2008 Senate Bill 1097: Appropriations: 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget (Senate Roll Call 364)
Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on May 28, 2008, to strip out a provision prohibiting the DEQ from regulating wetlands use in counties with fewer than 100,000 people until a detailed state wetland inventory required by statute as a condition for such regulation provides more detailed information than the current version, which has been criticized as not meeting the legislative intent. The amendment failed 17 to 21 in the Senate on May 28, 2008.
View All of Senate Bill 1097: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 17 in favor, 21 against, and 0 not voting.
(Senate Roll Call 364 at Senate Journal 53)
Comment on this vote View others' comments Add to scorecard
|
|
|
In Favor
Against
Not Voting
Undecided
The amendment
IN FAVOR
SENATE DEMOCRATS
| Anderson (D) | Barcia (D) | Basham (D) | Brater (D) | Cherry (D) |
| Clark-Coleman (D) | Clarke (D) | Gleason (D) | Hunter (D) | Jacobs (D) |
| Olshove (D) | Prusi (D) | Schauer (D) | Scott (D) | Switalski (D) |
| Thomas (D) | Whitmer (D) |
SENATE REPUBLICANS
none
AGAINST
SENATE DEMOCRATS
none
SENATE REPUBLICANS
SENATE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
Senate Roll Call 364 on The amendment
Comments
1) "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on June 9, 2008Reps. Meekhof and Agema, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
While I support many programs in this budget, as a whole it has severe problems that need correcting. I cannot ignore the lack of reforms or new structural deficits this bill creates.
The proposed FY 2008-2009 budget is dependent on the Democrats’ $1.4 billion tax hike as well as several one-time funding gimmicks, yet the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency said we still cannot afford this level of spending. I refuse to support spending we cannot afford, especially since doing so will set the stage for another tax hike.
This DEQ budget fails to make any significant cuts that reflect the state’s expected budget shortfall.
Furthermore, this bill was not given a proper hearing in committee. Instead, it was rushed directly to the floor where we were forced to vote on it without adequate time for review or an opportunity to offer input. I refuse to vote in favor of a bill that has been rammed through the Legislature and not given the proper amount of attention voters expect from their elected officials.
For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”
Oh! the State is broke. Taxes must be raised. Wasn't that the cry of the Democratic party a few months ago? Where did all this missing money come from?
Senator Garcia’s statement is as follows:
This comment is more for the department than for my colleagues who are about to vote on this bill. But I asked the department to do some soul searching. You know, they do a number of good things. They enforce the laws, but unfortunately, the department has some issues in enforcing the statutes this body has passed. The problem is not with the statutes that we have passed or necessarily with a lack of money. Most of the other departments are struggling with the lack of money as well. The problem is with how they carry out the enforcement of some of their duties.
Again, I go back to the point where many businesses and many of my colleagues have expressed dissatisfaction and displeasure with the way the department is carrying out some of their duties. I’ve attempted to be fair, balanced, and objective in working with the department, and I pledge to continue to do so. But they need to do some soul searching. They need to take a look, again, at how they operate, and work with me to help me and to help the Legislature enforce the statutes that are on the books so that we can work together on cleaning up this environment.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
