Senator Allen, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House substitutes to Senate Bill Nos. 290, 293, 295, and 296 and House Bill Nos. 4083, 4089, 4092, 4093, and 4094 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bills be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Allen’s statement is as follows:
I rise to speak to Senate Bill Nos. 290, 293, 295, and 296, as well as House Bill Nos. 4083, 4089, 4092, 4093, and 4094. I urge my colleagues to non-concur with the changes on this legislation. It is unfortunate, and I am disappointed that the House took action that maybe did not put Michigan citizens first. Last month, the Senate took action on a package of bills that would require Michigan workers to be hired on projects and receiving state incentives. The Senate incorporated important changes that made the bills and the implementation more realistic, and, I believe, fair to all.
One of these changes included the effort to allow the state to attract talented workers by including individuals becoming residents of this state. As a member of the talent caucus, I felt that was important. Michigan residents are leaving our state at alarming rates, and this has an impact on state revenues and the economy as fewer people are here to contribute. The provisions that the Senate added would create a tool to help attract residents in this state by something as a critical tool to growing our economy. In addition, the Senate has removed the tie-bars to the legislation that would require prevailing wage be paid on these projects and contactors who would face immediate disbarment on these contracts. I support union workers, but I do not believe that this was part of the scope that needed to be addressed with this legislation.
As we said when we debated these laws and bills last, Michigan already has a prevailing wage in place. If this law is not being followed, it is the responsibility of the administration to enforce the prevailing wage. We do not need to add addition layers in this very tenuous time. The fact that the House refused to consider compromising on this approach that the Senate took is disappointing. We came up with a common sense of change that made these bills better, and the House removed them without any, actually, discussion with me.
To me, this suggests is that the legislation is more about the issues versus what we need to do to hire Michigan workers. To me, the most unfortunate part is this: Senate Bill No. 502, which is the legislation that we introduced to allow preferences on small companies in Michigan. Buy Michigan first is an important part of how we are going to recover. I recognize that this needs additional work, but it is still sitting on the House calendar.
Apparently, the House believes that it is more important to hire Michigan first under criteria that might not be fair to all. And for these reasons, I urge the body not to concur with the changes made on this House package.