June 13, 2025 | This Week in Government: Higher Education Budget Limps Out of House

After more than 10 hours of session and labored negotiations within their own caucus on Thursday, House Republicans rushed through a higher education budget that is vastly different from the proposal that passed the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.

The H-2 version of HB 4580 that cleared the House reversed course on large cuts across the board for the 15 public universities, though maintains deep cuts for Michigan State University and the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

It also abandoned a proposal to expand eligibility for scholarships to the state’s universities for any student who graduated from a Michigan high school. The original version of the bill would have pumped more than $1 billion into the Michigan Achievement Scholarship program.

The end version deposited $20 million and kept eligibility rules the same as current year. For operations funding, MSU would lose $56.6 million, and U-M would lose $234.4 million, an 18% and 65.1% cut, respectively.

The funds cut from the two universities would be distributed among the other 13, which would receive increases varying from 23.4% to 26.3%.

“We’re looking at a model to make sure that the universities that a producing and providing results for Michigan families are there. The ones that don’t deliver those results are going to see some reductions,” House Appropriations Chair Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton) said.

MSU and U-M are not delivering those results, Bollin said, because they are too focused on “woke” policies and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“They’re not attracting Michigan students,” she told reporters after the vote. They’re attracting a lot of foreign students, and we really want to invest in the universities that are really advocating for Michigan.”

Overall, the operations line item for universities is reduced by $51.6 million – a remarkable change after the $828.1 million cut that moved out of committee Wednesday. The proposal also shifts $1.2 billion School Aid Fund into the university operations, replacing that amount in General Fund.

The budget as passed Thursday is $2.3 billion ($325.2 million General Fund), a 2.6% decrease (82.5% decrease in General Fund).

The bill cleared the chamber 56-41. Rep. Steve Carra (R-Three Rivers) voted no, and Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) was absent. He voted no on the higher education budget Wednesday in committee.

The hold out, according to multiple sources, was Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford).

Bollin defended the 24-hour turnaround on the higher education budget to reporters Thursday night.

“It was a transparent process to get more input, garner some additional insight, and this is where we landed,” she said. “It does achieve our overall goals and our efforts to try to reduce government spending and provide more value for the taxpayers, and this does deliver that. We have heard that they have woke polices, people are against that, they want our colleges and universities to educate our Michigan kids.”

The turnaround for 13 of the 15 public universities in the budget was massive.

The initial budget contained the largest ever cuts of any bill advancing through a chamber for higher education: 58% for Grand Valley State University, 57% for the University of Michigan-Dearborn, 54% for Saginaw Valley State University, 51% for Oakland University, 47% for U-M Flint, 33% for Ferris State University and cuts ranging from 5 to 29% for everyone else. Instead, those 13 schools would see increases of 23 to 26%.

House Democrats, who said they received the amended version of the budget 15 minutes before they were asked to vote on it, were furious.

“This is going to diminish opportunity for Michigan’s children and youth to achieve their dreams and goals,” Rep. Alabas Farhat (D-Dearborn), minority vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said. “They’re stealing money from the University of Michigan and Michigan State University to artificially bump up the money that these other universities are getting. By doing that, you’re shortchanging everyone.”

Rep. Matt Longjohn (D-Portage) called the preservation of the Michigan Achievement Scholarship “putting lipstick on a pig.”

Democrats also railed against the boilerplate language included in the budget that prohibits DEI initiatives and transgender women from playing in women’s sports.

They also pointed to boilerplate that restricts public universities from spending more than 10 percent of salary spent on administration, with the sum of 50% of money spent over the cap reduced from operations funding.

“The boilerplate in this budget still makes it unworkable for any university to actually get the money that’s laid out in the budget,” Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor) said.

House Republicans also passed a budget for community colleges, HB 4579, with far less drama than was involved in the higher education budget.

The 28 community colleges would see a 1% decrease in operations (a $3.6 million reduction). There was no change in the colleges’ budget compared to what moved on Wednesday. The overall budget proposal is $456.7 million ($0 General Fund), a $5.6 million decrease, or 1.2%, and a $500 million decrease in General Fund.

Tracy Wimmer, press secretary for Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, called Thursday’s session an example of failed leadership from House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township).

All of our members are here and ready to work, but we don’t get to decide if we vote on anything,” she said. “It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars….You need to negotiate, and you need to have conversations.”

Hall did not make himself available to reporters after the vote.

Other action: The House also passed a variety of other bills Thursday night that would make changes to barbers’ licensing, groundwater permits and anaerobic digesters.

