Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on June 26, 2007

The vote was 21 in favor, 17 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 201 at Senate Journal 64)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Basham's statement is as follows: I am thoroughly dismayed that my colleague across the aisle would offer this resolution. For over four years, MDOT, along with the Ontario government, has been looking at another border crossing. They've been following a process called the NREPA process, looking up and down the Detroit River trying to find out the best location for another international border crossing. In fact, they have ruled out a number of different locations. The locations have gone from 15 possible locations, including double-expanding the Ambassador Bridge to, in fact, where they're at right now looking at a crossing that would actually be in the Delray community on the American side and south of the Sandwich community on the Canadian side. There are a number of reasons why this is a flawed resolution. If you cross the Mackinaw Bridge, you pay $2.50 if you are in a car. If you cross the Blue Water Bridge, you pay a $1.75. If you cross the Ambassador Bridge, an 80-year-old bridge, where 25 percent of our nation's commerce goes across annually, you pay $3.25 American and $4.00 Canadian. If you cross the Blue Water Bridge with a truck loaded and take the same truck and cross the Ambassador Bridge, you pay $11.00 more to cross the Ambassador Bridge. Support of the DRIC process, which is competing with double-expanding the Ambassador Bridge, again it's about homeland security, it's about what's in the public interest, and it's about commerce. The chambers of commerce, the Detroit Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce both support the DRIC process and oppose the double-expanding of the Ambassador Bridge. Also the Auto Alliance supports the DRIC process and opposes the double-expanding of the Ambassador Bridge. The Ambassador Bridge also has some obstacles in Canada. Canada has passed C-3 legislation which says there will be no privately owned international border crossings, and rightfully so. But, yet, it seems like members of the Legislature in both the House and the Senate keep throwing up impediments to stop the DRIC process from going forward. This is another one of those impediments. It's flawed. It's not good for commerce. It's not good for the state of Michigan. It's not good for the communities of both Delray or Windsor. Mayor Eddie Francis in the city of Windsor opposes double-expanding the Ambassador Bridge and supports the DRIC process. All of the residents, again, up and down the river support the DRIC process. This here puts Manny Maroun and the folks of the Ambassador Bridge in front of the line to get funding for another international border crossing. The people, and basically, the cost of the DRIC process and the crossing of the Ambassador Bridge are basically identical. Ultimately, this supposedly privately-funded bridge, again, is looking for public funding. They will bond the same as the state of Michigan will bond if the DRIC process goes forward. At the end of the day, those people crossing either bridge will pay for it, and obviously, I've quoted you stats on why it's in the public's best interest to have the DRIC process proceed and us not support this resolution which I think is flawed.

Senator Thomas' statement is as follows: I rise in support of the Jelinek amendment not because I don't support the direct process; I support the direct process. I support a publicly-owned bridge. I support a privately-owned bridge. What I support is a border crossing happening in the city of Detroit to Canada and by any means necessary. I want to speed this process along so that we can fully take advantage of the millions, the hundreds of millions of dollars of trade that can take place every day with an additional border crossing. I don't want that border crossing in other communities. I don't want that border crossing in other states. I want it in the city of Detroit. And while I don't feel that this is necessarily endorsing one group over the other, I think that this does continue that process along. I hope that this process can continue along and that we can move forward to get this critical border crossing going regardless if it's privately-owned or publicly-owned.

Senator Clarke's statement is as follows: I actually represent the district that includes the entire Detroit riverfront on which the current Ambassador Bridge is located and which the proposed border crossings will be located. The City Council in the city of Detroit has issued a resolution that they oppose this resolution or any effort for the Ambassador Bridge to be able to issue private activity bonds to build this border crossing. The underlying issue with this is do you think an additional international border crossing that would handle over a billion dollars a day in trade be vital to protecting a major international border in terms of homeland security? Whether that responsibility should be in the hands of a private individual or it should be in the hands of the state and federal governments of the United States, state of Michigan, and the Ontario government and the Canadian government? I believe that the economic and homeland security issues are so great, so compelling, and since we've already had a process that the state of Michigan has undergone to examine what would be the better placement of a border crossing and because the city of Detroit's legislative body has spoken on this issue, I would urge all of you to vote this resolution down.