Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 18, 2009

The vote was 20 in favor, 15 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 232 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 250.

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

I’d like to express why I voted “no” on Senate Bill 250. I do want to share my appreciation for the hard work the committee and also the chair of that committee. This has been a very difficult budget, but I have committed to the constituents of my district that I will vote only for those budgets that stay within general funding from the previous year. The Military and Veterans Affairs budget is a General Fund increase of 4.3 percent, and therefore, I was unable to vote in the affirmative. There’s still a process that we’ll go through as this bill goes to the House and, perhaps even a conference committee. I would like to record this as my rationale for a “no” vote.

 

Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

I rise to speak in support of this amendment. This amendment does exactly, I believe, what the previous speaker said. It makes sure that the money gets to the veterans in the most effective way possible.

I served as a county commissioner and chair of the Genesee County Board of Commissioners. At that time, we had a veterans’ office, which we still have, but that veterans’ office would not be able to serve the amount of people who are currently being served without the current way of administration so that those monies actually are administered locally, which, to me, makes the best sense.

It seems to me that we would want those dollars handled on a local level versus at the state level. I thought that we wanted to have smaller government, smaller state government. This amendment centralizes services versus giving it back to the authority of the local government.

So I ask members to support this amendment. It’s very good. There are hundreds of veterans in Genesee County who would not get the services that they are getting now if this program changes its administration. So I ask members to support it.

 

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

Fellow Senators, I rise in support of this amendment. We are one family who utilized the services provided and being offered at this time to stay available for Michigan families. On April 8, 2003, our nephew as killed in Iraq, and many of the agencies now are going to be under duress because of Senate Bill No. 250 were involved in that process; not only in offering condolences but offering professional services to our family. Now it is easy to cut budgets. Many times it is easier to take the human aspects than to take the dollar side of an issue. But when you have experience, the services that these veterans—and that is what they are these veterans are offering veterans and veterans’ families.

You know, they are irreplaceable at probably the most important time that they are needed—when they try to offer and educate the families who have lost a loved one about some of the compensatory offerings from our government. So with this movement today and the opportunity we have to relieve this with this amendment, we are putting an extremely important burden on families.

My dad is a Korean War-era veteran, and we know very well also not only with the loss of our nephew, but the involvement with my father in the military about what these groups provide. So I say it is the right thing to do. Only a few weeks ago, we stood in this chamber and provided memorial services to those who have died in our districts across this state.

So let’s do the right thing today and offer the services that these organizations provide. Let’s not go through such a purposeful event as a memorial service and then only a few weeks later say—those who were even walking down the middle aisle, those who represented different groups and the organizations themselves and the families, in particular—we are going to say they are no longer needed; that someone else can do that job; that we are going rearrange the way services are provided. So let’s get behind our veterans—the past, the present, and those who will serve in the future—with passing this very, very important amendment.

Most people have no idea. That was mentioned earlier by the Majority Floor Leader that we don’t read these amendments nor fully understand the consequences of these votes. So let’s pass this Olshove amendment and say we are standing behind our veterans, particularly the families who have lost loved ones in this era and the ones in the past as well.

 

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.

 

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.

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.