
Rep. Robinson, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The original bill dealt solely with veteran ‘s qualifications for licensure of boilers operators. The substitute bill adds language which deals with the regulation of boilers and not relevant to the intent of the original bill.”
______
The Speaker Pro Tempore assumed the Chair.
House Bill No. 4738, entitled
A bill to amend 2000 PA 403, entitled “Motor fuel tax act,” by amending sections 2, 3, 8, 22, 40, 45, 53, 63, 122, 151, 152, 153, 154, and 155 (MCL 207.1002, 207.1003, 207.1008, 207.1022, 207.1040, 207.1045, 207.1053, 207.1063, 207.1122, 207.1151, 207.1152, 207.1153, 207.1154, and 207.1155), sections 2 and 122 as amended by 2002 PA 668, section 3 as amended by 2006 PA 277, and section 8 as amended by 2006 PA 268; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The Senate has substituted (S-5) the bill.
The Senate has passed the bill as substituted (S-5) and amended the title to read as follows:
A bill to amend 2000 PA 403, entitled “An act to prescribe a tax on the sale and use of certain types of fuel in motor vehicles on the public roads or highways of this state and on certain other types of gas; to prescribe the manner and the time of collection and payment of this tax and the duties of officials and others pertaining to the payment and collection of this tax; to provide for the licensing of persons involved in the sale, use, or transportation of motor fuel and the collection and payment of the tax imposed by this act; to prescribe fees; to prescribe certain other powers and duties of certain state agencies and other persons; to provide for exemptions and refunds and for the disposition of the proceeds of this tax; to provide for appropriations from the proceeds of this tax; to prescribe remedies and penalties for the violation of this act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 2, 3, 8, 22, 40, 45, 53, 63, 122, 143, 151, 152, 153, 154, and 155 (MCL 207.1002, 207.1003, 207.1008, 207.1022, 207.1040, 207.1045, 207.1053, 207.1063, 207.1122, 207.1143, 207.1151, 207.1152, 207.1153, 207.1154, and 207.1155), sections 2 and 122 as amended by 2002 PA 668, section 3 as amended by 2006 PA 277, and section 8 as amended by 2006 PA 268; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.
The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day.
Rep. Nesbitt moved that Rule 42 be suspended.
The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-5) made to the bill by the Senate,
Rep. Singh moved to amend the Senate substitute (S-5) as follows:
1. Amend page 21, line 12, by striking out all of section 143.
The motion did not prevail and the amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-5) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-5) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 405 Yeas—55
Afendoulis Garcia LaFontaine Poleski
Barrett Glardon Lauwers Potvin
Bizon Goike Leonard Price
Bumstead Graves Leutheuser Pscholka
Callton Heise Lyons Rendon
Canfield Howrylak Maturen Roberts, B.
Chatfield Hughes McBroom Santana
Cole Iden McCready Sheppard
Cotter Inman Miller, A. Tedder
Cox Jacobsen Muxlow VerHeulen
Crawford Jenkins Nesbitt Victory
Farrington Johnson Outman Webber
Forlini Kelly Pagel Yonker
Franz Kesto Pettalia
Nays—52
Banks Garrett Lane Runestad
Brinks Gay-Dagnogo LaVoy Rutledge
Brunner Geiss Liberati Schor
Byrd Glenn Love Singh
Chang Greig Lucido Smiley
Chirkun Greimel Miller, D. Somerville
Clemente Guerra Moss Talabi
Cochran Hoadley Neeley Theis
Darany Hooker Pagan Townsend
Dianda Hovey-Wright Phelps Vaupel
Driskell Irwin Plawecki Wittenberg
Durhal Kivela Roberts, S. Yanez
Faris Kosowski Robinson Zemke
In The Chair: Leonard
The House agreed to the title as amended.
The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
______
Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The November 3 roads funding package still creates a burden for the people of my district (and all Michiganians) with an increase in registration fees on top of an increased the gas tax. While the current iteration is lower than the 40% increase proposed previously, a 20% increase is still too much when we are asking our residents to pay more at the pump. While increasing gas taxes to a sustainable level is a good idea, increasing both the gas tax and registration fees will hit our most financially vulnerable residents hardest.
Additionally, this package doesn’t do enough to lower the weights on the heavy trucks that do the most damage to our roads, nor does it adequately fund public transportation.
Further, having all of these bills tie-barred to a possible (yet elusive) tax cut does not make sense either and public safety, education and health care funding are still possibly all at risk from cuts to the General Fund. While there are parts of this package that I could be in favor of—warranties (which I have voted for in previous iterations of the roads funding bill packages) and increasing diesel parity and increasing the gas tax overall to levels that would provide the revenue from residents and from visitor traveling through the state to go towards road funding and transportation, I am not in favor of having all of the bills tie-barred to one another.”
Rep. Moss, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No vote explanation on HB 4370, 4614, 4616, 4736, 4737, 4738 and SB 414
This road funding plan relies on an irresponsible $600 million in unspecified cuts from the already stressed general fund – a plan that isn’t full implemented until fiscal year 2021. By then, we all might be driving on grounded pothole rubble so perhaps we should just revert to dirt roads at that point.
The $600 million in reckless cuts to the general fund risk the revenue sharing that local units of government use to fix local roads. This illogic tells Michigan residents that maybe the main road in their city will be fixed by 2021 but the state has impaired their city’s ability to fix the local road that takes them to the main road.
These cuts could come also from community and mental health programs, higher education, corrections, or money that supports local governments and communities. Michigan residents don’t want to trade a pothole in their road for a pothole in the state budget.
And instead of a implementing responsible stream of revenue to fix roads, this plan relies on fee hikes on vehicle registration and tax hikes at the pump – all while giving generous income tax breaks that benefit Michigan’s wealthiest residents.
For these reasons, I voted against this reckless plan.”
House Bill No. 4736, entitled
A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending section 801 (MCL 257.801), as amended by 2015 PA 78.
The Senate has substituted (S-4) the bill.
The Senate has passed the bill as substituted (S-4) and pursuant to Joint Rule 20, inserted the full title.
The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day.
Rep. Nesbitt moved that Rule 42 be suspended.
The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the (S-4) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-4) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 406 Yeas—54
Afendoulis Garcia Lauwers Poleski
Barrett Glardon Leonard Potvin
Bizon Graves Leutheuser Price
Bumstead Heise Lyons Pscholka
Callton Howrylak Maturen Rendon
Canfield Hughes McBroom Roberts, B.
Chatfield Iden McCready Santana
Cole Inman Miller, A. Sheppard
Cotter Jacobsen Muxlow Tedder
Cox Jenkins Nesbitt VerHeulen
Crawford Johnson Outman Victory
Farrington Kelly Pagel Webber
Forlini Kesto Pettalia Yonker
Franz LaFontaine
Nays—53
Banks Gay-Dagnogo Lane Runestad
Brinks Geiss LaVoy Rutledge
Brunner Glenn Liberati Schor
Byrd Goike Love Singh
Chang Greig Lucido Smiley
Chirkun Greimel Miller, D. Somerville
Clemente Guerra Moss Talabi
Cochran Hoadley Neeley Theis
Darany Hooker Pagan Townsend
Dianda Hovey-Wright Phelps Vaupel
Driskell Irwin Plawecki Wittenberg
Durhal Kivela Roberts, S. Yanez
Faris Kosowski Robinson Zemke
Garrett
In The Chair: Leonard
The House agreed to the full title.
The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
______
Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The November 3 roads funding package still creates a burden for the people of my district (and all Michiganians) with an increase in registration fees on top of an increased the gas tax. While the current iteration is lower than the 40% increase proposed previously, a 20% increase is still too much when we are asking our residents to pay more at the pump. While increasing gas taxes to a sustainable level is a good idea, increasing both the gas tax and registration fees will hit our most financially vulnerable residents hardest.
Additionally, this package doesn’t do enough to lower the weights on the heavy trucks that do the most damage to our roads, nor does it adequately fund public transportation.
Further, having all of these bills tie-barred to a possible (yet elusive) tax cut does not make sense either and public safety, education and health care funding are still possibly all at risk from cuts to the General Fund. While there are parts of this package that I could be in favor of—warranties (which I have voted for in previous iterations of the roads funding bill packages) and increasing diesel parity and increasing the gas tax overall to levels that would provide the revenue from residents and from visitor traveling through the state to go towards road funding and transportation, I am not in favor of having all of the bills tie-barred to one another.”
Rep. Moss, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No vote explanation on HB 4370, 4614, 4616, 4736, 4737, 4738 and SB 414
This road funding plan relies on an irresponsible $600 million in unspecified cuts from the already stressed general fund – a plan that isn’t full implemented until fiscal year 2021. By then, we all might be driving on grounded pothole rubble so perhaps we should just revert to dirt roads at that point.
The $600 million in reckless cuts to the general fund risk the revenue sharing that local units of government use to fix local roads. This illogic tells Michigan residents that maybe the main road in their city will be fixed by 2021 but the state has impaired their city’s ability to fix the local road that takes them to the main road.
These cuts could come also from community and mental health programs, higher education, corrections, or money that supports local governments and communities. Michigan residents don’t want to trade a pothole in their road for a pothole in the state budget.
And instead of a implementing responsible stream of revenue to fix roads, this plan relies on fee hikes on vehicle registration and tax hikes at the pump – all while giving generous income tax breaks that benefit Michigan’s wealthiest residents.
For these reasons, I voted against this reckless plan.”
Senate Bill No. 414, entitled
A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “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,” by amending section 51 (MCL 206.51), as amended by 2012 PA 223.
The Senate has substituted (S-4) the House substitute (H-3).
The Senate has concurred in the House substitute (H-3) as substituted (S-4) and agreed to the full title.
The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day.
Rep. Nesbitt moved that Rule 42 be suspended.
The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-4) to the House substitute (H-3) made to the bill by the Senate,
Rep. LaVoy moved to amend the Senate substitute (S-4) to the House substitute (H-3) as follows:
1. Amend page 2, line 14, after “POSITIVE” by inserting “AND THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT OF THIS STATE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT OF THIS STATE IN THE FISCAL YEAR BEFORE THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR”.
2. Amend page 2, line 24, after “INCREASED” by inserting “AND WHETHER THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT OF THIS STATE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT OF THIS STATE IN THE FISCAL YEAR BEFORE THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR”.
The motion did not prevail and the amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
Rep. Townsend moved to amend the Senate substitute (S-4) to the House substitute (H-3) as follows:
1. Amend page 6, following line 10, by inserting:
“(a) House Bill No. 4341.” and relettering the remaining subsections.
2. Amend page 6, following line 16, by inserting:
“Enacting section 2. This amendatory act shall take effect on the date the state board of canvassers certifies to the secretary of state that House Joint Resolution K of the 98th Legislature as proposed on the statewide November 2016 general election ballot has been rejected by the voters.”.
The motion did not prevail and the amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-4) to the House substitute (H-3) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-4) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 407 Yeas—61
Afendoulis Glenn Lauwers Potvin
Barrett Goike Leonard Price
Bizon Graves Leutheuser Pscholka
Bumstead Heise Lucido Rendon
Callton Hooker Lyons Roberts, B.
Canfield Howrylak Maturen Runestad
Chatfield Hughes McBroom Sheppard
Cole Iden McCready Somerville
Cotter Inman Miller, A. Tedder
Cox Jacobsen Muxlow Theis
Crawford Jenkins Nesbitt Vaupel
Farrington Johnson Outman VerHeulen
Forlini Kelly Pagel Victory
Franz Kesto Pettalia Webber
Garcia LaFontaine Poleski Yonker
Glardon
Nays—46
Banks Faris Lane Robinson
Brinks Garrett LaVoy Rutledge
Brunner Gay-Dagnogo Liberati Santana
Byrd Geiss Love Schor
Chang Greig Miller, D. Singh
Chirkun Greimel Moss Smiley
Clemente Guerra Neeley Talabi
Cochran Hoadley Pagan Townsend
Darany Hovey-Wright Phelps Wittenberg
Dianda Irwin Plawecki Yanez
Driskell Kivela Roberts, S. Zemke
Durhal Kosowski
In The Chair: Leonard
______
Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The November 3 roads funding package still creates a burden for the people of my district (and all Michiganians) with an increase in registration fees on top of an increased the gas tax. While the current iteration is lower than the 40% increase proposed previously, a 20% increase is still too much when we are asking our residents to pay more at the pump. While increasing gas taxes to a sustainable level is a good idea, increasing both the gas tax and registration fees will hit our most financially vulnerable residents hardest.
Additionally, this package doesn’t do enough to lower the weights on the heavy trucks that do the most damage to our roads, nor does it adequately fund public transportation.
Further, having all of these bills tie-barred to a possible (yet elusive) tax cut does not make sense either and public safety, education and health care funding are still possibly all at risk from cuts to the General Fund. While there are parts of this package that I could be in favor of—warranties (which I have voted for in previous iterations of the roads funding bill packages) and increasing diesel parity and increasing the gas tax overall to levels that would provide the revenue from residents and from visitor traveling through the state to go towards road funding and transportation, I am not in favor of having all of the bills tie-barred to one another.”
Rep. Moss, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No vote explanation on HB 4370, 4614, 4616, 4736, 4737, 4738 and SB 414
This road funding plan relies on an irresponsible $600 million in unspecified cuts from the already stressed general fund – a plan that isn’t full implemented until fiscal year 2021. By then, we all might be driving on grounded pothole rubble so perhaps we should just revert to dirt roads at that point.
The $600 million in reckless cuts to the general fund risk the revenue sharing that local units of government use to fix local roads. This illogic tells Michigan residents that maybe the main road in their city will be fixed by 2021 but the state has impaired their city’s ability to fix the local road that takes them to the main road.
These cuts could come also from community and mental health programs, higher education, corrections, or money that supports local governments and communities. Michigan residents don’t want to trade a pothole in their road for a pothole in the state budget.
And instead of a implementing responsible stream of revenue to fix roads, this plan relies on fee hikes on vehicle registration and tax hikes at the pump – all while giving generous income tax breaks that benefit Michigan’s wealthiest residents.
For these reasons, I voted against this reckless plan.”
House Bill No. 4370, entitled
A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “Income tax act of 1967,” by amending sections 51, 520, and 522 (MCL 206.51, 206.520, and 206.522), section 51 as amended by 2012 PA 223, section 520 as amended by 2011 PA 273, and section 522 as amended by 2013 PA 206.
The Senate has substituted (S-3) the bill.
The Senate has passed the bill as substituted (S-3) and amended the title to read as follows:
A bill to amend 1967 PA 281, entitled “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,” by amending sections 520 and 522 (MCL 206.520 and 206.522), section 520 as amended by 2011 PA 273 and section 522 as amended by 2013 PA 206, and by adding section 51d.
The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day.
Rep. Nesbitt moved that Rule 42 be suspended.
The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the (S-3) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-3) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 408 Yeas—62
Afendoulis Glenn Leonard Price
Barrett Goike Leutheuser Pscholka
Bizon Graves Lucido Rendon
Bumstead Heise Lyons Roberts, B.
Callton Hooker Maturen Runestad
Canfield Howrylak McBroom Santana
Chatfield Hughes McCready Sheppard
Cole Iden Miller, A. Somerville
Cotter Inman Muxlow Tedder
Cox Jacobsen Nesbitt Theis
Crawford Jenkins Outman Vaupel
Farrington Johnson Pagel VerHeulen
Forlini Kelly Pettalia Victory
Franz Kesto Poleski Webber
Garcia LaFontaine Potvin Yonker
Glardon Lauwers
Nays—45
Banks Faris Kosowski Roberts, S.
Brinks Garrett Lane Robinson
Brunner Gay-Dagnogo LaVoy Rutledge
Byrd Geiss Liberati Schor
Chang Greig Love Singh
Chirkun Greimel Miller, D. Smiley
Clemente Guerra Moss Talabi
Cochran Hoadley Neeley Townsend
Darany Hovey-Wright Pagan Wittenberg
Dianda Irwin Phelps Yanez
Driskell Kivela Plawecki Zemke
Durhal
In The Chair: Leonard
The House agreed to the title as amended.
The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
______
Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The November 3 roads funding package still creates a burden for the people of my district (and all Michiganians) with an increase in registration fees on top of an increased the gas tax. While the current iteration is lower than the 40% increase proposed previously, a 20% increase is still too much when we are asking our residents to pay more at the pump. While increasing gas taxes to a sustainable level is a good idea, increasing both the gas tax and registration fees will hit our most financially vulnerable residents hardest.
Additionally, this package doesn’t do enough to lower the weights on the heavy trucks that do the most damage to our roads, nor does it adequately fund public transportation.
Further, having all of these bills tie-barred to a possible (yet elusive) tax cut does not make sense either and public safety, education and health care funding are still possibly all at risk from cuts to the General Fund. While there are parts of this package that I could be in favor of—warranties (which I have voted for in previous iterations of the roads funding bill packages) and increasing diesel parity and increasing the gas tax overall to levels that would provide the revenue from residents and from visitor traveling through the state to go towards road funding and transportation, I am not in favor of having all of the bills tie-barred to one another.”
Rep. Moss, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No vote explanation on HB 4370, 4614, 4616, 4736, 4737, 4738 and SB 414
This road funding plan relies on an irresponsible $600 million in unspecified cuts from the already stressed general fund – a plan that isn’t full implemented until fiscal year 2021. By then, we all might be driving on grounded pothole rubble so perhaps we should just revert to dirt roads at that point.
The $600 million in reckless cuts to the general fund risk the revenue sharing that local units of government use to fix local roads. This illogic tells Michigan residents that maybe the main road in their city will be fixed by 2021 but the state has impaired their city’s ability to fix the local road that takes them to the main road.
These cuts could come also from community and mental health programs, higher education, corrections, or money that supports local governments and communities. Michigan residents don’t want to trade a pothole in their road for a pothole in the state budget.
And instead of a implementing responsible stream of revenue to fix roads, this plan relies on fee hikes on vehicle registration and tax hikes at the pump – all while giving generous income tax breaks that benefit Michigan’s wealthiest residents.
For these reasons, I voted against this reckless plan.”
