2009 Senate Bill 250 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs )

Legislation watch

Public Act 112 of 2009

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

Introduced by Sen. Valde Garcia (R) on February 18, 2009, to provide a “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2009.
  - Reported in the Senate on April 1, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 10, 2009, to adopt a version that contains actual appropriations. For much more detail see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 10, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Dennis Olshove (D) on June 11, 2009, to add more money for veteran service organizations. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 18) on June 11, 2009. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Valde Garcia (R) on June 11, 2009. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 11, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Valde Garcia (R) on June 11, 2009, to revise the amount appropriated for the state military affairs director and deputy directors. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 11, 2009.
Passed in the Senate (20 to 15) on June 11, 2009, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs budget. This would appropriate $148.8 million in gross spending, compared to $183.8 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $39.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $40.3 million. Another $27.9 million is from state “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue and $77.3 million is from federal funds. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 11, 2009.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 11, 2009.
  - Reported in the House on June 25, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 25, 2009, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Democratic-majority in the House on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 25, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Robert Genetski (R) on June 25, 2009, to establish as the "intent of the legislature" that federal "stimulus" money not be incorporated in the funding "base" on which future appropriations for various programs are based, and also that "stimulus" money be allocated in separate line items, and posted on the internet. Also, to require the department to post on the internet a listing of all expenditures, with the purpose of each (a "check register"). The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on June 25, 2009.
Passed in the House (70 to 38) on June 25, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs budget. This would appropriate $145.6 million in gross spending, compared to $183.8 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $35.9 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $40.3 million. Another $27.9 million is from state “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue and $77.3 million is from federal funds. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 25, 2009.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 34) on June 25, 2009, to not concur with a House-passed version of the bill, and sent it to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on September 24, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs budget. This would appropriate $146.1 million in gross spending, compared to $183.8 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $36.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $40.3 million. Another $27.9 million is from state “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue and $77.3 million is from federal funds. Passed in the Senate (24 to 13) on September 24, 2009. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on September 25, 2009.
Passed in the House (107 to 1) on September 25, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs budget. This would appropriate $146.1 million in gross spending, compared to $183.8 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $36.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $40.3 million. Another $27.9 million is from state “restricted funds,” or earmarked tax and fee revenue and $77.3 million is from federal funds. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 8, 2009.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 250 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs ) [by Navsup on October 17, 2009]

Please assure me and my fellow Veterans that this Bill is not a means to obtain for Senator Garcia that General's Star. I do not wish to impugn the integrity of a fine soldier and a Senator from the Great State of Michigan; yet I am concerned that with his term of office concluding soon and a desire for that coveted 1st Star, he may be creating the appearance of feathering his own nest. Again, writing this implies that this is a fact, which is not so; however, circumstance cause it to be curious nonetheless. I suggest that if what I am concerned about is not so, then perhaps Senator Garcia should affirmatively and unequivocally state: "If nominated I will not accept, and if selected, I will not serve".

Nothing kills a system based on integrity and trust more than conflict of interest. As an Army Officer, he should be acutely aware of appearances. Of course, with all do respect to the Senator, his Army service and his advocay of veterans issues, this can be remedied by recusing himself from consideration. I say thes things as a retired naval officer and citizen of Michigan.

Line

2) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 250 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs ) [by Admin003 on June 12, 2009]

Senator Hardiman’s statement is as follows:

Mr. President, my office has received many phone calls and e-mails from veterans in my district opposing changes to the veteran’s service organization grants proposed in Senate Bill No. 250. As a veteran of the Vietnam War, I understand the meaning of the service and the sacrifices that our brothers and sisters in uniform have paid for our freedom. We owe it to our veterans to help them get the services that they need. I believe that the chairman has worked to do that.

But I want to speak to something else here. He is not just cutting the budget. We’ve been doing that, and we need to make sure that our expenses match our revenues. But it is not just about cutting budgets. It is about reconstructing state government. It’s about reforming, and the chairman has worked to do that. He has not only worked inside state government, but he has worked with the veterans service organizations. Now we have received fewer calls since he has sat down more recently and worked with them. So I want to commend the chairman on what he has done on this budget. I intend to support it.

Again, he is not cutting the budget; he is reforming it so that it will be more efficient and effective. He sets a model for the rest of us.

Line

3) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 250 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Department Of Military And Veterans Affairs ) [by Admin003 on June 12, 2009]

Senator Garcia’s statement is as follows:

Let me remind the body, for those of you who are listening, that I continue to serve in the military. I have a son who in two weeks will graduate from the Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, and after he finishes his training will probably be deployed with some unit overseas. So I have a heart for veterans; I have a heart for soldiers and anyone who serves in the military.

Having said that, I understand where all of you are coming from, but I think there are a number of different myths out there which I would like to straighten out. First of all, I want to remind the body again that inflation is taking a toll on the budget. The loss of revenue is taking a toll on the budget. Several years from now, a year from now, two years from now, or three years from now, these same veterans will be coming back to the next Legislature asking for more money, and we’re not going to be able to give it to them because we don’t have it. So what we need to do now is revamp the way we do business. This is not about growing government because we’re not going to grow government. The department will manage this with the resources that it has already. We’re not going to add any staff. We’re not going to take out administrative services. But if we continue with this amendment, it’s going to be business as usual.

In February, I had a four-hour briefing here in the Capitol while everyone was off. We had the veterans come in and talk to us about how they deliver services. What struck me was that there was a definite redundancy in services, a duplication of effort, in training, in going across the state and reaching veterans—an inefficient use of our tax dollars to help the veterans.

The bottom line is this is what it is all about; it’s helping the veterans.

If you take a look at the amendment which my good colleague presented, one of them calls for giving $42,000 to one organization. That’s one person helping one group of people in his area. There’s no way that he can effectively do more than what he can around his circle. It’s not an efficient use of money. What we are trying to do is to consolidate the efforts to force the organizations to become efficient, to work together. We would not dare think of going to war and having the Army do their own thing, the Air Force doing their own thing, and the Navy doing their own thing. You work together and that’s what I’m trying to do is get the different organizations to work together.

There are over 750,000 veterans in this state. There are only 60 veteran service officers to serve the entire state. More than half of them are stationed in Detroit to help with appeals. We actually need more veteran service officers, and what we are trying to do is put more boots on the ground.

Second, there’s a myth out there that says we are going to have bureaucrats helping veterans, people who don’t know how to do it. That is flat out wrong. We are going to continue to use the expertise of the people who are delivering services now. Why? Because they know how to do it. We’re just going to drive it to be more efficient.

No one doubts the commitment of the veterans service organizations. What we’re questioning is the efficiency. We’re not going to hire attorneys. That’s not the intent. We are going to hire people who have the experience, are qualified, and are certified to help veterans because, again, this is what it’s all about.

Now I understand that many of you have personal relationships with veterans in your district who are urging you to oppose this. I’m asking you to think about the impact on the entire state. What we’re trying to do here with these dollars is help the maximum number of veterans possible. We’re not doing it right now because the efforts are disjointed, they’re disorganized, and they’re inefficient.

So I’m asking the members to defeat this amendment. I know it’s made with the best of intentions. My colleague and I have worked together. I know he has the heart for veterans, but this is the wrong approach to go back to business as usual. We can’t afford it.

Line

View Full Conversation