No. 53

State of Michigan

JOURNAL

OF THE

House of Representatives

95th Legislature

REGULAR SESSION OF 2010

House Chamber, Lansing, Thursday, May 27, 2010.

12:00 Noon.

The House was called to order by the Speaker Pro Tempore.

The roll was called by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, who announced that a quorum was present.

Agema—present Durhal—present Kurtz—present Polidori—present

Amash—present Ebli—present Lahti—present Proos—present

Angerer—present Elsenheimer—present LeBlanc—present Roberts—present

Ball—present Espinoza—excused Leland—present Rocca—present

Barnett—present Geiss—present Lemmons—present Rogers—present

Bauer—present Genetski—present Lindberg—present Schmidt, R.—present

Bennett—present Gonzales—present Lipton—present Schmidt, W.—present

Bledsoe—present Green—present Liss—present Schuitmaker—present

Bolger—present Gregory—present Lori—present Scott, B.—present

Booher—present Griffin—present Lund—present Scott, P.—present

Brown, L.—present Haase—present Marleau—present Scripps—present

Brown, T.—present Haines—present Mayes—present Segal—present

Byrnes—present Hammel—present McDowell—present Sheltrown—present

Byrum—present Hansen—present McMillin—present Slavens—present

Calley—present Haugh—present Meadows—present Slezak—present

Caul—present Haveman—present Meekhof—present Smith—present

Clemente—present Hildenbrand—present Melton—present Spade—present

Constan—present Horn—present Meltzer—present Stamas—present

Corriveau—present Huckleberry—present Miller—present Stanley—present

Crawford—present Jackson—present Moore—present Switalski—present

Cushingberry—present Johnson—present Moss—present Tlaib—present

Daley—present Jones, Rick—present Nathan—present Tyler—present

Dean—present Jones, Robert—present Nerat—present Valentine—present

Denby—present Kandrevas—present Neumann—present Walsh—present

DeShazor—present Kennedy—present Opsommer—present Warren—present

Dillon—present Knollenberg—present Pavlov—present Womack—present

Donigan—present Kowall—present Pearce—present Young—present

e/d/s = entered during session

Rep. Timothy Bledsoe, from the 1st District, offered the following invocation:

“Almighty God, Giver of all good things:

We thank You for the natural majesty and beauty of this land. They restore us, though we often destroy them.

Thank You for the great resources of this nation.

They make us rich, though we often exploit them.

We thank You for the men and women who have made this country strong. They are models for us, though we often fall short of them.

Thank You for the torch of liberty which has been lit in this land. It sustains our life, though we have been faithless again and again.

Help us O Lord, to finish the good work here begun.

Strengthen our efforts to blot out ignorance and prejudice and to abolish poverty and crime. And hasten the day when all our people, with many voices in one united chorus, will glorify Your Holy Name. Amen.”

______

Rep. Segal moved that Rep. Espinoza be excused from today’s session.

The motion prevailed.

Second Reading of Bills

House Bill No. 6030, entitled

A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 569a, 671, and 792a (MCL 168.569a, 168.671, and 168.792a), section 569a as added by 1985 PA 24, section 671 as amended by 1995 PA 261, and section 792a as amended by 2005 PA 71.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-2) previously recommended by the Committee on Ethics and Elections,

The substitute (H-2) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Lisa Brown moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

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

______

Rep. Segal moved that Rep. Cushingberry be excused temporarily from today’s session.

The motion prevailed.

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

House Bill No. 6030, entitled

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Roll Call No. 225 Yeas—77

Angerer Ebli Lemmons Schmidt, W.

Barnett Geiss Lindberg Schuitmaker

Bauer Gonzales Lipton Scott, B.

Bennett Green Liss Scripps

Bledsoe Gregory Lori Segal

Booher Griffin Mayes Sheltrown

Brown, L. Haase McDowell Slavens

Brown, T. Hammel Meadows Slezak

Byrnes Hansen Melton Smith

Byrum Haugh Miller Spade

Clemente Huckleberry Nathan Stanley

Constan Jackson Nerat Switalski

Corriveau Johnson Neumann Tlaib

Crawford Jones, Robert Pearce Tyler

Dean Kandrevas Polidori Valentine

Denby Kennedy Roberts Walsh

DeShazor Lahti Rocca Warren

Dillon LeBlanc Rogers Womack

Donigan Leland Schmidt, R. Young

Durhal

Nays—29

Agema Genetski Kowall Moore

Amash Haines Kurtz Moss

Ball Haveman Lund Opsommer

Bolger Hildenbrand Marleau Pavlov

Calley Horn McMillin Proos

Caul Jones, Rick Meekhof Scott, P.