House Bill No. 4737, entitled
A bill to amend 1951 PA 51, entitled “An act to provide for the classification of all public roads, streets, and highways in this state, and for the revision of that classification and for additions to and deletions from each classification; to set up and establish the Michigan transportation fund; to provide for the deposits in the Michigan transportation fund of specific taxes on motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels; to provide for the allocation of funds from the Michigan transportation fund and the use and administration of the fund for transportation purposes; to promote safe and efficient travel for motor vehicle drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other legal users of roads, streets, and highways; to set up and establish the truck safety fund; to provide for the allocation of funds from the truck safety fund and administration of the fund for truck safety purposes; to set up and establish the Michigan truck safety commission; to establish certain standards for road contracts for certain businesses; to provide for the continuing review of transportation needs within the state; to authorize the state transportation commission, counties, cities, and villages to borrow money, issue bonds, and make pledges of funds for transportation purposes; to authorize counties to advance funds for the payment of deficiencies necessary for the payment of bonds issued under this act; to provide for the limitations, payment, retirement, and security of the bonds and pledges; to provide for appropriations and tax levies by counties and townships for county roads; to authorize contributions by townships for county roads; to provide for the establishment and administration of the state trunk line fund, local bridge fund, comprehensive transportation fund, and certain other funds; to provide for the deposits in the state trunk line fund, critical bridge fund, comprehensive transportation fund, and certain other funds of money raised by specific taxes and fees; to provide for definitions of public transportation functions and criteria; to define the purposes for which Michigan transportation funds may be allocated; to provide for Michigan transportation fund grants; to provide for review and approval of transportation programs; to provide for submission of annual legislative requests and reports; to provide for the establishment and functions of certain advisory entities; to provide for conditions for grants; to provide for the issuance of bonds and notes for transportation purposes; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; to provide for the making of loans for transportation purposes by the state transportation department and for the receipt and repayment by local units and agencies of those loans from certain specified sources; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (MCL 247.660, 247.661, 247.662, 247.663, and 247.664), section 10 as amended by 2007 PA 210, section 11 as amended by 2002 PA 639, sections 12 and 13 as amended by 2012 PA 298, and section 14 as amended by 1987 PA 234.
The Senate has substituted (S-4) the bill.
The Senate has passed the bill as substituted (S-4) and amended the title to read as follows:
A bill to amend 1951 PA 51, entitled “An act to provide for the classification of all public roads, streets, and highways in this state, and for the revision of that classification and for additions to and deletions from each classification; to set up and establish the Michigan transportation fund; to provide for the deposits in the Michigan transportation fund of specific taxes on motor vehicles and motor vehicle fuels; to provide for the allocation of funds from the Michigan transportation fund and the use and administration of the fund for transportation purposes; to promote safe and efficient travel for motor vehicle drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other legal users of roads, streets, and highways; to set up and establish the truck safety fund; to provide for the allocation of funds from the truck safety fund and administration of the fund for truck safety purposes; to set up and establish the Michigan truck safety commission; to establish certain standards for road contracts for certain businesses; to provide for the continuing review of transportation needs within the state; to authorize the state transportation commission, counties, cities, and villages to borrow money, issue bonds, and make pledges of funds for transportation purposes; to authorize counties to advance funds for the payment of deficiencies necessary for the payment of bonds issued under this act; to provide for the limitations, payment, retirement, and security of the bonds and pledges; to provide for appropriations and tax levies by counties and townships for county roads; to authorize contributions by townships for county roads; to provide for the establishment and administration of the state trunk line fund, local bridge fund, comprehensive transportation fund, and certain other funds; to provide for the deposits in the state trunk line fund, critical bridge fund, comprehensive transportation fund, and certain other funds of money raised by specific taxes and fees; to provide for definitions of public transportation functions and criteria; to define the purposes for which Michigan transportation funds may be allocated; to provide for Michigan transportation fund grants; to provide for review and approval of transportation programs; to provide for submission of annual legislative requests and reports; to provide for the establishment and functions of certain advisory entities; to provide for conditions for grants; to provide for the issuance of bonds and notes for transportation purposes; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; to provide for the making of loans for transportation purposes by the state transportation department and for the receipt and repayment by local units and agencies of those loans from certain specified sources; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending sections 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (MCL 247.660, 247.661, 247.662, 247.663, and 247.664), section 10 as amended by 2007 PA 210, section 11 as amended by 2002 PA 639, sections 12 and 13 as amended by 2012 PA 298, and section 14 as amended by 1987 PA 234, and by adding section 1j.
The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day.
Rep. Nesbitt moved that Rule 42 be suspended.
The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-4) made to the bill by the Senate,
Rep. Singh moved to amend the Senate substitute (S-4) as follows:
1. Amend page 4, line 4, by striking out all of subsections (4) and (5).
The motion did not prevail and the amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-4) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-4) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 409 Yeas—73
Afendoulis Gay-Dagnogo LaFontaine Price
Banks Glardon Lauwers Pscholka
Barrett Glenn LaVoy Rendon
Bizon Goike Leonard Roberts, B.
Brinks Graves Leutheuser Runestad
Bumstead Greimel Lucido Rutledge
Callton Heise Lyons Santana
Canfield Hooker Maturen Sheppard
Chatfield Howrylak McBroom Somerville
Cole Hughes McCready Tedder
Cotter Iden Miller, A. Theis
Cox Inman Muxlow Vaupel
Crawford Jacobsen Nesbitt VerHeulen
Driskell Jenkins Outman Victory
Durhal Johnson Pagel Webber
Farrington Kelly Pettalia Yanez
Forlini Kesto Poleski Yonker
Franz Kivela Potvin Zemke
Garcia
Nays—34
Brunner Garrett Liberati Roberts, S.
Byrd Geiss Love Robinson
Chang Greig Miller, D. Schor
Chirkun Guerra Moss Singh
Clemente Hoadley Neeley Smiley
Cochran Hovey-Wright Pagan Talabi
Darany Irwin Phelps Townsend
Dianda Kosowski Plawecki Wittenberg
Faris Lane
In The Chair: Leonard
The House agreed to the title as amended.
The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
______
Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The November 3 roads funding package still creates a burden for the people of my district (and all Michiganians) with an increase in registration fees on top of an increased the gas tax. While the current iteration is lower than the 40% increase proposed previously, a 20% increase is still too much when we are asking our residents to pay more at the pump. While increasing gas taxes to a sustainable level is a good idea, increasing both the gas tax and registration fees will hit our most financially vulnerable residents hardest.
Additionally, this package doesn’t do enough to lower the weights on the heavy trucks that do the most damage to our roads, nor does it adequately fund public transportation.
Further, having all of these bills tie-barred to a possible (yet elusive) tax cut does not make sense either and public safety, education and health care funding are still possibly all at risk from cuts to the General Fund. While there are parts of this package that I could be in favor of—warranties (which I have voted for in previous iterations of the roads funding bill packages) and increasing diesel parity and increasing the gas tax overall to levels that would provide the revenue from residents and from visitor traveling through the state to go towards road funding and transportation, I am not in favor of having all of the bills tie-barred to one another.”
Rep. Moss, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No vote explanation on HB 4370, 4614, 4616, 4736, 4737, 4738 and SB 414
This road funding plan relies on an irresponsible $600 million in unspecified cuts from the already stressed general fund – a plan that isn’t full implemented until fiscal year 2021. By then, we all might be driving on grounded pothole rubble so perhaps we should just revert to dirt roads at that point.
The $600 million in reckless cuts to the general fund risk the revenue sharing that local units of government use to fix local roads. This illogic tells Michigan residents that maybe the main road in their city will be fixed by 2021 but the state has impaired their city’s ability to fix the local road that takes them to the main road.
These cuts could come also from community and mental health programs, higher education, corrections, or money that supports local governments and communities. Michigan residents don’t want to trade a pothole in their road for a pothole in the state budget.
And instead of a implementing responsible stream of revenue to fix roads, this plan relies on fee hikes on vehicle registration and tax hikes at the pump – all while giving generous income tax breaks that benefit Michigan’s wealthiest residents.
For these reasons, I voted against this reckless plan.”
House Bill No. 4614, entitled
A bill to amend 2004 PA 175, entitled “An act to impose taxes and create credits and refundable credits to modify and equalize the impact of changes made to the general sales tax act and use tax act necessary to bring those taxes into compliance with the streamlined sales tax agreement so this state may participate in the streamlined sales tax system and governing board; to prescribe certain powers and duties of certain state departments; and to provide for the disbursement of certain proceeds,” by amending sections 3 and 5 (MCL 205.173 and 205.175).
The Senate has substituted (S-5) the House substitute (H-2) to the Senate substitute (S-1).
The Senate has concurred in the House substitute (H-2) to the Senate substitute (S-1) as substituted (S-5).
The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day.
Rep. Nesbitt moved that Rule 42 be suspended.
The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-5) to the House substitute (H-2) to the Senate substitute (S-1) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-5) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 410 Yeas—55
Afendoulis Garcia LaFontaine Poleski
Barrett Glardon Lauwers Potvin
Bizon Goike Leonard Price
Bumstead Graves Leutheuser Pscholka
Callton Heise Lyons Rendon
Canfield Howrylak Maturen Roberts, B.
Chatfield Hughes McBroom Santana
Cole Iden McCready Sheppard
Cotter Inman Miller, A. Tedder
Cox Jacobsen Muxlow VerHeulen
Crawford Jenkins Nesbitt Victory
Farrington Johnson Outman Webber
Forlini Kelly Pagel Yonker
Franz Kesto Pettalia
Nays—52
Banks Garrett Lane Runestad
Brinks Gay-Dagnogo LaVoy Rutledge
Brunner Geiss Liberati Schor
Byrd Glenn Love Singh
Chang Greig Lucido Smiley
Chirkun Greimel Miller, D. Somerville
Clemente Guerra Moss Talabi
Cochran Hoadley Neeley Theis
Darany Hooker Pagan Townsend
Dianda Hovey-Wright Phelps Vaupel
Driskell Irwin Plawecki Wittenberg
Durhal Kivela Roberts, S. Yanez
Faris Kosowski Robinson Zemke
In The Chair: Leonard
The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
______
Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The November 3 roads funding package still creates a burden for the people of my district (and all Michiganians) with an increase in registration fees on top of an increased the gas tax. While the current iteration is lower than the 40% increase proposed previously, a 20% increase is still too much when we are asking our residents to pay more at the pump. While increasing gas taxes to a sustainable level is a good idea, increasing both the gas tax and registration fees will hit our most financially vulnerable residents hardest.
Additionally, this package doesn’t do enough to lower the weights on the heavy trucks that do the most damage to our roads, nor does it adequately fund public transportation.
Further, having all of these bills tie-barred to a possible (yet elusive) tax cut does not make sense either and public safety, education and health care funding are still possibly all at risk from cuts to the General Fund. While there are parts of this package that I could be in favor of—warranties (which I have voted for in previous iterations of the roads funding bill packages) and increasing diesel parity and increasing the gas tax overall to levels that would provide the revenue from residents and from visitor traveling through the state to go towards road funding and transportation, I am not in favor of having all of the bills tie-barred to one another.”
Rep. Moss, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No vote explanation on HB 4370, 4614, 4616, 4736, 4737, 4738 and SB 414
This road funding plan relies on an irresponsible $600 million in unspecified cuts from the already stressed general fund – a plan that isn’t full implemented until fiscal year 2021. By then, we all might be driving on grounded pothole rubble so perhaps we should just revert to dirt roads at that point.
The $600 million in reckless cuts to the general fund risk the revenue sharing that local units of government use to fix local roads. This illogic tells Michigan residents that maybe the main road in their city will be fixed by 2021 but the state has impaired their city’s ability to fix the local road that takes them to the main road.
These cuts could come also from community and mental health programs, higher education, corrections, or money that supports local governments and communities. Michigan residents don’t want to trade a pothole in their road for a pothole in the state budget.
And instead of a implementing responsible stream of revenue to fix roads, this plan relies on fee hikes on vehicle registration and tax hikes at the pump – all while giving generous income tax breaks that benefit Michigan’s wealthiest residents.
For these reasons, I voted against this reckless plan.”
