2005 House Bill 5047 (Create "21st Century Jobs Fund")

Public Act 225 of 2005

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

Introduced by Rep. Bill Huizenga on July 6, 2005, to establish a government “Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund” to provide grants, loans, and various subsidies to public entities and private businesses engaged in the research, development, marketing and commercialization of various “competitive edge” technologies identified by the state. A "Strategic Economic Investment Board” composed of government officials and representatives of the types of organizations likely to receive funding under the program would allocate the money. The money for the grants, loans and subsidies would come from the sale or “securitization” of the revenue stream from the 1998 tobacco company lawsuit, proposed by House Bill 5048. This is a House response to Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s $2 billion "Jobs for Michigan" debt proposal, and the Senate’s similar $1 billion debt proposal. See also House Bill 5005, another subsidy proposal that would rely on selling the tobacco revenue stream.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on July 6, 2005.
  - Reported in the House on July 13, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on August 31, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that incorporates changes reflecting the status of ongoing negotiations that continued even as this preliminary version of the bill was reported out of committee to "move the process along". The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on August 31, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga on August 31, 2005, to tie-bar the bill to House Republican tax cut proposals, in particular House Bill 5108. This means this bill can't become law unless that one does also. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on August 31, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom Casperson on August 31, 2005, to require that $25 million of the subsidy money be given to the Michigan Forest Finance Authority, which is the entity that contracts for timber cutting rights on state lands. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on August 31, 2005.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga on September 28, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that reflects negotiated changes. See House-passed bill. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on September 28, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Moore on September 28, 2005, to instruct the government committee and board that will determine who gets the subsidies to disregard any political contributions made by potential recipients of the money to candidates, PACs, etc. The amendment passed in the House (104 to 0) on September 28, 2005. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the House (103 to 1) on September 28, 2005, to establish a government $1 billion “Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund” to give subsidies to public entities and private businesses engaged in various “competitive edge” technologies. The bill authorizes government ownership of private businesses and gets around a state Constitutional prohibition on this by placing these in a "permanent fund," which Senate Joint Resolution T of 2002 exempted from the prohibition, and which was described when presented to the people for a vote as applying to natural resources, veterans and state parks trust funds. Government officials and representatives of the types of organizations likely to get the money would make up a "Strategic Economic Investment Board” to allocate 70 percent of the subsidies (see Senate Bill 533 ). The balance would be given out by the existing “Michigan Strategic Fund,” renamed the "21st Century Jobs Fund." The $1 billion would come from “securitizing” (selling) one-third of the approximately $280 million annual revenue stream from the 1998 tobacco company lawsuit settlement. This is the legislature's response to Gov. Granholm’s $2 billion "Jobs for Michigan" debt proposal. The bill also authorizes spending $60 million on “WiMAX” ventures, an untested wireless internet technology covering large areas. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on September 29, 2005.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on September 29, 2005.
  - Reported in the Senate on October 18, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on October 18, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that removes the $65 million grant to "WiMAX" internet service providers, replacing it with other more general earmarks, including $15 million to promote tourism, $10 million for a "defense contract coordination center," $6 million for "automation alley" in Southeast Michigan, $4 million to the Van Andel Institute in Grand Rapids, $2 million to promote movie production, $2 million to transfer new technology from universities to the private sector, in addition to $26 million added by the House for the forestry industry. These earmarks would come out of $400 million to be spent in the next year. Up to 5 percent of the $1 billion could be spent for "business development and marketing expenses," and another 4 percent could be spent on administration. The substitute revises other details governing how the money would be distributed, and to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not require that the business tax cuts passed by the House in House Bill 5108 go into effect for this and related business subsidy bills to go into effect. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on October 18, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Cameron Brown, Sen. Ron Jelinek, Sen. Michelle McManus and Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom on October 19, 2005, to add a $10 million "earmark" to be spent subsidizing agricultural development. This would be added to other industry-specific earmarks (see Senate substitute). The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on October 19, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Valde Garcia on October 19, 2005, to give the governor the authority to appoint any member of the Michigan Strategic Fund board to be its chair, rather than the head of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation automatically assuming the position. This body will preside over the disbursement of the $1 billion authorized by this legislation. The amendment also has "clean up" language correcting and clarifying other provisions. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on October 19, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Valde Garcia on October 19, 2005, to spend $40 million on the commercialization of life sciences in the current fiscal year, rather than $50 million, but still spend $50 million in each of the next four years. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on October 19, 2005.
Passed in the Senate (34 to 4) on October 19, 2005, to establish a government $1 billion “Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund” to give subsidies to public entities and private businesses engaged in various “competitive edge” technologies. The bill authorizes government ownership of private businesses and gets around a state Constitutional prohibition on this by placing these in a "permanent fund," which Senate Joint Resolution T of 2002 exempted from the prohibition, and which was described when presented to the people for a vote as applying to natural resources, veterans and state parks trust funds. Government officials and representatives of the types of organizations likely to get the money would make up a "Strategic Economic Investment and Commercialization Board” to allocate the subsidies (see Senate Bill 533 ). The $1 billion would come from “securitizing” (selling) one-third of the approximately $280 million annual revenue stream from the 1998 tobacco company lawsuit settlement. This is the legislature's response to Gov. Granholm’s $2 billion "Jobs for Michigan" debt proposal. The bill specifically authorizes spending $400 million in 2006, $75 million of which is earmarked for particular industries. It is tied to other business subsidy measures, in particular Senate Bills 359 and 521, but not to the House-passed tax cuts in HB 5108. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on October 20, 2005.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga on November 10, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that reflects the agreement struck between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican legislative leaders to adopt modest business tax cuts and a scaled-down "21st Century Jobs Fund." Of the initial $400 million in subsidies for cutting-edge research or commercialization projects, $10 million would go to the state Agricultural Development Fund; $26 million to the state Forest Finance Authority; $15 million for tourism advertising; and $36 million for administrative costs, business development and marketing efforts. The annual $75 million appropriation in future would go to the “Strategic Fund,” which is basically the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s legal mechanism for receiving funds. MEDC is the state entity that oversees its various business subsidy programs. The complete package includes House Bills 4972, 5047, 5048, 5095, 5097, 5108, 5109, and Senate Bill 633. The tax cut and business subsidy bills are all tie-barred together, meaning they all must become law or none do. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on November 10, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Andy Dillon on November 10, 2005, to condition the granting of subsidies for the “commercialization of competitive edge technology” on sufficient qualified applicants applying for them. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on November 10, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga on November 10, 2005, to revise annual allocation of subsidies for the “commercialization of competitive edge technology.” In Fiscal Year 2007 $50 million would be authorized, then $30 million per year through 2012. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on November 10, 2005.
Passed in the House (92 to 13) on November 10, 2005, to establish a scaled down program of business and research subsidies along the lines described in earlier versions of this bill, as part of an agreement struck between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican legislative leaders to also adopt modest business tax cuts. The revised version of this bill would use $400 million of "securitized" tobacco settlement revenue right away, and give $75 million per year for eight years from the remaining “unsecuritized” settlement revenue stream to the "Michigan Strategic Fund" for various business subsidies. Future legislatures would not be bound by the $75 million per year agreement, however. The tax cut is described under the final votes on Senate Bill 633, and details of the full package by a Senate Fiscal Agency analysis (pdf). [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on November 10, 2005.
Passed in the Senate (35 to 3) on November 10, 2005, to establish a scaled down program of business and research subsidies along the lines described in earlier versions of this bill, as part of an agreement struck between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican legislative leaders to also adopt modest business tax cuts. The revised version of this bill would use $400 million of "securitized" tobacco settlement revenue right away, and give $75 million per year for eight years from the remaining “unsecuritized” settlement revenue stream to the "Michigan Strategic Fund" for various business subsidies. Future legislatures would not be bound by the $75 million per year agreement, however. The tax cut is described under the final votes on Senate Bill 633, and details of the full package by a Senate Fiscal Agency analysis (pdf). [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on November 21, 2005, at the same time she vetoed a package of bills business tax cut bills associated with this bill (but not all tie-barred to it).

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Bill Huizenga on July 6, 2005. Passed in the House (103 to 1) on September 28, 2005. New Comment

1) Not another state investment board! [by Mike Hignite on July 22, 2005]
The State of Michigan should not be in the business of throwing out subsidies, grants & investments in any business at the expense of individual taxpayers and existing businesses already employing citizens.

Setting up a board of individuals who are allowed to dole out benefits to companies that may or may not result in jobs only opens up opportunities for abuse and waste of taxpayer money.

There is no guarantee that these investments will do anything useful. That's the nature of free enterprise -- you take risks and may win or lose. Public money should never be used in this fashion.

Using public funds to line the pockets of some companies over others is wrong.
Reply New Comment

Line

Received in the Senate on September 29, 2005. Passed in the Senate (34 to 4) on October 19, 2005. New Comment

1) Sen. Brown's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Brown's statement is as follows:

I rise in support of the package before us. In doing so, I briefly just want to say that, of course, we must all appreciate the risk involved in leveraging securitized tobacco settlement dollars for the sake of job creation. Like the future of the economy itself, there is certainly uncertainty, but it is important, Mr.President, to keep one point of perspective in mind, and that point was emphasized by a previous speaker. To be sure, we are using taxpayers' dollars, yes, but these are not tax dollars. They are dollars that have come to this state through settlement, and because of that, we have more discretionary use of this money than if they were tax dollars collected from taxpayers.

Reply New Comment

Line

2) Sen. Sikkema's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Sikkema's statement is as follows:

Since this is the last bill in this package, I want to offer my comments. I urge the members to pass it, and I'll explain why I'm supporting this enthusiastically.

With the passage of this package of bills, in my opinion, Michigan is making a major step forward in helping to diversify our economy. I think we're taking a major step forward in recognizing that Michigan's economic future and jobs future is going to look very different from our economic past in that we're taking a major step forward, frankly, in helping to change the economic culture of this state.

Now, a lot of the discussion, both on this floor and in committee and inside meetings, has been over the securitization--and I still stumble over that word--of a portion of the tobacco settlement that's due Michigan. It's an important discussion. There are different opinions on whether we ought to do that, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that that's the financing mechanism of a very comprehensive economic diversification package, and that's really the meat and potatoes of this package before us. It is very comprehensive. We're making a major step in creating more incentives to attract venture capital in this state by changing the Michigan Venture Fund, something this chamber started a couple of years ago. We're creating what's called a commercial pipeline for life sciences, which is a fancy way of saying a lot of states are doing basic research, but if you really want jobs and you really want companies coming out of life sciences research, you want to be the place in America for commercialization of that research. This life sciences pipeline concept hopefully will do that. It will make Michigan the place in America for products and drugs that need FDA approval. They can come here to go through that commercial pipeline to get that approval.

There's a bill in this package that we call angel investing. It's basically an incentive for wealthy individuals to commit some of their wealth to somewhat risky ventures here in Michigan, and the incentive is if you make money on that investment, we want you to roll that gain over and make similar investments in Michigan. That's part of this package--a critical piece.

Part of this package is a recognition that right now in Michigan, when a company expands by selling shares to get money to build and expand in this state, our franchise fees are onerous. There's a bill in this package to reduce those franchise fees so that doesn't happen. So that's not a barrier for economic growth.

There's a recognition in this package that we need jobs and expansion all across this state, not just in what I call the metropolitan or southern belt. That's important--that's where I'm from--but in rural Michigan and northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, we need job creation and expansion there. There's a deep recognition in this package with the Forest Development Authority and the Agriculture Development Fund and the commitment to tourism that they have to be part of our future as well.

There are pluses and minuses to doing this by committing some of our tobacco settlement versus a general obligation bond, which the Senate originally passed in June, but one of the advantages of doing it this way is that we can do it quickly. We can pass this bill. We can commit money virtually immediately to the various parts of this package, and I think that's an upside to this. There's a commitment. Again, we had this in the past, budget difficulties made us abandon this, but there's a commitment to recreate the capital access program, which is basically a program for the state to back up decisions banks make to loan to small companies that might be a little riskier than what they're used to making loans to.

I don't want members to lose sight of how comprehensive this economic diversification plan really is, and I am compelled to put this in some context. We're committing, in essence, a portion--about a third--of the tobacco settlement money that we get on an annual basis to this very comprehensive economic diversification plan. You know, it's not long ago--six years, in fact--where Governor John Engler said, "I want you to commit a portion of the tobacco settlement money--$50 million a year for 20 years--interestingly $1 billion--purely to do basic research in life sciences as an economic diversification plan." Now, I supported that. I thought it was a wise decision, but put this in some context. That Governor and the Legislature adopted it. We were willing to commit $50 million a year to life sciences just to do basic research with no commitment and no emphasis on job creation. This plan commits a little bit more of the tobacco settlement money--between $70 million and $90 million a year--to do a much broader, comprehensive job diversification plan/economic diversification plan that's focused on job creation in the new economy.

I've heard comments about government shouldn't pick winners and losers. I appreciate that, but it reminds me of something that occurred in the early '90s. A former Majority Leader, who happened to be John Engler, ran for Governor and basically said the same thing. I applauded him at the time. Government shouldn't create winners and losers. He opposed any tax abatement plans in Michigan. He got elected Governor. Four years later, he proposed the creation of what is now called the MEGA credits, specifically-focused tax abatements for specific companies. Now, some of us at the time almost fell off our chairs. In fact, I want to relate an anecdote. I was in a leadership position in the House when he proposed it. I went to a legislative conference in Washington, D.C., where I had colleagues from all across the country. President Clinton was President. Robert Reisch was Secretary of Labor. Robert Reisch came in to speak to this group of legislators from all over America--from almost every state--and he gave a speech bemoaning these tax abatement plans that states had, saying how they were bad. I was feeling pretty good because I was going to come back to Michigan and challenge John Engler and say, "We shouldn't do this." Then, at the end of his speech, he said, "By the way, how many of you states have one of those?" Every state raised their hand except me, and why was that? And why did John Engler propose, after he was critical of that kind of strategy, that? Because, at the time, we were losing our shirt to other states that had that arrow in their quiver. It's not a be-all and end-all. It does have some problems, but John Engler recognized--and I voted for it eventually--that you need a lot of arrows in the quiver or a lot of tools in the toolbox.

Now, let me say that this plan, which I support and am convinced can help the economic future of this state, is not complete. Something is missing from this plan and that something is a significant tax cut for Michigan businesses. That has to be a piece of our economic future if we're really serious about doing what needs to be done to reposition this state for economic growth. I am going to ask this Senate, within a matter of days, to pass a business tax cut.

Something else is missing from this plan. We do need to focus on education, both higher education and K-12. I hope that some time in the near future--I won't say days; maybe it's a couple of weeks--but I hope that the Senate can look at our scholarship programs in Michigan and actually expand, not restrict, our scholarship programs. I have been critical of proposals from this Governor that have been designed to sort of eliminate some of our scholarship programs. I take the opposite approach. I think you need to expand the scholarship offer.

Is this a perfect plan? It's not a perfect plan. It's got some downsides. Other things have to be done that I've mentioned, but I think it's time for this state to take some what I will call prudent risks to help change the economic culture of this state because the restructuring that's going on is not a temporary restructuring. It is a permanent restructuring, and it is high time that we get ahead of that curve.

Reply New Comment

Line

3) Sen. Jacobs' "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows:

I rise in favor of this bill. I really applaud that this day has finally come, where members from both sides of the aisle can say, "It is time to move forward." I am so frustrated with the rhetoric that we keep hearing and trying to point blame and beat each other up in terms of what has or hasn't been done. Today, we're going to move forward. I want to challenge those folks who are in charge of the process right now--because those of us in the minority party are not in charge--to hear other good ideas in committees so that all ideas can be given full hearings so that we can altogether, all collectively move forward to help Michigan. We need to stop the partisanship, the political bickering, and keep our eyes on the true prize here, which is helping Michigan move forward. Let's forget about who's getting re-elected next year--in the next session.

As a former fundraiser, I just have to say it's always been my philosophy that you sometimes have to spend money to make money, and we see this when we invest money into advertising for tourism, for the lottery--that putting money upfront is helpful in terms of being able to make money later on.

So we are doing the right thing by doing this. I really applaud those of us who may have prompted certain pieces of this bill. We can still move forward for Michigan's sake. I'm very happy that we can finally vote on this.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Sen. Switalski's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Switalski's statement is as follows:

I was actually going to talk about the bill, so I'll just proceed. I've been wrestling with this issue for some time. It's a very difficult call. I prefer the version that emerged from this chamber many months ago which involved bonding. Let me add that I thought that the Senate actually improved on the original administration proposal with what emerged from this chamber, and I have misgivings about the use of securitization of the tobacco dollars. This will exacerbate our structural deficit and negatively impact funding for public health, and we'll pay a high premium for these securitized dollars. I think most of my colleagues share some of these reservations about the bills.

The question before us, though, is whether this jobs initiative shall proceed, and I don't think it's a partisan issue. There have been supporters and detractors of the bills on both sides of the aisle. The plan before us is not the plan each of us might have preferred, but it is the only plan before us that commands a majority. The government has a chance to promote economic growth and jobs and transformation--and that's the key. We can pursue that chance, but it does entail risk and cost. Reasonable people will differ on this venture. As I said, it's a close call. With all its flaws, I will support this venture. Let each member vote their conscience, and let the wisdom of the majority rule.

Reply New Comment

Line

5) Sen. Cropsey's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows:

I will be reluctantly voting for this legislation. This is being done, as it is, with a lot of legislation. It is not being done in a perfect manner as far as everything you'd like to see happen, but at the same time, there is stuff that is being done with this. This part of the legislation, and I believe the following bill is I believe, exceptionally crucial to what is being done here. Michigan is one of the top states as far as patents being issued in this country. You have a lot of creative people, especially in our institutions of higher education, who have received a tremendous amount of several research dollars. I believe the University of Michigan, for example, receives more federal research dollars than any other public institution in the United States. We have patents, we have creative thinking, that is being done in this state. What we don't have is the commercialization of those patents.

When it comes to venture capital, angel investments, that type of thing, those funders, those investors are on the East Coast and on the West Coast. One of the key things we need is to say, "What does it take to get that type of investment going here in the state of Michigan." This, I believe, is one of the key things in this proposal--trying to prime the pump on that type of investment. Is it risky? Yes, it is risky. Will some of these fail? Some of them will certainly fail. Will some of them actually happen, though? Well, when you see investors trying to lure people away to the East Coast and West Coast and set up those businesses there, some of them are bound to be successful, and I think it's better to have those jobs here in Michigan and developed here in Michigan than have them attracted to California or attracted to the East Coast.

And I say this is only a partial answer--it's an imperfect answer--and that's because we do need much more to be done in the state of Michigan. By no means should we look at this as saying this is the end-all and be-all--that this is the silver bullet. I do appreciate the people who have worked on this because they've worked very diligently. I think they've come up with a very creative part to the solution, but there are other parts that this Governor needs to recognize are very important for job creation in this state. This Governor is now presiding over a state where the unemployment is virtually the worst in the nation. It's been that way for the term of her governorship. She needs to take a look at some of the more mundane things and say what has she done or hasn't done that needs to be corrected--some of the other things that need to be looked at. I challenge the Governor to look at this--at the regulatory attitude of the bureaucracy of this state since she has become Governor. Our Department of Treasury is becoming very insistent on people paying taxes even though they are not due. If you talk to small business people that are being harassed by tax auditors, they're saying, "Why should we stay in Michigan when we can go elsewhere?" If you take a look at the DEQ and the environmentalists who are unleashed in that department who have not been held back by this Governor, people are saying, "How come I can't expand? How come I cannot get permits? How come it takes so long when in other states it's being done rapidly and quickly?" That's a huge problem that we have in this state.

Another key thing that we're going to need to do is we are going to need to address the single business tax and the tax structure in this state, besides doing venture capital. What I mean by that is that the single business tax is the only tax like it in the United States. It's a value-added tax--a European model. This has had a dramatic decline, or a dramatic influence on our state's economy when we have businesses that are saying, "Why should we even consider Michigan when they have this type of tax structure; that if we make money, we pay taxes and if we lose money, we pay taxes." I would encourage the Governor to take a serious look at the single business tax and say, "What are we going to do to do something dramatically and just plain get rid of it?"

The final thing, then, if taxes are going to be cut, which they should be cut, is taking a look at the spending problem that we have. When this Governor ran for Governor, she talked about a structural deficit.

The gentleman who just asked for the point of order, I believe, when he spoke, he spoke about glowing terms on how this was kind of an end-all and be-all, and I'm just making the point that this is not an end-all and be-all. There is much more that needs to be done on some of the deficiencies of this package of legislation. That's the point that I was trying to make on this final point that I had. We do have to get spending under control and this is one of the things that, as we go into the appropriations process again, to realize that we not only have a budget that needs to be balanced, but a budget that significantly needs to be cut. I would hope that the administration would offer that so that we can afford the tax reduction that our businesses so desperately need.

Reply New Comment

Line

6) Sen. Goschka's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Goschka's statement is as follows:

I rise in support of this bill as well as the entire package. My part of the state, as well as many others, is very high in unemployment. With Delphi now filing bankruptcy, there are many people throughout our great state who really don't know what their future holds. I do respect the views of those who will vote the other way on this package, but I do think it is important that as we deliberate this issue and look at the bottom line, we need to deliver something of substance to the people in this state now. We really cannot afford to wait. They certainly cannot afford to wait. Their futures, their pay checks, and their livelihoods are all subject to question.

This is a difficult issue, but I do believe that the right decision to make is to do something today, now, posthaste, as quickly as possible for the people of this state. We have to do something economically now. We cannot wait and watch Rome burn.

Reply New Comment

Line

7) Sen. Schauer's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:

I rise in support of this economic investment package, this bill, this final bill in the package that is before us. Much has been said, but this is a very important moment for us as the Senate and for our state. This package as proposed by our Governor and soon to be enacted by this Legislature is coming at a very critical time in our states economy.

Headlines of just the last week or days tell us that we must act quickly and we must act in a bold fashion for the jobs, for our constituents, and for our children which are at stake. Members, we've seen great success in the Life Sciences Corridor. This initiative is really based upon that great success that we have seen in the life sciences field led by our fine universities, research institutions, and entrepreneurs who have been willing to step up and commercialize that great work here in our state.

This package will help us do much more than the Life Sciences Corridor has been able to do to this point to create jobs, to diversify our economy so that our greatest economic days in this state for our children and for our grandchildren are ahead of us. Some think that Michigan's greatest economic days are in the past, but with this package, I believe that is not true.

I'm proud of this Senate for joining our Governor in such a strong bipartisan way to enact this important legislation. To the Speaker and members at the other end of the Capitol, it is incumbent upon you to act quickly and help us place this groundbreaking, important legislation on Governor Granholm's desk immediately.

Members, your "yes" vote will be a bold step, will send a strong, bold signal to the people in our state and those around the country and around the world that Michigan is indeed an excellent place to do business and will be a leader around the world in the future.

Reply New Comment

Line

8) Sen. Garcia's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Garcia's third statement is as follows:

We had to clarify the amendment. The amendment that is before you calls for taking the $10 million that we just set aside in the first amendment that the Senator had offered earlier, and we're taking it out of the amount of money that we're setting aside for life sciences in the first year--$10 million. The overall impact is that there will be not less than $40 million spent on life sciences in the first year and not less than $50 million spent in subsequent years for four years in life sciences. So we just needed to clarify that. Thank you very much, and I urge members to adopt this amendment as well.

Senator Garcia's fourth statement is as follows:

A key component of House Bill No.5047 is the creation of the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund, authorizing securitization proceeds to be held and invested as permanent funds for the benefit of our great state. This investment in Michigan's future is authorized by Section 19 of Article 9 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, which permits state funds held as permanent funds to be invested as provided by law, including, but not limited to, investments in the form of subscriptions to, or interests in, the stock of any company, association, or corporation.

The permanent fund created under House Bill No.5047, the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund, will have permanency and a lasting impact on the economy of our state because money in the fund can't be spent for other purposes. It may only be invested for the benefit of the people of the state of Michigan and for the purpose of creating incentives for diversifying Michigan's economy; retaining and creating jobs in our state; increasing capital investment activity; increasing commercial lending activity; and encouraging the development and commercialization of technologies related to Michigan's economic future, including life sciences, alternative energy, homeland security and defense, and advanced automotive manufacturing and materials.

While under House Bill No.5047, the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund may be invested or loaned subject to stringent controls, the investments or loans will be structured to provide for the return to the fund of principal and initial capital investments, in addition to interest or other earnings. Deposits to the fund--its body of assets or corpus--will remain in the fund. While that money may be invested in capital investments or debt obligations, the money cannot be expended otherwise and will not revert to the state's General Fund. Only net income produced by investments from the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund may be appropriated and otherwise spent.

Investment and loan programs for the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund will be created and operated by the Michigan Strategic Fund Board, based upon advice from a fund manager with not less than ten years of experience, enabling investments from the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund in or alongside funds with private investors to encourage greater investment by the private sector in growing Michigan companies. A loan enhancement program also will be created using funds invested from or loaned by the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund to ensure that expanding Michigan companies have access to the private capital they need to grow here in our state.

All of these activities are subject to strict legislative and administrative oversight, compliance review by the new executive branch chief compliance officer, and regular audits by the Auditor General. These provisions of House Bill No.5047, along with the fiduciary obligations of the Michigan Strategic Fund Board and its fund managers, will combine to ensure that monies in the Jobs for Michigan Investment Fund are invested and reinvested as permanent funds in a manner consistent with Michigan's Constitution and the objectives and purposes established by this legislation--with the resulting benefits for Michigan's economic future accruing within this state for the benefit of generations to come.

Reply New Comment

Line

9) Sen. Garcia's "first journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Garcia's first statement is as follows:

I, too, rise to support the amendment, and I want to thank the amendment sponsor and others who are responsible for strengthening this package and by adding this amendment in. I, too, urge members to adopt this amendment.

Senator Garcia's second statement is as follows:

This again is a series of grammatical, technical, and clarifying amendments that will help in the implementation of this plan, and again, we met with the administration and worked it out so they made sense. However, there is one significant amendment that I would like to address the body on. That is specifically No.8 and it talks about the previous substitute stating that the president of the Michigan Strategic Fund would be the MEDC CEO. This amendment will change it to allow the Governor to select from any member of the board. The Governor ought to be allowed the flexibility, whoever he or she is at the time that this program is running, to pick the person to head up the Strategic Fund--to head up their economic development program.

It is my hope that this Governor will appoint the MEDC CEO for a number of reasons, and I want to go on record as saying why. First of all, to have a department director head up an entity like this, the board, underneath another department is a little bit unusual. While I have spoken to the current director of DLEG and he has no problem with it, I think it can muddle up the process. You have a potential conflict between two chiefs. You have too many chiefs, and having been in the military for 24 years, I understand there has to be a clear chain of command. I think if you choose anyone other than the MEDC CEO, you're going to have a muddled chain of command, and you could have some problems. We see what's happen to date with the process that's been implemented so far, and I'm not sure it's working. And, again, I have no problem with the current DLEG director. I have no problem with the current MEDC CEO or the past one. I just think it ought to be a clear chain of command.

Something else to consider is that you have the department director overseeing the board or a fund that actually has to hire these people, so the director of one department is going to potentially hire the people from another department, and I think that poses some problems.

For the record, I'd like to state that I hope the Governor takes one person to be in charge of his or her economic development plan, and I hope it's the MEDC CEO. But given it's the Governor, we wanted to give them the flexibility to choose whoever they wish to.

Reply New Comment

Line

10) Sen. Cassis' "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill Nos. 5047, 5048, 5109, 5215, and 5216 and concurring in the House substitutes to Senate Bill Nos. 359, 521, and 533 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of House Bill No.5047 be printed as her reasons for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows:

This is my "no" vote explanation on House Bill Nos. 5048, 5019, 5047, 5215, and 5216, as well as the Senate bills tie-barred to securitization: Senate Bill Nos. 359, 521, and 533.

My "no" vote on securitization bills first and foremost recognizes our collective legislative concerns and distress in respect to Michigan's faltering, struggling economy and the job losses that are causing so much considerable stress on individuals, families, and businesses alike.

I am very cognizant of the anxiety of my colleagues as to the plight of their districts. I am reminded that the dollars being securitized relate to the tobacco settlements with the respective states. The core idea behind that money here in Michigan was aimed at health, healing, education, and academic scholarships. Today we defer, we depart, from that core principle.

While there is no one silver bullet, isn't there another way of helping to resurrect Michigan's economy, create a business climate emphasizing our proud Michigan heritage of innovation, support of private enterprise and its willingness to invest, compete, and take risks? Our goal then is to create a positive business environment for job providers currently here in Michigan and for those outside of Michigan that we want to attract here advancing greater diversity. In moving to accomplish this goal, I ask, what is the role of government?

I concur with those who question government committing to debt, to choosing selected and favored activities, and I concur with those who question the wisdom that government has greater success predicting winners than reinforcing the role of a free market. Yes, there is another option, one that many economists advocate because of a more promising, tried and true, successful outcome.

To that point, direct and devote the interest costs that will come from our General Fund some $80 million next year approximately and the years to follow to reduce our collective tax burden and aid all of Michigan. Such tax relief, my colleagues, means money kept in wallets to invest privately. This sends a strong signal and message and opens the way for the private sector to see Michigan as open for business, as a fertile place to grow and create jobs.

Reply New Comment

Line

11) Sen. Toy's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Toy's statement is as follows:

Mr.President, I rise to give my "no" vote explanation of House Bill Nos. 5047, 5048 and 5109.

Although the goal of job creation is certainly a well-intentioned one, I philosophically do not agree with this legislation. A changing global economy is changing Michigan's economy, and I am committed to doing all that I can in this chamber to create and retain jobs and to attract the employers of the 21st century to our state. However, I do not believe that it is the proper role of state government to take $1 billion in taxpayer money and allow political appointees to invest it in high-risk ventures. Furthermore, this plan sells state revenues that are currently being used to fund health care for our state's poor and scholarships for its youth at a great discount.

Finally, unlike the original bonding proposal, this plan deprives voters of the right to have a say in how their money is spent in our state. As a small business owner, I have firsthand knowledge about job creation and the government's role. We are better served by removing the obstacles to job creation than by trying to engineer a giant program where government pretends to know more than the market.

There are no quick fixes. This legislation is deeply flawed on two levels--philosophically and technically. I, therefore, cannot in good conscience support this measure.

Reply New Comment

Line

12) Sen. Sanborn's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Sanborn's statement is as follows:

I rise with my "no" vote explanation. Now, I have heard the debate on the floor over the last couple of days. Now we have to gamble to turn Michigan's economy around--this from my respected and learned colleagues who fought alongside with me to keep casinos out of Michigan. For you, I give this phone number: 313-792-2877. That's for Gamblers Anonymous. To my colleagues across the aisle, remember when your mantra on Social Security was put it in a lockbox?

Now you are willing to take 56 cents on the dollar of the tobacco settlement money. You are going to pay a five percent business development fee, you are going to pay a four percent administrative fee, and you are going to be betting on such things that Michigan can become the Hollywood of the North; that we can now make movies here and that is going to help turn Michigan's economy around. Perhaps the first movie we can make is the "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire."

And to those who believe that we can gamble with money managers and pay all of these fees and get it all back. You are willing to do that because you think it is better to take the money up front now because the cigarette companies are going to go out of business. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I recommend that your first money be spent on Phillip Morris, parent company Altria, up this year 74 percent and it pays a 4.3 percent dividend.

Senator Toy, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill Nos. 5047, 5048, and 5109 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of House Bill No.5047 be printed as her reasons for voting "no."

Reply New Comment

Line

13) Sen. Gilbert's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on October 21, 2005]
Senator Gilbert's statement is as follows:

I sincerely hope my judgment is wrong, but I believe this legislation isn't the way we should go. I understand as much as anyone here the need to diversify our economy and increase employment. But I am concerned about the intervention into our free market. It is allowing government to pick winners. I understand and appreciate that the private sector involvement has increased from the original plan. Nevertheless, loans will be given only after government criteria is met. Let me put it this way: If Thomas Edison's success in inventing and developing the light bulb was contingent upon convincing a government committee that it was a good idea, we may all be eating dinner by candlelight tonight.

This plan will cost up to $90 million. It's far better to have this phased in with tax relief for all businesses so those whohave invested and employed Michigan citizens, as well as those emerging and cutting-edge businesses, will benefit as well.

Reply New Comment

Line

Received in the Senate on November 10, 2005. Passed in the Senate (35 to 3) on November 10, 2005. New Comment

1) Rep. Hoogendyk's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on November 11, 2005]
Rep. Hoogendyk, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

IF WE ARE GOING TO SECURITIZE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT DOLLARS, WE SHOULD USE THEM TO GIVE IMMEDIATE TAX RELIEF TO THE WORKING FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES OF MICHIGAN. WE SHOULD NOT TRUST A BOARD OF EXPERTS TO DOLE OUT DOLLARS AND PICK THE WINNERS AND LOSERS OF OVER $400 MILLION IN SECURITIZED FUNDS."

Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site