Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 3, 2004, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Corrections budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1037 .) This appropriates $1.801 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.721 billion, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $1.722 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to $1.609 billion in FY 2003-2004. The Senate version authorizes approximately $20 million less in gross spending than the governor recommended, with less for prisoner education, drug treatment, Hepatitis C health care, travel expenses, and others. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964

The vote was 21 in favor, 15 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 193 at Senate Journal 34)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Switalski's first statement, in which Senators Cherry and Jacobs concurred, is as follows: This amendment would restore $5 million into the corrections budget, which was cut out of academic and vocational programs. Recidivism studies show that 25 percent of the prisoners you don't get them back in the prison if they have completed this type of education program. It gives them a chance to go out and earn a legitimate living, rather than come back and be supported by the state and in the prison system. They can actually go out, have a job, pay taxes, and make their way. It is also a tool for the management of the prison, and it helps them to keep order by giving people something useful to do and something useful to learn. This budget came in $20 million under the Governor's recommendation. This would have the effect of bringing us $15 million under the Governor's recommendation. I urge support.

Senator Switalski's second statement, in which Senators Cherry and Jacobs concurred, is as follows: This amendment would restore $5 million into substance abuse testing and treatment in the prison that we cut out in this budget. I appreciate the words of the good chairman of the committee and the hard work he did. He talked about how he fought hard last year to keep those cuts out of the budget. I call on him again to fight hard as we continue through this process and restore this necessary money. Again, it reduces recidivism and will pay less in the long run. Really what we have, the Governor proposed a budget that funded these things, and that budget raised some revenues and is based on some assumptions and found enough money to fund this. We have got to look at that and say, "Is this the bare essence of what we need in corrections?" If we don't agree with all of the revenue proposals, well, as we did last year, let's come together on some other proposal or something. Let's find the money necessary to fund these programs. So I urge support of the amendment.

Senator Switalski's third statement, in which Senators Cherry and Jacobs concurred, is as follows: I rise in opposition to the budget because it cuts $20 million out of the corrections budget that is already underfunded. The Governor's proposal spent $20 million more and included provisions applying sentencing guidelines to probation violators that really face an uncertain future in this Legislature. On top of that, we are cutting the--as we just discussed for a long time--vocational programs, the drug treatment, and the hepatitis C programs. We've talked about the recidivism problem in our prisons, and these programs help the department manage the population. I think we have cut the state budget for four years now, and we are in the danger now of letting economics and budget decisions drive our prisoner placement decisions. We need to provide adequate resources for necessary and fundamental state services.

Senator Schauer's statement, in which Senators Jacobs and Leland concurredn, is as follows: I oppose Senate Bill No. 1064 today as it leaves the Senate because of troublesome cuts to academic and vocational programs for substance abuse testing and treatment and because it leaves out funding for public health inside our prisons and in our communities and jeopardizes the health of thousands of corrections officers by not funding adequate testing and treatment for hepatitis C. I believe, by his remarks here today, or at least some of them, that the chairman of the corrections budget, who like me represents a district with prison facilities and thousands of corrections officers in communities into which many prisoners are released, that this bill is fundamentally bad public policy. Governor Granholm, Director Caruso, and the Corrections Department did a remarkable thing in 2003 by actually reducing Michigan's prison population. This didn't happen by itself or by accident. We cannot continue this trend of controlling prison costs without supporting vocational, educational programs, and substance abuse prevention and treatment. Colleagues, pay now or pay later. This bill as it leaves the Senate is bad public policy which will require us all and the taxpayers we represent to pay more through failed and flawed corrections policy.

Senator Scott's first statement is as follows: This is a very important amendment. I'm asking that you restore the $5.8 million for hepatitis C for testing and treatment. Health experts believe as many as 18,000 of Michigan's 48,800 prison inmates have hepatitis C, a deadly blood-borne virus that attacks the liver. The state is treating 55 of those inmates, while thousands of Michigan inmates suffer from hepatitis C. State corrections officials say they don't have the financial means with a cash-strapped budget to treat infected prisoners at a cost they say reaches $130 million. Let me just tell you, there are women who are being infected every day that these prisoners are released. What does that cause? It causes lives; it destroys their lives, and destroys the families of these women who have children. So I'm asking that you just restore this $5.8 million that the Governor has put in so we can try and put a dent in this. I also have had bills for the last several years that we test these men when they are leaving prison. I haven't had a hearing on those bills. So at least put this $5.8 million in so we can try and put a dent in this hepatitis C. So I ask your support for this very important amendment.