HB 4394 and HB 4395 both passed 95-2. Rep. Steve Carra (R-Three Rivers) and Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford) voted no.

Together, the bills would amend the State License Fee Act to establish a $20 fee for a temporary permit for a licensed barber or cosmetologist to provide services at a veteran service organization and allow temporary permits for a licensed barber or cosmetologist to provide services to a veteran at a veteran service organization. Barbers and cosmetologists that provide services under such a temporary permit would be prohibited from charging a service fee.

HB 4192 would make changes to groundwater permits. The bill would place mobile home parks and campgrounds that have fewer than 1,000 residents or campsites, respectively, and that would otherwise be considered a group 1 facility in the same fee category as a group 2 facility for purposes of determining the amount paid for obtaining an annual groundwater discharge permit. The bill passed 65-32.

HB 4257 would amend the solid waste management portion of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to change when an anaerobic digester needs to be registered and simplify the application process. HB 4265 would modify the definition of disposal area. Both bills passed 62-35. Rep. Joey Andrews IV (D-St. Joseph), Rep. Will Snyder (D-Muskegon), Rep. Joe Tate (D-Detroit) and Rep. Angela Witwer (D-Delta Township) voted yes.

HB 4356 would establish a procedure for the secretary of state to notify individuals who are registered but who haven’t voted in at least 10 years, with the aim of removing deceased individuals and people who have relocated from the addresses they registered at from voter rolls. The bill passed 56-41. Rep. Joseph Fox (R-Fremont) voted no. Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) was absent.

Senate Democrats defended the reintroduction of their “Polluter Pay” package in committee on Wednesday as a fair compromise, but Republicans insist it remains an expensive, bureaucratic move that will deter industry investors.

Sen. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor), the package’s lead sponsor, described it as a “modest change” to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s current standards – meant to hold polluters accountable for the health impacts of contaminated land they leave behind.

There are about 24,000 known brownfield sites across the state, according to EGLE, many of which leach toxic chemicals that put residents at risk.

The polluter pay legislation is an attempt to revert some of the changes to the state’s brownfield redevelopment program made in 1995, which Democrats say loosened requirements for hazardous waste cleanup.

“Some people are calling for a restoration of a model that requires strict liability,” Irwin told the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. “I proposed legislation like that in the past, but that’s not what’s being proposed today.”

The first set of tie-barred bills in the package seek to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up their contaminated sites.

• SB 391, sponsored by Irwin, would require hazardous substance facility owners and operators to report more information about pollution to EGLE. It also eliminates some exemptions allowing contaminated material to remain in place.
• SB 392, sponsored by Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield), would require remedial action before land or water use restrictions are issued and establish a process for updating cleanup standards based on the latest health risk data.
• SB 385, sponsored by Sen. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit), would make technical changes to allow enforcement of SB 392.

“Michigan’s industrial and agricultural history are important considerations to the future as a state where people want to live, to farm, to start a business, to spend recreational time and money,” Chang told the committee. “But we need to act responsibly and make sure that we are fully informed about the types of contamination that exists across sites and the remediation that is needed.”

The second set of tie-barred bills would expand opportunities for residents to seek damages for hazardous substance exposure.

• SB 386 and SB 393, sponsored by Sen. Sue Shink (D-Northfield Township) and Sen. Sean McCann (D-Kalamazoo), respectively, would allow residents to recover health care costs for medical monitoring and extend the statute of limitations for environmental hazard exposure.
• SB 387, sponsored by Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak), would allow the state to sue for damages from contaminants that weren’t regulated before 1994, including toxic “forever chemicals” like PFAS and PFOS.

Sen. Roger Hauck (R-Mount Pleasant) raised concerns that these changes would make current brownfield owners liable for contaminants that weren’t a problem in the past. But Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor), who testified in support of the bills, noted that proper documentation would shield most owners from liability.

Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition President Andrea Pierce shared a story about her family’s chronic health problems after their local river in Emmet County was contaminated. She said that the legislation offered common sense protections for communities.

“I think it’s despicable that we’re sitting here five years later, and my family is still drinking bottled water,” Pierce said.

Sen. John Damoose (R-Harbor Springs), who represents Emmet County, thanked Pierce for her testimony but did not share his position on the legislation. He did not vote on a similar package last session.

Industry groups remained opposed. Mike Witkowski, director of environmental and regulatory policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said that the legislation would make brownfield projects too complicated and costly for investors to take up.

“This will not only stall redevelopment, but it will send companies into undeveloped green space, farmland, our northern areas,” Witkowski said. “These sites will sit idle and polluted.”

