Good morning, everybody. The House Appropriations Committee will come to order. Will the clerk please take attendance? Chair Boland? Here. Representative Maddock? Here. Green? Present. Jenkins Arno? Here. Kelly? Here. Markkanen? Here. Mueller? Here. Slaw? Present. Van Werkom? Here. Beeson? Here. Horton? Here. Roth? Here. Cavett? Here. Desena? Here. Coon? Here. Steele? Here. Robinson? Here. Farhat? Here. O'Neil? Here. Secloff? Here. Glanville? Here. Edwards? Here. Martis? Here. McKinney? Morgan? Price? Here. Snyder? Here.
Longjohn? Here. Madam chair, you have 25 members present. You do have a quorum. Thank you. Representative Maddock moves to approve the minutes of the May 14 meeting. There being no objections, the minutes are approved. Today, the committee will hear testimony on House Bill forty four twenty sponsored by representative Coons. And we will also, be taking, up a vote on the three property conveyance bills, that, we heard last week, four zero one one, four zero two three, and four zero, four one three five. Excuse me. And, I think that, while we are waiting for other members,
there are some, you know, every day is a new adventure here in Lansing and on the way to Lansing with, the roads while we're fixing the damn roads. So, we are gonna start with testimony on the transparency bill. And so representative Coutts, could you please come forward and talk to us about your bill? Thank you, madam chair, esteemed members of the Appropriations Committee, and representative Beeson. House bill forty four twenty codifies into law the House rule 14, and it's a transparency measure. I thought the rollout was good.
We had that legislative directive spending form, and it was a good first iteration. I like the transparency. We're gonna improve on it. There's some some corrections coming to the form. We're gonna try and streamline it. But I thought for a first, venue, I thought it was it was a great start there. We started we started this to increase transparency. It was unanimous vote. I was very proud of that. I think we're all supportive of it. What I want to do the reason I wanna go this extra step is when we are gone from Lansing, when we're not here, I want this level of transparency to continue.
This is a good thing. I want the process to continue so, taxpayers deserve to know where their hard earned money is going, and the bill enacted into law ensures that the house and senate this will be binding on both both legislators' legislations. Yeah. Houses, divisions. Complete chamber. Thank you. Both chambers, completely transparent. So I welcome any questions. It's it's simple. We are going to extend it. There's been some good suggestions, so there will be some substitutes coming. I think we're gonna testify again on this in June, madam chair. We will continue. Very good.
So questions? Oh, I'm sorry. I'd welcome any questions, madam chair. Thank you. Representative Farhat. Yeah. Thank you, representative Coons, for being here today. I have a right here is the perfect little obstruction, but, you know, when we rolled this out in the house, do you know how much it cost us to make the website and if we had any issues with the website? I don't believe the secretary of state was in charge of the website, if that was the question. No. I do not have that number on what what the cost of it was. So, representative, I will say that the cost was minimal.
We were able to, develop the website and get it up and running in probably less than a week. And I just think it shows the, relevancy and the importance of, where there's a will to do it right, you can. And, certainly, as we move forward, we'll look at if there's, other ways to improve it, but, we did do that in house. Yeah. Well, I I think transparency is important. And, as well, is there anything materially different in this draft than the house resolution, or is this an exact copy of the resolution that we adopted earlier in the year? The the form has been streamlined, a little bit. We're also gonna add some restrictions.
Some of our colleagues had great ideas on restricting what the funds can be used for. So, I I don't know if we wanna talk about that. I'll I'll let this preserves the the new rule that prohibits this state money from going to for profits. Correct? We retain that language in this. Correct? Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Steckloff. Thank you. Representative Glanville. Yeah. I'm I'm always trying to call it in, and it gets stuck on somebody else here down the line. So, and and I before I ask my question, I kinda wanna follow-up on rep Farhat real quick.
