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

• Introduced by Sen. Jim Barcia (D) on February 28, 2006, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006-2007 Department of Agriculture budget. This appropriates $101.4 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $108.8 million, which was the FY 2005-2006 amount enrolled in 2005. Of this, $30.06 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2005-2006 amount of $28.3 million.
  • Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 28, 2006.
    • Reported in the Senate on May 24, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the Senate on May 24, 2006, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the Senate and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items and funding sources. For much more detail see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on May 24, 2006.
  • Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on May 24, 2006, to increase from 120 to 123 the number of full time government port inspection employees, at an average cost of $100,000. The amendment failed 19 to 17 in the Senate on May 24, 2006.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on May 24, 2006, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006-2007 Department of Agriculture budget. This appropriates $102.7 million in adjusted gross spending, compared to $108.8 million, which was the FY 2005-2006 amount enrolled in 2005. Of this, $30.43 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2005-2006 amount of $28.3 million.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on May 24, 2006.
  • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on May 24, 2006.
    • Reported in the House on May 31, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the House on May 31, 2006, to strip out all of the appropriations of the Senate-passed version of the bill, leaving it as just a "shell" or "placeholder." This is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 31, 2006.
• Passed 74 to 30 in the House on May 31, 2006, to send the bill back to the Senate "stripped" of all actual appropriations, leaving it as a "template" or "placeholder." This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on June 1, 2006.
• Failed 0 to 38 in the Senate on June 6, 2006, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on June 8, 2006.
• Received in the Senate on June 13, 2006.