When Sen. Sam Singh (D-East Lansing) asked for potential compromises, Witkowski said he could not offer specifics.

EGLE’s chief deputy director, Aaron Keatley, acknowledged the tension between residents with contaminated land and industry officials who find current cleanup requirements unclear.

“I sense a lot of opportunity if all of our parties can come together and recognize that we’re looking at things through different lenses,” Keatley said.

The bills did not receive a vote.

Supporters of the legislation included the Michigan League of Conservation Voters and the Michigan Environmental Council. Opponents included the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Bankers Association, DTE, Consumers Energy, and the Home Builders Association of Michigan.

A Senate committee on Wednesday reported legislation reintroduced from last term that would codify consumer rights related to the collection and use of personal data.

These bills were up before the Senate Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection Committee. SB 359, SB 360, SB 361, SB 362, SB 363, and SB 364 cleared the committee along party lines.

Republicans and business groups remained opposed to the package discussed Wednesday.

Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D-West Bloomfield) is the main sponsor of the bills and said data collection is one of the biggest global industries.

She argued individuals should have the right to opt out of tracking and to view data around themselves, fix it if it is wrong or delete it if they wish.

“Twenty other states already have personal data protections in place,” Bayer said, adding she worked with stakeholders to align the bills with what other states are doing.

Bayer said the bills would require entities to notify affected individuals if there has been a data breach and large incidents involving more than 100 people must be reported to the Department of Attorney General.

SB 359 would establish consumers’ rights related to personal data. It would also require the collectors and processors of that data, including business, to ask for permission before processing consumer data, among other things.

The remainder of the bills would amend the state’s identity theft act and have Republican sponsors. Generally, the bills would require private and government entities to maintain security procedures for the protection of personal data.

Business groups opposed all the bills but had particular concerns with SB 359. In written testimony, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Detroit Regional Chamber, the Grand Rapids Chamber, the Michigan Manufacturers Association, the Michigan Retailers Association, and the Small Business Association of Michigan said although the bill was well-intentioned, it misses the mark. (See additional the Chamber’s addition opposition memorandum.)

Andrew Beardslee, with the Retailers Association, told the committee the bill could put customer loyalty programs at risk. He described the programs as a win-win because customers receive deals and business ensure a repeat customer base.

“The current version of this bill would threaten retailers’ ability to keep these programs,” he said.

Environmental advocates testifying before a Senate panel Thursday said although bills aimed at making Michigan a leader in carbon capture and sequestration could be a useful tool in addressing emissions, the legislation before the committee did not go far enough to ensure safety and contingency planning.

SB 394, SB 395, and SB 396, which were before the Senate Environment and Energy Committee Thursday, would create a regulatory framework and permitting process within the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy for carbon sequestration, the process of capturing carbon dioxide in the air and storing it into rock formations underground.

Proponents of the bills emphasized Michigan’s ideal geological landscape for carbon capture and its benefits for businesses in high-emissions industries and laborers for whom more carbon capture projects would create jobs (See Gongwer Michigan Report, June 9, 2025).

Bipartisan and soon-to-be bicameral support for the bills should help them stay afloat in divided government, but some committee members shared concerns of environmental groups who testified in opposition.

Michigan already has carbon sequestration projects, which operate under a regulatory framework provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, the sponsors and supporters of the legislation say the industry would be better supported and more efficient if it were regulated in-state by EGLE, which would create an opportunity for Michigan to enforce tighter rules than the federal government.

Environmental advocates who testified said carbon capture isn’t an inherently bad or unsafe way to deal with carbon dioxide emissions but attention must be paid to possible public health risks during ruptures or malfunctions. In 2020, a Mississippi carbon sequestration project’s pipeline burst, releasing carbon dioxide for over four hours and causing the evacuation of over 200 people and the hospitalization of 45. The rupture caused cars to stop working, hindering emergency response, and first responders didn’t know what was causing people to fall unconscious and have difficulty breathing.

A similar incident occurred in Louisiana in 2024. Catastrophic malfunctions are rare, but representatives from the Sierra Club, Michigan Environmental Council, and Michigan League of Conservation Voters told committee members they’re worth imposing tighter regulations over.