I appreciate, you know, the levity in the room this morning and the intent of this bill. But I think, seriously, there is some cost whether we develop it in house or not. We're using those resources, to develop and maintain a website. And I think we're all seeing in various, areas throughout the state where IT maintenance or IT management, you know, if we don't stay on top of those things, how that does become a large cost over time. And so while this might seem to be a simple endeavor, I think it's worth digging into a little bit. I appreciate if we could get some kind of estimate on the cost of,
running if we need an FDE for that, you know, things like that, I think. Certainly, it would not, in my opinion, necessarily preclude this kind of legislation, but I think it's a legitimate question. And then the other thing I wanted to clarify is that, again, while I appreciate, you know, the the level of transparency that this offers, I also have some concerns about who might not have access then to state dollars. And and so what I mean by that is, you know, like, in a business setting, if you were looking to hire a vendor or,
you know, spend money, contract with appropriate money to, somebody offering you a service, there's typically an RFP process, you know, and things like that where you would you would score, you know, the work and and their outcomes and what they have to offer and all these things. Right? Through this process, we kinda lose that, in that you know, I think the departments are the ones who are set up to kinda run that process. So, for example, we had, I think, 13, chair Van Wertkem, 13 groups that testified yesterday in Medicaid and behavioral health.
And I'm I'm not sure if they were all people you know, organizations that had, gone through the LDSI process or not. We that information wasn't shared with us in committee necessarily. So I was, you know, just thinking reflecting on that, clearly, there are more than 13 organizations involved in and this was around substance, use disorder and and those types of services from the opioid settlement. So, clearly, there are more than 13 organizations in the state that provide those types of services.
Some are very localized. Some are statewide. Some you know, they have a variety of services that they offer and that are certainly necessary. But my point my lengthy point here is that we are not in a position necessarily to vet all of that. That's why we have departments. And so my concern is that there may be some, you know, smaller or even, you know, a larger group that representatives may not be aware of because it is not our job to to monitor the whole entire state. So I'm just trying to work out how we balance,
the the openness of this and the transparency piece with the ability for groups to have access to the process. So so I don't know if you have thoughts on that or, if you can reassure give some reassurance or what that looks like. I that that is a great question on the implementation and the maintenance of the website. I agree that's gonna be I don't have that information. I'm I'm going to start with house fiscal and and see and and maybe chair looks like she has something to add. Thank you. Yes. And part of the budget process is going through all of these different departments and
identifying. There are programs like under the OPIC Commission that might be determined to be more programmatic. They have a formula. There's a different way of distributing those dollars that they wouldn't qualify under an LDSI. I think the most important thing to remember in this process is regardless if it is programmatic, it's a competitive grant, it's an earmark, is that, we are trying to advance transparency and more accountability in the process. It's an $83,000,000,000 budget that we are responsible for and making sure that we are being deliberative and very thoughtful in going through it.
We're not trying to edge anybody out or give anybody an edge up. What we wanna do is really, I call it, you know, stepping up on the balcony and really having a a better eye view of everything. So we'll continue to answer those questions as we move through the process. Thank you. If I may, madam chair, I do agree with you. I agree with you. Handled. Great. I I'm just asking how that happens. How does that look in this process? Representative Beeson. Thank you, chair. Thank you, chair, and, thanks, Tom, for being here. It's representative Koontz. Okay.
So it's funny. There's a 10 of us, and we all came in the minority or the majority depending on when we came in. I've been here for five years, and I think this is way overdue. And now that we are gonna be here for a longer term, I see excitement with this because you have the passion to go after something for your district, and it's not just gonna get thrown in the budget the last minute. Do you think do you think that this will make it so the departments realize they work for us, the elected people, instead of we work for the departments? I I I'd like to think that would have an effect on on the direction of it.
I I agree with you on the transparency. That that that's my entire purpose of asking. When I went to house leadership, I said, I love this idea. Can I take it and try and make it into a PA, the support of it? And it's the transparency item that does it. So, again, if you're asking for the money, I think it's a good thing. Write your name down. Make it public. If you believe in it, then stand up and say, I'm gonna ask for this and here's why. As with the departments, I think that's a little bit more tangential, to to get them understanding the the flow of who controls the budget and who
they answer to. Obviously, that's a goal. I I don't know how much I couldn't I couldn't quantify how much this bill will affect that. The reason why I asked that is sometimes some of us legislators that actually are big, strong supporters for certain departments end up in that department. And, that's my only concern is are we actually not giving out to where we need to Mhmm. In the state and and focus on certain areas. That's all my concern was. Thank you. Representative Edwards. Thank you, madam chair. I can appreciate the level of transparency that we are discussing here.
I mean, because last year, that was not, a thing across the board. So I really appreciate that. But, I would hate to support something in committee and then the changes on the floor. You indicated that there will be corrections coming to the floor. What are those corrections? Can you share some of those things, or you don't know right now? No. I I do. Absolutely. And those are gonna come to committee. The substitutions will come to committee. And and I appreciate what you're saying. You know, I I I would hate to do that also. We're gonna streamline the form. We wanna make that simpler to understand, not so much on the website. We had a colleague,
come yesterday on the floor with a great suggestion that state funds cannot be used to pay back taxes. Great. I think that's a that's a wonderful idea. So here here's a worthy cause, and we appreciate it, and and and pick whatever it is. Let's let's I'm going to make this up. A YMCA. Excuse me. A YMCA. They get a grant money. That's fine, but that grant money has to be used for the project. It can't be used to pay back taxes. So, that's one of the examples I would have. We're gonna we're gonna try and tighten it up. Same same thing. We're gonna have the transparency, but we also wanna control where the money goes.
But those changes are gonna come here, representative. Saying you're coming back to present those changes, and we won't have to wait till we get on the floor to hear what those changes are. That is correct, representative. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for that question. I think that was an excellent question, Rep Edwards. And I do think that one of the things we recently realized as a chamber is the importance of really delineating the forms. We saw the hiccup with the public financial disclosure. This is another path of disclosure, if you will. So I think that will be something and we are working on it through the budget process also. And Rupp Glanville,
I do want to apologize. I didn't mean to cut you off. I just wanted to try to stick to the LDSIs versus the programmatic, programs in the budget. And with that, representative McKinney. Thank you, chairwoman. Thank you, rep Coos, for your, presentation in this bill. Completely agree with you around the transparency and disclose your fees. But I have a question because it I know part of the bill says the entity must have a physical office in this state for not less than the previous twelve consecutive months. And I know, personally, organizations who have been a part of this state for a long time in my
neck of the woods who do a lot of great work, and who sometimes don't necessarily have a physical space. Sometimes they're operating, out of a shared space. Sometimes it's out of their homes. And I just wanna make sure that, you know, we're as inclusive as possible when we're thinking about grantees and and people who are actually doing the work day to day. And then, you know, with COVID that happened, I know it was some years ago, but so many nonprofit organizations are still feeling the impacts of that and and and trying to figure out ways to to navigate.
A lot of folks just losing their space because all in all, all the prices are going up to rent spaces and and own spaces. So, can you touch on, you know, if if some of the corrections later on are gonna be used for that? Or, you know, how can we mitigate that to ensure that this process is exclusionary as possible? Yeah. Congressman, that's a great question. One of the things that we're trying to do, you know, I I understand. There and there might be a small operation. You know, people talk about home offices. Fine. That's a that's a valid fiscal address.
If you have a PO box, that's fine. We're what we're trying to do is we're we wanna make sure that the entity that's getting the money is legitimate, and that's one of the ways to do it. And that's why we we had in-depth discussions on this. Not only are we asking for a fiscal address, which is a a PO box is fine. And that's fine. And if it's a PO box out of state, that's fine if you're doing work here in the state. That's why we're asking not just for the fiscal address of the entity, but the location of where it's going. So, and, again, not not to be redundant on the YMCA. The Lansing YMCA has a camp in Everett,
Michigan, which is in my district. So that would be the example of, you know, they're gonna have a a fiscal address here, but that's why we ask both questions. Well, where is it going, and what entity is it going to? So that's that's why we're trying to do it both. But, yeah, it would be it would be inclusive as possible. Thank you. Thank you, congressman. Okay. Thank you very much, representative oh, excuse me. Representative Steckloff. Thank you, chair. And I just wanna say, representative Coontz, he and I are working on an amendment for exactly what he just said. And I just wanna thank you for your hard work on this.
You know, we're still learning the process. Things are still getting worked out. You know, we're learning what things legally can be used for, what they can't legally be used for. So I just wanna, thank you for working with me on amendments, and I know, will there'll be more discussion, on on during the next committee. But, if anyone has questions about some of the stuff I'm working on, please, feel free to ask. Thank you. Thank you, representative. And and, again, that comes back to, you know, the the inclusionary. And, you know, representative Edwards, if there's a suggestion, I'd I'd love to hear it. I think this is a this this is a bipartisan issue. This is a good issue,
but there are gonna be things that I don't know. So I appreciate your input on that. There there's nobody well, there's almost nobody in the room I couldn't learn something from. So Thank you, representative. Thank you, madam chair. And, next up, we will hear from, good friend and former Appropriations chair, Shane Hernandez, testifying in support of the legislation. Well, thank you, madam chair. Thank you, representative Beeson. I feel like I have to single them out and lift them up a little bit. Members of the of the committee, appreciate the opportunity to testify on this today. I'll just start talking about the transparency piece.
This that's what this is. Right? It's a it's an enhancement grant transparency bill, and it's clearly one of the biggest reasons that this bill is out there. And it's, the transparency that this brings is worthy of passing this legislation, in my opinion. If you feel comfortable about this grant as an organization and as a representative, you should be willing to put it out there publicly. And if you have concerns about putting it out there publicly, you maybe shouldn't be asking for the grant. It's it's that simple. The idea that you're you have it in there, who's who's requesting it, the organization,
the legislator sponsoring, you know, those are those are great things. It's always good to remember this is the people's money. This is not your money. So it's, it should be very easy for the people to be able to go to a website and see this. And I think, right now, it is, and and I appreciate that, from being able to see it from the outside as well. But I'm actually here today to talk more about what this can do for the process of the Appropriations Committee from a perspective of a former Appropriations Chair. And and I think for this institution,
this is an incredibly important piece of legislation as well. You may be thinking, well, you know, we're a bunch of good great members of this committee with great intentions. Why can't we just do this ourselves? And and I don't think that, this speaks to saying that you guys aren't great members. I think everybody here has, great intentions. I I think this is a great bill for the institution and the process because that process has so many moving pieces to it. It can get away from you. I've been the chair of this. I, I think I was pretty vocal about not liking these things.
We we really tried to focus on whether it was roads or public safety and not do a ton of enhancement grants, but this process leads to a messy situation many times. There's it's the biggest committee here. It's the best committee here too, in my opinion, in this, in this town. But without a rule or a law in place, the forces that are involved in this process can start to move you away from what your intent your original goals were. And that's not, again, speaking to the character of anybody here. It's how the institution and process works.
So I think that the last piece of this that that I think that this can really help in, at at the end of the day, the goal of this, of this appropriations process is to get three legs of a stool in agreement. It's to get, you have a 10 house members, 30 eight senate. It's to get 56, 20, and one. And and that's where I say that this process can really start to move what your original goals were. And having this written into law is incredibly important because, those last minute negotiations are where this gets really messy and where things that haven't
been talked about, haven't been discussed. You as a chair of a subcommittee or a member of this committee, chair of the committee, start to see things come your way that you had no idea were even out there, or maybe they weren't out there. And that's not healthy for this institution. It's not healthy for this committee to negotiate that way, but it happens. And it happens even with the committee with the right intentions. The idea that these are out there upfront, that there's transparency on who the board is, the idea that an organization has to have been in operation for thirty six months,
I think that's an incredibly important piece. You probably shouldn't be receiving state funds if you haven't proven that you can stand up on your own before you receive those state funds. Those are all incredibly important pieces so that when those messy negotiations do naturally happen at the end of this, everything that's being negotiated is something that you've all been able to see. You've been able to sit back and look at, understand who that board is, who's connected to it, how this benefits a community, and and that's already there. It's not some last minute thing coming at you.
So not only do I support this for the transparency, and and what this means for taxpayers in Michigan understanding where their dollars go, I support it for the process of this committee and institution. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a few questions. Rep. Farhat. Yeah. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, mister Hernandez, for being here. You know, I I agree with what you said. This isn't about character. And at the risk of sounding dilatory in some of my comments here, I'm curious why it is because this is a milestone moment for the legislature. I agree. Right? Self enacting transparency.
