2003 House Bill 4390 - Michigan Votes

Legislation watch

2003 House Bill 4390

Public Act 154 of 2003

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Marc Shulman (R) on March 18, 2003, to provide a “template” or “place holder” for a Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Corrections budget. This budget contains no appropriations, but these may be added later to make changes to current or future appropriations.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 18, 2003.
  - Reported in the House on April 9, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on April 10, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which expresses differences between the Republican-majority in the House and Governor Jennifer Granholm regarding certain details of this budget. See House-passed version for details. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on April 10, 2003.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Scott Shackleton (R) on April 10, 2003, to instruct the Department of Corrections to find ways to identify prisoners who abuse the availability of off-site medical services and transportation to them, and take steps to limit this. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on April 10, 2003.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Brandenburg (R) on April 10, 2003, to cut $17 million from the $34 million proposed for prison academic and vocational programs. The amendment failed in the House (52 to 42) on April 10, 2003. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jack Brandenburg (R) on April 10, 2003, to cut $8.5 million from the $34 million proposed for prison academic and vocational programs. The amendment inserts “intent of the legislature” language that the money should be used to support public schools and colleges instead. The amendment passed in the House (61 to 37) on April 10, 2003. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the House (92 to 13) on April 10, 2003, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Corrections budget. This appropriates $1.721 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.701 billion, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $1.632 billion will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the amount passed in 2002 for FY 2002-2003 of $1.618 billion. (Note: Gov. Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4414 .) Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on April 22, 2003.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 22, 2003.
- Reported in the Senate on June 12, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 17, 2003, to replace the House version of this budget with a Senate version which expresses policy differences between the bodies on certain spending items. See Senate-passed version for details. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 17, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (38 to 0) on June 17, 2003, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Corrections budget. This appropriates $1.721 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.701 billion, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $1.632 billion will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the amount passed in 2002 for FY 2002-2003 of $1.618 billion. The Senate version adds back an $8.5 million cut by the House in funding for prison academic and vocational programs. (Note: Gov. Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4414 .) Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 17, 2003.
Failed in the House (0 to 103) on June 19, 2003, to concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 24, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on July 16, 2003, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Corrections budget. (Note: Gov. Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4414 .) This appropriates $1.721 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.701 billion, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $1.632 billion will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the amount passed in 2002 for FY 2002-2003 of $1.618 billion. These are the amounts originally recommended by the governor. Prison academic and vocational programs are funded at $32.6 million, a cut of $3.5 million. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 24, 2003.
Passed in the House (99 to 8) on July 16, 2003, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Corrections budget. (Note: Gov. Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4414 .) This appropriates $1.721 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.701 billion, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $1.632 billion will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the amount passed in 2002 for FY 2002-2003 of $1.618 billion. These are the amounts originally recommended by the governor. Prison academic and vocational programs are funded at $32.6 million, a cut of $3.5 million. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on August 8, 2003.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Rep. Stahl's no vote statement [by Admin003 on July 22, 2003]
Rep. Stahl, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

The purpose of my no vote is we are appropriating more money for corrections adult education program than the K-12 adult education program. Equitable and just cuts should be practiced. K-12 adult ed. received a 76% cut while corrections adult ed. was not cut at all."
Reply

Line

2) why did you do this.? [by annrock on April 11, 2003]
It is a statistical fact that the overwelming majority of prison inmates are illiterate. They went to the same failing schools you just gave money to. Why didn't you appropriate that money to be used to teach the prisoners reading using the time-tested phonics that educrats denied them in their elementary schools. See eagleforum.org for excellent information on all education issues. Next, you should not be giving any money to the state education system until the parents get control of their money to choose the school best suited for their child's education through universal tuition tax credits. The schools are failing in every way. Not just the inner-city , but the tales I have heard about the suburbs!
Reply

Line

3) Reps. Hood, Waters, Reeves and Hunter's "no vote explantion" [by Admin003 on April 11, 2003]
Reps. Hood, Waters, Reeves and Hunter, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on final passage of HB 4390, the Corrections budget, because Rep. Brandenburg’s amendments were unfairly punitive in nature. The focus was on compensating for a seemingly unrelated cut in the adult education/ Merit Award
scholarship programs. These amendments were not offered for consideration by members in the corrections subcommittee meeting. Ninety percent of the prison population will one day be paroled. Hence, the focus should have
been on preparing these individuals to become self-sufficient so they can be reintegrated positively back into society. The cut in educational funding does not reflect this. Eighty percent of inmates enter prison lacking basic reading, math, and writing skills. Statistics show there is a direct correlation between prisoners obtaining a high school education/GED and reduced recidivism."
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation