Introduced by Sen. Jud Gilbert (R) on February 17, 2005, to establish a state agriculture and rural community advisory council to evaluate and recommend changes in how state laws, rules, and policies affect farmers, food processors, agribusiness, and rural communities.
Referred to the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism Committee on February 17, 2005.
Reported in the Senate on April 12, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on April 19, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that would establish a less formal "roundtable" (rather than a permanent advisory commission) comprised of representatives of named interest groups selected by the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality (rather than by legislative leaders), to discuss how the laws, rules, and policies administered by the DEQ affect farmers, food processors, agribusiness, and rural communities. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on April 19, 2005.
Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on April 20, 2005, to establish a rural community advisory "roundtable" comprised of representatives of named interest groups selected by the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, to discuss with the DEQ in public twice each year how the laws, rules, and policies it administers affect farmers, food processors, agribusiness, and rural communities. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on April 20, 2005.
Referred to the House Agriculture Committee on April 20, 2005.
Reported in the House on May 18, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on May 26, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that incorporates technical changes resulting from committee testimony and deliberation, but subsequently superceded by the Nitz substitute. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2005.
Substitute offered by Rep. Neal Nitz (R) on May 26, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that adds two additional local government members to the "roundtable". The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2005.
Amendment offered by Rep. Dudley Spade (D) on May 26, 2005, to eliminate a definition of "rural county" as one containing less than 70,000 in population, and simply require the local governments represented at the "roundtable" to be in "rural areas".
Amendment offered by Rep. Dudley Spade (D) on May 31, 2005, to eliminate a definition of "rural county" as one containing less than 70,000 in population, and simply require the local governments represented at the "roundtable" to be in "rural areas". The amendment failed 55 to 51 in the House on May 31, 2005. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Amendment offered by Rep. Steve Bieda (D) on May 31, 2005, to also require the "roundtable" to discuss "concentrated animal feeding operations" (CAFOs), which are large livestock farms. The amendment failed 44 to 62 in the House on May 31, 2005. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Amendment offered by Rep. Steve Bieda (D) on May 31, 2005, to also require the "roundtables" to have representatives from environmental organizations. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 31, 2005.
Passed 85 to 19 in the House on June 1, 2005, to establish a rural community advisory "roundtable" comprised of representatives of named interest groups selected by the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, to discuss with the DEQ in public twice each year how the laws, rules, and policies it administers affect farmers, food processors, agribusiness, and rural communities. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
1) State Rep. John Garfield by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2006 Here we go again. Another commission. We don't need all these commissions and more government intervention. Reply
2) Rep. Waters' "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on June 2, 2005 Rep. Waters, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on SB 226 because this bill is just one more attack on the DEQ. It is interesting to note that this bill comes soon after the implementation of a comprehensive set of administrative rules that regulate the storage and disposal of manure on large factory farms and prohibits manure from running into rivers and streams. If such a discussion is going to take place then the environmental community should also be involved.
Furthermore, the bill is far too limited in scope by defining rural counties as those having a population of 70,000 or less. The bill advocates a discussion of the laws, rules, and policies administered by the DEQ that affect farmers, food processors, and agribusiness. Agriculture has a significant presence in every county in Michigan. This restriction eliminates nearly half of Michigan counties from this discussion. Supporters of the bill have not been able to provide a rational argument for this arbitrary number."
3) Rep. Hood's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on June 2, 2005 Rep. Hood, 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:
I voted no on SB 226 because this bill is just one more attack on the DEQ. It is interesting to note that this bill comes soon after the implementation of a comprehensive set of administrative rules that regulate the storage and disposal of manure on large factory farms and prohibits manure from running into rivers and streams. If such a discussion is going to take place then the environmental community should also be involved.
Furthermore, the bill is far too limited in scope by defining rural counties as those having a population of 70,000 or less. The bill advocates a discussion of the laws, rules, and policies administered by the DEQ that affect farmers, food processors, and agribusiness. Agriculture has a significant presence in every county in Michigan. This restriction eliminates nearly half of Michigan counties from this discussion. Supporters of the bill have not been able to provide a rational argument for this arbitrary number."