Why it is you think that maybe previous legislatures failed to enact us as a matter of principle? I mean, I'm just curious. Again, it's not about character. It's more of you know, I'm I'm new to this institution. You served in the one of those four positions. Right? You were the chair of this committee. Why it is maybe that it's difficult to enact pieces of transparency or things such as this based on your experiences. Yeah. I I mean, I think you could look at the past several years as steps toward this. Right? I I I was looking at this last night thinking, man, why didn't I do this? Why why didn't this happen?
But they're all steps toward this. It's all a learning process toward this. And I do think that, some of these process changes are some of the most important things this committee could do. One of the things I was really focused on, and if you ask me what's one of the biggest things you did in the appropriations committee, it was to pass the budget separately, because it brings more transparency rather than pass omnibus budgets. So I and I know that's gone back and forth in the past, but I think those process things are important. I think that this situation got probably messier during COVID, and what's happening right now is somewhat of a reaction to that.
And it's a good reaction, I I think. So, I believe it's just, you learn from what's happened in the past, and I'm I'm glad we're at this point where you guys are are talking about it and willing to self impose it. I think it's a great thing. Thank you. Excellent question, rep Farhad. I think also, you know, we will see, there's more of a desire with longer term limits. Before, it's oftentimes people are here two years, six at the most, and I think that will be very pivotal. And also, I think the recognition of COVID and what we saw, spending of $9,000,000,000 surplus in twenty four short months.
So I appreciate the support for this. Representative Beeson. Thank you, chair. Shane, you own a business. Right? I I own three. Yes. Wouldn't it be nice to know those bills coming from your fellow colleagues across the state or some of your, expenses that were ahead of the game instead of not getting thrown to you the same day that the power goes out? Absolutely. And, you know, I've I've looked at this transparency website multiple times. I think I I try to look at it from a perspective of not being a former legislator, somebody outside the this,
institution and and somebody who doesn't completely understand all the the nuances of what's going on here, and I find that site pretty easy to look through and and use and see what's out there. I think you guys can continue to improve on it, but, you know, I I wouldn't stress for somebody from that outside perspective, keep it simple and keep it as easy as possible for people to look at. And that's what we are we are great legislators. All of us are passionate about our area. Wouldn't it have been nice even if we go and do something else like the congressman's gonna do, wouldn't it be nice if in his district,
we already knew what the problem was so that way the new person come in as your job when you sat there. Yeah. For sure. And, I also think just on the timing of the asks too. Like, if you didn't think of the ask till the last minute, it probably can wait till the next year. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I'll thank you very much again for being here. And, next up, we have James Homan from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy testing in support testifying, excuse me, in support of the legislation. Welcome. Yeah. My name is James Homan. I'm the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
We're a public policy think tank based in Midland. And I like the process in House Bill 4,420. I think there are two features that I wanted to, to promote for the bill. And the first is the requirement that legislators explain why their, why their, directed spending provides broader public benefits. And this is important because the state constitution requires higher approval standards when bills approve money for, local governments and non profits. And this is, this is because state lawmakers are supposed to be focused on what benefits the state
as a whole. So but that shouldn't be interpreted under a narrow sense. So this gives lawmakers a chance to argue that there are broader, public benefits from, from the grants that they're sponsoring. Now the second, benefit, I think, for this for this is that it it actually lists what the who is going to collect the money and what, what it is going to be used for. That's information that's simply not available in the budget bills themselves. I think the legislative fiscal agencies for giving some information about that, but this provides so much more and provides context for the for the grants,
that are being sponsored. So it improves transparency. It gives people a lot more information, and it helps ensure that, lawmakers are focused on the goals of benefiting the public. So I hope you consider this bill. Thank Thank you very much. I see no questions. So thank you again for being here. The committee will go at ease. Committee's back in order. Chair Bolin, you have some great things to say. Let's hear them. Thank you very much, vice chair Maddock. Thank you, Rep Coons, for bringing forth, House Bill forty four twenty. Colleagues, this merely puts in statute what was passed unanimously in our chamber,