Senator Scott's second statement is as follows: You know, this is an epidemic, and we need to deal with it. It's not only as he indicated for the prisoners, and we had more prisoners dying from hepatitis C than anything else in the prisons, but they are coming out infecting women now. This is already occurring. We need to deal with this right now before it gets any worse. This is not enough money to really deal with it, but it will start. We need to do this today. So I'm asking my colleagues to understand that it is an epidemic. So I would hope you would support this amendment.

Senator Scott's third statement is as follows: This is real important. Do we understand what an epidemic is? That it could be some of your family members, your constituents whom we are here to protect that this is happening to? For those who are working in the prisons, you know it's been stated that they will go home to their families, out into the community. We don't seem to get it until it touches us personally. There is $20 million under-budget under the Governor's recommendation. All I'm asking you to do is restore $5.8 million of this amount to save some lives. Now they say they do some testing on the way out, but it is not really the hepatitis C test that is costing us $400 now. That is not enough to really do the testing. So I am asking that we put these dollars in so that we can do some real testing because I would really like to see after they are tested, and they know they have it on their way out, that they are being registered, and they are saying that they have hepatitis C. They are going out infecting folks, and they are not going to tell anyone that they have hepatitis C. So I think there is a lot we have to do with this, and we need to start now by putting this $5.8 million back into the budget, ensuring further and directing those departments as to what they really need to do to get rid of this hepatitis C.

Senator Bernero's first statement, in which Senator Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: With all due respect to my colleague, the esteemed chair of the Judiciary Committee, when we talk about the effect that this has on the corrections system and the choices, the terrible choices we are confronted with because of the budget situation, the specific words of my esteemed colleague when he says, "Our choice might be to release people who shouldn't be released." But that's exactly what this amendment is about. This amendment is trying to make sure that we can provide drug treatment so that we aren't releasing current addicts. They may have served their time, but if they haven't gotten the treatment, what are we accomplishing. So we are keeping the facility open, which is holding people, but we are not getting to some of the root causes and treating the drug addition. I have to confess to you. Some of you might not know I lost a cousin just a few months ago, who died with a heroin needle stuck in his arm and had been in and out of the corrections system, in and out, in and out. So what are we accomplishing with the money that we are spending? To simply incarcerate them and bury our head in the sand and ignore some of the root causes, then in essence we are wasting our constituents' money. I think the Switalski amendment puts the money where it needs to be. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and my votes to support funding for these vital programs. I don't know about you, my colleagues, I have had calls and letters from constituents and family members from people who need this drug treatment. Some of them need it as a condition to get out. They could be paroled, but they are in line for this treatment, and they can't get out until they get out. We have made some tough, tough decisions, including losing the office of the legislative Corrections Ombudsman, which I think was a horrendous loss. As my esteemed colleague said, we've definitely made some cuts in the corrections budget, but let's not be further pennywise and pound foolish. We are inviting recidivism. We are absolutely embracing and inviting recidivism to cut drug treatment. How many people are in prison with drug-related offenses? Is it on the decline? What do we think we are accomplishing? We need the Switalski amendment, please.

Senator Bernero's second statement, in which Senator Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: I'm not trying to filibuster today on the corrections budget, really, but these are issues that I have thought about, and this one in particular is one that I have been particularly worried about. This is not just a corrections issue. Let's not fool ourselves. This is a public health issue. The vast majority of prisoners are coming out, they are coming out, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, and they are coming to a neighborhood near you. They are coming to your district. They have hepatitis C. We know it is a problem, and it is not a problem strictly in the prison system. And, again, we bury our head in the sand and fool ourselves to think we are talking about doing something for the prisoners or not doing something for the prisoners. This is an issue about doing something for your constituents. This is an issue about doing something for public health in the state of Michigan. The Lansing State Journal, our local newspaper here that covers the Capitol, did a big series on hepatitis C. Maybe some of you saw it. It's a serious problem, it's a developing problem, and the existing health budget that my esteemed colleague, the chair of the Judiciary Committee refers to, does not adequately address it. It cannot address it. It is an exploding issue in the corrections system, it is an exploding issue in public health, and it is an exploding issue in our communities. To vote against this amendment is to put our communities in peril. These people are coming out, they are diseased, and the disease will spread. We can do something about that. We can address it here and now today. I know some of you in this chamber know more about the disease than I do. I know we have some expertise in this chamber that know we are not solving the problem by ignoring the problem. We need to address it, we need to deal with it, and the money for this amendment, which is very much available since we are under budget in corrections, the money to fund this amendment is a drop in the bucket compared to the health consequences that are coming down the road if we continue to ignore this emerging health calamity. So I urge my colleagues to really think about making an investment in public health and investing in your constituents in your district. You don't have to think of it as helping the prisoner or helping the corrections system. This is an issue that is here and now in public health, in our community, and in the state of Michigan. Let's act now. Let's not have our children or our future legislature and future leaders thinking in 2004 when they voted down this very reasonable amendment to make a modest impact on this very serious problem. "My gosh, what in the world was the Legislature thinking when they turned down the Scott amendment to deal in a serious way and address the problem of hepatitis C."

