Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 2, 2005, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Department of Transportation budget. This appropriates $3.406 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.283 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $1.207 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes)

The vote was 35 in favor, 3 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 249 at Senate Journal 57)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Schauer's statement is as follows: I very much appreciated the remarks of the chairwoman of the Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee and chair of the full Appropriations Committee. I happen to have a disagreement over how we ought to approach rail transportation in this state. I ought to say, actually, I have an even bigger disagreement about how we ought to go about attracting jobs to this state because my biggest concern with this bill is that it has the potential to impact our ability to attract at least 600 high-paying jobs to our state, in addition to retaining 100 current jobs. So, in many respects, this is a jobs bill, and we ring our hands a lot about how we improve our economy in this state and what we do to retain and attract jobs. Well, colleagues, this bill is a very important way that we can affect jobs. I find it interesting that we feel that it is a good way to attract jobs to cut $1 million from a subsidy that is documented as being necessary by Amtrak. They currently receive $7.1 million. You and I can do the math. They are paying higher fuel costs, their ridership is up, and I know there is some issue about rail versus passenger bus. That's a philosophical and policy question. If you have either the Blue water line, which runs from Port Huron to Chicago, or the Pere Marquette line, which runs from Grand Rapids to Chicago, if either of those go through your district or your constituents ride either of those lines, those lines are in jeopardy under this bill. Amtrak has indicated what it costs for them to continue running these lines, and we are putting those lines at risk. The other thing we are doing is we are putting at risk the prospect of Michigan attracting the maintenance yard from Indiana. We have a chance to attract 640 high-paid jobs from Indiana to Michigan. They are looking at Iowa and Michigan. It makes economical sense to bring those jobs to Michigan if they are able to continue to afford to run those existing lines in Michigan. So I am very concerned about how the subcommittee went about it. I probably, like even members of that subcommittee, didn't see all of the language. I was there, saw one amendment that was offered by Representative Brown, but wasn't able to see that full language. I wanted to share these concerns. They are about jobs and how we are using this bill to conduct economic development policy in our state, and also the message that we are sending to the provider of three lines, two of which are subsidized through this budget. So I wanted to raise those concerns. I hope you will take note and consider them when you vote.

Senator Johnson's first statement is as follows: Obviously, this is the MDOT budget. And let me first explain to the members, but before I do that, I want to thank all of the members who served on the conference committee. It was extremely efficient, very cooperative. We came to lots of agreements, and it was a pleasure working with everyone. The issues and problems that we face due to reductions in CTF revenue, this is restricted funds, because of the economy, the Governor was forced to issue a revised recommendation that cut the budget another $5 million in program lines. The conference committee did not support some of the Governor's recommendations, and I want you to know that we restored $195,000 to the van pooling; we restored $700,000 to the terminal development. The development is used to coordinate services between public transit, trains, and private buses like Greyhound and Indian Trails. With regard to one of the controversial issues, which is Amtrak, and in order to come up with our $5 million, we took $1 million away from Amtrak. During the conference committee discussion, Representative Brown offered an amendment. Well, first of all, many of you received phone calls from Congressman Schwarz. Congressman Schwarz is attempting to get 660 Amtrak-related jobs in the Battle Creek area. And he was concerned about our cutting the $1 million that would cause a problem in terms of getting them into Michigan. On the other hand, they had a couple of--they being the group that wants to come to Michigan--meetings scheduled that they never did follow through on. They were waiting to see what we were going to do with the budget. So Representative Brown came up with an agreement that if the 660 jobs located in Battle Creek or any other site here in Michigan, Amtrak will get the $1 million. Passenger transportation service was another area that we took a look at and cut 8.5 FTEs and $895,000. The other controversial issue is economic development and enhancement services. Now this is where I hope you are all paying attention because, boy, have you been manipulated and misinformed. Currently, the economic development and enhancement services line item is $867,500. Got that? $867,500. The Governor recommended a 33 percent increase to that line item. Well, we could ill afford to do that under the circumstances we were dealing with. So we said, "Well, we can see the need for an increase, but we sure can't afford a 32 or 33 percent increase." So instead we gave them what is affectionately is known from my first year on Appropriations a decrease in the increase. We gave them a 14 percent increase. So they have gone from $867,500 to $985,900, but still they call our local units of government, etc. and misinform them and frantic, "They are cutting us, they're cutting us, they're cutting us." The other thing that we did is to gut the information technology line. We cut the information technology line by $2.5million to put this money back into the roads and bridges. I think that pretty much sums up those issues that most of you have had concerns about. And I would appreciate your support on what I perceive to be a pretty fair budget all around, even though I know MDOT thinks it is perfect and it should get everything it wants.

Senator Johnson's second statement is as follows: I'm sorry for rising for a second time, but I need to go back and address a little bit further that economic development and enhancement service line. The reason I am doing so is, you know, the legislative process requires that when the department moves money around, they come to us for transfers. When they need more money or they need again to move some things around within the General Fund, they come to us for a supplemental. If I remember the Constitution correctly, the administration proposes; the Legislature disposes. I never received a transfer for the dollars that went into the economic development and enhancement service line. I never received a transfer. I'm open to transfers and every one of you on both sides of the aisle know that. And I am open to putting this money into a supplemental if need be, but the fact of the matter is that never occurred in the first place. Those federal dollars came in. Now they want General Fund dollars and it's like where did this come from?

Reps. Gonzales and Brown, 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: I voted no on Senate Bill 281 today because the budget is seriously flawed. It puts at risk public transit programs, local transportation enhancement projects and, of greatest concern, has the potential to result in the loss of 100 existing AMTRAK jobs and may result in AMTRAK sending a maintenance facility to Iowa that could result in a gain of 660 new good-paying jobs here in Michigan."

Rep. Cushingberry, 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 the adoption of this transportation conference report because it promotes sprawl, punishes poor people who need access to mass transportation, and uses a wrong- headed strategy of reducing funds for Amtrak to encourage them to build a repair facility in Michigan. We do not need the Conferees to tell our largest City how to spend our share of gasoline taxes. Further the language would cause the States taxpayers to continue the subsidy to the wealthiest communities and promote continued urban sprawl. The cuts to the Department also place a damper on the coordination of mass transportation efforts and causes unnecessary reports as it relates to the WBE and MBE contractors. Overall, this act should be substantially vetoed by the Governor and the authors should be ashamed of this counter-productive action in a State that prides itself on being a leader worldwide in transportation."

Rep. Tobocman, 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 Senate Bill 281 today because the budget is seriously flawed. It puts at risk public transit programs. By cutting staff at MDOT to handle local transportation enhancement projects, this budget seriously jeopardizes local economic development efforts in Detroit and across the state. Further, the bill has the potential to result in the loss of 100 existing AMTRAK jobs and may result in AMTRAK sending a maintenance facility to Iowa that could result in a gain of 660 new, good-paying jobs here in Michigan. Finally, the bill is offensive to the notion of local control. Restrictions on local operating assistance grants, specifically the restriction on Detroit's ability to receive these local funds for a legitimate purpose of improving the Detroit People Mover, as well as dictating bus lengths to local units are abhorrent. Each locality should be allowed to make its own decisions on how to spend local operating assistance grants on various transportation projects. The effort to classify Detroiters as short bus riders suggests racist and other insensitive motives."

Rep. McDowell 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 Senate Bill 281 today because the budget is seriously flawed. It puts at risk public transit programs, local transportation enhancement projects and, of greatest concern, has the potential to result in the loss of 100 existing AMTRAK jobs and may result in AMTRAK sending a maintenance facility to Iowa that could result in a gain of 660 new good-paying jobs here in Michigan."