setting forth a procedure for disclosure on enhancement grants, commonly known as earmarks or pork spending. As a longtime advocate of transparency and accountability, I sponsored the resolution that spurred the legislation. Again, it passed unanimously in our chamber and sent forth a new standard for this institution. The house has every intention of following this new standard. However, it is in the best interest long term to the taxpayers for whom we work and their dollars that we're spending to make sure that the legislatures in the future
also follow this. Universal support for there is universal support for this. It should not be a who you know system to get your project in the budget. Not only is transparency, but also as chair, helps me to gain a better understanding of the needs and identify funding priorities and alternatives and even helps with projecting out longer term needs across the state and demands on future state budgets. Places guardrails on how we approach our funding and appropriating. This is just a start. We still need changes in work project authorizations,
corporate welfare programs, grant programs. There are many. But this is a good start, and I look forward to shepherding this through the process. Thank you. Representative Morgan. Thank you, chair. Chair Bolin, I I wanna express my my strong support for this. I think transparency is critical, and I think we've seen many, unfortunate examples over the last, decades around, the lack of transparency in our state budget, particularly with these types of grants. And I think this is a really important step for addressing that. The question I have for you is, given the the strong interest and transparency on this,
would there be any support, for, you know, also adding this to tie buying tie buying to FOIA or other transparency measures to make sure that we're putting something forward that's comprehensive, not just on the budget, but in all the decisions that we're making here in state government? I think that the discussion should take place, on transparency measures. I have been a long time advocate of many of them. But But I think what we see people care about most is how we are spending their dollars. And, you know, people can look up on a website, see what the projects are, look for it, I think more often than looking for documents.
I'm a former FOIA coordinator. I do believe that they are the public's records, but I think this is what's before us and this is a great start and hopefully it'll set precedence for further measures. Representative Steele. Thank you. I, appreciate this bill and I in full support. And my question is, is your goal maybe to either, cut future spending so we can maybe put it into infrastructure of what our, statutory responsibility is, which is to take care of our infrastructure and our schools, roads, or is it to maybe roll back the income tax to maybe,
give a break to the taxpayers as a whole? Just wanting to see what the long term goal might be for this. Thank you very much for that, question, Representative Steele. I think that we have to look at this. We have a job to appropriate money. We need to provide value for the taxpayers. And I do believe that the legislature needs to have somewhat of a hierarchy in what our spending is. What is constitutionally required? What is court ordered statutorily? What are priorities and what are preferences? And they run all over. It seems the preferences are getting a little bit more weight than what is required of us.
And so I hope that, I, as chair of the Appropriations Committee and together with all of you, can influence that change. We know that the priorities in the state budget are gonna be infrastructure leaning. They're going to be, fixing the roads. We need to make sure that we're have clean water. Our wastewater systems are, you know, operating properly. We're not flooding our streets. I mean, there's a lot to it. Our goal is to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. That covers a number of things, and that will be our priority as we move forward. Representative Farhae. Yeah. Thank you, vice chair Madak, and thank you, chairwoman Boland.
You know, one thing I've appreciated is that we've had this very collaborative approach so far, albeit, you know, we have not had the budget presently before us. I've appreciated the way we've conducted this committee. When this is signed into law, hopefully, how do we ensure that future legislators legislatures, future lawmakers respect this statute in the way that sometimes we have other bills on the books that may not, for example, the July 1 deadline for our budget, I'm sure you knew this was coming. How do we make sure that those things are respected?
Well, I think that they're, sometime we have to understand what the intent is, and why they're put in place. And, you know, the transparency, this should be universal and it should be long standing. There should be absolutely no question this should stay in place. No question this should stay in place. I don't understand why anybody I cannot even fathom why people would object or reject this process. And I think what we have to do is make sure that we shout from the rooftops when we pass this and put in statute that we, as the one hundred and fourth legislature, have put this into practice into law, and the public deserves better. We need to give them better.
And I hope that they will continue to support us in this effort. We know we've all been out in our communities. We've heard from businesses, government people, organizations about how critical this bill is to advance more transparency. Thank you. Representative Beeson. Thank you, vice chair, and thanks, chair Bolin. I'm excited about this, only because he said ten years, five years, legislative. We're only here for a short period of time and leaving the state better than we got it. You feel that this is a definite a better way to do this. Correct? Absolutely. I think this is transformational change.