Senator Bernero's third statement, in which Senator Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: With all respect to my esteemed colleague from DeWitt, the esteemed chair of the Judiciary Committee, let's not fool ourselves that we are treating everybody who needs it. We are treating 55 inmates out of an estimated 18,000-48,000 who have hepatitis C. We are treating 55. So we are ignoring the problem. That's what we are doing. We are burying our head in the sand. And his acknowledgement, the good Senator's acknowledgement, that it would take $50 million to adequately address the problem is not justification to do nothing. The fact that we can't solve the whole problem doesn't mean we are justified in sitting on our hands and doing nothing. I think it is outrageous that we can consider doing nothing. Yes, this is a down payment. The reality is this is a down payment--this amendment. We are not up here with a $50 million amendment. Maybe in good conscience we should be. But we are saying let's take the first steps to seriously address the problem. The good Senator's argument that these people are leaving the purview of the Department of Corrections and therefore again is justification to do nothing, is also, I would argue, fallacious reasoning. What we are talking about is that they are coming into your districts. It's exactly as the Senator said. They are leaving corrections. He reiterated my earlier argument that they are leaving the Corrections system and entering your neighborhood. They are entering your district and my district. What we are trying to do is to set up a system so that they are tested, and they are hooked up to treatment; that they are not just released; that the flood gates aren't just open. And that we, in fact, try to get a handle on this disease and try to hook them up with treatment on their way out, as they exit the system so that they can get plugged into good, adequate treatment so that they are not spreading the disease. I mean, if we took this logic, this argument, that if we can't solve the whole shooting match, then we should do nothing, then we could zero out a whole lot of line items and do nothing with a lot of the most severe problems confronting us. But we don't take that approach. We try to take a reasoned and balanced approach knowing that we can't solve the world's problems, but taking reasonable, prudent steps to address real problems and issues that confront the state and our communities. So I implore you please, on this public health matter, let us not revert back to partisan division. We know that the money is there, that we are under budget in corrections. Let's use this money adequately and properly in a way that we can be proud of. Let's do something for public health and for our districts and not simply divide and fall back under partisan lines.

Senator Cropsey's first statement is as follows: I do appreciate the Senator offering this amendment. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that we have a lot of different budget priorities. One of the things that I looked at as I was coming up with this budget--and that the subcommittee agreed with--and the full committee agreed with was trying to come in under $20 million, under the Governor's recommendation. In order to do that, though, there are some very tough cuts that have to be made. There is $5 million here in the academic vocational programs. Out of a $33 million budget last year, I fought tooth and nail to make sure that it was fully funded. But if we are going to be making savings, then this is one of the few areas that we can do without going right to looking at closing down different prison facilities. Another one of the amendments I would assume will be coming up, and that will be some of the drug treatment type of things, which I think is very necessary. Once again, if you are looking at trying to save an additional one percent out of our budget, that is what we are looking at. Another one is going to be the hepatitis C, another $5 million. All are very good programs, very worth while programs, and programs that are needed, but we need to understand that we are in tight fiscal times, and sometimes you just cannot have the programs to the extent that you want them or that really are what is good. You have to do with what you can. Even though I appreciate the intent of this amendment, and I would normally support it, at this point, I cannot do so. I would urge you to not adopt this amendment.

