A resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives.
Summary
House Resolution 19 amends the Michigan House Standing Rules to add new disclosure and eligibility requirements for appropriations bills and conference reports that contain legislatively directed spending items, often referred to as earmarks or directed grants. Under the resolution, such spending items may not come to a vote unless the sponsor and intended recipient are properly disclosed, along with a description of the item in a form set by the House.
The resolution also bars votes on appropriations measures that direct money to a municipality or university if that recipient maintains policies the House views as obstructing federal immigration enforcement. Before such a spending item can be considered, the municipality or university must submit its immigration-related policies and resolutions and provide a signed certification that it does not support subverting immigration enforcement and will comply with federal immigration law. The rule defines “municipality,” “university,” and “legislatively directed spending item” for purposes of enforcement within House procedure.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would change House procedure rather than amend substantive state law. It would condition floor consideration of certain appropriations and conference reports on disclosure requirements and on immigration-related certifications from local governments and universities receiving directed spending. The practical effect would be to give the House a procedural gatekeeping tool over earmarks and grants to municipalities and universities, especially those with sanctuary-style or noncooperation policies toward federal immigration enforcement.
Sentiment
The vote history suggests the resolution was controversial and partisan, though it did receive enough support to advance. The committee reported it favorably with a substitute, and the House third-reading vote was close, indicating meaningful support but also substantial opposition. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the narrow margin suggests the measure was viewed by supporters as a transparency and immigration-enforcement compliance rule, and by opponents as an attempt to use appropriations procedure to pressure local governments and universities on immigration policy.
Contention
The main point of contention is the resolution’s linkage of state-directed spending to immigration enforcement compliance. Supporters appear to favor disclosure of earmarks and the ability to deny consideration of funding for municipalities or universities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Opponents likely object to conditioning appropriations on local policy positions, especially because the rule reaches universities and municipalities broadly and could affect funding unrelated to immigration. Another likely dispute is whether the resolution intrudes on local autonomy or university governance by requiring certifications about policies and compliance with federal immigration law.
A resolution to provide for a procedure for the required disclosures related to enhancement grants under Rule 52 of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives.