Senate Bill No. 194, entitled

A bill to make, supplement, adjust, and consolidate appropriations for the department of labor and economic opportunity for the fiscal years ending September 30, 2023 and September 30, 2024; to provide for certain conditions on appropriations; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.

Senator Huizenga offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 21, line 13, after “$” by striking out “30,000,000.00” and inserting “15,000,000.00”.

2. Amend page 21, line 19, after “$” by striking out “510,000,000.00” and inserting “5,000,000.00”.

3. Amend page 21, line 25, after “$” by striking out “5,000,000.00” and inserting “1,000,000.00”.

4. Amend page 22, line 2, after “$” by striking out “2,000,000.00” and inserting “1,000,000.00”.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

1. Amend page 25, following line 16, by inserting:

“(f) Create and administer a grant program that will expend up to $5,000,000.00 for the purpose of assisting Michigan homeowners by covering any increase in mortgage payments to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as a result of the federal housing finance agency’s redesigned and recalibrated fee matrices, announced by the federal housing finance agency on October 24, 2022 and implemented on May 1, 2023. Grants shall be provided to Michigan homeowners of single family homes upon application for the difference in rate charges as a result of any fee restructuring implemented by the federal housing finance agency implemented in the calendar year 2023.”.

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

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

Roll Call No. 255 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Runestad offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 8, line 21, after “$” by striking out “475,000,000” and inserting “0”.

2. Amend page 8, line 23, after “program” by striking out “25,000,100” and inserting “100”.

3. Amend page 26, line 19, by striking out the balance of the page through “2027.” on line 8 of page 29 and inserting:

“Sec. 1000. From the funds deposited in the strategic outreach and attraction reserve fund created in the Michigan trust fund act, 2000 PA 489, MCL. 12.254, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, the state treasurer shall lapse $500,000,000.00 to the general fund.”.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 8, line 21, after “$” by striking out “475,000,000” and inserting “0”.

2. Amend page 8, line 23, after “program” by striking out “25,000,100” and inserting “100”, and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.

3. Amend page 26, line 19, by striking out the balance of the page through “2027.” on line 8 of page 29 and inserting:

“Sec. 1000. From the funds deposited in the strategic outreach and attraction reserve fund created in the Michigan trust fund act, 2000 PA 489, MCL 12.254, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, the state treasurer shall lapse $500,000,000.00 to the general fund and deposit $500,000,000.00 from the general fund into the Michigan state parks endowment fund created under section 35a of article IX of the state constitution of 1963.”.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 256 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

1. Amend page 50, line 2, by striking out all of subdivision (e).

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

1. Amend page 3, line 27, after “council--FTEs” by striking out “3.0” and inserting “0.0”.

2. Amend page 3, line 27, by striking out “748,000” and inserting “300,000”.

3. Amend page 5, line 23, after “administration--FTEs” by striking out “201.0” and inserting “197.0”.

4. Amend page 5, line 28, after “program--FTEs” by striking out “31.0” and inserting “29.0”

and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 25, line 2, by striking out all of subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (e).

2. Amend page 28, line 10, after “1000a.” by striking out the balance of the line through “census.” on line 17.

3. Amend page 76, line 6, after “1097.” by striking out all of subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).

4. Amend page 82, line 29, by striking out all of subsection (6).

5. Amend page 84, line 3, by striking out all of subsections (3) and (4).

6. Amend page 84, line 14, after “1102.” by striking out all of subsection (1).

7. Amend page 86, line 29, after “1103.” by striking out all of subsections (1) and (2).

8. Amend page 103, line 4, by striking out all of subsections (5) and (6).

9. Amend page 104, line 28, by striking out all of sections 1109 and 1110.

10. Amend page 106, line 13, by striking out the balance of the bill, and renumbering all subsections accordingly.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 257 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose

Nays—21

Anthony Cherry McBroom Polehanki

Bayer Geiss McCann Santana

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Irwin McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Klinefelt Moss Wojno

Chang

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

1. Amend page 3, line 24, after “hardhats” by striking out “250,000” and inserting “500,000” and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.

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

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

Roll Call No. 258 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Bumstead offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 19, following line 18, by inserting:

“Sec. 218. If the state administrative board, acting under section 3 of 1921 PA 2, MCL 17.3, transfers funds from an amount appropriated under this part and part 1, the legislature may, by a concurrent resolution adopted by a majority of the members elected to and serving in each house, intertransfer funds within this part and part 1 for the particular department, board, commission, officer, or institution.”.

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 28, following line 9, by inserting:

“(4) No funds appropriated or transferred to the critical industry program line or the Michigan strategic site readiness program line in part 1 may be expended for a project until a completed foreign entity report for the project is submitted by the Michigan strategic fund to the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

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

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

Roll Call No. 259 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Hauck offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 21, following line 9, by inserting:

“Sec. 224. No appropriations in part 1 may be expended on, or obligated to, economic development projects that involve or include a business entity supportive of the Chinese communist party as reflected in that business entity’s bylaws or articles of incorporation.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

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

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

Roll Call No. 260 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator McBroom offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 12, following line 4, by inserting:

“Upper peninsula transitional housing 515,900”

and adjusting the subtotals, totals, and section 201 accordingly.

2. Amend page 106, following line 11, by inserting:

“Sec. 1111. The funds appropriated in part 1 for upper peninsula transitional housing shall be allocated to a nonprofit shelter and transitional housing provider in a city with a population between 20,000 and 21,000 in a county with a population between 66,000 and 67,000 for the purpose of renovation and service expansion.”.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

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

Roll Call No. 261 Yeas—21

Anthony Cherry Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Geiss McCann Santana

Brinks Hauck McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Chang

Nays—17

Albert Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Huizenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Protest

Senator Huizenga, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 194.

Senator Huizenga’s statement is as follows:

Mr. President, I’m disappointed that I have to stand before you today to give my “no” vote explanation today. Disappointed because the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity should be providing opportunity to all Michiganders, yet I believe the effort before us falls short. There was ample time and opportunity for us to improve this budget and truly provide economic opportunity to all. Unfortunately, the subcommittee in charge of this budget only met twice. Two meetings led to the spending of $3,173,708,100 in spending before us; $3,173,708,100 solidified only after 90 minutes of public testimony. That timeline for that type of expenditure should raise a major red flag with all of us. We can do so much better for the people of our state—for all the people of our state—and I regretfully request a “no” vote.

Senators Huizenga, Runestad, Bumstead and Hauck asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Huizenga’s first statement is as follows:

This amendment would simply reduce contingency funds in the LEO budget to the current year levels to ensure that the budget is agile, while not extravagant. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Senator Huizenga’s second statement is as follows:

For those who are not aware, the Biden administration’s housing agency recently implemented new fees and new costs for those applying for home mortgages. Michiganders with good credit are now on the hook for higher costs and higher fees, all in an effort to help subsidize mortgages for those with bad credit. Thanks to the Biden administration changes, individuals and families who have been responsible with their money are now being punished for doing the right thing. At a time when young families are struggling to afford higher costs on most everything, this federal policy will make things even worse.

My amendment will help fix this misguided policy by covering the costs on the Biden administration’s move. Homeowners, who are now penalized for a good credit rating, will now be able to apply for state grants for those increased costs. If we are willing to help solve the problem for new homeowners, I’d ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment

Senator Runestad’s first statement is as follows:

The new majority took office in January with a $9.2 billion surplus. As of today—five months later—the Governor’s recommendation is underwater by nearly $1 billion. Surely there are more pressing investments we can be making than the $500 million SOAR program, which has most recently sent tens of millions to a company with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

We should be funding school safety, water infrastructure, fixing the damn roads, or how about inflation relief for weary Michiganders? The majority budget comes up woefully short in each of these areas, yet manages to set aside a half billion dollars more for corporate welfare. Corporate welfare, mind you, that even business groups like the Business Leaders of Michigan say is misdirected. A recent report they issued says diversifying investment away from manufacturing is critical because two-thirds of the growth between now and 2030 will be outside of that industry, yet that fact has not stopped the Democrats from plowing ahead with their SOAR boondoggle—funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into the manufacturing industry. I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment to end this wasteful spending of our taxpayers’ dollars.

Senator Bumstead’s first statement is as follows:

This amendment would reduce SOAR by $500 million, and reallocate those funds to the State Park Endowment Fund. If this is done, it would max out the fund to $800 million to fund our state parks in perpetuity. Last year, we allocated $250 million to update our state parks and this would ensure that they are forever maintained. This one-time investment would free up an estimated $50 million we allocate at each budget cycle to our state park system. This would be a great gift for every Michigander and community.

It’s time to rollback this ballooning corporate-welfare fund and reinvest these tax dollars into programs that benefit the people of Michigan as a whole. The Michigan outdoor recreation industry supports billions in state gross domestic product and sustains 126,000 jobs and over $4.7 billion in wages and salaries in the state. On average, every $1 invested in land conservation leads to $4 in economic benefit. I ask for the support of my amendment that wisely invests taxpayer dollars.

Senator Huizenga’s third statement is as follows:

The Going PRO Talent Fund has been a tremendous success. I believe you’d be hard pressed to find any significant opposition to its purpose of workforce development and training in this chamber. So I will pose the question, Why take a competitive grant process that works well and add a population- and industry-specific carveout that diminishes the competitive nature of this grant? Have we not heard from our colleagues across the aisle constantly bemoaning that public policy that appears to pick winners and losers? We must keep programs like Going PRO open to all Michiganders so that we can have a diversified economy and support any and all industries that operate within our state. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Senator Bumstead’s second statement is as follows:

This amendment would remove the FTE increases in this budget. Michiganders do not need more government bureaucrats. We should not be doubling down and depleting our state’s surplus just to grow the size of our government in a time when the economic experts are sounding the alarms about our slowing economy. I ask for support for my amendment.

Senator Bumstead’s third statement is as follows:

This amendment would remove special projects with populations and other restricted designations from this budget. These processes should be fair and competitive, yet these restrictions pick winners and losers before the game even begins. All communities across this great state should have the opportunity to make their case as to how this would utilize taxpayer dollars to grow our communities and economy. I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment.

Senator Huizenga’s fourth statement is as follows:

Helmets to Hardhats is a valuable program that connects veterans with stable, good-paying jobs. Again, this strikes me as a unique opportunity to support a program with a proven record with positive outcomes for those who have served our nation with honor and distinction. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting our service veterans.

Senator Runestad’s second statement is as follows:

Many Michigan residents were appalled to hear that members of this body supported a taxpayer funded corporate giveaway to a business with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, which has repeatedly been described as the biggest national security threat to the United States by federal officials. I think we all realize it is the biggest threat. This amendment would simply require a foreign-entity report to be completed and submitted to the Legislature to ensure taxpayer dollars from Michigan aren’t ending up in the coffers of an adversarial nation. I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment that prioritizes the safety of our state ahead of favorable press releases.

Senator Hauck’s statement is as follows:

Citizens of this state have a entrusted us with the responsibility to spend their hard-earned tax dollars wisely. Now we can have discussion on why or why not government should provide incentives or handouts to corporations in exchange for investing in the state and creating jobs. Reasonable people can disagree. What should not be up for debate is whether or not we should provide state tax dollars to corporations who, before all else, pledge allegiance to our geo-political enemies ahead of our state or our country. Nobody should need a reminder as to why we should be on guard against the Chinese Communist Party.

The FBI director has repeatedly declared China the greatest threat to our country’s economy and national security. China has the largest hacking program in the world, larger than any other nation combined. They have repeatedly attempted cyberattacks on our infrastructure. The CCP are not our friends and we certainly shouldn’t be giving Michigan tax dollars to companies that are loyal to them.

Therefore, my amendment prohibits the use of tax dollars on economic-development projects that involve or include a business that indicates support of the Chinese Communist Party and its corporate governing documents. I ask for your support of my amendment to ensure tax dollars from hardworking Michigan residents aren’t ending up in the coffers of those allied with an adversarial nation.

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

The motion prevailed.

Senator Polehanki’s statement is as follows:

Today I want to recognize Brandy Rodriguez who is joining me on the floor today. Brandy has worked in my office since last October. She drives here each work day all the way from CMU. Brandy has spent significant time corresponding with constituents, writing tributes, and assisting with keeping our office running efficiently, and in doing so, has been a model of professionalism—while still being fierce and extra.

Today is her last day and I just want to say thank you, Brandy, for your service to Senate District No. 5.

Recess

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

The motion prevailed, the time being 10:21 a.m.

10:32 a.m.

The Senate was called to order by the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist.

Senator Singh moved to reconsider the vote by which the following bill was passed:

Senate Bill No. 194, entitled

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

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

Roll Call No. 262 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

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

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cavanagh’s statement is as follows:

I rise today in support of Senate Bill No. 194. This budget reflects a truly once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity and allows us to reimagine how we think about economic development that will have lasting impacts for generations to come. It gives supports to Michigan’s workers, preparing them and our state to be on the forefront of a changing industrial economy. It reflects the importance of investing in the upward mobility of our residents, businesses, and communities. In this budget, we are prioritizing the quality of economic development in our state, ensuring the projects we attract are prepared to meet the needs of our state, environment, and communities. Not only have we developed standards such as community benefits, environmental equity, and first-hiring provisions of businesses we are welcoming to the state, but we also made identical transformational investment in our communities focusing on talent attraction and retention, small businesses and support, infrastructure, affordable and attainable housing, and other critical areas needed within our districts and communities.

This budget prioritizes success and much-needed supports for our small businesses, hubs, and startups. It makes once-in-a-lifetime investments in our public infrastructure that our locals have been begging for for years. It supports programs that create, highlight, and revitalize the arts, culture, and vibrant history our districts, communities, and state has to offer.

From investments in our workers, entrepreneurs, standards we hold to welcoming businesses, transformational opportunity to providing avenues of supportive funding to the most basic and necessary needs our residents, workers, and families need for success—from affordable housing, adult literacy, child savings accounts, immigrant services, removing barriers to secondary education, wraparound services, and programs for our youth and most at-risk communities.

We are looking ahead to Michigan as the leader of innovation and new technology making major investments in preparing our workforce, infrastructure, and communities for the next generation of innovation. While this budget focuses on key aspects of economic development and mobility, talent attraction, and retention, it also emphasizes transparency throughout the budget process which will create a higher standard than budgets previously and reporting requirements for projects within the budget. We are making once-in-a-lifetime investments and will alter not only how we approach economic development, but Michigan’s standing as a national leader in talent, innovation, and future technology. This budget moves Michigan to be not only a great place to live, work, and play, but to grow, learn, and succeed. I urge a “yes” vote on this budget.

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

Senate Bill No. 174

Senate Bill No. 291

Senate Bill No. 289

Senate Bill No. 173

Senate Bill No. 219

The motion prevailed.

Senate Bill No. 174, entitled

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

Roll Call No. 263 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senate Bill No. 291, entitled

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

Roll Call No. 264 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senate Bill No. 289, entitled

A bill to amend 1996 PA 381, entitled “Brownfield redevelopment financing act,” by amending sections 2, 8a, 11, 13, 13b, 13c, 14a, 15, and 16 (MCL 125.2652, 125.2658a, 125.2661, 125.2663, 125.2663b, 125.2663c, 125.2664a, 125.2665, and 125.2666), section 2 as amended by 2022 PA 178, sections 8a and 11 as amended by 2017 PA 46, sections 13, 13b, 15, and 16 as amended by 2020 PA 259, and sections 13c and 14a as amended by 2021 PA 138.

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

1. Amend page 63, line 14, after “shall” by striking out the balance of the line through “225,000.” on line 17 and inserting “ensure that both of the following requirements are met:

(i) Not less than 33% and not more than 38% of the total transformational brownfield plans approved under this act before December 31, 2027 will be located in cities, villages, and townships with a population of less than 100,000.

(ii) Not less than 33% and not more than 38% of the total transformational brownfield plans approved under this act before December 31, 2027 will be located in cities, villages, and townships with a population of not less than 100,000 and not more than 225,000.”.

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

Roll Call No. 265 Yeas—25

Anthony Damoose McBroom Santana

Bayer Geiss McCann Shink

Brinks Hauck McDonald Rivet Singh

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Victory

Cavanagh Huizenga Moss Webber

Cherry Klinefelt Polehanki Wojno

Daley

Nays—13

Albert Hoitenga Lauwers Outman

Bellino Irwin Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Theis

Chang

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:

Protest

Senator Runestad, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 289 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

If legislators are going to subsidize developers, the subsidy should be part of the budget. If not, they should be subject to limits. This bill keeps subsidies to select developers out of the budget and increases the limit amounts. The Legislature should keep control of state fiscal policy, and this bill defers too much control over spending to administrators. I encourage my colleagues to be more skeptical of the effectiveness of developer subsidies. Recipients are going to collect large checks from taxpayers and they ought to be held to a high standard of success for what is ostensibly labeled a transformational development should be required to live up to the label. If we are saying that special treatment is necessary to transform these local cities then we should require improvement in the city’s economic performance.

Senators Huizenga and Moss asked and was granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Huizenga’s statement is as follows:

This amendment ensures equal distribution of grants from the Brownfield Redevelopment Program based on regional population. All of us here in this chamber share a common goal to make Michigan a better place to live, work, and raise a family. As such, it’s important that we support public policy that acts as a tide that lifts all boats, ensuring fair regional distribution for transformational redevelopment funds as part of this brownfield program is certain to benefit our state. I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this amendment.

Senator Moss’ statement is as follows:

I’m here to rise in support of this bill because we are having this debate on economic development and I think it’s important to uplift the programs that work, and our local communities are excited that we are updating the successful and creative transformational brownfield program. There is no other program designed for, or capable of, supporting brownfield redevelopments to this scale and impact. It works, and the previous speaker should listen to this. It works by reinvesting a portion of the new tax revenues from a completed project back into the project in order to make the redevelopment financially feasible.

It requires the development to produce before there is any incentive that takes place. There must be construction; there must be work; there must be jobs; and it must result in a mixed-use development of commercial space, much-needed new residential units, shops, eateries, and green space.

It also takes into account the diverse needs of communities of different sizes and geographic locations. This tool has spurred critical redevelopment in Detroit, and our committee heard from the local leaders in large communities like Grand Rapids, in midsize and rebounding communities like Pontiac in my district, and small communities that, but for this program, cannot put obsolete, vacant land back to proper use. This is a tool that will help keep and attract talent here, grow our population, and create the kind of vibrant locations that people want to live in, while retaining local input and control that communities are looking for.

I am proud of the work that we’ve engaged in with this bill and let’s keep the lifeline of this program going. I request a “yes” vote.

Senate Bill No. 173, entitled

A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled “The state school aid act of 1979,” by amending sections 3, 4, 6, 6a, 11, 11a, 11j, 11k, 11m, 11s, 11x, 15, 19, 20, 20d, 20f, 21f, 21h, 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d, 22m, 22p, 23a, 24, 24a, 25f, 25g, 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d, 27a, 27b, 27c, 28, 31a, 31d, 31f, 31j, 31n, 31p, 31aa, 32d, 32n, 32p, 32t, 35a, 35d, 39, 39a, 41, 41b, 51a, 51c, 51d, 51e, 51g, 53a, 54, 54b, 54d, 55, 56, 61a, 61b, 61c, 61d, 62, 65, 67, 67a, 67d, 74, 81, 94, 94a, 95b, 97a, 98, 99h, 99s, 99t, 99u, 99x, 99ee, 101, 104, 104f, 104h, 107, 121, 147, 147a, 147b, 147c, 147e, 152a, 152b, and 163 (MCL 388.1603, 388.1604, 388.1606, 388.1606a, 388.1611, 388.1611a, 388.1611j, 388.1611k, 388.1611m, 388.1611s, 388.1611x, 388.1615, 388.1619, 388.1620, 388.1620d, 388.1620f, 388.1621f, 388.1621h, 388.1622a, 388.1622b, 388.1622c, 388.1622d, 388.1622m, 388.1622p, 388.1623a, 388.1624, 388.1624a, 388.1625f, 388.1625g, 388.1626a, 388.1626b, 388.1626c, 388.1626d, 388.1627a, 388.1627b, 388.1627c, 388.1628, 388.1631a, 388.1631d, 388.1631f, 388.1631j, 388.1631n, 388.1631p, 388.1631aa, 388.1632d, 388.1632n, 388.1632p, 388.1632t, 388.1635a, 388.1635d, 388.1639, 388.1639a, 388.1641, 388.1641b, 388.1651a, 388.1651c, 388.1651d, 388.1651e, 388.1651g, 388.1653a, 388.1654, 388.1654b, 388.1654d, 388.1655, 388.1656, 388.1661a, 388.1661b, 388.1661c, 388.1661d, 388.1662, 388.1665, 388.1667, 388.1667a, 388.1667d, 388.1674, 388.1681, 388.1694, 388.1694a, 388.1695b, 388.1697a, 388.1698, 388.1699h, 388.1699s, 388.1699t, 388.1699u, 388.1699x, 388.1699ee, 388.1701, 388.1704, 388.1704f, 388.1704h, 388.1707, 388.1721, 388.1747, 388.1747a, 388.1747b, 388.1747c, 388.1747e, 388.1752a, 388.1752b, and 388.1763), sections 3, 6, 6a, 11a, 11j, 11k, 11m, 11s, 15, 20, 20d, 20f, 21f, 21h, 22a, 22c, 22d, 22m, 22p, 24, 24a, 25f, 25g, 26a, 26b, 26c, 26d, 28, 31a, 31d, 31j, 31n, 31p, 32d, 32p, 35a, 35d, 39, 41, 51d, 51g, 54b, 54d, 55, 61a, 61b, 61c, 61d, 62, 65, 67, 67a, 74, 81, 94, 94a, 95b, 97a, 98, 99h, 99s, 99t, 99u, 99x, 101, 104, 104f, 104h, 107, 147, 147a, 147b, 147e, 152a, and 152b as amended and sections 11x, 27a, 27b, 27c, 31aa, 32n, 32t, 41b, 51e, 67d, and 99ee as added by 2022 PA 144, sections 4 and 19 as amended by 2021 PA 48, sections 11, 22b, 31f, 39a, 51a, 51c, 53a, 54, and 147c as amended by 2023 PA 3, section 23a as amended by 2020 PA 22, section 56 as amended by 2022 PA 212, section 121 as amended by 2006 PA 342, and section 163 as amended by 2021 PA 15, and by adding sections 11v, 11z, 12a, 12c, 23g, 27g, 27k, 27l, 27n, 27o, 27p, 27q, 30d, 31k, 31l, 31ff, 32e, 32m, 33, 35k, 35l, 35m, 61j, 61k, 61l, 61m, 67f, 74b, 97g, 98d, 99a, 99b, 99c, 99d, 99e, 99f, 99g, 99n, 99ff, 99gg, 99hh, and 99ii; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

Senator Albert offered the following substitute:

Substitute (S-2).

The substitute was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

Senator Albert offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 14, line 9, by striking out subparagraph (iv).

2. Amend page 25, line 19, by striking out subdivision (mm).

3. Amend page 29, line 17, after “K to 12” by striking out “ and pupils enrolled in a district pre-K program under section 32e that meets the requirements of section 32e”.

4. Amend page 29, line 28, after “1.0” by striking out the comma and “or, for a pupil who is enrolled in a district pre-K program under section 32e, 1.2”.

5. Amend page 30, line 6, after “1.0” by striking out the comma and “or, for a pupil who is enrolled in a district pre-K program under section 32e, 1.2”.

6. Amend page 30, line 13, after “1.0” by striking out the comma and “or, for a pupil who is enrolled in a district pre-K program under section 32e, 1.2”.

7. Amend page 30, line 19, after “1.0” by striking out the comma and “or, for a pupil who is enrolled in a district pre-K program under section 32e, 1.2”.

8. Amend page 174, line 14, by removing section 32d from the bill and inserting:

“Sec. 32d. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated to eligible intermediate districts and consortia of intermediate districts for great start readiness programs an amount not to exceed ~~$369,120,000.00~~ $642,020,000.00 for 2022-2023. In addition, from the federal funding appropriated in section 11, there is allocated for 2022-2023 an amount not to exceed $83,000,000.00 from the federal funding awarded to this state from the coronavirus state fiscal recovery fund under the American rescue plan act of 2021, title IX, subtitle M of Public Law 117-2, to eligible intermediate districts and consortia of intermediate districts for great start readiness programs. 2023-2024. An intermediate district or consortium shall use funds allocated under this section for great start readiness programs to provide part-day, school-day, or GSRP/Head Start blended comprehensive free compensatory classroom programs designed to improve the readiness and subsequent achievement of educationally disadvantaged children who meet the participant eligibility and prioritization guidelines as defined by the department. For a child to be eligible to participate in a program under this section, the child must be at least 4, but less than 5, years of age as of September 1 of the school year in which the program is offered and must meet those eligibility and prioritization guidelines. A child who is not 4 years of age as of September 1, but who will be 4 years of age not later than December 1, is eligible to participate if the child’s parent or legal guardian seeks a waiver from the September 1 eligibility date by submitting a request for enrollment in a program to the responsible intermediate district, if the program has capacity on or after September 1 of the school year, and if the child meets eligibility and prioritization guidelines.

(2) From the state school aid fund money allocated under subsection (1), an amount not to exceed ~~$367,120,000.00 and from the federal funds allocated under subsection (1), an amount not to exceed $83,000,000.00~~ $640,020,000.00 is allocated for 2023-2024 to intermediate districts or consortia of intermediate districts based on the formula in section 39. An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts receiving funding under this section shall act as the fiduciary for the great start readiness programs. An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts receiving funding under this section may collaborate with local governments to identify children eligible for programs funded under this section and may contract with local governments to provide services. In order to be eligible to receive funds allocated under this subsection from an intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts, a district, a consortium of districts, a local government, or a public or private for-profit or nonprofit legal entity or agency must comply with this section and section 39. The funds allocated under this subsection for 2022-2023 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for 2022-2023 are carried forward into 2023-2024. The purpose of the work project is to continue to improve access to preschool programming for economically disadvantaged children. The estimated completion date of the work project described in the immediately preceding sentence is September 30, 2024. The funds allocated under this subsection for 2023-2024 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for 2023-2024 are carried forward into 2024-2025. The purpose of the work project is to continue to improve access to preschool programming for economically disadvantaged children. The estimated completion date of the work project described in the immediately preceding sentence is September 30, 2025.

(3) In addition to the allocation under subsection (1), from the general fund money appropriated under section 11, there is allocated an amount not to exceed ~~$350,000.00 for 2022-2023~~ $600,000.00 for 2023-2024 for a competitive grant to continue a longitudinal evaluation of children who have participated in great start readiness programs.

(4) To be eligible for funding under this section, a program must prepare children for success in school through comprehensive part-day, school-day, or GSRP/Head Start blended programs that contain all of the following program components, as determined by the department:

(a) Participation in a collaborative recruitment and enrollment process to assure that each child is enrolled in the program most appropriate to his or her needs and to maximize the use of federal, state, and local funds.

(b) An age-appropriate educational curriculum that is in compliance with the early childhood standards of quality for prekindergarten children adopted by the state board, including, at least, the Connect4Learning curriculum.

(d) Physical and dental health and developmental screening services for all program participants.

(e) Referral services for families of program participants to community social service agencies, including mental health services, as appropriate.

(f) Active and continuous involvement of the parents or guardians of the program participants.

(g) A plan to conduct and report annual great start readiness program evaluations and continuous improvement plans using criteria approved by the department.

(h) Participation in a school readiness advisory committee convened as a workgroup of the great start collaborative that provides for the involvement of classroom teachers, parents or guardians of program participants, and community, volunteer, and social service agencies and organizations, as appropriate. The advisory committee annually shall review and make recommendations regarding the program components listed in this subsection. The advisory committee also shall make recommendations to the great start collaborative regarding other community services designed to improve all children’s school readiness.

(i) The ongoing articulation of the kindergarten and first grade programs offered by the program provider.

(j) Participation in this state’s great start to quality process with a rating of at least ~~3 stars.~~enhancing quality level.

(5) An application for funding under this section must provide for the following, in a form and manner determined by the department:

(a) Ensure compliance with all program components described in subsection (4).

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, ensure that at least 85% of the children participating in an eligible great start readiness program for whom the intermediate district is receiving funds under this section are children who live with families with a household income that is equal to or less than 250% of the federal poverty guidelines. If the intermediate district determines that all eligible children are being served and that there are no children on the waiting list who live with families with a household income that is equal to or less than 250% of the federal poverty guidelines, the intermediate district may then enroll children who live with families with a household income that is equal to or less than 300% of the federal poverty guidelines. The enrollment process must consider income and risk factors, such that children determined with higher need are enrolled before children with lesser need. For purposes of this subdivision, all age-eligible children served in foster care or who are experiencing homelessness or who have individualized education programs recommending placement in an inclusive preschool setting are considered to live with families with household income equal to or less than 250% of the federal poverty guidelines regardless of actual family income and are prioritized for enrollment within the lowest quintile.

(i) Teachers possessing proper training. A lead teacher must have a valid Michigan teaching certificate with an early childhood or lower elementary endorsement or a bachelor’s or higher degree in child development or early childhood education with specialization in preschool teaching. However, if an applicant demonstrates to the department that it is unable to fully comply with this subparagraph after making reasonable efforts to comply, teachers or paraprofessionals with at least 5 years of experience as a paraprofessional in a great start readiness program classroom who have significant but incomplete training in early childhood education or child development may be used if the applicant provides to the department, and the department approves, a plan for each teacher to come into compliance with the standards in this subparagraph. A teacher’s compliance plan must be completed within 3 years of the date of employment. Progress toward completion of the compliance plan consists of at least 2 courses per calendar year.

(ii) Paraprofessionals possessing proper training in early childhood education, including an associate degree in early childhood education or child development or the equivalent, or a child development associate (CDA) credential. However, if an applicant demonstrates to the department that it is unable to fully comply with this subparagraph after making reasonable efforts to comply, the applicant may use paraprofessionals who have completed at least 1 course that earns college credit in early childhood education or child development if the applicant provides to the department, and the department approves, a plan for each paraprofessional to come into compliance with the standards in this subparagraph. A paraprofessional’s compliance plan must be completed within 3 years of the date of employment. Progress toward completion of the compliance plan consists of at least 2 courses or 60 clock hours of training per calendar year.

(d) Include a program budget that contains only those costs that are not reimbursed or reimbursable by federal funding, that are clearly and directly attributable to the great start readiness program, and that would not be incurred if the program were not being offered. Eligible costs include transportation costs. The program budget must indicate the extent to which these funds will supplement other federal, state, local, or private funds. An applicant shall not use funds received under this section to supplant any federal funds received by the applicant to serve children eligible for a federally funded preschool program that has the capacity to serve those children.

(6) For a grant recipient that enrolls pupils in a school-day program funded under this section, each child enrolled in the school-day program is counted as described in section 39 for purposes of determining the amount of the grant award.

(7) For a grant recipient that enrolls pupils in a GSRP/Head Start blended program, the grant recipient shall ensure that all Head Start and GSRP policies and regulations are applied to the blended slots, with adherence to the highest standard from either program, to the extent allowable under federal law.

(8) An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts receiving a grant under this section shall designate an early childhood coordinator, and may provide services directly or may contract with 1 or more districts or public or private for-profit or nonprofit providers that meet all requirements of subsections (4) and (5).

(9) An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts may retain for administrative services provided by the intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts an amount not to exceed 4% of the grant amount. Expenses incurred by subrecipients engaged by the intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts for directly running portions of the program are considered program costs or a contracted program fee for service. Subrecipients operating with a federally approved indirect rate for other early childhood programs may include indirect costs, not to exceed the federal 10% de minimis.

(10) An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts may expend not more than 2% of the total grant amount for outreach, recruiting, and public awareness of the program.

(11) Each grant recipient shall enroll children identified under subsection (5)(b) according to how far the child’s household income is below 250% of the federal poverty guidelines by ranking each applicant child’s household income from lowest to highest and dividing the applicant children into quintiles based on how far the child’s household income is below 250% of the federal poverty guidelines, and then enrolling children in the quintile with the lowest household income before enrolling children in the quintile with the next lowest household income until slots are completely filled. If the grant recipient determines that all eligible children are being served and that there are no children on the waiting list who live with families with a household income that is equal to or less than 250% of the federal poverty guidelines, the grant recipient may then enroll children who live with families with a household income that is equal to or less than 300% of the federal poverty guidelines. The enrollment process must consider income and risk factors, such that children determined with higher need are enrolled before children with lesser need. For purposes of this subsection, all age-eligible children served in foster care or who are experiencing homelessness or who have individualized education programs recommending placement in an inclusive preschool setting are considered to live with families with household income equal to or less than 250% of the federal poverty guidelines regardless of actual family income and are prioritized for enrollment within the lowest quintile.

(12) An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts receiving a grant under this section shall allow parents of eligible children who are residents of the intermediate district or within the consortium to choose a program operated by or contracted with another intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts and shall enter into a written agreement regarding payment, in a manner prescribed by the department.

(13) An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts receiving a grant under this section shall conduct a local process to contract with interested and eligible public and private for-profit and nonprofit community-based providers that meet all requirements of subsection (4) for at least 30% of its total allocation. For the purposes of this 30% allocation, an intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts may count children served by a Head Start grantee or delegate in a blended Head Start and great start readiness school-day program. Children served in a program funded only through Head Start are not counted toward this 30% allocation. The intermediate district or consortium shall report to the department, in a manner prescribed by the department, a detailed list of community-based providers by provider type, including private for-profit, private nonprofit, community college or university, Head Start grantee or delegate, and district or intermediate district, and the number and proportion of its total allocation allocated to each provider as subrecipient. If the intermediate district or consortium is not able to contract for at least 30% of its total allocation, the grant recipient shall notify the department and, if the department verifies that the intermediate district or consortium attempted to contract for at least 30% of its total allocation and was not able to do so, then the intermediate district or consortium may retain and use all of its allocation as provided under this section. To be able to use this exemption, the intermediate district or consortium shall demonstrate to the department that the intermediate district or consortium increased the percentage of its total allocation for which it contracts with a community-based provider and the intermediate district or consortium shall submit evidence satisfactory to the department, and the department must be able to verify this evidence, demonstrating that the intermediate district or consortium took measures to contract for at least 30% of its total allocation as required under this subsection, including, but not limited to, at least all of the following measures:

(a) The intermediate district or consortium notified each nonparticipating licensed child care center located in the service area of the intermediate district or consortium regarding the center’s eligibility to participate, in a manner prescribed by the department.

(b) The intermediate district or consortium provided to each nonparticipating licensed child care center located in the service area of the intermediate district or consortium information regarding great start readiness program requirements and a description of the application and selection process for community-based providers.

(c) The intermediate district or consortium provided to the public and to participating families a list of community-based great start readiness program subrecipients with a great start to quality rating of at least ~~3 stars.~~enhancing quality level.

(14) If an intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts receiving a grant under this section fails to submit satisfactory evidence to demonstrate its effort to contract for at least 30% of its total allocation, as required under subsection (13), the department shall reduce the allocation to the intermediate district or consortium by a percentage equal to the difference between the percentage of an intermediate district’s or consortium’s total allocation awarded to community-based providers and 30% of its total allocation.

(15) In order to assist intermediate districts and consortia in complying with the requirement to contract with community-based providers for at least 30% of their total allocation, the department shall do all of the following:

(a) Ensure that a great start resource center or the department provides each intermediate district or consortium receiving a grant under this section with the contact information for each licensed child care center located in the service area of the intermediate district or consortium by March 1 of each year.

(b) Provide, or ensure that an organization with which the department contracts provides, a community-based provider with a validated great start to quality rating within 90 days of the provider’s having submitted a request and self-assessment.

(c) Ensure that all intermediate district, district, community college or university, Head Start grantee or delegate, private for-profit, and private nonprofit providers are subject to a single great start to quality rating system. The rating system must ensure that regulators process all prospective providers at the same pace on a first-come, first-served basis and must not allow 1 type of provider to receive a great start to quality rating ahead of any other type of provider.

(d) Not later than March 1 of each year, compile the results of the information reported by each intermediate district or consortium under subsection (13) and report to the legislature a list by intermediate district or consortium with the number and percentage of each intermediate district’s or consortium’s total allocation allocated to community-based providers by provider type, including private for-profit, private nonprofit, community college or university, Head Start grantee or delegate, and district or intermediate district.

(16) A recipient of funds under this section shall report to the center in a form and manner prescribed by the center the information necessary to derive the number of children participating in the program who meet the program eligibility criteria under subsection (5)(b), the number of eligible children not participating in the program and on a waitlist, and the total number of children participating in the program by various demographic groups and eligibility factors necessary to analyze equitable and priority access to services for the purposes of subsection (3).

(17) As used in this section:

(a) “GSRP/Head Start blended program” means a part-day program funded under this section and a Head Start program, which are combined for a school-day program.

(b) “Federal poverty guidelines” means the guidelines published annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under its authority to revise the poverty line under 42 USC 9902.

(c) “Part-day program” means a program that operates at least 4 5 days per week, 30 36 weeks per year, for at least 3 hours of teacher-child contact time per day but for fewer hours of teacher-child contact time per day than a school-day program.

(d) “School-day program” means a program that operates for at least the same length of day as a district’s first grade program for a minimum of 4 5 days per week, 30 36 weeks per year. A classroom that offers a school-day program must enroll all children for the school day to be considered a school-day program.

(18) An intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts receiving funds under this section shall establish and charge tuition according to a sliding scale of tuition rates based upon household income for children participating in an eligible great start readiness program who live with families with a household income that is more than 250% of the federal poverty guidelines to be used by all of its providers, as approved by the department.

(19) From the amount allocated in subsection (2), there is allocated for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 an amount not to exceed $10,000,000.00 for reimbursement of transportation costs for children attending great start readiness programs funded under this section. To receive reimbursement under this subsection, not later than November 1 of each year, a program funded under this section that provides transportation shall submit to the intermediate district that is the fiscal agent for the program a projected transportation budget. The amount of the reimbursement for transportation under this subsection is no more than the projected transportation budget or $300.00 multiplied by the number of children funded for the program under this section. If the amount allocated under this subsection is insufficient to fully reimburse the transportation costs for all programs that provide transportation and submit the required information, the department shall prorate the reimbursement in an equal amount per child funded. The department shall make payments to the intermediate district that is the fiscal agent for each program, and the intermediate district shall then reimburse the program provider for transportation costs as prescribed under this subsection.

(20) Subject to, and from the funds allocated under, subsection (19), the department shall reimburse a program for transportation costs related to parent- or guardian-accompanied transportation provided by transportation service companies, buses, or other public transportation services. To be eligible for reimbursement under this subsection, a program must submit to the intermediate district or consortia of intermediate districts all of the following:

(a) The names of families provided with transportation support along with a documented reason for the need for transportation support and the type of transportation provided.

(b) Financial documentation of actual transportation costs incurred by the program, including, but not limited to, receipts and mileage reports, as determined by the department.

(21) The department shall implement a process to review and approve age-appropriate comprehensive classroom level quality assessments for GSRP grantees that support the early childhood standards of quality for prekindergarten children adopted by the state board. The department shall make available to intermediate districts at least 2 classroom level quality assessments that were approved in 2018.

(22) An intermediate district that is a GSRP grantee may approve the use of a supplemental curriculum that aligns with and enhances the age-appropriate educational curriculum in the classroom. If the department objects to the use of a supplemental curriculum approved by an intermediate district, the superintendent shall establish a review committee independent of the department. The review committee shall meet within 60 days of the department registering its objection in writing and provide a final determination on the validity of the objection within 60 days of the review committee’s first meeting.

(23) The department shall implement a process to evaluate and approve age-appropriate educational curricula that are in compliance with the early childhood standards of quality for prekindergarten children adopted by the state board.

(24) From the funds allocated under subsection (1), there is allocated for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00 for payments to intermediate districts or consortia of intermediate districts for professional development and training materials for educators in programs implementing new curricula or child assessment tools approved for use in the great start readiness program.

(25) A great start readiness program or a GSRP/Head Start blended program funded under this section is permitted to utilize AmeriCorps Pre-K Reading Corps members in classrooms implementing research-based early literacy intervention strategies.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

9. Amend page 190, line 28, by removing section 32e from the bill.

10. Amend page 226, line 29, by removing section 39 from the bill and inserting:

“Sec. 39. (1) An eligible applicant receiving funds under section 32d shall submit an application, in a form and manner prescribed by the department, by a date specified by the department in the immediately preceding fiscal year. An eligible applicant is not required to amend the applicant’s current accounting cycle or adopt this state’s fiscal year accounting cycle in accounting for financial transactions under this section. The application must include all of the following:

(a) The estimated total number of children in the community who meet the criteria of section 32d and the total number of age-eligible children in the community, as provided to the applicant by the department utilizing the most recent population data available from the American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau. The department shall ensure that it provides updated American Community Survey population data at least once every 3 years.

(b) The estimated number of children in the community who meet the criteria of section 32d and are being served exclusively by Head Start programs operating in the community.

(c) The number of children whom the applicant has the capacity to serve who meet the criteria of section 32d including a verification of physical facility and staff resources capacity.

(2) After notification of funding allocations, an applicant receiving funds under section 32d shall also submit an implementation plan for approval, in a form and manner prescribed by the department, by a date specified by the department, that details how the applicant complies with the program components established by the department under section 32d.

(3) The initial allocation to each eligible applicant under section 32d is the lesser of the following:

(a) The sum of the number of children served in a school-day program in the preceding school year multiplied by ~~$9,150.00~~ $14,000.00 and the number of children served in a GSRP/Head Start blended program or a part-day program in the preceding school year multiplied by ~~$4,575.00.~~$7,000.00.

(b) The sum of the number of children the applicant has the capacity to serve in the current school year in a school-day program multiplied by ~~$9,150.00~~ $14,000.00 and the number of children served in a GSRP/Head Start blended program or a part-day program the applicant has the capacity to serve in the current school year multiplied by ~~$4,575.00.~~$7,000.00.

(4) If funds remain after the allocations under subsection (3), the department shall distribute the remaining funds to each intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts that serves less than the state percentage benchmark determined under subsection (5). The department shall distribute these remaining funds to each eligible applicant based upon each applicant’s proportionate share of the remaining unserved children necessary to meet the statewide percentage benchmark in intermediate districts or consortia of intermediate districts serving less than the statewide percentage benchmark. When all applicants have been given the opportunity to reach the statewide percentage benchmark, the statewide percentage benchmark may be reset, as determined by the department, until greater equity of opportunity to serve eligible children across all intermediate school districts has been achieved.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the department shall calculate a percentage of children served by each intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts by adding the number of children served in the immediately preceding year by that intermediate district or consortium with the number of eligible children under section 32d served exclusively by head start, as reported in a form and manner prescribed by the department, within the intermediate district or consortia service area and dividing that total by the total number of children within the intermediate district or consortium of intermediate districts who meet the criteria of section 32d as determined by the department utilizing the most recent population data available from the American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau. The department shall compare the resulting percentage of eligible children served to a statewide percentage benchmark to determine if the intermediate district or consortium is eligible for additional funds under subsection (4). The statewide percentage benchmark is 100%.

(6) If, taking into account the total amount to be allocated to the applicant as calculated under this section, an applicant determines that it is able to include additional eligible children in the great start readiness program without additional funds under section 32d, the applicant may include additional eligible children but does not receive additional funding under section 32d for those children.

(7) The department shall review the program components under section 32d and under this section at least biennially. The department also shall convene a committee of internal and external stakeholders at least once every 5 years to ensure that the funding structure under this section reflects current system needs under section 32d.

(8) As used in this section, “GSRP/Head Start blended program”, “part-day program”, and “school-day program” mean those terms as defined in section 32d.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 44, line 13, by removing section 11z from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 55, line 17, by striking out “$9,700.00.” and inserting “$9,790.00.”.

3. Amend page 88, line 1, by striking out “$6,421,000,000.00” and inserting “$6,549,600,000.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

4. Amend page 129, line 20, by removing section 27n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

5. Amend page 130, line 19, by removing section 27q from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

6. Amend page 207, line 4, by removing section 32t from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

7. Amend page 226, line 21, by removing sections 35l and 35m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

8. Amend page 260, line 18, by striking out all of subsection (5), renumbering the remaining subsections, and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

9. Amend page 263, line 17, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

10. Amend page 263, line 18, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

11. Amend page 263, line 22, after “subsection” by striking out “(7):” and inserting “(6):”.

12. Amend page 276, line 7, by removing sections 61j, 61k, 61l, and 61m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

13. Amend page 315, line 1, by removing section 99f from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

14. Amend page 320, line 21, by removing section 99n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

15. Amend page 330, line 10, by removing sections 99ff, 99gg, 99hh, and 99ii from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 266 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 44, line 13, by removing section 11z from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 129, line 20, by removing section 27n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

3. Amend page 130, line 19, by removing section 27q from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

4. Amend page 207, line 4, by removing section 32t from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

5. Amend page 226, line 21, by removing sections 35l and 35m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

6. Amend page 260, line 18, by striking out all of subsection (5), renumbering the remaining subsections, and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

7. Amend page 263, line 17, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

8. Amend page 263, line 18, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

9. Amend page 263, line 22, after “subsection” by striking out “(7):” and inserting “(6):”.

10. Amend page 276, line 7, by removing sections 61j, 61k, 61l, and 61m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

11. Amend page 299, following line 4, by inserting:

“Sec. 97. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated ~~$150,000,000.00~~ $128,600,000.00 for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only, and from the general fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated ~~$18,000,000.00~~ $12,860,000.00 for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only, to provide payments to districts and nonpublic schools for activities to improve student safety. Allowable expenditures of funds allocated under this section include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Coordination with local law enforcement.

(b) Training for school staff on threat assessment.

(d) Training for school staff on crisis communication.

(e) Safety infrastructure, including, but not limited to, cameras, door blocks, hardened vestibules, window screening, and technology necessary to operate buzzer systems. This may also include firearm detection software that integrates to existing security cameras to detect and alert school personnel and first responders to visible firearms on school property. The software described in the immediately preceding sentence must be organically developed and proprietary to the company it is purchased from and should not include any third-party or open-source data.

(f) Age-appropriate training for students and families on responsible gun ownership.

(g) Providing professional development to school resource officers that includes training on the best practices for serving in a school setting.

(h) Any other school safety service or product necessary to improve or maintain security in buildings.

(2) From the state school aid fund money allocated in subsection (1), the department shall make payments to districts in an equal amount per pupil based on the total number of pupils in membership in each district. From the general fund money allocated in subsection (1), the department shall make payments to nonpublic schools in an equal amount per pupil, using pupil counts determined by the department. The department shall ensure that the amount per pupil paid to nonpublic schools does not exceed the amount per pupil paid to districts.

(3) If funding remains after the distribution of funds described in subsection (2), the department may provide additional per-pupil allocations to allocate remaining funding, using for those calculations the same requirements described in subsection (2).

(4) To receive funding under this section, districts and nonpublic schools must apply for the funding in a form and manner prescribed by the department. As part of the application process described in this subsection, districts and nonpublic schools must document how they will use community input to guide the expenditure of these funds and must commit to hosting at least 1 community conversation about school safety and student mental health.

(5) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

12. Amend page 315, line 1, by removing section 99f from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

13. Amend page 320, line 21, by removing section 99n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

14. Amend page 330, line 10, by removing sections 99ff, 99gg, 99hh, and 99ii from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

15. Amend page 382, line 23, after “67e,” by striking out “97,”.

16. Amend page 382, line 29, after “388.1667e,” by striking out “388.1697,”.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 267 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 44, line 13, by removing section 11z from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 129, line 20, by removing section 27n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

3. Amend page 130, line 19, by removing section 27q from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

4. Amend page 160, line 16, by striking out “$106,545,000.00” and inserting “$235,145,000.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

5. Amend page 163, line 1, after “exceed” by striking out “$87,245,000.00” and inserting “$215,845,000.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

6. Amend page 164, line 1, after “remaining” by striking out “$31,071,400.00” and inserting “$159,671,400.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

7. Amend page 207, line 4, by removing section 32t from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

8. Amend page 226, line 21, by removing sections 35l and 35m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

9. Amend page 260, line 18, by striking out all of subsection (5), renumbering the remaining subsections, and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

10. Amend page 263, line 17, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

11. Amend page 263, line 18, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

12. Amend page 263, line 22, after “subsection” by striking out “(7):” and inserting “(6):”.

13. Amend page 276, line 7, by removing sections 61j, 61k, 61l, and 61m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

14. Amend page 315, line 1, by removing section 99f from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

15. Amend page 320, line 21, by removing section 99n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

16. Amend page 330, line 10, by removing sections 99ff, 99gg, 99hh, and 99ii from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 268 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 44, line 13, by removing section 11z from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 103, line 25, after “exceed” by striking out “$100,000,000.00” and inserting “$228,600,000.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

3. Amend page 129, line 20, by removing section 27n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

4. Amend page 130, line 19, by removing section 27q from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

5. Amend page 207, line 4, by removing section 32t from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

6. Amend page 226, line 21, by removing sections 35l and 35m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

7. Amend page 260, line 18, by striking out all of subsection (5), renumbering the remaining subsections, and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

8. Amend page 263, line 17, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

9. Amend page 263, line 18, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

10. Amend page 263, line 22, after “subsection” by striking out “(7):” and inserting “(6):”.

11. Amend page 276, line 7, by removing sections 61j, 61k, 61l, and 61m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

12. Amend page 315, line 1, by removing section 99f from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

13. Amend page 320, line 21, by removing section 99n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

14. Amend page 330, line 10, by removing sections 99ff, 99gg, 99hh, and 99ii from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 269 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 44, line 13, by removing section 11z from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 129, line 20, by removing section 27n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

3. Amend page 130, line 19, by removing section 27q from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

4. Amend page 131, line 26, after “reimbursement,” by striking out “$37,611,300.00” and inserting “$132,507,000.00”.

5. Amend page 207, line 4, by removing section 32t from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

6. Amend page 226, line 21, by removing sections 35l and 35m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

7. Amend page 260, line 18, by striking out all of subsection (5), renumbering the remaining subsections, and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

8. Amend page 263, line 17, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

9. Amend page 263, line 18, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

10. Amend page 263, line 22, after “subsection” by striking out “(7):” and inserting “(6):”.

11. Amend page 264, line 3, after “exceed” by striking out “$37,611,300.00” and inserting “$132,507,000.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

12. Amend page 272, line 23, after “exceed” by striking out “$15,000,000.00” and inserting “$20,873,300.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

13. Amend page 276, following line 6, by inserting:

“Sec. 61i. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only an amount not to exceed ~~$10,000,000.00~~ $27,831,000.00 to eligible intermediate districts as provided under this section.

(2) To receive funding under this section, an intermediate district must apply for the funding in a form and manner prescribed by the department.

(3) The department shall not allocate more than 1% of the total funding allocated under this section to an eligible intermediate district in the first round of funding under this section.

(4) An intermediate district that meets either of the following is an eligible intermediate district under this section:

(a) It has a CTE teacher on staff.

(b) It pledges in its application described in subsection (2) to hire a CTE teacher.

(5) An eligible intermediate district that receives funding under this section shall use the funding only for the recruitment of, retention of, and coverage of continued education costs for CTE teachers.

(6) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department.

(7) Funds allocated under this section for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 are carried forward into ~~2023-2024.~~ 2024-2025. The purpose of the work project is to continue providing funding for the recruitment of, retention of, and coverage of continued education costs for CTE teachers as described in this section. The estimated completion date of the work project is September 30, ~~2024.~~2025.

(8) As used in this section, “CTE” means career and technical education.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

14. Amend page 276, line 7, by removing sections 61j, 61k, 61l, and 61m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

15. Amend page 315, line 1, by removing section 99f from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

16. Amend page 320, line 21, by removing section 99n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

17. Amend page 330, line 10, by removing sections 99ff, 99gg, 99hh, and 99ii from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 270 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

1. Amend page 44, line 13, by removing section 11z from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 93, line 29, by striking out “$11,689,500.00” and inserting “$140,289,500.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

3. Amend page 94, line 4, by striking out “$3,536,600.00” and inserting “$42,443,900.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

4. Amend page 95, line 4, after “exceed” by striking out “$6,738,400.00” and inserting “$80,869,700.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

5. Amend page 95, line 9, after “to” by striking out “$5,798,600.00” and inserting “$69,590,900.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

6. Amend page 95, line 27, after “exceed” by striking out “$914,500.00” and inserting “$10,975,200.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

7. Amend page 96, line 5, after “exceed” by striking out “$500,000.00” and inserting “$6,000,700.00” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

8. Amend page 129, line 20, by removing section 27n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

9. Amend page 130, line 19, by removing section 27q from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

10. Amend page 131, line 19, by striking out “$11,689,500.00” and inserting “$140,289,500.00”.

11. Amend page 207, line 4, by removing section 32t from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

12. Amend page 226, line 21, by removing sections 35l and 35m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

13. Amend page 260, line 18, by striking out all of subsection (5), renumbering the remaining subsections, and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

14. Amend page 263, line 17, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

15. Amend page 263, line 18, after “and” by striking out “(7),” and inserting “(6),”.

16. Amend page 263, line 22, after “subsection” by striking out “(7):” and inserting “(6):”.

17. Amend page 276, line 7, by removing sections 61j, 61k, 61l, and 61m from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

18. Amend page 315, line 1, by removing section 99f from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

19. Amend page 320, line 21, by removing section 99n from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

20. Amend page 330, line 10, by removing sections 99ff, 99gg, 99hh, and 99ii from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 271 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Theis offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 209, following line 21, by inserting:

“Sec. 34a. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated $75,000,000.00 for 2023-2024 to Grand Valley State University for, subject to subsection (7), the purposes described in subsections (2) and (3) to address learning loss among students, including, but not limited to, low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care, by providing information and assistance to parents and families to effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment.

(2) Subject to subsection (7), Grand Valley State University shall use the funding it receives under subsection (1) toward the establishment of a grant program as provided under this subsection. By not later than August 1, 2023, Grand Valley State University shall establish a grant program for reading scholarships to eligible children.

(3) Grand Valley State University shall directly apply funding it receives under subsection (1) for each eligible child as a reading scholarship described in subsection (2) toward the payment of eligible services selected by the eligible child’s parent or legal guardian in the application described in subsection (5). Grand Valley State University may apply funding under subsection (1) only toward eligible services, as provided under this subsection, for eligible children. Grand Valley State University may apply, from the funding under subsection (1), only an amount not to exceed $1,000.00 for each eligible child.

(4) Grand Valley State University shall develop a catalog of eligible services and shall provide this catalog to the parent or legal guardian of each eligible child. The catalog developed under this subsection must be provided to all districts and must be available to the general public through Grand Valley State University’s website homepage. The catalog described in this subsection must include only services that provide any of the following that are designed to improve reading or literacy:

(a) Instructional materials or curricula.

(b) Part-time tutoring services.

(c) Specialized summer education programming.

(d) After-school education programming.

(5) Grand Valley State University shall establish an application process for applicants to apply for reading scholarships through the grant program described in subsection (2). The application process must provide for both of the following:

(a) The verification of the identity of the eligible child’s parent or legal guardian.

(b) A requirement that the parent or legal guardian of the eligible child who is seeking the reading scholarship select, from the catalog developed under subsection (4), which services the parent or legal guardian would like his or her child to participate in through the reading scholarship.

(6) A child to whom all of the following apply is an eligible child under this section:

(a) The child is enrolled in kindergarten or any of grades 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in a district.

(b) The child is less than proficient in reading, based on available assessment data, including benchmark assessment data and state summative assessment data.

(c) The child has applied for a reading scholarship through the grant program described in subsection (2) through the application process described in subsection (5).

(7) From the funding allocated under subsection (1), an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00 may be utilized by Grand Valley State University for administrative costs associated with the administration of the grant program described in subsection (2). Grand Valley State University may charge a fee not exceeding 3% of the total administrative costs associated with the administration of the grant program described in subsection (2) for each application submitted through the process described in subsection (5).

(8) Each district shall notify the parent and legal guardian of each eligible child enrolled in the district that his or her child meets the criteria of an eligible child under this section.

(9) If the funds allocated under this section are insufficient to provide for reading scholarships under this section in an amount equal to $1,000.00 for each eligible child, Grand Valley State University shall prorate the reading scholarships awarded under this section on an equal dollar basis.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 285, line 25, by removing section 74b from the bill and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 272 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Albert offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 122, line 11, by removing section 27c from the bill and inserting:

“Sec. 27c. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated $50,000,000.00 for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 and, from the general fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated $5,000,000.00 for 2023-2024, for the MI future educator student teacher stipend program. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the funds allocated under this section must be paid to eligible educator preparation programs for payments to eligible student teachers working in a ~~district.~~public school or nonpublic school.

(2) An eligible student teacher under this subsection must meet all of the following:

(a) The individual must be admitted to an eligible educator preparation program, be working toward a teacher certification, be participating in required student teaching coursework, and be maintaining satisfactory academic progress. As used in this subdivision, “required student teaching coursework” means credit hours, or the program equivalent, required by an eligible educator preparation program for successful completion of the program. This coursework must include regular placement in a ~~district~~ public school or nonpublic school where the student gains real-world, first-hand experience working in a classroom, teaching students, engaging in the day-to-day activities of a certified teacher, and working daily under the guidance of a certified teacher.

(b) The individual must timely complete an application in a form and manner prescribed by the department of treasury. The application must include the ~~district~~ public school or nonpublic school in which the individual is working as a student teacher and must include a certification by the ~~district~~ public school or nonpublic school and the individual’s eligible educator preparation program that the student is working as a student teacher. If the individual’s eligible educator preparation program is not provided by a public institution of higher education, the district in which the individual is working must also provide an assurance that they will forward any amount received under this section from the department of treasury for purposes of the program described in this section to the individual’s eligible educator preparation program.

(c) The individual must not have received a payment from funds under this subsection previously, unless the individual is enrolled in an eligible educator preparation program that requires multiple semesters of student teaching.

(d) If an individual is paid by their ~~district,~~ public school or nonpublic school, they are not eligible for payment under this section.

(3) The department of treasury shall pay each eligible educator preparation program an amount not to exceed $9,600.00 per academic semester for each eligible student teacher working in a district. If the individual’s eligible educator preparation program is not provided by a public institution of higher education, the department of treasury shall pay an amount not to exceed $9,600.00 per academic semester to the district in which the individual is working as a student teacher, and that district must forward the amount received to the individual’s eligible educator preparation program. public school or nonpublic school. If funding allocated under this section is insufficient to fully fund all eligible student teachers, the department of treasury shall first award funding for eligible student teachers who are also Pell grant recipients and then shall distribute funding in the order in which applications were received. It is intended that payments under this subsection are made at the beginning of the semester in 1 lump sum for eligible student teachers.

(4) Eligible educator preparation programs shall pay funds received under this section, in entirety, to the eligible student teacher. Eligible student teachers may use these funds for any of the following:

(a) Tuition costs.

(b) Living expenses, including, but not limited to, housing costs, health care costs, and transportation costs.

(d) Any other costs associated with student teaching, as determined by the department of treasury.

(5) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department of treasury shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department of treasury.

(6) As used in this section, “eligible educator preparation program” means an institution of higher education that meets all of the following:

(a) Is a public or private institution of higher education in this state.

(b) Has an established school of education with an educator preparation program approved by the department.

(c) Has not increased tuition and fee rates above the limitations described in section 265.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

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

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

Roll Call No. 273 Yeas—18

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Huizenga Nesbitt Victory

Daley Johnson Outman Webber

Damoose Lauwers

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

The President pro tempore, Senator Moss, resumed the Chair.

Senator Albert offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 117, line 7, after “school” by inserting a comma and “nonpublic school,”.

2. Amend page 117, line 12, after “school” by inserting a comma and “nonpublic school,”.

3. Amend page 117, line 16, after “school” by inserting a comma and “nonpublic school,”.

4. Amend page 117, line 20, after “school” by inserting a comma and “nonpublic school,”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

Senator Lauwers moved that Senator Victory be excused from the balance of today’s session.

The motion prevailed.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 274 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Albert offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 371, line 11, by inserting:

“(2) In addition to the funds allocated under subsection (1), from the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only ~~$1,000,000,000.00~~ $2,000,000,000.00 for payments to participating entities of the Michigan public school employees’ retirement system. The amount allocated to each participating entity under this subsection must be based on each participating entity’s proportion of the total covered payroll for the immediately preceding fiscal year. A participating entity that receives funds under this subsection shall use the funds solely for purposes of this subsection. Each participating entity receiving funds under this subsection shall forward an amount equal to the amount allocated under this subsection to the retirement system in a form, manner, and time frame determined by the retirement system. The retirement system shall recognize funds received under this subsection as additional assets being contributed to the system and shall not categorize them as unfunded actuarial liability contributions or normal cost contributions.”, adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly, and renumbering the remaining subsection.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

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

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

Roll Call No. 275 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Theis offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 299, following line 9, by inserting:

“Sec. 97b. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 an amount not to exceed ~~$25,000,000.00~~ $50,000,000.00 to public schools, districts, and intermediate districts as prescribed in this section.

(2) To receive funding under this section, a public school, district, or intermediate district must apply for the funding to the department of state police, grants and community services division, in a form and manner prescribed by the department of state police, and must pledge, in its application, that it will provide 50% matching funds for the funds it receives under this section.

(3) The department of state police shall not award funding under subsection (1) to a public school, district, or intermediate district in relation to the same school building more than once in a single grant application period. If a district submits an application under subsection (2) relating to a school building and a public school within that district also submits an application for funding in relation to that same school building, the department of state police shall not allocate funding under subsection (1) twice for that school building. If a public school, district, or intermediate district submits more than 1 application, the department of state police shall first consider the most recent application submitted in considering funding under subsection (1).

(4) A public school, district, or intermediate district that receives funding under this section shall use the funding only to ensure that it has at least 1 school resource officer at its school, district, or intermediate district to do 1 or more of the following in his or her service at the school, district, or intermediate district:

(a) Assist school administration in ensuring the physical safety of school buildings of the school, district, or intermediate district and the individuals inside the school buildings.

(b) Work with school administration to develop safety procedures for potential threats in school buildings of the school, district, or intermediate district.

(d) Educate students about law-related topics, as appropriate.

(e) De-escalate aggression that occurs between students or between students and school, district, or intermediate district staff.

(f) Mentor students as advisors and role models.

(5) Funds allocated under this section may be used to hire new school resource officers or to increase the hours for current school resource officers. This funding may be used whether the school resource officers are hired from public employers or from private security companies.

(6) ~~(5)~~ Funds allocated under this section for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for ~~2022~~-~~2023~~ 2023-2024 are carried forward into ~~2023-2024.~~ 2024-2025. The purpose of the work project is to continue providing funding to support public schools, districts, and intermediate districts in having school resource officers at schools, districts, or intermediate districts. The estimated completion date of the work project is September 30, ~~2027.~~2028.

(7) ~~(6)~~ Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department.

(8) ~~(7)~~ As used in this section, “public school” means that term as defined in section 5 of the revised school code, MCL 380.5.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 382, line 23, after “97,” by striking out “97b,”.

3. Amend page 382, line 29, after “388.1697,” by striking out “388.1697b,”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 276 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Bellino offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 60, line 3, after “(1)” by striking out the balance of the line through “$7,760.00.” on line 6 and inserting a period.

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

1. Amend page 171, following line 21, by inserting:

“(l) Automated external defibrillators and trauma kits.” and relettering the remaining subdivisions.

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

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

Roll Call No. 277 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Protests

Senators Anthony, Moss, Camilleri, McCann, Chang, Geiss, Shink, Cavanagh, Hertel, Brinks, McDonald Rivet, Santana, Singh, Klinefelt, Bayer, McMorrow and Wojno, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Theis to Senate Bill No. 173.

Senators Anthony and McMorrow moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the amendment be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Anthony’s statement, in which Senators Moss, Camilleri, McCann, Chang, Geiss, Shink, Cavanagh, Hertel, Brinks, McDonald Rivet, Santana, Singh, Klinefelt, Bayer, McMorrow and Wojno concurred, is as follows:

I rise to oppose this amendment. School safety is a real and serious issue and should not be politicized. Today Saline High School is closed due to a credible school threat. After two elementary school children in Grand Rapids have taken a gun to school in as many weeks, the district has banned backpacks. This is not a time for posturing and quite honestly this amendment really doesn’t offer solutions.

This amendment is so disingenuous and outright insulting to our students and our parents and our schools, but the thing that frustrates me about this amendment is the hypocrisy of it all. I have toured schools all across the state, including here in Lansing, and talked to students and teachers and counselors and principals about ways we can holistically keep our students safe. I’m proud that the product we are discussing now—the budget we will hopefully pass today—does just that. The redundancy of this amendment is one that I just find very concerning because on this Senate floor, many of us took real tangible action to actually curb gun violence in the state of Michigan. Others of us opposed it. So, when we look back just a few months ago after the deadly shooting at Michigan State University, students came to our Capitol, they came to our offices, and they weren’t pleading for elected officials to lift up frivolous amendments. They asked us for action, and that’s action we’ve actually already taken here on this floor.

Instead of us pandering and talking about ways we can at least in some ways, I will not talk about the motives of my colleagues, but when we talk about something as serious as school safety, now is not the time to play games. It’s a time for action. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this week many folks who will likely vote “yes” for this amendment voted “no” on the Michigan State Police budget that included funding for OK2Say programs.

Again, talk is cheap and if we really want to be about the business of keeping our children safe, I urge a “no” vote on this amendment and a “yes” on the entire School Aid budget—which, again, has a heart to protect our students and our parents in the classroom.

Senator McMorrow’s statement is as follows:

I’d like to cast my “no” vote on this amendment, and in response to our previous colleague, it’s interesting that so many in this room voted “no” on legislation that was signed into law to require the safe storage of those firearms, to require the owners of those guns to secure their firearms in the home, so that kids can’t get access to them, and then complain that charges are not filed. And yet, you voted against the very laws that would give the prosecutors something to charge the parents with. Providing trauma kits as this amendment would do acknowledges that you accept a reality where kids have to prepare to be shot. Vote “no” on this amendment.

Senator Theis offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 132, line 6, after “2023-2024” by inserting “and from the general fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated an amount not to exceed $16,000,000.00 for 2023-2024” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 132, line 8, after “school” by inserting “and nonpublic school”.

3. Amend page 134, line 18, after “district,” by inserting “nonpublic schools,”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 278 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 225, following line 11, by inserting:

“(4) A district or intermediate district shall not use grant funding received under this section toward a purchase as described in section 35e.

Sec. 35e. From the general fund money appropriated under section 11, for 2023-2024 only, there is allocated an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00 for the department to provide grants to districts and intermediate districts for the purchase of 1 or more components or trainings for children with dyslexia from the Michigan Dyslexia Institute. A district or intermediate district shall not use grant funding received under section 35d toward a purchase as described in this section.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

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

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

Roll Call No. 279 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Protests

Senators Irwin, McCann, Singh and McMorrow, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendment offered by Senator Runestad to Senate Bill No. 173.

Senator Irwin moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the amendment be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Irwin’s statement, in which Senators McCann, Singh and McMorrow concurred, is as follows:

First I want to say that I really appreciate the work I’ve been able to do with the Senator from the 23rd District and others across the aisle on the important issue of dyslexia and I want to congratulate him and others for getting money for the Michigan Dyslexia Institute in previous budgets. I just want to point out that in the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from the 8th District was able to make an amendment to the budget to provide additional funding to that organization and that was an amendment I strongly supported.

While we’ve seen here an offer today to simply double that funding on top of what the entity had requested in the budget process, I’m going to unfortunately have to oppose that. But I did want to rise and say that this work that hopefully we’re doing together to address kids who experience characteristics of dyslexia and make sure our literacy programs are attuned to the science of reading and the fundamental skills necessary for reading, I’m on board for that. That’s why I’m happy to see that we’ve got funding for this entity, more funding than last year for this entity, in the budget, thanks to the great work of the Senator from the 8th District, and I’m also happy to see that thanks to the subcommittee chair, we at least so far have in our Senate budget some significant funding for training for teachers as well in the skills necessary to address dyslexia. I wanted to rise and address the Senator’s amendment, explain why I’m voting “no” despite the fact that I appreciate his work and hopefully our continuing work together on this important issue.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

1. Amend page 289, following line 15, by inserting:

“(f) Provide advice, guidance, and leadership to assist all districts located within its geographic boundaries to assist in the preparedness and response efforts toward addressing COVID-19. At a minimum, this must include the coordination and collaboration with any local public health agency that has jurisdiction within the intermediate district’s geographic boundaries and may include the coordination of bulk purchasing of personal protective equipment, technology, or other products or services necessary for students to return to school.

(g) Ensure that all districts located within its geographic boundaries have equitable access to the intermediate district’s coordination activities and services, intermediate districtwide or regional meetings, regularly scheduled superintendent meetings, programming, events, email distribution lists, listservs, or other coordination or collaboration activities organized by or hosted at the intermediate district. In ensuring that all districts located within the geographic boundaries of the intermediate district have equitable access to services, meetings, programming, events, email distribution lists, listservs, or activities as described in the immediately preceding sentence, the intermediate district shall ensure that districts that are public school academies that are located within its geographic boundaries are not excluded from said services, meetings, programming, events, email distribution lists, listservs, or activities organized by or hosted at the intermediate district if districts that are not public school academies that are located within the geographic boundaries of the intermediate district are not excluded.”.

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

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

Roll Call No. 280 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

1. Amend page 382, following line 5, by inserting:

“Sec. 166f. In order to receive state aid under this article, a district or intermediate district shall require that the parent or legal guardian of a pupil is notified each time the district or intermediate district makes a health, including, but not limited to, mental health, referral concerning the pupil.”.

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

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

Roll Call No. 281 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

1. Amend page 331, line 2, after “99hh.” by striking out the balance of the line through “pool.” on line 4 and inserting “(1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated $500,000.00 for competitive grants to districts and intermediate districts for the reimbursement of the purchase of eligible supplies by classroom teachers of the district or intermediate district as provided under this section.

(2) To receive funding under this section, a district or intermediate district must apply for the funding in a form and manner prescribed by the department by not later than May 31, 2024. In its application described in this subsection, a district or intermediate district must do both of the following:

(a) For each classroom teacher whom it will reimburse with funding under this section, include a listing of the amount of money spent on eligible supplies, the eligible supplies purchased by the classroom teacher, and the receipts received as described in subsection (4).

(b) Pledge that it will provide the reimbursements to classroom teachers as described in subdivision (a) by not later than June 30, 2024.

(3) The department shall issue grants under this section in an amount not exceeding $10,000.00 per district or intermediate district. The department shall make all grant payments under this section by not later than June 15, 2024.

(4) A district or intermediate district that receives funding under this section shall ensure that an amount not to exceed $500.00 is obligated to each classroom teacher who purchased eligible supplies and submitted to the district or intermediate district receipts for the purchase of the eligible supplies by not later than April 30, 2024.

(5) For purposes of this section, the department shall issue a list of eligible supplies for which a district or intermediate district may apply funding toward the reimbursement of the supplies as provided under this section.”.

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

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

Roll Call No. 282 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Hauck offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 382, line 25, after “164h,” by inserting “and”.

2. Amend page 382, line 25, after “166” by striking out the comma and “and 166a”.

3. Amend page 383, line 2, after “388.1764h,” by inserting “and”.

4. Amend page 383, line 3, by striking out “and 388.1766a,”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 283 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Daley offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 382, line 25, after “164h,” by striking out “166,”.

2. Amend page 383, line 2, after “388.1764h,” by striking out “388.1766,”.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

Senator Webber offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 308, following line 11, by inserting:

“Sec. 98c. (1) Subject to subsection (3), from the federal funding appropriated in section 11 from funds awarded to this state from the governor’s emergency education relief (GEER) fund under the coronavirus response and relief supplemental appropriations act, 2021, division M of Public Law 116-260, there is allocated the amount available, estimated at $6,618,200.00 for 2021-2022 only, and, from funds awarded to this state from the elementary and secondary school emergency relief (ESSER) fund under the coronavirus response and relief supplemental appropriations act, 2021, division M of Public Law 116-260, there is allocated the amount available, estimated at $45,437,800.00 for 2021-2022 only, from the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated $300,000,000.00 for 2023-2024 only to provide per-pupil payments to eligible districts to address learning loss.

(2) A district that meets all of the following is an eligible district under this section:

(a) By not later than October 30, ~~2022,~~ 2024, at a public meeting of the board of the district, the board of the district ensures that a presentation is provided to the board, to the parents and legal guardians of pupils enrolled in the district, and to other members of the community. The presentation must include a plan on how funding received under this section will be used to address learning loss.

(b) The board of the district posts the plan described in subdivision (a) on the district’s website.

(c) The board of the district posts any updates to the plan described in subdivision (a), as applicable, on the district’s website.

(3) The amount of funding provided to each eligible district under this section must be an equal amount per pupil in membership.

(4) By not later than August 15, ~~2023,~~ 2025, an eligible district that has received funding under this section shall provide a report to the chairs of the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on school aid, to the house and senate fiscal agencies, and to the state budget director indicating how funds received under this section were spent, detailing the amounts spent, the services provided with the funding, students reached with the funding, and any outcomes that measure how the funds that were used to address learning loss impacted student achievement.

(5) Funds must be spent to increase instructional time to address students that are behind academically. Eligible students are those that can be identified as being in need of increased instructional time by standardized testing, school administrator or teacher recommendation, parent, guardian, or student request, or any other method by which a student can reasonably be determined to be in need of remedial instruction. Eligible uses of these funds include, but are not limited to, tutoring, before- and after-school programming, summer school, or any other use that focuses on offering increased instructional time for academic improvement.

(6) ~~(5)~~ If funds received under this section were not used to address learning loss in accordance with an eligible district’s plan as described in subsection (2)(a), including any updates to the plan, as applicable, as evidenced by findings in the report described in subsection (4), by not later than September 30, ~~2023,~~ 2025, the eligible district shall remit to the department the amount of funds received under this section that were not used to address learning loss.

(7) The funds allocated under this section for 2023-2024 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for 2023-2024 are carried forward into 2024-2025. The purpose of the work project is to continue support for the programs under this section. The estimated completion date of the work project is September 30, 2025.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 382, line 24, after “98b,” by striking out “98c,”.

3. Amend page 383, line 1, after “388.1698b,” by striking out “388.1698c,”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 284 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Albert offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 119, line 14, by removing section 27b from the bill and inserting:

“Sec. 27b. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only an amount not to exceed ~~$20,000,000.00~~ $50,000,000.00 and from the federal funding appropriated under section 11, there is allocated for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only an amount not to exceed ~~$155,000,000.00~~ $50,000,000.00 from the federal funding awarded to this state from the coronavirus state fiscal recovery fund under the American rescue plan act of 2021, title IX, subtitle M of Public Law 117‑2, to districts and intermediate districts for a grow your own program as described in subsection (2).

(2) Districts and intermediate districts receiving funding under this section shall use the funding to implement a grow your own program. A grow your own program described in this subsection must be implemented to improve the teacher talent pipeline and provide a no-cost pathway for support staff members to become certified teachers. Allowable expenses for grow your own programs include, but are not limited to:

(a) Tuition and fees for attendance at a state-approved education preparation provider for an early child certification, for an accelerated degree, for a traditional bachelor’s degree for current staff who are not teachers, or for an advanced degree. Any additional certification required for career and technical education educators is an eligible expense under this section.

(b) Books.

(d) Travel to and from coursework.

(e) Substitute employee salary and wages for the duration of the educator preparation program attended by the recipient staff of the district or intermediate district.

(f) Costs for curriculum, materials, professional development, and hands-on-learning experiences to implement a program within the district or intermediate district to encourage students in any of grades 6 through 12 to consider a career in education. Not more than 10% of funds received by a district or intermediate district under this section may be used for this purpose.

(3) The department shall establish a grant process to distribute funds under this section. A district or intermediate school district must apply for funds in a form and manner prescribed by the department. As part of the application described in this subsection, a district or intermediate district must submit the following information and assurances:

(a) Demonstrated need for funding in the district or intermediate district or the broader community, including projected workforce needs, and a proposed spending plan on how the funds will be utilized that includes expected tuition, fees, and books for the program.

(b) Number of support staff projected to participate in a grow your own program described in this section.

(c) For funds for the purposes described in subsection (2)(f), a description of the program being implemented and the number of students the program is intended to reach.

(d) Assurances that the pathway will be no cost for participants and that participants will be compensated as an employee for the duration of their training, including a paid residency or student teaching.

(e) Identification of eligible recipients and a pledge to hire an eligible recipient as a full-time teacher upon their receipt of an initial teaching certificate and provide for student teaching opportunities.

(f) A pledge that, before providing funding under this section to an eligible recipient, the district or intermediate district will require that the eligible recipient pledge to serve as a full-time teacher at the district or intermediate district for at least the same number of years as the recipient participated in a grow your own program. If the district or intermediate district is unable to hire an eligible recipient as required under subdivision (e), the eligible recipient may serve the years the recipient pledged to serve under this subdivision at another district, intermediate district, or nonpublic school.

(4) An individual may not concurrently receive funding for programs under this section and programs funded under sections 27a and 27c.

(5) The federal funding allocated under this section is intended to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency and its negative impacts.

(6) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department.

(7) The funds allocated under this section for 2022-2023 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for 2022-2023 are carried forward into 2023-2024. The purpose of the work project is to continue support for grow your own programs in districts and intermediate districts. The estimated completion date of the work project is December 31, 2026.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting 1 accordingly.

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

Senator Webber offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 170, line 14, by removing section 31aa from the bill and inserting:

“Sec. 31aa. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated $150,000,000.00 for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only to provide payments to districts and intermediate districts for activities to improve student mental health. The allowable expenditures of funds under this section include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Hiring or contracting for support staff for student mental health needs, including, but not limited to, school psychologists, social workers, counselors, and school nurses.

(b) Purchasing and implementing mental health screening tools.

(c) Providing school-based mental health personnel access to consultation with behavioral health clinicians to respond to complex student mental health needs.

(d) Any other mental health service or product necessary to improve or maintain the mental health of students and staff.

(2) From the allocation under subsection (1), the department shall make payments to districts in an equal amount per pupil based on the total number of pupils in membership in each district.

(3) If funding remains after the distribution of funds as described in subsection (2), the department may provide additional per-pupil allocations to allocate remaining dollars, using for those calculations the same requirements described in subsection (2).

(4) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to receive funding under this section, districts and intermediate districts must apply for funding under this section in a form and manner prescribed by the department. In its application described in this subsection, a district or intermediate district, as applicable, shall document how it or, if an intermediate district is applying, its constituent district, will use community input to guide the expenditure of the funds it or the constituent district will receive under this section and it shall pledge to host, or shall pledge on behalf of its constituent district that the constituent district will host, at least 1 community conversation about student mental health and school safety. With consent of its constituent districts, an intermediate district may apply for funding under this section on behalf of its constituent districts. As used in this section, “constituent district” means that term as defined in section 3 of the revised school code, MCL 380.3.

(5) Districts receiving funds under this section must coordinate with intermediate school districts to avoid duplication of services and to streamline delivery of mental health services to students.

(6) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

2. Amend page 299, following line 4, by inserting:

“Sec. 97. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated ~~$150,000,000.00~~ $250,000,000.00 for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only, and from the general fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated ~~$18,000,000.00~~ $36,000,000.00 for ~~2022-2023~~ 2023-2024 only, to provide payments to districts and nonpublic schools for activities to improve student safety. Allowable expenditures of funds allocated under this section include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Coordination with local law enforcement.

(b) Training for school staff on threat assessment.

(d) Training for school staff on crisis communication.

(f) Age-appropriate training for students and families on responsible gun ownership.

(g) Providing professional development to school resource officers that includes training on the best practices for serving in a school setting.

(h) Any other school safety service or product necessary to improve or maintain security in buildings.

3. Amend page 382, line 23, after “67e,” by striking out “97,”.

4. Amend page 382, line 29, after “388.1667e,” by striking out “388.1697,”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

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

Roll Call No. 285 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 276, following line 6, by inserting:

“Sec. 61i. (1) ~~From the state school aid fund money appropriated in section 11, there is allocated for 2022-2023 only an amount not to exceed $10,000,000.00~~ From the federal funding appropriated under section 11, there is allocated for 2023-2024 only an amount not to exceed $10,000,000.00 from the federal funding awarded to this state from the coronavirus state fiscal recovery fund under the American rescue plan act of 2021, title IX, subtitle M of Public Law 117-2, to eligible intermediate districts as provided under this section.

(2) To receive funding under this section, an intermediate district must apply for the funding in a form and manner prescribed by the department.

(3) The department shall not allocate more than 1% of the total funding allocated under this section to an eligible intermediate district in the first round of funding under this section.

(4) An intermediate district that meets either of the following is an eligible intermediate district under this section:

(a) It has a CTE teacher on staff.

(b) It pledges in its application described in subsection (2) to hire a CTE teacher.

(6) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments under this section on a schedule determined by the department.

(7) Funds allocated under this section for 2022-2023 are a work project appropriation, and any unexpended funds for 2022-2023 are carried forward into 2023-2024. The purpose of the work project is to continue providing funding for the recruitment of, retention of, and coverage of continued education costs for CTE teachers as described in this section. The estimated completion date of the work project is September 30, 2024.

(8) As used in this section, “CTE” means career and technical education.” and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

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

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

Roll Call No. 286 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Damoose offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 96, following line 10, by inserting:

“Sec. 22e. (1) From the state school aid fund money appropriated under section 11, there is allocated an amount not to exceed $50,000,000.00 for 2023-2024 to reimburse eligible districts for transportation costs.

(2) A district with fewer than 20.0 pupils per square mile, as determined by the department, is an eligible district under this section.

(3) The department shall provide payments to eligible districts under this section as follows:

(a) An amount equal to $250.00 per pupil to eligible districts with fewer than 10.0 pupils per square mile, as determined by the department.

(b) An amount equal to $200.00 per pupil to eligible districts with at least 10.0 but fewer than 15.0 pupils per square mile, as determined by the department.

(c) An amount equal to $150.00 per pupil to eligible districts with at least 15.0 but fewer than 20.0 pupils per square mile, as determined by the department.

(4) If the total funding allocated under this section is not sufficient to fully fund payments as calculated under this section, the department shall prorate payments to eligible districts on an equal percentage basis.

(5) Notwithstanding section 17b, the department shall make payments to eligible districts under this section on a schedule determined by the department.” and adjusting section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

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

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

Roll Call No. 287 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Huizenga offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 134, line 21, after “exceed” by striking out “$993,750,000.00,” and inserting “$1,094,550,000.00,”.

2. Amend page 136, line 28, after “exceed” by striking out “$920,600,000.00” and inserting “$1,021,400,000.00”.

3. Amend page 139, line 23, after “of” by striking out “11.5%.” and inserting “23.0%.”.

4. Amend page 139, line 27, after “of” by striking out “11.8%.” and inserting “23.6%.”.

5. Amend page 140, line 2, after “of” by striking out “12.5%.” and inserting “25.0%.”.

6. Amend page 140, line 6, after “of” by striking out “13.6%.” and inserting “27.2%.”.

7. Amend page 140, line 10, by striking out “15.3%.” and inserting “30.6%.”. and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present not voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 288 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

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

Roll Call No. 289 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—17

Albert Hauck Lauwers Outman

Bellino Hoitenga Lindsey Runestad

Bumstead Huizenga McBroom Theis

Daley Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Damoose

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss

Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:

Protest

Senator Theis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 173 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, there are lessons to be learned. Unfortunately, the budget before us does not reflect them and I cannot recommend a “yes” vote. The first lesson is parental involvement in the education of our youth. Parental rights in education are fundamental and required by law. We should, as lawmakers, be striving to build bridges between educators and parents in our communities. Yet, the chasm is widening each day. The budget lacks any effort to involve or inform parents of even something as basic as the health and well-being of their children, not to mention the curriculum they’re being taught.

Second is student achievement. The cracks in our educational system were laid particularly bare over the last three years. While per-pupil funding is up again, this budget does not address the need to support our students struggling with the most basic, fundamental skill: reading. Instead of providing individual scholarships for reading materials, literacy programs, and tutoring services, this budget is going to build swimming pools and buy electric buses. Third, we learned that education can occur outside a traditional public school setting. Yet, despite many quality, non-traditional, nonpublic offerings in our state, this budget punitively slashes their funding allotments for no good reason.

Fourth is safety. The fact of the matter is our schools are not as safe as they should be. Time and time again on this side of the aisle, we have attempted to provide schools with more resources to improve safety, including more resource officers, hardening physical security, providing AEDs and trauma kits, and more. And not only that, but to empower local districts to choose what is best for their communities. Again, this budget fails to deliver improvements for school safety.

And when it comes to the allocation of this historic funding, this budget mismanages a crucial opportunity. Every student in a public school is going to be eligible for a free lunch—even if mom and dad make millions. But if mom and dad are scratching to get by so their kid can go to a nonpublic school, well, their kids’ lunches are on them. I mention again—swimming pools and electric buses and now free breakfast and lunch for millionaires, paid for by single moms working multiple jobs.

Our state’s education is in crisis. Student achievement is lacking. Parents are being ignored; teachers are fleeing the profession. Time-tested solutions to strengthening school security and response are being ignored. Unfortunately, this budget doesn’t do much to address or resolve these problems. I’m voting “no” and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Senators Albert, Bumstead, Theis, Bellino, Polehanki, McBroom, Runestad, Hauck, Webber, Damoose, Huizenga and Camilleri asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Albert’s first statement is as follows:

I rise today to support an alternative plan to educate our kids in Michigan. This plan balances the needs of our kids today while ensuring we maintain financial sustainability in the future. The highlights of this plan are as follows. A K-12 foundation allowance of $9,608 per student which is a 5 percent annual increase and in line with the Governor’s recommendation. Special education funding fully phases in the two-year foundation plus reimbursement model that I spearheaded last year. This initiative adds hundreds of millions of dollars annually to our chronically-underfunded special education system. The Governor’s proposal fell short of meeting this stated two-year phase-in, but I am very grateful to my Senate counterparts who included it in their proposal. A record deposit into the teachers’ pension system of $2 billion, which will not only save money over the long run that can be used in classrooms, but also ensures our teachers receive the benefit they were promised.

For school safety, $286 million is distributed on a per-pupil basis to continue helping public and nonpublic schools secure their buildings. In addition, we would double ongoing funding for school resource officers to $50 million, a line item of funding that Democrats have eliminated in their proposals. The funding we provided in last year’s budget for school resource officers is working as well as can be imagined. Administrators and parents want to see it continued. My proposal would also add some flexibility so districts can hire their own employees to serve as school resource officers and I hope we can get behind this common-sense and effective method of keeping our kids safe.

For early education, this plan builds on the momentum of recent improvements to our Great Start Readiness Program. This plan raises funding to $14,000 per child helping providers hire staff and expand capacity. The Governor’s universal preschool plan is misleading and unworkable and has no real plan behind it. If implemented, poor kids and rich kids would end up competing for a limited number of seats. To catch up on lost learning from missing valuable classroom time during the pandemic, this plan provides $300 million focused on getting kids more instructional time through flexible options such as tutoring, after-school learning, summer school, and expanded calendars.

For mental health support, this plan has $150 million to continue the important effort to improve school-based mental health initiatives, funding it on a per-pupil basis. To help fill our teacher shortages, this plan continues the grow-your-own program with a $100 million investment. This program has been widely accepted and supported throughout our state and will help non-certified K-12 personnel become teachers. This program was an example of bipartisanship in budget negotiations last year, and I have been disappointed to not see it in this year’s proposals.

For career and technical education, this plan has $15 million for equipment upgrades at our schools, $10 million to recruit and retain CTE teachers, and $5 million to incentivize school districts to expand CTE offerings. This plan recognizes the recent recommendations from the school finance research collaborative and the Department of Education and funds transportation costs. It costs more to bus students in some districts than others. Our plan reflects that reality by providing $50 million to reimburse schools for transportation costs based on population density. For cyber schools, this plan says “no” to the Democrats’ plan of shortchanging thousands of students who take online classes.

On top of that, it’s important to note what this plan does not fund. We do not fund $2.4 billion and we leave that funding on the balance sheet for a rainy day. Spending the entire School Aid surplus now would put school finances in a dangerous position moving forward, especially as we continue with economic uncertainty. It’s worth noting one non-monetary line item in this budget that Democrats removed. It is a provision that school districts have a policy prohibiting abortion referrals to our kids. If this Democratic proposal gets enacted, kids could be connected to an abortion provider without the knowledge of their parents. It is a highly troubling change and I hope we can reinstate the language to ensure parents know what is going on with their kids.

Overall, this alternative budget I’ve proposed is balanced and sustainable. I encourage my colleagues to support this substitute.

Senator Albert’s second statement is as follows:

I hope we can all agree that expanding preschool opportunities in Michigan would help more kids prepare for a lifetime of learning and achievement. The question is, How do we best accomplish that in the next state budget? This amendment provides the best alternative. I have worked with many of you and the Governor over the last two budget cycles to improve our Great Start Readiness Program. We have taken significant steps to fix a broken funding model and get more 4-year-olds into the program. It’s time for the next step.

My plan would increase funding for Great Start to $14,000 per child, up from $9,150. This additional $190 million investment would allow the program to expand to five days per week just like the K-12 model. It would also create a framework to add students to the Great Start Readiness Program. Programs will be able to hire more teachers and staff. We know that this is a problem and this amendment would help address it. Programs would be able to add physical classroom space if needed. I appreciate the Democratic proposals for preschool expansion as well, but these proposals have serious flaws. The Governor’s wish for universal preschool may sound nice, but it is unrealistic and unworkable. It is largely based on phasing out the income thresholds used to determine eligibility to the Great Start program. That would make more kids technically eligible to participate, but it would not create room for them in the program. There is not nearly enough resources available or proposed to hire additional teachers, find classroom space, or take other steps needed to make universal public preschool a reality. It doesn’t solve a problem; it creates one. Without the necessary infrastructure to offer free public school to everyone, low-income kids would compete for spots with wealthy kids.

The plan put forward by Democrats in this bill is better than the Governor’s plan, but it remains flawed. Instead of staying with the Great Start program, which has been in place for years, a new avenue is created within this budget proposal that could be used by districts to fund preschool. This parallel program leaves out a large number of districts that use community-based organizations to operate preschool programs. It creates a duplicative program run by districts. It attempts to fix a government-run program by creating another government-run program, and that rarely is a good idea. This amendment provides the best option to expand public preschool for those who really need it, and I ask for your support.

Senator Bumstead’s statement is as follows:

Mr. President, as a reminder, the budget Democrats are passing this week wipes out much of the historic $9 billion surplus. One only needs to look at the School Aid budget to see how they accomplished this feat. It’s littered with special projects like a new swimming pool. It would be nice for students to have the latest and greatest aquatic facilities. I believe most Michiganders want their tax dollars going into the classroom. My amendment would eliminate $128 million worth of these kinds of special projects and reappropriate the money to the foundation allowance, school safety, and mental health services, among others. I ask for support of a more responsible use of the taxpayers’ dollars.

Senator Theis’ first statement is as follows:

Recently, the Ann Arbor Public Schools system provided parents with an update on their electric bus pilot program. The district purchased four electric buses through an EGLE grant program. I want to recap for my colleagues what the Ann Arbor Public Schools system said about their own program. They noted that each electric school bus in the district cost them five times what a regular school bus would cost. Their updates reported that the electrical infrastructure upgrades the district had to make to accommodate these buses ended up being four times more expensive than originally estimated. The electric buses experienced significant downtime and performance issues—that’s a quote. The district also said their attempt at vehicle to grid interconnection failed—another quote—and that—quote—the technology is not ready at this time.

While the state is looking to spend $75 million on electric school buses, Michigan parents and businesses looking to relocate to Michigan read headlines that say things such as, “Report: Michigan stuck in bottom 10 states for 4th grade reading test scores.” That’s from the Michigan Advance. “Michigan’s 3rd-grade reading scores show the cost of remote COVID learning,” from Bridge Michigan. This article points out that the percentage of 3rd graders who are a year or more behind in reading went up 20 percent in 2022. “Study find more than half of Michigan students between first, third grades had reading deficiency”—that one’s from the Detroit News. And, “Growing education crisis, MI fourth-grade reading levels drop.” That one’s from WOOD-TV.

We all know that closing schools during COVID had a disastrous effect on our children. Our children don’t need electric school buses. Families and children who are behind need every single tool we can provide them to help them get caught up as quickly as possible. My amendment is simple. It eliminates the $75 million for electric school buses and uses that money to support eligible students with individual scholarships for reading materials, literacy programs, and tutoring services. We can continue to give millions of dollars and even the kitchen sink to bribe corporations to move to Michigan, but if the next generation of their workers cannot read, I promise you they’re not going to stay. Frankly, we don’t need electric school buses—even our schools have told us the technology is not ready at this time—but our students do desperately need to learn how to read. I ask my colleagues for their support on my amendment.

Senator Albert’s third statement is as follows:

I’m offering an amendment related to the student teacher stipend program included within Senate Bill No. 173. This is a good initiative and I’m glad to see it continued. We have an opportunity to make this program even better. We can do more to get people involved in the teaching pipeline, and address the worsening teacher shortage across our state. Under the current program, $9,600 is provided to future educators who are participating in their required student teaching profession. It helps these student teachers stay afloat financially while finishing up their work to become certified. However, this stipend is only available for student teachers who are working in public schools.

This amendment would allow student teachers who are assigned to nonpublic schools to receive the stipend as well. This is an issue of fairness for student teachers. Let’s say two aspiring teachers are classmates at the same university. One gets a student teacher assignment at a public school while the other gets assigned to a nonpublic school. Why should only the one headed to a public school receive the stipend while they’re working through and soon to graduate from the same program at the same college? This change would also help nonpublic schools that rely heavily on their student teachers to become full-time permanent teachers upon certification.

If you look throughout our state, public and nonpublic schools in our communities are not adversaries but rather they quite often work together. There is no reason to create this type of divide between these two systems. It benefits everyone if student teachers in this program are treated equally. In many instances, today’s private school students and teachers are tomorrow’s public school students and teachers.

Senator Albert’s fourth statement is as follows:

I am offering an amendment to Senate Bill No. 173 again that relates to the future educator scholarship, a scholarship program for college students preparing to become teachers. This program is extremely important. It is an extremely important way to address the teacher shortage in schools across Michigan. This program provides up to $10,000 for tuition and fees at participating colleges and universities. It makes college much more affordable. Some students who want to be teachers would not be able to go to college without it. Students who receive this scholarship must pledge to teach in Michigan for three to five years depending on how many years they receive the scholarship while in college. They can teach in a public or nonpublic school under current state law. Inexplicably, the bill before us today would force recipients of these scholarships to teach only at public schools. They would no longer be able to teach at nonpublic schools or they might have to pay back the scholarships if they do. This is a ridiculous changing of rules and it could force some young teachers out of the profession just as they’re getting started.

This amendment I propose is very simple. It keeps the requirements in this program exactly as they are now. It would allow recipients of this scholarship to fulfill their commitment by teaching in nonpublic schools if that is their preference. Some of these young teachers already have plans in place. They were under the impression they would be able to fulfill their commitments of the scholarship at any Michigan school. Don’t pull the rug out from under them now. I urge a “yes” vote on this amendment.

Senator Albert’s fifth statement is as follows:

One of the greatest paradoxes I have discovered in Lansing is that Democrats love government pensions and hate paying for them, and Republicans hate government pensions and love paying for them—at least, the debt associated with them. I have tried at great length to understand the perspective of Democrats on the issue but I cannot accept the notion that it is good or fair to force our children to pay for a promise made by a previous generation. But as the Democrats have already pointed out recently, I am old fashioned. In my day, we called an unjustified confiscation of another’s wealth stealing. But in this day and age, I guess some feel stealing is not necessarily wrong. There was that time on Mount Sinai somebody revealed to somebody ten rules of living which mention stealing was wrong, but that was a long time ago and I guess those ideas are old now.

That all being said, this amendment would add $2 billion into our teachers’ underfunded pension system. Last year, our bipartisan budget had a $1 billion deposit and there’s no reason to not double this deposit this year. This deposit will both ensure we save money over the long run, which will result in more resources being available for our classrooms. It will also shore up our pension fund to help ensure we can keep our promises to our retired educators. It is worth noting that this plan differs from the Democrats’ plan that puts money into a reserve account for the pension fund instead of making the deposit. This is like putting money to pay down a mortgage into savings account rather than actually paying down the debt. The money can still be diverted later on for other purposes. It is better to just make the deposit and not tempt oneself to divert it later on.

Lastly, it’s worth noting that paying down debt for the school system as a whole is substantially more prudent than the Democratic proposal to pay off student loan debt. Paying off certain individuals’ college debt is unfair to the teachers who paid off their debt years ago, are still paying off their debt, or never took debt in the first place. In fact, increasing someone’s wages because they took out student loans is directly incentivizing indebtedness. Paying down debt for our school system as a whole is a better benefit for everybody in the system and a better way forward. I encourage a “yes” vote.

Senator Theis’ second statement is as follows:

School resource officers, also known as SROs, are essential to help our schools maintain safe and secure learning environments for our students. SROs play a crucial role in ensuring the safety and well-being of students, faculty, and staff within our schools.

My amendment is simple. It adds $50 million to the School Aid budget so that we can bolster the presence of SROs in educational institutions and throughout Michigan. These trained professionals serve as a valuable resource, providing a visible and proactive security presence. They are equipped to handle potential threats, respond to emergencies, and to deter acts of violence. SROs serve not only as law enforcement officers but also as mentors and role models for students. They build positive relationships, foster trust, and offer guidance to students facing challenges. Their presence promotes a sense of safety, allowing students to focus on their education without fear or distractions. Additionally, SROs are instrumental in implementing prevention programs and initiatives within the schools. They collaborate with educators, administrators, and mental health professionals to identify and address potential issues before they escalate. By providing resources, training, and intervention, SROs contribute to the early identification and support of students in crisis.

Supporting this funding for SROs demonstrates our commitment to the safety and well-being of our students. It reinforces the importance of proactive measures in maintaining a secure educational environment. With SROs, we provide a critical layer of protection, guidance, and support that enables our students to thrive and succeed. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Senator Bellino’s statement is as follows:

Mr. President, education is critical to the future of the state of Michigan and to our children. But it isn’t a one-size-fits-all process. Different kids may need different types of learning. Now think about what I said. They’re children and they’re different. Remember how you felt when you were a child and you were different? My amendment would restore full funding to public charter schools that are fully online. Why are we cutting funding for public charter schools that are online? They’re children and we were told 15 years ago it’s all about the kids, they’re different, some have been bullied, some have disabilities, a high percentage come from low-income families, some only feel comfortable with an online setting. I urge my colleagues to support all types of learning and vote “yes” on my amendment.

Senator Theis’ third statement is as follows:

This amendment stems from conversations I’ve had with superintendents and principals in schools throughout Michigan. My amendment simply permits the schools to purchase AEDs and trauma kits with school safety grant funding they receive. Not enough of our schools have these items, but they absolutely should. Medical devices and life-saving medical kits are reasonable uses for these funds and I urge your “yes” vote.

Senator Polehanki’s statement is as follows:

Mr. President, I find it galling that the Senator from the 23rd District is talking about the recent spate of kids bringing guns to school in Grand Rapids. I believe four kids have brought guns to school because they were not properly secured by their parents. And oh, what are we going to do about that? He has no solutions except to vote for an amendment that would budget new money for trauma kits. That’s their solution. Last week this same body introduced a bill to make Michigan a constitutional carry state. A permit-less carry state. Like the Wild Wild West. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats in our first 100 days passed safe storage acts into law. And because they weren’t given immediate effect by my colleagues across the aisle, they won’t take effect immediately. Meanwhile, we have kids—third graders—bringing guns to school in our state. How dare you get up and talk about trauma kits as a solution.

Senator McBroom’s statement is as follows:

I guess so much drama, I decided to call up this amendment and read it and I’m just a little puzzled as to why it’s so controversial to have defibrillator kits and trauma kits as if trauma only happens one way. I guess I’m glad to hear that all the laws we passed are going to magically make sure all trauma ceases next year and that there’s not going to be a cause for any trauma anymore. Certainly as a music teacher, I guess it would be great for us because there won’t be any sports going on anymore. Nobody’s going to be getting hurt at school because there won’t be any trauma. I’m just a little puzzled as to the dance that’s going on here. I understand voting “no” on what’s being proposed and the politics that go into this whole budget process, but why are we shouting at each other over defibrillator kits and having the ability of a trauma kit at the school? With that, I would recommend a “yes” vote.

Senator Theis’ fourth statement is as follows:

If the Senate is going to remove all income qualifications so that we provide free lunch for every child in Michigan—even the children of millionaires—then we need to ensure we’re providing free lunch to every child in Michigan, not just children attending public schools. My amendment extends the Governor’s lunch program to include every student in school. We’re going to be treating all kids equally regardless of where they attend school. I urge a “yes” vote.

Senator Runestad’s first statement is as follows:

Fortunately I have a very bipartisan issue here to address. As most in this chamber know, I have been a very strong advocate for students with dyslexia as have many of my partners on the other side of the aisle. We’ve done some very good things, but we haven’t gone far enough. Virtually every parent or activist in the nation knows that Michigan is the absolute worst in the nation if you have a dyslexic child. I’ve had so many parents come to Michigan and say, When my child was in Texas or Arizona or wherever, they tested them early, they found out they had dyslexia, and there was intervention. None of that is happening in Michigan.

Working with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we’re able to get additional funding a pilot program between two organizations and not only with the previous education chair but also the current teachers who have been submitting letters. We have had an enormous amount of feedback from teachers that this training has made a world of difference. I’d urge anyone who has any question about it to read these letters.

This is a bipartisan issue; providing every opportunity for a child to succeed is something I think we can all get behind for this additional funding. I ask for bipartisan support of my amendment and a show of support for many of these dyslexic students across the state of Michigan.

Senator Theis’ fifth statement is as follows:

Parents play a vital role in the well-being of their children, and their involvement is crucial when it comes to their child’s mental or physical health. Each and every one of us serving in this chamber would hopefully agree that parents receiving notification when their minor child is referred to a medical professional is necessary for many reasons. Firstly, parents have a unique and intimate understanding of their child’s overall health and behavior patterns. They are in the best position to provide valuable insights into any changes or concerns, aiding the health care provider in making more accurate diagnosis and formulating an appropriate treatment plan. Secondly, parents’ emotional and psychological support is invaluable during times of medical or mental health challenges. Being aware of their child’s condition allows parents to offer comfort, reassurance, and necessary interventions to help facilitate the healing process. Lastly, parental involvement ensures continuity of care. Parents can coordinate appointments, follow up on treatment plans, and provide ongoing support outside of clinical settings. They can reinforce treatment strategies, administer medications if necessary, and advocate for their child’s needs within the health care system.

My amendment ensures that parents can continue to have an active role in their child’s lives by requiring schools to notify them when their children receive a mental or physical health referral from a school employee.

Senator Theis’ sixth statement is as follows:

This amendment is all about our educational priorities. My amendment is simple. It strikes the half-million dollar pet project for the swimming pool at Eastpointe Public Schools and redirects those funds to directly support our educators through the creation of a grant program that will reimburse teachers for school supplies they are forced to purchase on their own for their classrooms. I like to swim as much as anyone, but we should be able to agree that this money could better be used by supporting and investing in our educators and the education of our children. I urge a “yes” vote.

Senator Hauck’s statement is as follows:

Parents should be able to voice concerns about services that are being offered to their children at school. My amendment allows parents who feel that their school district is not complying with specific provisions in the Revised School Code addressing instruction in sex education to file a complaint with their child’s school district and require the school to investigate the complaint. I ask for a “yes” vote on this amendment that restores the fundamental right of parents to have a say in their child’s education.

Senator Webber’s first statement is as follows:

Mr. President, any parent of a school-aged child—like my son—can confirm what every study tells us, the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school shutdowns were devastating for our kids. The impact of that lost classroom time is on display every day in schools across our state—students, one or more grade levels behind where they should be; cratering test scores; behavior problems; mental health challenges; the list goes on and on. We owe it to these kids and their parents to get them back on track, to help them tackle problems that were not of their own making, whether they be educational or emotional. My amendment dedicates an additional $300 million to tackling learning loss. I can think of no better investment and I ask for your support.

Senator Webber’s second statement is as follows:

I realize I sound like a broken record, but I rise again to call for greater investment in school safety. The majority insisted it wasn’t the right time to do this months ago and that it would be addressed during the budget process, yet here we are and this budget contains a line item that splits school-safety-measure funding with other items. We should not be underinvesting when it comes to our children’s safety. Instead let’s ensure enough funds are spent on school safety. We owe it to the families and students across this state, and we have the funding to address both mental health and school safety. I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment to address this now.

Senator Runestad’s second statement is as follows:

The amendment I put forward does two things. One—it dedicates $10 million to recruit and train desperately-needed career tech teachers. This is absolutely imperative. I was just reading an article about business leaders in Michigan and their grave concern that there is just this huge focus on manufacturing and that we are not really training to the kinds of jobs that are needed out there, and if we don’t fix this we are going to have a real tough time recruiting business here to the state of Michigan. We just voted on funding for CTE equipment and programs, but that was voted down.

This amendment would repurpose federal funds to fully pay for the much-needed educators as well. All of these budgets this week have been full of big government waste. Using this specific funding to pay for something students and schools actually need is a far better option for our students. As a former educator myself, I know how important it is to provide these educational opportunities to our students.

So if my colleagues truly believe that throwing away taxpayer dollars on everything under the sun is the right move—as budgets so far have done—then vote against my amendment. But if you believe that recruiting and training career tech teachers to help equip our next generation is more important, then vote for my amendment.

Senator Damoose’s statement is as follows:

Many communities across our state, especially in my district, face incredible logistics challenges when it comes to getting to the store, to the doctor, or to the pharmacy among other things. The same goes for getting students to school. Parents in rural communities often don’t have the same options available as parents in more populated areas, and in turn schools face huge transportation costs when it comes to getting kids to school. My amendment would provide access to more funding for Michigan’s isolated and rural school districts to help mitigate these high transportation costs and ensure that we get students to school on time and ready to learn. I encourage a “yes” vote on this amendment.

Senator Huizenga’s statement is as follows:

I rise today to join my voice with those who support and advocate for Michigan’s at-risk students. This amendment provides much-needed financial support to Michigan students who need the most help in order to succeed and thrive within our educational institutions. I am certain that all members serving in this chamber can agree that every child should be given the best opportunity possible to be a successful student. As a state, we must be committed to supporting the at-risk students and walk with them, side by side, to address the challenges they face. Colleagues, I urge us to unite behind supporting these students by voting “yes” on this amendment which will allocate an additional $100 million to support a brighter future for the 715,000 students in our schools who are considered at risk.

Senator Camilleri’s statement is as follows:

Today I am excited for an historic school budget that we are going to pass out of this chamber today. We set out to create a budget with students and teachers at the forefront and I am proud to say that we delivered on that promise. Among other things, our recommendation includes an historic 6 percent increase in the per-pupil funding, getting us to $9,700 per pupil. A higher weighted funding formula for at-risk students, English language learners, and students with special needs—we are doubling the English language line, and fully funding our special needs student population. In addition, it includes a change in the at-risk funding that we’ve never seen before in Michigan that we’re calling the opportunity index, which will improve equity and flexibility for our students.

Our budget also includes funding for universal school meals. I will say as a note on that topic, I don’t know of many billionaires who send their kids to public school so I don’t think we need to worry too much about funding school lunch for all of our kids; they will be fine no matter what. We also have significant investments in teacher recruitment and retention, creating a student loan program for our educators to keep them in the classroom, and also creating an incentive to boost teacher pay as we are figuring out the teacher shortage across Michigan.

I want to thank everyone in this chamber for participating in this budget—and yes, I do mean everyone. We included Republican ideas in this budget already. We had interesting dialogue, I think some of the ideas you presented were not something I could get totally on board with just yet, but we did include some others I thought were good policy along the way. That’s how the budget should work and our kids should not be held to a partisan standard when it comes to funding their school districts. I’m excited to continue this conversation. I do urge you to support our kids and support this budget. Voting “no” is voting against all the things I just laid out today, and I’m hopeful that we’ll get to an end product that earns everyone’s support. I urge a “yes” vote.

Senate Bill No. 219, entitled

A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 9204, 9206, 17703, 17707, 17708, 17713, 17751, and 17757 (MCL 333.9204, 333.9206, 333.17703, 333.17707, 333.17708, 333.17713, 333.17751, and 333.17757), section 9204 as amended by 2006 PA 91, section 9206 as amended by 1996 PA 540, section 17703 as amended by 2021 PA 36, section 17707 as amended by 2020 PA 142, sections 17708 and 17751 as amended by 2022 PA 80, section 17713 as added by 2020 PA 324, and section 17757 as amended by 2022 PA 13, and by adding sections 17724 and 17724a.

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

Roll Call No. 290 Yeas—36

Anthony Daley Klinefelt Outman

Bayer Damoose Lauwers Polehanki

Bellino Geiss Lindsey Runestad

Brinks Hauck McBroom Santana

Bumstead Hertel McCann Shink

Camilleri Hoitenga McDonald Rivet Singh

Cavanagh Huizenga McMorrow Theis

Chang Irwin Moss Webber

Cherry Johnson Nesbitt Wojno

Nays—1

Albert

Excused—1

Victory

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Moss