Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 18, 2009

The vote was 28 in favor, 5 opposed and 4 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 236 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senators Cherry and Brown asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cherry’s first statement is as follows:

This amendment is the one that we talked about earlier which restores the Michigan Agricultural Surplus System. Again, this program provides surplus food for food banks at a time when our state and the people of our state need all the help they can get. Since 1990, this program has distributed unmarketable yet nutritious agricultural surplus of Michigan-grown products to Michigan food banks. It has salvaged close to 5 million pounds of fresh produce.

As I said earlier, I do understand that we have a tough time with tough choices, but this budget is the expression of our priorities. I cannot think of a better time when our priorities should be for the people of our state and the food that they need. It is not OK to have people go hungry. This program helps make sure that this does not happen.

Now I have heard people say that we have to find money from another source if we are going to fund this. Well, I have other sources, but I don’t believe that you would support anything, like I don’t think you would be supporting closing tax expenditures for this program. So I believe that as we go through this budget, understand that it was developed on cutting even further than the Governor recommended in the budget, and I know that we might have to do that. But we haven’t had any agreement with the House or the Governor about what that amount should be. To me, this program should be a priority. We should make sure that the people of this state do not go hungry, and this will make sure that doesn’t happen.

So, Mr. President, I ask that members support this amendment.

 

Senator Brown’s first statement is as follows:

I do rise to oppose the amendment. While the Agricultural Statistics Program is worthwhile, given the available resources that we have to fund core priorities such as food safety, animal health, and consumer protection, unfortunately, we are not able to find the resources within the budget to fund the Agricultural Statistics Program. I would ask members to oppose the amendment.

 

Senator Cherry’s second statement is as follows:

This amendment, again, is one that would cut the migrant housing inspection program. Again, this is a very important program, not only for the people who live in the housing, but also for the farmers producing food. Both need this program. It makes sure that the housing is safe and healthy. This program already is short-staffed, so it is difficult to get the housing inspected, which is what the farmers need if they want to get their crops picked and harvested. So this program, again, is very important. We cannot have people living in unsafe housing, and farmers, again, need it if they want to get their harvesting done for the season.

So I ask members, again, to support this amendment. These are not frivolous programs. These are important for the health and safety of the people in our state

 

Senator Brown’s second statement is as follows:

I wanted to respond to the Senator from the 25th District. We did, indeed, talk about this just previously, and in the ensuring hour, nothing has changed, and certainly, not the securing of funding to support this. It is a most worthy program, and we should aggressively look for an appropriate funding source. There is money out there; in fact, federal money. We retain about $150,000 in restricted funds eliminating $480,000 of General Fund dollars. We have a $100 placeholder as we continue to pursue a funding source, and as a consequence, as a result of that, I would ask that members oppose the amendment

 

Senator Cherry’s third statement is as follows:

I know that the time is getting late. It is not usual that we are here more than 45 minutes. I will try to be as quick as possible, but it is important business that we are talking about. This restores funding for the Agricultural Statistics Program, which is very important. It is a partnership with the federal government, and I know that the agriculture community supports it because it provides important information on the commodities that are grown in Michigan. It helps farmers with their marketing and planning. It provides accurate data, allowing them to position their products in the marketplace better and improve their bottom line. It also allows them to plan plantings to maximize return on each acre they farm.

It is crucial both in the short-term for farmers growing rural crops like corn and soybeans, as well as farmers making longer-term investments in plantings of wine grapes, fruit trees, and Christmas trees. Good agricultural statistics also help our farmers and the rest of our agricultural sector market our products in other markets growing already in the agriculture market.

In these tough times, we need to make sure that we are helping the agricultural economy by allowing them to have the information so that they are actually growing the products that are selling in our marketplace. I ask that members support this amendment

 

Senator Brown’s third statement is as follows:

I rise to oppose this amendment. Please know that we are continuing the cuts that the Governor made in her executive order and honoring that adjustment in the budget in order to balance this department’s budget and provide for, again, food safety, animal health, and consumer protection.

In doing so, we are continuing the inspections. There will be delays, admittedly, but the department is putting together a plan to accommodate delays and make sure that the inspections are done.

 

Rep. Agema, 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:

This is a tax increase for milk producers. Ag is the second biggest business in Michigan. We should be more supportive of their industry. Why do we think we must tax industries out of business?”

 

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This budget contains a fee increase that we did not vote on and it reduces the budget for the second biggest industry in the state. It’s one of the few industries that is keeping Michigan afloat.”