House Bill No. 4616, entitled
A bill to amend 1980 PA 119, entitled “An act to prescribe a privilege tax for the use of public roads and highways of this state by motor carriers by imposing a specific tax upon the use of motor fuel within this state; to provide for certain credits against this tax and certain mechanisms for paying, collecting, and enforcing this tax; to provide for the licensing of motor carriers and for exemptions from licensure; to require the keeping and providing for the examination of certain reports; to provide review procedures for the assessment of the tax and revocation of a license; to impose certain duties upon and confer certain powers to certain state departments and agencies; to prescribe certain penalties for the violation of this act; and to make appropriations,” by amending sections 1, 2, 2a, 4, 5, 6a, 8, 9, and 10 (MCL 207.211, 207.212, 207.212a, 207.214, 207.215, 207.216a, 207.218, 207.219, and 207.220), section 1 as amended by 2002 PA 667, sections 2 and 4 as amended by 2006 PA 346, section 2a as added by 1994 PA 353, section 5 as amended and section 6a as added by 1996 PA 584, and section 8 as amended by 2006 PA 449.
The Senate has substituted (S-6) the House substitute (H-2) to the Senate substitute (S-1).
The Senate has concurred in the House substitute (H-2) to the Senate substitute (S-1) as substituted (S-6).
The Speaker announced that pursuant to Rule 42, the bill was laid over one day.
Rep. Nesbitt moved that Rule 42 be suspended.
The motion prevailed, 3/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The question being on concurring in the substitute (S-6) to the House substitute (H-2) to the Senate substitute (S-1) made to the bill by the Senate,
The substitute (S-6) was concurred in, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:
Roll Call No. 411 Yeas—56
Afendoulis Franz Kesto Pettalia
Barrett Garcia LaFontaine Poleski
Bizon Glardon Lauwers Potvin
Bumstead Goike Leonard Price
Callton Graves Leutheuser Pscholka
Canfield Heise Lyons Rendon
Chatfield Howrylak Maturen Roberts, B.
Cole Hughes McBroom Santana
Cotter Iden McCready Sheppard
Cox Inman Miller, A. Tedder
Crawford Jacobsen Muxlow VerHeulen
Driskell Jenkins Nesbitt Victory
Farrington Johnson Outman Webber
Forlini Kelly Pagel Yonker
Nays—51
Banks Gay-Dagnogo LaVoy Rutledge
Brinks Geiss Liberati Schor
Brunner Glenn Love Singh
Byrd Greig Lucido Smiley
Chang Greimel Miller, D. Somerville
Chirkun Guerra Moss Talabi
Clemente Hoadley Neeley Theis
Cochran Hooker Pagan Townsend
Darany Hovey-Wright Phelps Vaupel
Dianda Irwin Plawecki Wittenberg
Durhal Kivela Roberts, S. Yanez
Faris Kosowski Robinson Zemke
Garrett Lane Runestad
In The Chair: Leonard
The bill was referred to the Clerk for enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor.
______
Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The November 3 roads funding package still creates a burden for the people of my district (and all Michiganians) with an increase in registration fees on top of an increased the gas tax. While the current iteration is lower than the 40% increase proposed previously, a 20% increase is still too much when we are asking our residents to pay more at the pump. While increasing gas taxes to a sustainable level is a good idea, increasing both the gas tax and registration fees will hit our most financially vulnerable residents hardest.
Additionally, this package doesn’t do enough to lower the weights on the heavy trucks that do the most damage to our roads, nor does it adequately fund public transportation.
Further, having all of these bills tie-barred to a possible (yet elusive) tax cut does not make sense either and public safety, education and health care funding are still possibly all at risk from cuts to the General Fund. While there are parts of this package that I could be in favor of—warranties (which I have voted for in previous iterations of the roads funding bill packages) and increasing diesel parity and increasing the gas tax overall to levels that would provide the revenue from residents and from visitor traveling through the state to go towards road funding and transportation, I am not in favor of having all of the bills tie-barred to one another.”
Rep. Moss, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No vote explanation on HB 4370, 4614, 4616, 4736, 4737, 4738 and SB 414
This road funding plan relies on an irresponsible $600 million in unspecified cuts from the already stressed general fund – a plan that isn’t full implemented until fiscal year 2021. By then, we all might be driving on grounded pothole rubble so perhaps we should just revert to dirt roads at that point.
The $600 million in reckless cuts to the general fund risk the revenue sharing that local units of government use to fix local roads. This illogic tells Michigan residents that maybe the main road in their city will be fixed by 2021 but the state has impaired their city’s ability to fix the local road that takes them to the main road.
These cuts could come also from community and mental health programs, higher education, corrections, or money that supports local governments and communities. Michigan residents don’t want to trade a pothole in their road for a pothole in the state budget.
And instead of a implementing responsible stream of revenue to fix roads, this plan relies on fee hikes on vehicle registration and tax hikes at the pump – all while giving generous income tax breaks that benefit Michigan’s wealthiest residents.
For these reasons, I voted against this reckless plan.”
______
Rep. Nesbitt moved that House Committees be given leave to meet during the balance of today’s session.
The motion prevailed.
By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of
Announcement by the Clerk of Printing and Enrollment
The Clerk announced the enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor on Thursday, October 29 for his approval of the following bill:
Enrolled House Bill No. 4286 at 1:20 p.m.
The Clerk announced that the following bills had been printed and placed upon the files of the members on Friday, October 30:
House Bill Nos. 5035 5036 5037 5038 5039 5040
Senate Bill No. 591
The Clerk announced the enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor on Tuesday, November 3, for his approval of the following bill:
Enrolled House Bill No. 4239 at 9:52 a.m.
Reports of Standing Committees
The Committee on Criminal Justice, by Rep. Heise, Chair, reported
Senate Bill No. 427, entitled
A bill to amend 1963 PA 17, entitled “An act to relieve certain persons from civil liability when rendering emergency care, when rendering care to persons involved in competitive sports under certain circumstances, or when participating in a mass immunization program approved by the department of public health,” by amending sections 1 and 2 (MCL 691.1501 and 691.1502), as amended by 2002 PA 543.
Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
The bill was referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills.
