Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2012 Senate Bill 960: Appropriations: Department of Natural Resources
  1. Introduced by Sen. Michael Green (R) on February 14, 2012, to provide a “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Department Of Natural Resources 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 14, 2012.
      • Reported in the Senate on April 24, 2012, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on April 24, 2012, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on April 24, 2012.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D) on April 24, 2012, to spend $5 million on a government jobs program for young people in Flint, Saginaw, Pontiac, and Detroit. The amendment failed 12 to 26 in the Senate on April 24, 2012.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

    • Amendment offered by Sen. Tom Casperson (R) on April 24, 2012, to require the department to stock more walleye in specific lakes. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on April 24, 2012.
  2. Passed 25 to 13 in the Senate on April 24, 2012, the Senate version of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, 2012. This would appropriate $334.3 million in gross spending, compared to $334.1 million, which was the FY 2011-2012 amount enrolled in 2009. Of this, $66.6 million is federal money, and the rest is from state taxes, fees, fines, royalties, etc.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the House on April 24, 2012.
    • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on April 24, 2012.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Chuck Moss (R) on May 2, 2012, to strip out all of the appropriations of the Senate-passed version of the bill, which 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 2, 2012.
  4. Passed 63 to 47 in the House on May 2, 2012, to send the bill back to the Senate "stripped" of all actual appropriations. 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"

  5. Received in the Senate on May 3, 2012.
  6. Failed 0 to 38 in the Senate on May 3, 2012, to concur with the House-passed version of the budget. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Received in the Senate on May 29, 2012.
  8. Passed 25 to 10 in the Senate on May 29, 2012.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  9. Received in the House on May 29, 2012.

Comments

Re: 2012 Senate Bill 960 (Appropriations: Department of Natural Resources )  by Admin003 on May 4, 2012 
Senator Hopgood, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 960.
Senator Hopgood’s statement is as follows:
I appreciate the work of the subcommittee chair on this budget and two previous budgets. I did vote “no” on the DNR budget that was before us. As has been commented on in the amendment, the Governor’s budget had proposed a policy that I did support. The Governor’s policy would have provided funding for a program that would have directly impacted some of the urban areas that need it the most. Because of that, they have been neglected the most, in particular, Detroit, Saginaw, Pontiac, and Flint.
The initiative would have established an internship program to give teens in these areas an opportunity to get their foot in the door at a good-paying, socially-responsible job. This funding was eliminated from the budget that we voted on. Not only would the program have given teens in Michigan’s urban areas real-world work experience, it would also have provided them with needed mentorship opportunities and would directly improve our communities through projects they would be working on.
As Governor Snyder noted, many individuals at the Department of Natural Resources got their start in this same fashion as summer interns for the department. Many of the teens in the cities this policy would have impacted have little opportunity to experience the pure Michigan that we all hold dear, let alone obtain a good summer job.
We have missed, by passing this budget, an opportunity to provide for meaningful work experience and improve Michigan’s communities, and it seems we have forgotten the trajectory of our most valuable natural resource—our youth. Our urban areas and our future are dependent on the decisions that we make here in this very room. I would hope that we would connect better with the citizens of the state of Michigan and consider their needs rather than the needs of only a few.

2012 Senate Bill 960 (Appropriations: Department of Natural Resources )  by admin on May 4, 2012 
Introduced in the Senate on February 14, 2012, the Senate version of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, 2012. This would appropriate $334.3 million in gross spending, compared to $334.1 million, which was the FY 2011-2012 amount enrolled in 2009. Of this, $66.6 million is federal money, and the rest is from state taxes, fees, fines, royalties, etc

The vote was 25 in favor, 13 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 220 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.