Daley Knollenberg Meltzer Stamas

Elsenheimer

In The Chair: Byrnes

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Second Reading of Bills

House Bill No. 5850, entitled

A bill to amend 1998 PA 386, entitled “Estates and protected individuals code,” by amending sections 3206 and 3209 (MCL 700.3206 and 700.3209), section 3206 as amended by 2008 PA 41 and section 3209 as added by 2006 PA 299.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-1) previously recommended by the Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security,

The substitute (H-1) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Miller moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

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

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

House Bill No. 5850, entitled

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Roll Call No. 226 Yeas—106

Agema Ebli LeBlanc Proos

Amash Elsenheimer Leland Roberts

Angerer Geiss Lemmons Rocca

Ball Genetski Lindberg Rogers

Barnett Gonzales Lipton Schmidt, R.

Bauer Green Liss Schmidt, W.

Bennett Gregory Lori Schuitmaker

Bledsoe Griffin Lund Scott, B.

Bolger Haase Marleau Scott, P.

Booher Haines Mayes Scripps

Brown, L. Hammel McDowell Segal

Brown, T. Hansen McMillin Sheltrown

Byrnes Haugh Meadows Slavens

Byrum Haveman Meekhof Slezak

Calley Hildenbrand Melton Smith

Caul Horn Meltzer Spade

Clemente Huckleberry Miller Stamas

Constan Jackson Moore Stanley

Corriveau Johnson Moss Switalski

Crawford Jones, Rick Nathan Tlaib

Daley Jones, Robert Nerat Tyler

Dean Kandrevas Neumann Valentine

Denby Kennedy Opsommer Walsh

DeShazor Knollenberg Pavlov Warren

Dillon Kowall Pearce Womack

Donigan Kurtz Polidori Young

Durhal Lahti

Nays—0

In The Chair: Byrnes

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Reps. Bauer, Bolger, Booher, Lisa Brown, Byrnes, Byrum, Calley, Caul, Constan, Crawford, Dean, DeShazor, Donigan, Geiss, Green, Gregory, Griffin, Haase, Hammel, Hildenbrand, Horn, Huckleberry, Jackson, Johnson, Robert Jones, Kennedy, Knollenberg, Kurtz, LeBlanc, Leland, Lindberg, Lipton, Liss, Lori, Marleau, Mayes, Meltzer, Moore, Moss, Nathan, Polidori, Proos, Roberts, Rocca, Rogers, Wayne Schmidt, Schuitmaker, Scripps, Segal, Slavens, Slezak, Smith, Spade, Stamas, Switalski, Tlaib, Tyler, Valentine, Walsh and Warren were named co‑sponsors of the bill.

Second Reading of Bills

Senate Bill No. 198, entitled

A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 4o (MCL 205.94o), as amended by 2004 PA 172.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-1) previously recommended by the Committee on Tax Policy,

The substitute (H-1) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

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

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

Senate Bill No. 198, entitled

A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 4o (MCL 205.94o), as amended by 2004 PA 172.

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Roll Call No. 227 Yeas—98

Agema Geiss LeBlanc Roberts

Angerer Genetski Leland Rocca

Ball Gonzales Lemmons Rogers

Barnett Green Lindberg Schmidt, R.

Bauer Gregory Lipton Schmidt, W.

Bolger Griffin Liss Schuitmaker

Booher Haase Lori Scott, B.

Brown, T. Haines Lund Scripps

Byrnes Hammel Marleau Segal

Byrum Hansen Mayes Sheltrown

Calley Haugh McDowell Slavens

Caul Haveman Meadows Slezak

Clemente Hildenbrand Meekhof Smith

Constan Horn Melton Spade

Corriveau Huckleberry Meltzer Stamas

Crawford Jackson Moore Stanley

Daley Johnson Moss Switalski

Dean Jones, Rick Nerat Tlaib

Denby Jones, Robert Neumann Tyler

DeShazor Kandrevas Opsommer Valentine

Dillon Kennedy Pavlov Walsh

Donigan Knollenberg Pearce Warren

Durhal Kowall Polidori Womack

Ebli Kurtz Proos Young

Elsenheimer Lahti

Nays—8

Amash Bledsoe McMillin Nathan

Bennett Brown, L. Miller Scott, P.

In The Chair: Byrnes

Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of the act shall be inserted to read as follows:

“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,”

The House agreed to the full title.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Miller, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Tax exemptions for a targeted industry, in this case the timber industry, are costing the state literally billions of dollars in a time when important funding priorities like education, public safety, and health care are being neglected. This loophole is an admittedly slim expenditure, only about $1 million, but in times of budgetary crisis sooner or later we must turn off the spicket to the corporate and special interests or we’ll further destabilize the state one sweetheart deal at a time.”

Second Reading of Bills

Senate Bill No. 795, entitled

A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “Michigan vehicle code,” by amending sections 219, 303, 625n, 732a, and 904d (MCL 257.219, 257.303, 257.625n, 257.732a, and 257.904d), section 219 as amended by 2005 PA 317, sections 303, 732a, and 904d as amended by 2008 PA 463, and section 625n as amended by 2008 PA 539, and by adding section 304.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-2) previously recommended by the Committee on Judiciary,

The substitute (H-2) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Corriveau moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 11, line 19, after “COURT” by inserting “PROGRAM”.

The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Corriveau moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 16, following line 9, by inserting:

“Sec. 319. (1) The secretary of state shall immediately suspend a person’s license as provided in this section upon receiving a record of the person’s conviction for a crime described in this section, whether the conviction is under a law of this state, a local ordinance substantially corresponding to a law of this state, a law of another state substantially corresponding to a law of this state, or, beginning October 31, 2010, a law of the United States substantially corresponding to a law of this state.

(2) The secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license for 1 year for any of the following crimes:

(a) Fraudulently altering or forging documents pertaining to motor vehicles in violation of section 257.

(b) A violation of section 413 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.413.

(d) A felony in which a motor vehicle was used. As used in this section, “felony in which a motor vehicle was used” means a felony during the commission of which the person convicted operated a motor vehicle and while operating the vehicle presented real or potential harm to persons or property and 1 or more of the following circumstances existed:

(i) The vehicle was used as an instrument of the felony.

(ii) The vehicle was used to transport a victim of the felony.

(iii) The vehicle was used to flee the scene of the felony.

(iv) The vehicle was necessary for the commission of the felony.

(e) A violation of section 602a(2) or (3) of this act or section 479a(2) or (3) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.479a.

(f) A Beginning October 31, 2010, a violation of section 601d.

(3) The secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license for 90 days for any of the following crimes:

(a) Failing to stop and disclose identity at the scene of an accident resulting in injury in violation of section 617a.

(b) A violation of section 601b(2), section 601c(1), section 653a(3), section 626 before October 31, 2010, or, beginning October 31, 2010, section 626(2). ~~, or section 653a(3).~~

(c) Malicious destruction resulting from the operation of a vehicle under section 382(1)(b), (c), or (d) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.382.

(d) A violation of section 703(2) of the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1703.

(4) The secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license for 30 days for malicious destruction resulting from the operation of a vehicle under section 382(1)(a) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.382.

(5) For perjury or making a false certification to the secretary of state under any law requiring the registration of a motor vehicle or regulating the operation of a vehicle on a highway, or for conduct prohibited under section 324(1) or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 324(1), the secretary shall suspend the person’s license as follows:

(a) If the person has no prior conviction for an offense described in this subsection within 7 years, for 90 days.

(b) If the person has 1 or more prior convictions for an offense described in this subsection within 7 years, for 1 year.

(6) For a violation of section 414 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.414, the secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license as follows:

(a) If the person has no prior conviction for that offense within 7 years, for 90 days.

(b) If the person has 1 or more prior convictions for that offense within 7 years, for 1 year.

(7) For a violation of section 624a or 624b of this act or section 703(1) of the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1703, the secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license as follows:

(a) If the person has 1 prior conviction for an offense described in this subsection or section 33b(1) of former 1933 (Ex Sess) PA 8, for 90 days. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license after the first 30 days of suspension.

(b) If the person has 2 or more prior convictions for an offense described in this subsection or section 33b(1) of former 1933 (Ex Sess) PA 8, for 1 year. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license after the first 60 days of suspension.

(8) The secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license for a violation of section 625 or 625m as follows:

(a) For 180 days for a violation of section 625(1) or (8) before October 31, 2010 or, beginning October 31, 2010, section 625(1)(a) or (b) or (8) if the person has no prior convictions within 7 years. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license during a specified portion of the suspension, except that the secretary of state shall not issue a restricted license during the first 30 days of suspension.

(b) For 90 days for a violation of section 625(3) if the person has no prior convictions within 7 years. However, if the person is convicted of a violation of section 625(3), for operating a vehicle when, due to the consumption of a controlled substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance, the person’s ability to operate the vehicle was visibly impaired, the secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license under this subdivision for 180 days. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license during all or a specified portion of the suspension.

(c) For 30 days for a violation of section 625(6) if the person has no prior convictions within 7 years. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license during all or a specified portion of the suspension.

(d) For 90 days for a violation of section 625(6) if the person has 1 or more prior convictions for that offense within 7 years.

(e) For 180 days for a violation of section 625(7) if the person has no prior convictions within 7 years. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license after the first 90 days of suspension.

(f) For 90 days for a violation of section 625m if the person has no prior convictions within 7 years. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license during all or a specified portion of the suspension.

(g) ~~For~~ Beginning October 31, 2010, for 1 year for a violation of section 625(1)(c) if the person has no prior convictions within 7 years or not more than 2 convictions within 10 years. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license, except that the secretary of state shall not issue a restricted license during the first 45 days of suspension.

(h) ~~The~~ Beginning October 31, 2010, the department shall order a person convicted of violating section 625(1)(c) not to operate a motor vehicle under a restricted license issued under subdivision (g) unless the vehicle is equipped with an ignition interlock device approved, certified, and installed as required under sections 625k and 625l. The ignition interlock device may be removed after the interlock device provider provides the department with verification that the person has operated the vehicle with no instances of reaching or exceeding a blood alcohol level of 0.025 grams per 210 liters of breath. This subdivision does not prohibit the removal of the ignition interlock device for any of the following:

(i) A start-up test failure that occurs within the first 2 months after installation of the device. As used in this subdivision, “start-up test failure” means that the ignition interlock device has prevented the motor vehicle from being started. Multiple unsuccessful attempts at 1 time to start the vehicle shall be treated as 1 start-up test failure only under this subparagraph.

(ii) A start-up test failure occurring more than 2 months after installation of the device, if not more than 15 minutes after detecting the start-up test failure the person delivers a breath sample that the ignition interlock device analyzes as having an alcohol level of less than 0.025 grams per 210 liters of breath.

(iii) A retest prompted by the device, if not more than 5 minutes after detecting the start-up test failure the person delivers a breath sample that the ignition interlock device analyzes as having an alcohol level of less than 0.025 grams per 210 liters of breath.

(i) If Beginning October 31, 2010, if an individual violates the conditions of the restricted license issued under subdivision (g) or operates or attempts to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.025 grams per 210 liters of breath, the secretary of state shall impose an additional like period of suspension and restriction as prescribed under subdivision (g). This subdivision does not ~~apply to a~~ require an additional like period of suspension and restriction for any of the following:

(i) A start-up test failure within the first 2 months after installation of the ignition interlock device. As used in this subdivision, “start-up test failure” means that ~~term as defined in R 257.313a of the Michigan administrative code.~~ the ignition interlock device has prevented the motor vehicle from being started. Multiple unsuccessful attempts at 1 time to start the vehicle shall be treated as 1 start-up test failure only under this subparagraph.

(iii) Any retest prompted by the device, if not more than 5 minutes after detecting the start-up test failure the person delivers a breath sample that the ignition interlock device analyzes as having an alcohol level of less than 0.025 grams per 210 liters of breath.

(9) For a violation of section 367c of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.367c, the secretary of state shall suspend the person’s license as follows:

(a) If the person has no prior conviction for an offense described in this subsection within 7 years, for 6 months.

(b) If the person has 1 or more convictions for an offense described in this subsection within 7 years, for 1 year.

(10) For a violation of section 315(4), the secretary of state may suspend the person’s license for 6 months.

(11) For a violation or attempted violation of section 411a(2) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.411a, involving a school, the secretary of state shall suspend the license of a person 14 years of age or over but less than 21 years of age until 3 years after the date of the conviction or juvenile disposition for the violation. The secretary of state may issue the person a restricted license after the first 365 days of suspension.

(12) Except as provided in subsection (14), a suspension under this section shall be imposed notwithstanding a court order unless the court order complies with section 323.

(13) If the secretary of state receives records of more than 1 conviction of a person resulting from the same incident, a suspension shall be imposed only for the violation to which the longest period of suspension applies under this section.

(14) The secretary of state may waive a restriction, suspension, or revocation of a person’s license imposed under this act if the person submits proof that a court in another state revoked, suspended, or restricted his or her license for a period equal to or greater than the period of a restriction, suspension, or revocation prescribed under this act for the violation and that the revocation, suspension, or restriction was served for the violation, or may grant a restricted license.

(15) The secretary of state shall not issue a restricted license to a person whose license is suspended under this section unless a restricted license is authorized under this section and the person is otherwise eligible for a license.

(16) The secretary of state shall not issue a restricted license to a person under subsection (8) that would permit the person to operate a commercial motor vehicle.

(17) Except as provided in subsection (16), a restricted license issued under this section shall permit the person to whom it is issued to take any driving skills test required by the secretary of state and to operate a vehicle under 1 or more of the following circumstances:

(a) In the course of the person’s employment or occupation.

(b) To and from any combination of the following:

(i) The person’s residence.

(ii) The person’s work location.

(iii) An alcohol or drug education or treatment program as ordered by the court.

(iv) The court probation department.

(v) A court-ordered community service program.

(vi) An educational institution at which the person is enrolled as a student.

(vii) A place of regularly occurring medical treatment for a serious condition for the person or a member of the person’s household or immediate family.

(18) While driving with a restricted license, the person shall carry proof of his or her destination and the hours of any employment, class, or other reason for traveling and shall display that proof upon a peace officer’s request.

(19) Subject to subsection (21), as used in subsection (8), “prior conviction” means a conviction for any of the following, whether under a law of this state, a local ordinance substantially corresponding to a law of this state, or a law of another state substantially corresponding to a law of this state:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (20), a violation or attempted violation of any of the following:

(i) Section 625, except a violation of section 625(2), or a violation of any prior enactment of section 625 in which the defendant operated a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating or alcoholic liquor or a controlled substance, or a combination of intoxicating or alcoholic liquor and a controlled substance, or while visibly impaired, or with an unlawful bodily alcohol content.

(ii) Section 625m.

(iii) Former section 625b.

(b) Negligent homicide, manslaughter, or murder resulting from the operation of a vehicle or an attempt to commit any of those crimes.

(20) Except for purposes of the suspensions described in subsection (8)(c) and (d), only 1 violation or attempted violation of section 625(6), a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(6), or a law of another state substantially corresponding to section 625(6) may be used as a prior conviction.

(21) If 2 or more convictions described in subsection (19) are convictions for violations arising out of the same transaction, only 1 conviction shall be used to determine whether the person has a prior conviction.”.

The motion prevailed and the amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

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

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

Senate Bill No. 795, entitled

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Roll Call No. 228 Yeas—105

Agema Elsenheimer LeBlanc Proos

Angerer Geiss Leland Roberts

Ball Genetski Lemmons Rocca

Barnett Gonzales Lindberg Rogers

Bauer Green Lipton Schmidt, R.

Bennett Gregory Liss Schmidt, W.

Bledsoe Griffin Lori Schuitmaker

Bolger Haase Lund Scott, B.

Booher Haines Marleau Scott, P.

Brown, L. Hammel Mayes Scripps

Brown, T. Hansen McDowell Segal

Byrnes Haugh McMillin Sheltrown

Byrum Haveman Meadows Slavens

Calley Hildenbrand Meekhof Slezak

Caul Horn Melton Smith

Clemente Huckleberry Meltzer Spade

Constan Jackson Miller Stamas

Corriveau Johnson Moore Stanley

Crawford Jones, Rick Moss Switalski

Daley Jones, Robert Nathan Tlaib

Dean Kandrevas Nerat Tyler

Denby Kennedy Neumann Valentine

DeShazor Knollenberg Opsommer Walsh

Dillon Kowall Pavlov Warren

Donigan Kurtz Pearce Womack

Durhal Lahti Polidori Young

Ebli

Nays—1

Amash

In The Chair: Byrnes

The question being on agreeing to the title of the bill,

Rep. Segal moved to amend the title to read as follows:

A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “An act to provide for the registration, titling, sale, transfer, and regulation of certain vehicles operated upon the public highways of this state or any other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles and distressed vehicles; to provide for the licensing of dealers; to provide for the examination, licensing, and control of operators and chauffeurs; to provide for the giving of proof of financial responsibility and security by owners and operators of vehicles; to provide for the imposition, levy, and collection of specific taxes on vehicles, and the levy and collection of sales and use taxes, license fees, and permit fees; to provide for the regulation and use of streets and highways; to create certain funds; to provide penalties and sanctions for a violation of this act; to provide for civil liability of owners and operators of vehicles and service of process on residents and nonresidents; to regulate the introduction and use of certain evidence; to provide for the levy of certain assessments; to provide for the enforcement of this act; to provide for the creation of and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to impose liability upon the state or local agencies; to provide appropriations for certain purposes; to repeal all other acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act or contrary to this act; and to repeal certain parts of this act on a specific date,” by amending sections 219, 303, 319, 625n, 626, 732a, and 904d (MCL 257.219, 257.303, 257.319, 257.625n, 257.626, 257.732a, and 257.904d), section 219 as amended by 2005 PA 317, sections 303, 319, 626, 732a, and 904d as amended by 2008 PA 463, and section 625n as amended by 2008 PA 539, and by adding section 304.

The motion prevailed.

The House agreed to the title as amended.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Second Reading of Bills

Senate Bill No. 1152, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of community health and certain state purposes related to mental health, public health, and medical services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011; to provide for the expenditure of those appropriations; to create funds; to require and provide for reports; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain local and state agencies and departments; and to provide for disposition of fees and other income received by the various state agencies.

Was read a second time, and the question being on the adoption of the proposed substitute (H-1) previously recommended by the Committee on Appropriations,

The substitute (H-1) was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. McDowell moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 16, line 17, by striking out “180,945,800” and inserting “180,945,900”.

2. Amend page 17, line 6, by striking out “1,595,877,800” and inserting “1,595,877,900” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.

The motion prevailed and the amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Rep. Green moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 3, line 2, by striking out “22,770,500” and inserting “16,930,100”.

2. Amend page 3, line 7, by striking out “45,934,300” and inserting “40,093,900”.

3. Amend page 3, line 14, by striking out “29,483,700” and inserting “23,643,300” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.

The motion did not prevail and the amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

Rep. Moss moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Amend page 33, following line 24, by inserting:

“Sec. 294. (1) The department shall provide a detailed monthly spending report to the senate and house appropriations committees, the senate and house fiscal agencies, and the state budget director if the department was found to have exceeded its spending authority in the immediately preceding fiscal year.

(2) The monthly report shall be provided by the department director no later than the 15th day of each month and shall innumerate all expenditures made in the previous month. This report shall be provided to the senate and house appropriations committees through testimony delivered under oath.”.

The motion did not prevail and the amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

The motion prevailed.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be placed on its immediate passage.

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

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

Senate Bill No. 1152, entitled

Was read a third time and passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, by yeas and nays, as follows:

Roll Call No. 229 Yeas—64

Angerer Ebli LeBlanc Schmidt, R.

Barnett Geiss Leland Scott, B.

Bauer Gonzales Lemmons Scripps

Bennett Green Lindberg Segal

Bledsoe Gregory Lipton Sheltrown

Brown, L. Griffin Liss Slavens

Brown, T. Haase Lori Slezak

Byrnes Hammel Mayes Smith

Byrum Haugh McDowell Spade

Clemente Huckleberry Meadows Stanley

Constan Jackson Melton Switalski

Corriveau Johnson Miller Tlaib

Dean Jones, Robert Nerat Valentine

Dillon Kandrevas Neumann Warren

Donigan Kennedy Polidori Womack

Durhal Lahti Roberts Young

Nays—42

Agema Elsenheimer Lund Pearce

Amash Genetski Marleau Proos

Ball Haines McMillin Rocca

Bolger Hansen Meekhof Rogers

Booher Haveman Meltzer Schmidt, W.

Calley Hildenbrand Moore Schuitmaker

Caul Horn Moss Scott, P.

Crawford Jones, Rick Nathan Stamas

Daley Knollenberg Opsommer Tyler

Denby Kowall Pavlov Walsh

DeShazor Kurtz

In The Chair: Byrnes

The House agreed to the title of the bill.

Rep. Segal moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Messages from the Senate

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 41.

A concurrent resolution to memorialize the President, the Congress, and the Federal Communications Commission of the United States to refrain from regulating Internet broadband services as common carrier services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

(For text of concurrent resolution, see House Journal No. 50, p. 784.)

(The concurrent resolution was received from the Senate on May 20 and postponed for the day, see House Journal No. 50, p. 784.)

The question being on the adoption of the concurrent resolution,

The concurrent resolution was adopted.

By unanimous consent the House returned to the order of

Motions and Resolutions

Rep. Clemente offered the following resolution:

House Resolution No. 292.

A resolution to memorialize the United States Congress and the Department of Defense to select the Boeing NewGen Tanker aircraft for the United States Air Force.

Whereas, The Boeing Company has been building and maintaining refueling tankers for the United States Air Force for 60 years, and has more experience building tankers than any other company on earth. The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be designed to meet all Air Force requirements, incorporate innovative 21st century refueling systems, and will combine a modern digital flight deck with state-of-the-art 787 aircraft features; and

Whereas, The Boeing-built tankers are safe and survivable in combat, where it counts the most. During the previous tanker competition, the Air Force concluded the Boeing tanker was significantly more survivable than the rival tanker, and that Boeing’s pilot-oriented flight controls provide full combat maneuverability in all situations. The NewGen Tanker boasts a superior airframe backed by the expertise of the Boeing workforce, which is second to none; and

Whereas, Awarding the NewGen Tanker contract to Boeing would create or retain approximately 50,000 skilled jobs in the United States’ high-technology aviation industry. Michigan, which already hosts a Boeing presence worth $551 million in supplier and vendor purchases, would see an estimated boost of $25 million in economic activity annually and an additional 450 jobs in 1st Tier supplier companies; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we memorialize the United States Congress and the Department of Defense to select the Boeing NewGen Tanker aircraft for the United States Air Force; 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, the members of the Michigan congressional delegation, and the United States Secretary of Defense.

The resolution was referred to the Committee on New Economy and Quality of Life.

Announcement by the Clerk of Printing and Enrollment

The Clerk announced that the following bills and joint resolution had been printed and placed upon the files of the members on Thursday, May 27:

House Bill Nos. 6209 6210 6211 6212 6213

Senate Bill Nos. 1350 1351 1352

Senate Joint Resolution Y

Reports of Standing Committees

The Committee on Great Lakes and Environment, by Rep. Warren, Chair, reported

House Resolution No. 151.

A resolution to memorialize the Congress of the United States to increase funding available for beach water quality monitoring.

(For text of resolution, see House Journal No. 71 of 2009, p. 1486.)

With the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

Favorable Roll Call

To Report Out:

Yeas: Reps. Warren, Nerat, Bledsoe, Ebli, Kennedy, Leland, Scripps, Meekhof, Daley, Haveman, Rick Jones, Pavlov and Wayne Schmidt

Nays: None

The Committee on Great Lakes and Environment, by Rep. Warren, Chair, reported

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 37.

A concurrent resolution to urge inclusion of an addendum to address aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

(For text of concurrent resolution, see House Journal No. 31, p. 471.)

With the recommendation that the concurrent resolution be adopted.

Favorable Roll Call

To Report Out:

Yeas: Reps. Warren, Nerat, Bledsoe, Ebli, Kennedy, Leland, Scripps, Meekhof, Daley, Haveman, Rick Jones, Pavlov and Wayne Schmidt

Nays: None

The Committee on Great Lakes and Environment, by Rep. Warren, Chair, reported

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 38.

A concurrent resolution to urge the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Council to scrutinize carefully the proposed diversion at Waukesha, Wisconsin.

(For text of concurrent resolution, see House Journal No. 31, p. 472.)

With the recommendation that the concurrent resolution be adopted.

