Legislation watch
2001 Senate Bill 671
Public Act 161 of 2001
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Harry Gast (R) on September 25, 2001, to authorize a budget stabilization fund (“rainy day fund”) withdrawal for FY 2001-2002, of an amount be determined later.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 25, 2001.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on October 4, 2001, to amend the bill to transfer $300 million from the budget stabilization fund (“rainy day fund”) to the school aid fund to close a projected FY 2001-2002 budget deficit. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on October 4, 2001.
- Passed 36 to 0 in the Senate on October 4, 2001, to transfer $300 million from the budget stabilization fund (“rainy day fund”) to the school aid fund to close a projected FY 2001-2002 budget deficit.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on October 4, 2001, to transfer $300 million from the budget stabilization fund (“rainy day fund”) to the school aid fund to close a projected FY 2001-2002 budget deficit.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on October 31, 2001, to recommend modifications to language contained in the bill resulting from committee testimony and deliberation. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on October 31, 2001.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Marc Shulman (R) on October 31, 2001, to withdraw $350 million from the “rainy day fund,” and authorize the state budget director to use the money to close an expected $336 million deficit in the FY 2001-2002 school aid budget, so as to avoid any overall reductions in spending. The bill also withdraws an additional $200 million, and authorizes the budget director to use the money to close an expected $128 million general fund deficit for the FY 2000-2001 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, 2001. Finally, the bill cuts the FY 2001-2002 budgets for the legislature and the judiciary by five-percent each, which will reduce spending by approximately $10 million. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on October 31, 2001.
- Amendment offered by Rep. A.T. Frank (D) on October 31, 2001, to require that unspent general fund appropriations be included, rather than excluded, in the calculation of how much is required to balance the FY 2000-2001 budget. By excluding the lapses, the bill allows them to be carried forward into FY 2001-2002 budget year, rather than used to balance the FY 2000-2001 budget. The amendment failed 49 to 56 in the House on October 31, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on October 31, 2001, to require the Department of Treasury to annually report to the legislature the balances, revenues, receipts, and expenditures for the immediately preceding fiscal year in each state restricted fund. The amendment failed 50 to 56 in the House on October 31, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. A.T. Frank (D) on October 31, 2001, to reduce the amount to be taken from the "rainy day fund" to balance the FY 2000-2001 budget. The amendment failed 49 to 56 in the House on October 31, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Michael Switalski (D) on October 31, 2001, to authorize the transfer $100 million from the "rainy day" fund to the general fund, if required, to maintain spending levels previously adopted in the FY 2001-2002 Community Health budget for medical services. The amendment failed 50 to 56 in the House on October 31, 2001.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Passed 106 to 0 in the House on October 31, 2001, to withdraw $350 million from the “rainy day fund,” and authorize the state budget director to use the money to close an expected $336 million deficit in the FY 2001-2002 school aid budget, so as to avoid any overall reductions in spending. The bill also withdraws an additional $200 million, and authorizes the budget director to use the money to close an expected $128 million general fund deficit for the FY 2000-2001 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, 2001. Finally, the bill cuts the FY 2001-2002 budgets for the legislature and the judiciary by five-percent each, which will reduce spending by approximately $10 million.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on October 31, 2001, to withdraw $350 million from the “rainy day fund,” and authorize the state budget director to use the money to close an expected $336 million deficit in the FY 2001-2002 school aid budget, so as to avoid any overall reductions in spending. The bill also withdraws an additional $200 million, and authorizes the budget director to use the money to close an expected $128 million general fund deficit for the FY 2000-2001 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, 2001. Finally, the bill cuts the FY 2001-2002 budgets for the legislature and the judiciary by five-percent each, which will reduce spending by approximately $10 million.
- Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate on November 1, 2001, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill, which withdraws $350 million from the “rainy day fund,” and authorizes the state budget director to use the money to close an expected $336 million deficit in the FY 2001-2002 school aid budget, so as to avoid any overall reductions in spending. The House version also withdraws an additional $200 million, and authorizes the budget director to use the money to close an expected $128 million general fund deficit for the FY 2000-2001 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, 2001. Finally, it cuts the FY 2001-2002 budgets for the legislature and the judiciary by five-percent each, which will reduce spending by approximately $10 million.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. John Engler on November 6, 2001.
Comments
1) Journal statement of Senator Emmons by Admin001 on November 2, 2001I just have to rise to say that I think the important thing to the people in the state of Michigan is that we’re in financial difficulty right now. We’re gonna start right here in this body, and the first cuts are going to be taken here in the judiciary and et cetera. We’re gonna take our cuts just like everybody else. That’s what’s happening here, and that’s what’s important.
Senator Cherry’s first statement is as follows: This is the Senate bill that we passed a while back that takes money out of the rainy day fund to help close the hole that we have in the K-12 budget. In discussing the bill, I want to pose a question, I guess, through you to the body. But if you want to answer it, that’s fine with me. As I look at what the House did with this bill, I just wonder if when a member of the House takes the oath of office to uphold the Constitution, whether anybody requires them to read the Constitution. The Constitution is pretty clear in Section 24 of Article IV where it says, “No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house so as to change its original purpose as determined by its total content” of the bill. What we did was send over to the House a bill amending the Management and Budget Act for the purposes of withdrawal from the BSF. That’s a purpose that I think we all supported. They then altered the purpose of the bill by putting in a negative supplemental. Now, quite frankly, the negative supplemental they put in the bill is one I can support and I suspect will be supported by every member of the body. They’re going to cut the judicial budget by 5 percent and the legislative budget by 5 percent because neither of those budgets can be cut by executive order. I support that. But I wonder if we do this in this fashion, which is clearly unconstitutional; whether the House intends to live with this cut because they don’t have to—they don’t have to comply with an unconstitutional act—or whether the judiciary will live with this cut because they don’t have to comply with an unconstitutional act. It just seems to me that as we proceed here dealing with some very serious business of trying to bring a state budget in line that clearly is significantly out of balance because of the economy, as we engage in that very serious business, the first step out of the box ought to be right and ought to be legal, and it ought to be constitutional. We’re all going to be tempted to vote for this because it does two very good things: It takes money out of the BSF to pay for K-12 education. It will also cut our budget as our budget needs to be cut like all other budgets. It will cut the budget of the judiciary as theirs needs to be cut like all others. But it’s going to be done in an unconstitutional fashion. It’s going to be done by sloppy work. It just seems to me that when we engage in very serious business, we ought to take our time to do it right. Clearly, what we’ve got before us is a bill that in its course of passage has had its purpose changed. I guess, Mr. President, I’d like a ruling from the Chair on the germaneness of this House amendment. Senator Cherry’s second statement is as follow: I would like to point out that in the course of debate, ultimately, this cut—what we have here is an amendment by reference. We are amending the judicial appropriation. We are amending the legislative appropriation by an amendment to the Management and Budget Act that changes the bill in the course of its passage through the Legislature, which clearly is a violation of the Constitution. So, as we make this cut to the judiciary and as we make this cut to the Legislature, let’s be advised that it really has no force of law. If this institution—the Senate, the House—or the Supreme Court wishes to challenge this, they will have a successful challenge because this is being done in a nonconstitutional way. Ultimately, because I support the two purposes, one of using the BSF to close the gap with the K-12 budget and, in fact, cutting our own budget, I will probably vote “yes” on it. It just strikes me that when we start out in this business of trying to put our fiscal house in order, it sends absolutely the wrong message when we violate our Constitution, our rules of doing business and do this job in such a sloppy fashion. I can’t believe there wasn’t a vehicle on the other side. They could have put these negative supplementals in, tie-barred the two bills, and brought them over. There is a right and simple way to do this. Instead, in their haste and confusion, and unfamiliarity with the rules of procedure, they chose to do a bad job that we now have to put our stamp of approval on.
Introduced in the Senate on September 25, 2001, to transfer $300 million from the budget stabilization fund (“rainy day fund”) to the school aid fund to close a projected FY 2001-2002 budget deficit
The vote was 36 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 313 at Senate Journal 66)
Click here to view bill details.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