Senator Cropsey's second statement is as follows: We had budgets earlier today and earlier this week that came in well over the Governors' recommendation, community health, higher education, and K-12--many good programs, excellent programs. You know what? Sooner or later the budget is going to have to be balanced, and everything is being positioned at this point. Just understand that the more you come in over the recommendation, the more money you are going to have to find. The less you come under the recommendation, the less money you have to find. I know a lot of people have complained about how much money the Department of Corrections takes. When I was first elected many years ago, even before the good Senator of Appropriations, Shirley Johnson, when I came in 1978, we had about 13,000-14,000 beds in corrections. We now have close to 50,000 beds in corrections. I think it's important for this body to realize that over the last two or three years, the Department of Corrections has found a savings, and it's been mainly administrative savings of $280 million. That's 15.5 percent of their current budget. This department has cut and it has cut significantly. The department has taken wardens who used to be wardens over one institution and are now wardens over two institutions. Deputy wardens--they have cut way back on deputy wardens. Where you used to have three deputy wardens for virtually every institution, now you are down to one. You have midlevel management. You have, we call them ARUMs, Assistant Resident Unit Managers, in different units. One hundred and sixty some of these midlevel management positions have been eliminated over the past two years. Just to get a one percent more cut, which is what we are talking about with $20 million, we have to make these cuts. We can all add them back again, but sooner or later we have to say, "If we don't get revenue enhancements, these cuts will be nothing compared to the cuts that would have to be coming down. "So this would restore five and a quarter million dollars in substance abuse testing and treatment. I would love to vote for it, but if we are really going to try and come in under the Governor's recommendation--because we have gone over the Governor's recommendation in so many others--then these cuts become necessary, unless you want to start closing down institutions. If you want to start closing down institutions and letting people back out on the streets who shouldn't be out in the streets, that's the other alternative we have in the Department of Corrections. So we make our choices. I say to turn down this amendment is the better of several bad choices.

Senator Cropsey's third statement is as follows: I just want to thank the good Senator from Lansing. I think everything he said was true, but at the same time, we have a budget to balance this year. One of the things to keep in mind is that we just passed drug court treatment legislation or drug treatment court legislation through this body. In the judiciary budget last year, the last budget we did, that funding was increased from $3 million to $6 billion. So the Legislature is trying to come up and have a response to the drug problem because it is a significant problem in our society. It is a significant problem that we are having to deal with in our jails and in our prisons. But it is better to try and get that, I believe, before a person goes into the prison system or the jail system to be held accountable there. At the same time, I would love to keep this program going. This program is funded at about $17 million. We are cutting about $5 million out of it. I don't want to make those cuts, but at the same time, I think it is important for everybody in this body to realize that sooner or later the budgets have to be balanced. I don't like this cut, but I don't want to see us taking away from security staff and cutting down on the prisons that we currently have because I think everybody would say, "Well, that's even a worse solution to this than cutting this program." Shortsighted, I agree. It is shortsighted, but at this point, this is what we have.

Senator Cropsey's fourth statement is as follows: I hate having this money cut out also. This third amendment, these three amendments, are very difficult amendments, but we need to balance the budget. Keep this in mind, though, this is a new program, a new initiative. This has not been in the budget before. We are still leaving a $100 placeholder for future negotiations on this program. Another part of this is that the Department of Corrections currently spends $172 million, is budgeted for this budget for health care for prisoners. If a prisoner has hepatitis C and it's known, the prisoner receives health care treatment for that hepatitis C. So it's not like we are saying prisoners are not getting treatment; they are getting treatment. That doesn't mean that there isn't a serious problem. This hepatitis C is spread basically by dirty needles from tattooing and also by sexual contact inside the prisons. It is a serious problem, but is one that is for the most part preventable if the prisoner decides to take some personal responsibility in this area. So these are things to consider. Once again, you say you consider it as opposed to what? I don't like the alternatives that we have here. I like the alternatives even less than these amendments that we have done. So that is why I would urge you to turn down this amendment.

Senator Cropsey's fifth statement is as follows: I want to say this so that everybody understands. A prisoner who has hepatitis C symptoms is treated today in the Department of Corrections. A prisoner who has hepatitis C symptoms is treated right now in the Department of Corrections. In case you missed it, a prisoner who is ill with hepatitis C and has symptoms is treated right now in the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections has $172 million that they will be getting next year for health treatment, for illness or whatever you want to call it, for health care in the Department of Corrections. Now when a prisoner leaves the Department of Corrections, whether or not they have hepatitis C, hepatitis C does not keep a prisoner inside the Department of Corrections. I admit it is a serious community health problem, no question about it. The Department of Corrections has no more jurisdiction over them at that time though. So we do have a problem, and yes we do, but we are now spending $172 million for treatment of hepatitis C and all sorts of other diseases and illnesses that prisoners have. This is a question of are we going to put $5.8 million more into it as a new initiative in this budget year while we are trying to keep the budget down because we don't have the funds? That's what we are talking about. That's why I'm saying, "You know what, this is really underfunded by a long shot." Estimates are, to take care of the total hepatitis C problem that we have may range from anywhere from $50 million to $250 million. This is not an amendment that is going to take care of the problem. This is an amendment that is trying to figure our, boy, this is a problem. We already have money in there that is treating hepatitis C prisoners. I want to make that very clear. The question is do we start up a new program today, or do we wait for next year, which I would care not to do? I would rather have it done this year, but with the constraints that we have in the budget, I believe we have to wait till next year.

Senator Cropsey's sixth statement is as follows: A couple of things to keep in mind, $172 million is going for health care for prisoners. I said it three times before; I've said it for the fourth time now. That's a large sum of money, and we have a large prison population. So what you are talking about is adding another $5-$6 million for more health care services for the prisoners. Right now before a prisoner is set out on parole, they are offered the opportunity to take the test that the good Senator from Detroit had talked about. They are not mandated to take that test, but there is an offer made where they can take that test. And, once again, if they have symptoms of hepatitis C while they are under the jurisdiction of the department, they receive treatment. Now, are you going to mandate that they must get treatment once they get out into the community? That's beyond the scope, I think, of this budget. That's a question that has policy questions involved in that. There are privacy questions involved in that, and there are constitutional questions involved in that, but that is beyond our scope. Is it a danger to our community? In many respects, it certainly is. But those are policy issues that need to be talked about, need to be considered, and at this point, we are trying to balance the budget. So I would suggest that we turn down this amendment. We are already spending $172 million as appropriated for, in this budget, prisoner health care.

Senator Cropsey's seventh statement is as follows: I would urge that we vote for this legislation. The budget for the Department of Corrections totals $1.82 billion gross, of which $1.7 billion is General Fund. This represents a 7 percent, or $113 million, increase in General Fund pending for the current fiscal year, but a $20 million reduction for the executive's budget. This budget does the following: It provides $20 million in savings by converting a men's facility to a women's facility in closing Western Wayne; provides $13 million for additional beds to provide housing for expected population growth. This has been accomplished both by reopening existing units as well as converting the Oaks to a level 4 and double bunking it. It provides $18 million in General Fund funding to replace the loss of federal funds for the Michigan youth facility in Baldwin, Michigan; provides funding for the expansion of the new transitional program for female offenders as well as added parole officers needed because of an increasing parole population. It supports efficiency in staffing made possible by security technology enhancements. It goes beyond and we have discussed those three amendments, but it also adds an additional $2 million in transportation efficiencies and almost $400,000 in additional administrative reductions. I want to commend the department because I think the department has done a tremendous job over the last two years in becoming much more efficient. In several areas, wardens, which used to be a warden over one facility, and oftentimes they would have three deputy wardens. We now have wardens who are wardens over more than one facility, and oftentimes the number of deputy wardens has been cut down to one. The Senate also recommends retaining a number of reporting sections that was left out by the executive branch, including those on health care, academic programming, and the Michigan youth facility contract and more. It does add sections providing for the use of local corrections officer training fund, requiring transportation efficiency and restricting out-of-state and nonessential travel. It also adds sections in the boilerplate requiring that a prisoner's prescription medications be transferred with the prisoner in order to create a savings in medication costs. It also encourages the department to bill health insurance providers for health care for retired offenders who still have coverage. No security staff has been affected by this budget. There has been no cuts for health care for prisoners in this budget. This is $20 million under the Governor's recommendation, which we are trying to help balance the budget because of the overspending and some of the other budgets that are beyond the Governor's recommendation, which we have had members of the other party here on this floor today even requesting for more spending in those budgets that were already over the Governor's recommendation. Now we can't have it both ways. If we are going to be spending more in one budget, then you have to cut in another budget. That's just the simple laws of economics in this state where you must have a balanced budget.