“There is nothing in these bills around groundwater testing or plans in the event of if an aquifer is impacted. We should be requiring groundwater monitoring in the event of contamination, and require that within 24 hours, alternative water is provided for people and landowners, and within 30 days, alternative water sources are provided for all uses,” Sierra Club Michigan political director Tim Minotas said. “This is in line with what some other states currently do, and in the event of a leak, EPA rules do require the operator to stop injection, notify the regulator and submit a corrective action plan. However, there is no automatic trigger for public notice, expanded groundwater monitoring or emergency water access, the responses largely cites a specific discretion which leaves potential gaps in protection for impacted communities unless states layer on stronger requirements.”

Colorado and Illinois have implemented extra regulations for emergency contingencies surrounding carbon dioxide pipelines and sequestration, and opponents of the Michigan bills said they hope lawmakers will add to the legislation to beef up safety plans.

“We need further emergency planning and preparedness requirements in any regulations we adopt. We are happy to see that this version of the bill includes a fund for this purpose, but we still think a few more details are needed,” MEC Energy and Climate Policy Manager Carlee Knott said. “It would be great if pipeline operators were required to perform advanced modeling of potential pipeline ruptures and develop a risk-based assessment and contingency plan that was given to local first responders.”

Sen. Sean McCann (D-Kalamazoo), who chairs the committee and is one of the bill sponsors, said discussions are ongoing about the legislation and further emergency preparedness provisions could be considered.

Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D-West Bloomfield) echoed some of the environmental groups’ concerns, wondering whether the bills’ plan to adopt current federal regulations at the state level would be sufficient when the Trump administration has changed or stopped enforcing many environmental policies.

The committee did not act on the bills.

Those no-showing for a new job or prospective interview could be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under a bill discussed during a House committee on Thursday.

While associations representing Michigan employers say that the legislation would improve accountability and reduce fraud, opponents argue it would unfairly punish job seekers.

Under HB 4516, employers could report a prospective employee to the Unemployment Insurance Agency if they miss a scheduled job interview without notice. If that prospective employee was receiving benefits under the Michigan Employment Security Act, they would be disqualified.

New employees could also be reported and disqualified from benefits after two consecutive days of unexplained absence rather than the current three.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jason Woolford (R-Howell), was brought before the House Economic Competitiveness Committee for a hearing but no vote.

Currently, UI benefit recipients must complete weekly work search activities, like creating a LinkedIn profile, filling out job applications, or scheduling job interviews. Woolford said that his legislation would prevent these recipients from purposely “ghosting” employers to stay on UI benefits.

“We have billions of UI trust fund dollars that were scammed out of the system during COVID,” he said. “The least the state can do is better enforce the act so that the funds are no longer frivolously dispersed.”

Over $8.5 billion was lost to fraudulent claims between March 2020 and September 2021, according to the UIA. While 97% of these were paid through federal COVID-19 relief programs, employers have since faced higher state taxes.

David Worthams, director of employment policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said that 35% of his members have experienced ghosting, sometimes after an applicant has already accepted a job offer. The legislation would help state officials find out whether ghosting is connected to UI benefits.

Over half of U.S. employers have been ghosted by employees during the interview process in a rising trend, according to recent surveys from companies like Indeed and Glassdoor, although no statistical data indicates a connection between unemployment and ghosting.

“While an employer will not 100% be sure that the person they’ve scheduled an interview with is on unemployment, there is no way to communicate a potential scam to the UIA today,” Worthams said. “Perhaps this is a way we can address this frustration that many employers are experiencing.”

In response, Rep. Jay DeBoyer (R-Clay) said there should be an amendment to require people disclose whether they are receiving benefits on job applications.

He received stifled laughs from the room, with Rep. Julie Brixie (D-Okemos) quipping, “The scarlet ‘U’ is being proposed.”

DeBoyer also received disapproval from Worthams, who said unemployment disclosure was a “very aggressive way to go about it.”

Other groups voiced opposition. The legislation would add to the already-complex web of responsibility for the UIA, said National Employment Law Project Unemployment Insurance Campaign Coordinator Alexa Tapia.

“Another layer of red tape would pull staff for more mission-critical efforts,” Tapia said.

Jacob Fallman, UIA Policy Coordinator for the Sugar Law Center, pointed out that Woolford’s bill would be the strictest anti-ghosting legislation in the country. Other states have implemented similar protections, but they only disqualify candidates for benefits of the week that they missed an interview.

“It’s clear that ghosting is a reality of the modern labor market,” Fallman said. “But put simply, it is not in workers’ economic interests to continue to collect unemployment benefits rather than work.”

Other supporters include the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Association of Michigan and the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association. Opponents include the Michigan League for Public Policy, the Michigan Poverty Law Program, AFL-CIO, and United Steelworkers.