Favorable Roll Call
To Report Out:
Yeas: Reps. Heise, Webber, Howrylak, Afendoulis, Lucido, Guerra, Hovey-Wright and Chang
Nays: None
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The following report, submitted by Rep. Heise, Chair, of the Committee on Criminal Justice, was received and read:
Meeting held on: Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Present: Reps. Heise, Webber, Howrylak, Afendoulis, Lucido, Guerra, Hovey-Wright and Chang
The Committee on Health Policy, by Rep. Callton, Chair, reported
House Bill No. 4812, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 17702, 17704, and 17755 (MCL 333.17702, 333.17704, and 333.17755), sections 17702 and 17704 as amended by 2014 PA 280.
With the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
The bill and substitute were referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills.
Favorable Roll Call
To Report Out:
Yeas: Reps. Callton, Hooker, Yonker, Graves, Hughes, Kesto, VerHeulen, Bizon, Chatfield, Crawford, Garcia, Tedder, Darany, Brinks, Cochran, Geiss and Neeley
Nays: Rep. Liberati
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The following report, submitted by Rep. Callton, Chair, of the Committee on Health Policy, was received and read:
Meeting held on: Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Present: Reps. Callton, Vaupel, Hooker, Yonker, Graves, Hughes, Kesto, VerHeulen, Bizon, Chatfield, Crawford, Garcia, Tedder, Darany, Brinks, Cochran, Geiss, Liberati, Neeley and Wittenberg
Absent: Rep. Phelps
Excused: Rep. Phelps
The Committee on Judiciary, by Rep. Kesto, Chair, reported
Senate Bill No. 516, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending sections 1, 5b, 8, and 12a (MCL 28.421, 28.425b, 28.428, and 28.432a), section 1 as amended by 2015 PA 25, section 5b as amended by 2015 PA 16, section 8 as amended by 2015 PA 3, and section 12a as amended by 2006 PA 559.
With the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
The bill and substitute were referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills.
Favorable Roll Call
To Report Out:
Yeas: Reps. Kesto, Lucido, Heise, Johnson, Howrylak, Cole, Runestad and Guerra
Nays: Reps. Irwin, Robinson and Chang
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The following report, submitted by Rep. Kesto, Chair, of the Committee on Judiciary, was received and read:
Meeting held on: Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Present: Reps. Kesto, Lucido, Heise, Johnson, Howrylak, Cole, Runestad, Irwin, Robinson, Chang and Guerra
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The following report, submitted by Rep. Jacobsen, Chair, of the Committee on Communications and Technology, was received and read:
Meeting held on: Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Present: Reps. Jacobsen, Iden, Franz, Glardon, Outman, Price, Barrett, Leutheuser, Tedder, Driskell, Chirkun, Greig and Guerra
Absent: Rep. Phelps
Excused: Rep. Phelps
Messages from the Senate
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6.
A concurrent resolution to memorialize the Congress of the United States to appropriate funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the establishment of a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste or reimburse electric utility customers who paid into the fund.
Whereas, The nuclear power industry needs a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste produced by reactors. Nuclear power plays a vital role in meeting our nation’s current and future energy needs. However, the failure to construct a permanent repository severely impedes efforts to construct new power plants to provide clean and reliable base load power; and
Whereas, Over the last 30 years, the nuclear power industry and its customers have paid the federal government billions of dollars to construct a permanent repository. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the U.S. Congress established the Nuclear Waste Fund to collect money for the repository. Revenue to the fund came from mandatory fees assessed on all nuclear energy. Since 1983, customers of Michigan electric utilities alone have paid $812 million into the fund for construction of the repository; and
Whereas, A permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste has not been established and constructed. More than 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from power plants continue to accumulate at temporary and potentially vulnerable sites across the nation, adding to the more than 70,000 metric tons already stored at these sites; and
Whereas, The Nuclear Waste Fund contains a substantial balance for establishment of the repository. While fee collection was suspended on May 16, 2014, the fund still contains a balance of over $31 billion for the express purpose of supporting radioactive waste disposal activities. It is imperative that Congress meet its obligation to the nuclear power industry and U.S. citizens who paid into this fund; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That we memorialize the Congress of the United States to appropriate funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the establishment of a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste or reimburse electric utility customers who paid into the fund; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.
The Senate has adopted the concurrent resolution.
Reps. Heise, Kelly and LaVoy were named co‑sponsors of the concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on Energy Policy.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8.
A concurrent resolution to urge the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to fulfill their obligation to establish a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste.
Whereas, Over the past four decades, nuclear power has been a significant source for the nation’s electricity production. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, nuclear power provided about 20 percent of the electricity produced in the United States in 2013, and Michigan’s three nuclear power plants provided 28 percent of the electricity generated in Michigan; and
Whereas, Since the earliest days of nuclear power, the great dilemma associated with this technology is how to deal with used nuclear fuel. Currently, more than 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are stored in pools or casks at temporary sites around the country, including Michigan. This high-level radioactive waste demands exceptional care in all facets of its storage and disposal, including transportation; and
Whereas, More than 30 years ago, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to address this issue. The act requires the federal government, through the Department of Energy, to build a repository for the permanent storage of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and begin accepting waste by January 31, 1998; and
Whereas, It is now 2015, and the nation still remains without a permanent repository, despite billions of dollars collected from electric ratepayers for the project. Spent nuclear fuel continues to pile up at temporary sites around the country, and the ongoing problem of permanent disposal is a drag on the potential of the nuclear power industry to meet our nation’s energy needs. There is only so long that our nation can continue to safely store this waste at temporary sites; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That we urge the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to fulfill their obligation, as provided by law, to establish a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Secretary of Energy, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.
The Senate has adopted the concurrent resolution.
Reps. Heise and LaVoy were named co‑sponsors of the concurrent resolution.
The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on Energy Policy.
Messages from the Governor
Date: November 3, 2015
Time: 8:30 a.m.
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Sir—I have this day approved and signed
Enrolled House Bill No. 4464 (Public Act No. 171, I.E.), being
An act to amend 1933 PA 167, entitled “An act to provide for the raising of additional public revenue by prescribing certain specific taxes, fees, and charges to be paid to the state for the privilege of engaging in certain business activities; to provide, incident to the enforcement thereof, for the issuance of licenses to engage in such occupations; to provide for the ascertainment, assessment and collection thereof; to appropriate the proceeds thereof; and to prescribe penalties for violations of the provisions of this act,” by amending section 4g (MCL 205.54g), as amended by 2013 PA 211.