Martha Scott,is a disgrace to Highland Park,and her Black race.Martha could not run the City of Highland Park as mayor,and what was the Highland Park citizens thinking when they took her to the Sinate (not senate)? Martha is another Bill McConico in a female body.I support her for being concerned about children,and their future education.But what is she doing about correcting the misleading Highland Park Board of Thiefs? I was happy that Martha got Booooo at the last council meeting she attended.So Ms Martha,go somewhere and retire.

Rep. Adamini, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not support the Conference Report to Senate Bill 1064, which provides appropriations for the Department of Corrections, because of the projected $12.8 million reduction, elimination, or replacement of staffed gun towers with security technology. Gun towers serve important functions within prisons facilities. All facilities with security classifications above Level III have gun towers. These facilities house the most dangerous of offenders in Michigan's correctional system. According to the Michigan Corrections Officers (MCO) organization, gun towers have been instrumental in breaking up or gaining control of inmate melees. In addition, these towers assist in controlling inmates and protecting the lives of officers and staff who risk their lives every day in our prisons. At some facilities, gun towers were added because officers were subject to attacks by inmates. Beyond prison facilities, gun towers serve important functions by protecting the public from potential prisoner escapes. Officers who staff gun towers serve as 'lookouts' by observing prisoner movement and activities from a vantage point far better than those of officers on the ground and can also take into account suspicious activity outside the walls. Hence, staffed gun towers have been instrumental in deterring and preventing prisoner escapes. I am not convinced that the Department has made a prudent decision to allow the efficiency of technology to sufficiently replace our corrections officers. Further, I am not convinced that the projected $12.8 million in savings outweighs the many benefits of gun towers. Without gun towers, everyone is at-risk. Therefore, I chose not support this conference report."

Rep. Brown, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not support the Conference Report to Senate Bill 1064, which provides appropriations for the Department of Corrections, because of the projected $12.8 million reduction, elimination, or replacement of staffed gun towers with security technology. Gun towers serve important functions within prisons facilities. All facilities with security classifications above Level III have gun towers. These facilities house the most dangerous of offenders in Michigan's correctional system. According to the Michigan Corrections Officers (MCO) organization, gun towers have been instrumental in breaking up or gaining control of inmate melees. In addition, these towers assist in controlling inmates and protecting the lives of officers and staff who risk their lives every day in our prisons. At some facilities, gun towers were added because officers were subject to attacks by inmates. Beyond prison facilities, gun towers serve important functions by protecting the public from potential prisoner escapes. Officers who staff gun towers serve as 'lookouts' by observing prisoner movement and activities from a vantage point far better than those of officers on the ground and can also take into account suspicious activity outside the walls. Hence, staffed gun towers have been instrumental in deterring and preventing prisoner escapes. I am not convinced that the Department has made a prudent decision to allow the efficiency of technology to sufficiently replace our corrections officers. Further, I am not convinced that the projected $12.8 million in savings outweighs the many benefits of gun towers. Without gun towers, everyone is at-risk. Therefore, I chose not support this conference report."

Rep. Dennis, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not support the Conference Report to Senate Bill 1064, which provides appropriations for the Department of Corrections, because of the projected $12.8 million reduction, elimination, or replacement of staffed gun towers with security technology. Gun towers serve important functions within prisons facilities. All facilities with security classifications above Level III have gun towers. These facilities house the most dangerous of offenders in Michigan's correctional system. According to the Michigan Corrections Officers (MCO) organization, gun towers have been instrumental in breaking up or gaining control of inmate melees. In addition, these towers assist in controlling inmates and protecting the lives of officers and staff who risk their lives every day in our prisons. At some facilities, gun towers were added because officers were subject to attacks by inmates. Beyond prison facilities, gun towers serve important functions by protecting the public from potential prisoner escapes. Officers who staff gun towers serve as 'lookouts' by observing prisoner movement and activities from a vantage point far better than those of officers on the ground and can also take into account suspicious activity outside the walls. Hence, staffed gun towers have been instrumental in deterring and preventing prisoner escapes. I am not convinced that the Department has made a prudent decision to allow the efficiency of technology to sufficiently replace our corrections officers. Further, I am not convinced that the projected $12.8 million in savings outweighs the many benefits of gun towers. Without gun towers, everyone is at-risk. Therefore, I chose not support this conference report."