This is my fourth term, my seventh year, and, I've been advocating for something like this, and I'm very, very happy to see it come to fruition. And I'm glad, that we had a last two years of minority because we got to go through the budget thanks to your leadership and those meetings every Wednesday. I really do appreciate that, with House of Fiscal. And I'm glad that we didn't come up with a budget because now it doesn't look like we have to cut everything when we know what what's in the, budget for this year. So thank you. Thank you, rep Beeson. What we're doing today is foundational change. We've all had, the experience of seeing things like,
USAID style projects that have been revealed. And this is basically going to put an end to those kind of projects. And I'm really excited, and thanks for your testimony today. Thank you, Rob. Alright. Committee will come back to order. We do have, one card here, Sonny Koch and Tim Golding from Americans for Prosperity not wishing to speak and support the bill. Excuse me. Before we move on, is there anybody else from the audience that would like to testify on this bill? Alright. Thank you very much. Appreciate, everybody's time. Next up, we will be,
moving forward with, we heard three bills that we heard testimony on last week. They are, property conveyance bills. There was some additional info that the committee did ask for and we are waiting from that. We have heard we did get some back. We are still waiting for the list on, vacant and partially filled buildings. We anticipate that coming forward, but it really, shouldn't uphold the process here. And so, we do have a card from, Neil D'Souza from DTMB who was here presenting testimony last week, supports the bill but does not wish to speak.
Excuse me. And with that, Rep. Maddock moves to report house bill four zero one one, representative Hoadley's bill, with recommendation. Will the clerk please take the roll? On the motion to report house bill forty eleven, Chair Bolin? Yes. Representative Zmatic? Yes. Green? Yes. Jenkins Arno? Yes. Kelly? Yes. Markkanen? Yes. Mueller? Yes. Slaw? Yes. Van Workum? Yes. Biesen? Yes. Wharton? Yes. Roth? Yes. Desana? Yes. Coon? Yes. Steele? Yes. Robinson? Yes. Farhat? Yes. O'Neil? Yes. Rogers?
Yes. Stecklock? Yes. Glanville? Yes. Edwards? Yes. Martis? Yes. McKinney? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Price? Yes. Snyder? Yeah. Longjohn? Yes. Madam chair, you have 28 yays, zero nays, zero pass. House bill forty eleven is reported with recommendation. Thank you very much. Next up is Rhett Whipper's bill, which was a property conveyance. It was an encroachment, as you would recall. And so representative Beeson moves to report house bill four zero two three with recommendation. Will the clerk please take the role? On the motion to report house bill four zero two three, chair Bolin? Yes.
Representative Maddock? Yes. Green? Yes. Jenkins Arno? Yes. Kelly? Yes. Markkanen? Yes. Mueller? Yes. Slaw? Yes. Van Werkom? Yes. Orton? Yes. Roth? Yes. Desana? Yes. Coon? Yes. Robinson? Yes. O'Neil? Yes. Rogers? Stekloff? Yes. Landville? Yes. Edwards? Yes. Martis? Yes. McKinney? Yes. Oregon? Yes. Price? Yes. Snyder? No. Longjohn? Yes. Madam chair, you have 28 yays, zero nays, zero pass. House bill forty twenty three is reported with recommendation. Thank you very much. Next up, was a bill sponsored by representative Leitner in Jackson County,
house bill four one three five. And with that, rep Snyder moves to report house bill four one three five with recommendation. Will the clerk please take the role? On the motion to report, chair Bolin? Yes. Representative Zmatic? Yes. Green? Yes. Jenkins Arno? Yes. Kelly? Yes. Markkanen? Yes. Mueller? Yes. Slaw? Yes. Van Werkom? Yes. Orton? Yes. Roth? Cabot? Yes. Desena? Yes. Coon? Steel? Yes. Robinson? Yes. Farhat? Yes. O'Neil? Yes. Rogers? Yes. Stancloff? Yes. Glanville? Yes. Edwards? Yes. Martis?
Yes. McKinney? Yes. Morgan? Yes. Price? Yes. Snyder? Yes. Longjohn? Yes. Madam chair, you have 27 yeas, zero nay, one pass. House bill forty one thirty five is reported with recommendation. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much for everybody for being here. With that, we are adjourned.