Favorable Roll Call

To Report Out:

Yeas: Reps. Warren, Nerat, Bledsoe, Ebli, Kennedy, Leland, Scripps, Meekhof, Daley, Haveman, Rick Jones, Pavlov and Wayne Schmidt

Nays: None

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT

The following report, submitted by Rep. Warren, Chair, of the Committee on Great Lakes and Environment, was received and read:

Meeting held on: Thursday, May 27, 2010

Present: Reps. Warren, Nerat, Bledsoe, Ebli, Kennedy, Leland, Scripps, Meekhof, Daley, Haveman, Rick Jones, Pavlov and Wayne Schmidt

Absent: Reps. Meadows and Roberts

Excused: Reps. Meadows and Roberts

The Committee on Transportation, by Rep. Byrnes, Chair, reported

Senate Bill No. 115, entitled

A bill to amend 1993 PA 354, entitled “Railroad code of 1993,” (MCL 462.101 to 462.451) by adding section 318.

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. Byrnes, Kandrevas, Geiss, Griffin, Haugh, Leland, Nerat, Roy Schmidt, Young, Opsommer, Bolger, DeShazor, Knollenberg, Wayne Schmidt and Paul Scott

Nays: None

The Committee on Transportation, by Rep. Byrnes, Chair, reported

House Resolution No. 187.

A resolution to express support for active transportation infrastructure options that promote walking and bicycle usage and reduce childhood obesity.

(For text of resolution, see House Journal No. 105 of 2009, p. 2407.)

With the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

Favorable Roll Call

To Report Out:

Yeas: Reps. Byrnes, Kandrevas, Donigan, Geiss, Griffin, Haugh, Leland, Nerat, Roy Schmidt, Young, Knollenberg, Wayne Schmidt and Paul Scott

Nays: None

The Committee on Transportation, by Rep. Byrnes, Chair, reported

House Concurrent Resolution No. 34.

A concurrent resolution to express support for active transportation infrastructure options that promote walking and bicycle usage and reduce childhood obesity.

(For text of concurrent resolution, see House Journal No. 105 of 2009, p. 2409.)

With the recommendation that the concurrent resolution be adopted.

Favorable Roll Call

To Report Out:

Yeas: Reps. Byrnes, Kandrevas, Donigan, Geiss, Griffin, Haugh, Leland, Nerat, Roy Schmidt, Young, Knollenberg, Wayne Schmidt and Paul Scott

Nays: None

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT

The following report, submitted by Rep. Byrnes, Chair, of the Committee on Transportation, was received and read:

Meeting held on: Thursday, May 27, 2010

Present: Reps. Byrnes, Kandrevas, Donigan, Geiss, Griffin, Haugh, Leland, Nerat, Roy Schmidt, Young, Opsommer, Bolger, DeShazor, Knollenberg, Pearce, Wayne Schmidt and Paul Scott

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT

The following report, submitted by Rep. Melton, Chair, of the Committee on Education, was received and read:

Meeting held on: Thursday, May 27, 2010

Present: Reps. Melton, Lisa Brown, Bledsoe, Byrum, Corriveau, Geiss, Haase, Kennedy, Lindberg, Nathan, Polidori, Roberts, Sheltrown, Valentine, Pavlov, Amash, Ball, DeShazor, McMillin, Pearce, Paul Scott, Tyler and Walsh

Explanation of “No” Votes

Rep. Opsommer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of House Bill No. 4961, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Legislative colleagues, simply put, this bill is about much more than just the DRIC. Much, much more. This is a vehicle bill that is attempting to use the DRIC as leverage for an unprecedented shift of power and authority from the legislative to the executive branch when it comes to the unilateral ability to be able to toll our citizens.

There is no reason it has to be this way. We should be looking at the DRIC and PPP bills separately. That is how we have done all the other toll bridges here in Michigan. But instead, it has been a conscious decision by MDOT to wrap the DRIC bridge up into broad public-private partnership legislation that would not only allow for the DRIC but would cause the Legislature to give up its authority to statutorily authorize tolling anywhere else in the state. I don’t know if this is because the governor wants to use the bill as leverage to keep Canada happy with the DRIC, or if she simply wants to have the unilateral ability to impose tolls on taxpayers with no other checks and balances, but either way it’s wrong.

I have a letter from the Attorney General’s office that shows that right now, today, MDOT can not toll a road or bridge or other infrastructure without legislative approval. And you know what? That is how it should be, and how we should keep it.

Whether tolling is done directly by MDOT or a private contractor, you want someone who has been elected by the people determining where to use that tool. In fact, in cases where it is being done by a private contractor who is using toll rates not just to break even but also to create profits, I would think you would want to keep voter accountability even more. If toll rates go unfairly through the roof, who are taxpayers supposed to turn too? The Legislature will be powerless at that point; it would actually be players from outside of the state who would have the final word.