(Filed with the Secretary of State November 3, 2015, at 11:08 a.m.)
Date: November 3, 2015
Time: 8:32 a.m.
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Sir—I have this day approved and signed
Enrolled House Bill No. 4465 (Public Act No. 172, I.E.), being
An act to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “An act to provide for the levy, assessment, and collection of a specific excise tax on the storage, use, or consumption in this state of tangible personal property and certain services; to appropriate the proceeds of that tax; to prescribe penalties; and to make appropriations,” by amending section 4d (MCL 205.94d), as amended by 2008 PA 439.
(Filed with the Secretary of State November 3, 2015, at 11:10 a.m.)
Communications from State Officers
The following communication from the Department of Insurance and Financial Services was received and read:
October 28, 2015
*NOTICE* Autism Coverage Fund Balance
*Notification – Projecting Depletion of Fund Balance*
Due to the increase in the recent submissions to the Autism Reimbursement Coverage Fund, the fund is near depletion. Public Act 101 of 2012 states that the State of Michigan must notify the carriers, third party administrators and the legislature that the funds in the program may be insufficient to cover future claims. Please be advised that the Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) estimates that within 60 days or less that the fund will be insufficient to pay future claims.
Until the fund is fully depleted, DIFS will follow these steps when receiving new claims:
• Claims will continue to be reimbursed in the order they are approved.
• If there is insufficient money in the fund to reimburse a carrier or third party administrator for paid claims approved but not reimbursed, they will be paid if funds subsequently become available.
Penny Wright, Director
Financial & Administrative Services
Department of Insurance and Financial Services
Work: 517-284-8734
Cell: 517-896-8734
The communication was referred to the Clerk.
Introduction of Bills
Reps. Chatfield, Runestad, Maturen, Heise, Aaron Miller, Sheppard, Brunner and Rutledge introduced
House Bill No. 5041, entitled
A bill to amend 2006 PA 110, entitled “Michigan zoning enabling act,” by amending section 208 (MCL 125.3208), as amended by 2010 PA 330.
The bill was read a first time by its title and referred to the Committee on Local Government.
Reps. Chatfield, Glenn, Kelly, Hooker and Runestad introduced
House Bill No. 5042, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 3, entitled “An act to provide for the regulation and control of public and certain private utilities and other services affected with a public interest within this state; to provide for alternative energy suppliers; to provide for licensing; to include municipally owned utilities and other providers of energy under certain provisions of this act; to create a public service commission and to prescribe and define its powers and duties; to abolish the Michigan public utilities commission and to confer the powers and duties vested by law on the public service commission; to provide for the continuance, transfer, and completion of certain matters and proceedings; to abolish automatic adjustment clauses; to prohibit certain rate increases without notice and hearing; to qualify residential energy conservation programs permitted under state law for certain federal exemption; to create a fund; to provide for a restructuring of the manner in which energy is provided in this state; to encourage the utilization of resource recovery facilities; to prohibit certain acts and practices of providers of energy; to allow for the securitization of stranded costs; to reduce rates; to provide for appeals; to provide appropriations; to declare the effect and purpose of this act; to prescribe remedies and penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 10a (MCL 460.10a), as amended by 2008 PA 286.
The bill was read a first time by its title and referred to the Committee on Energy Policy.
Reps. Driskell, Kivela, LaVoy, Pagan, Townsend, Sarah Roberts, Wittenberg, Hoadley, Rutledge, Hovey-Wright, Zemke, Yanez, Dianda, Greig, Cochran, Byrd, Liberati, Plawecki, Smiley, Brunner, Greimel, Schor, Brinks, Lane, Irwin, Love, Heise, Jenkins, Kesto and Faris introduced
House Bill No. 5043, entitled
A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural resources and environmental protection act,” by amending section 30103 (MCL 324.30103), as amended by 2014 PA 253.
The bill was read a first time by its title and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Reps. Wittenberg, Zemke, Sarah Roberts, Singh, McCready, McBroom, Plawecki, Liberati, Dianda, Guerra, Durhal, Byrd, Leutheuser, Cochran, Chirkun, Robinson, Darany, Faris, Moss, Smiley, Brunner, Chang, Banks, Hovey-Wright, Love, Pagan, Greimel, Hooker, Sheppard, LaFontaine, Clemente, Chatfield, Aaron Miller, Graves, Santana, Glenn and Kosowski introduced
House Bill No. 5044, entitled
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,” (MCL 380.1 to 380.1852) by adding section 1162.
The bill was read a first time by its title and referred to the Committee on Education.
Reps. Dianda, Love, Darany, Glenn, Chirkun and McBroom introduced
House Bill No. 5045, entitled
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled “An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing, possessing, and carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain firearms, gas ejecting devices, and electro-muscular disruption devices without a license or other authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms and electro-muscular disruption devices under certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” by amending sections 5b and 5l (MCL 28.425b and 28.425l), section 5b as amended by 2015 PA 16 and section 5l as amended by 2015 PA 3.
The bill was read a first time by its title and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Announcements by the Clerk
October 30, 2015
Received from the Auditor General a copy of the following audit report and/or report summary:
Report on internal control, compliance, and other matters of Self-Insurers’ Security Fund, Workers’ Compensation Agency Funds Administration, Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for the calendar year ended December 31, 2014.
Gary L. Randall
Clerk of the House
______
Rep. Driskell moved that the House adjourn.
The motion prevailed, the time being 10:50 p.m.
The Speaker Pro Tempore declared the House adjourned until Wednesday, November 4, at 1:30 p.m.
GARY L. RANDALL
Clerk of the House of Representatives
1950 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1951
1952 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1953
1954 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1955
1956 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1957
1958 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1959
1960 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1961
1962 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1963
1964 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1965
1966 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1967
1968 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1969
1970 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE [November 3, 2015] [No. 91
No. 91] [November 3, 2015] JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 1971
1972