Besides taking away the tolling authority we already have, this bill is also too broad in terms of what it defines as a transportation facility. Let me read to you the bill and how they define it:

‘A public transportation facility means any NEW, or EXISTING, DOMESTIC, or INTERNATIONAL, highway, lane, road, bridge, tunnel, overpass, ramp, interchange, ferry, airport, vehicle parking facility, vehicle transportation facility, port facility, locks facility, rail facility, intermodal or other public transit facility, or any other equipment, rolling stock, site, or facility used in the transportation of persons, goods, substances, vehicles, information, or matter of any kind, and any building, structure, parking area, appurtenance, or other property necessary or DESIRABLE for the facility’

My colleagues, that is more than a mouthful. It is literally anything that is not permanently nailed down in this state, and even then includes some of those things as well. This is supposed to be a transportation bill? Really? And it includes such things under the definition as a catchall phrase such as ‘matter of any kind’? They should define it the other way, what are the things MDOT couldn’t define as a public transportation facility? I’m not sure to be honest. And to be clear, under their definition for all these things it includes not just new but also existing. It includes domestic and out of state and international. When it comes to condemnation, it also includes property not just necessary for the project, but also just merely desirable for the facility. That even includes commercial uses like gas stations, restaurants, hotels, convention centers, and other things that would fall under the definition of being merely ‘desirable’. So when a taxpayer has his or her private property taken away, and given to another private entity so that they can make a profit off of it, we can expect that the property may be taken away for a Speedway, or a McDonalds, or a Red Roof Inn, or a Kellogg Center type project that could all be part of any various toll bridge or toll road mixed projects. Under the current bill these companies would not even have to pay property taxes.

My colleagues, when such a project gets plunked down in your back yard, if the Senate doesn’t stop it, you will have absolutely NO formal vote on that project. You will have to tell your constituents that it is out of your hands. Now, some people may like that. I know where they have passed legislation like this in other states that the consultants actually sell that as a feature, that the legislature gets left of the hook. Well, Michigan legislators are better than that, and there is no way we should be allowing for that here.

Simply put, this takes away too much power from the legislature, power and oversight that it already has, and then also substantially broadens the power of what MDOT can do with that authority at the same time. And the real question is, what does that have to do with the DRIC? Why not run bills like we have for the Blue Water Bridge? The answer is quite simply that we could, and the only reason we aren’t is because the DRIC is being used as leverage to try to pass a bill that in its current form of robbing legislative power would have NO chance, a 0% chance, of passing out of this body on its own. No chance at all.

And why are we being pressured into feeling like we have to do this today? Being pressured from sources from outside of Michigan? If it wasn’t for the fact that the main potential investor in all of this, the Ontario pension fund OMERS, was recently granted expanded powers by the Canadian government to provide investment management services I am not sure we would even be here. So when tolls are being paid in Michigan, tolls not just to break even mind you but also for profit, Michigan drivers could end up paying toll rates set to ensure that OMERS pensioners makes a high rate of return. We shouldn’t be making decisions on tolling Michigan taxpayers based off of the financial needs and a quest by a Canadian pension fund, the whole reason for the supposed $550 million dollar ‘loan’ they are offering us in the first place, a loan that will have to be repaid by, you guessed it, Michigan tolling.

And now, there are reports that Ohio is getting involved, and has introduced a resolution supporting the DRIC. Ohio? Ohio is now going to tell us who MDOT should be allowed to toll? Maybe we should also ask Indiana or Wisconsin what they think before we pass this bill as well. Maybe we should also check with Mexico to see where they want the NAFTA superhighway to go? At the end of the day, whose law is this anyway? Well it is ours, or at least it should be. Maybe some of you just contracted out our legislative authority and laws as well.

To conclude, if we pass laws in Michigan that give MDOT unilateral tolling power in our state it should be because that is what the Michigan Legislature feels is right, not because of pressure from other states or countries. And it should also not allow for ‘instrumentalities of government’ from other countries and states to be able enter into contracts that could potentially determine the tolling rates and eminent domain location decisions taking place in Michigan. Under this bill, new governmental authorities will be created, authorities that will be defined as an instrumentality of government that in some cases will include people from outside of this state. The bill says that ownership of a project can in vested into these new creations. They will be the ones entering into the contracts. People will be making decisions that don’t even live here and may not be citizens of our country, let alone our state. These facilities should not just be publicly owned, but owned by the MICHIGAN public. Texas has put a moratorium on these based on their experience with Mexico for a reason, a moratorium that apparently we have not learned from or listened to. For some reasons we appear to be in a race instead to be like California, which has little oversight and whose history on these projects are replete with problems. Even there, their law is nowhere near as broad as what has just passed out of the House.

I am also concerned that this bill will hamstring our local governments from being able to build roads. In other states, like California, local government has had to first pay a penalty in order to build something simply because others might consider it as competition. Can you imagine, paying someone else for the right to build on your own land? We are being sold that this is a panacea, that there is no risk to Michigan, and yet the bill passed today is nowhere near strong enough in ensuring that local governments won’t have to pay penalties like this in order to build in their own backyard or face injunctions to stop expansion or construction that is underway.

This version of the bill is the wrong way to go, and I vote resoundingly NO.”

Introduction of Bills

Rep. Meadows introduced

House Bill No. 6214, entitled

A bill to amend 1937 PA 94, entitled “Use tax act,” by amending section 4a (MCL 205.94a), as amended by 2004 PA 172.