Columns

When Republicans took control of the House last year, they created several new committees for the chamber.

By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service

When Republicans took control of the House last year, they created several new committees for the chamber.

Among them was the House Rules Committee , which is chaired by Rep. Bill Schuette, R-Midland.

A year into House Republican control and the Rules Committee process, Schuette told Gongwer News Service the committee has operated to ensure that lawmakers aren’t delegating their lawmaking duties to departments and to make sure laws are necessary.

“It’s to make sure that we’re looking for ways to reduce government red tape and make life more affordable for Michiganders,” he said. “We want to make sure we’re not doing legislation for the sake of legislation, and the legislation is doing what we wanted it to do.”

The committee also exists to make sure that there aren’t unintentional loopholes in legislation, Schuette said.

“We’re just making sure that the legislator’s intent and the Legislature’s role is clearly defined in the statue,” he said. “We benefit as a Legislature and as a body from making sure that the work that we do is fine-tuned and impactful.”

Of the roughly 433 bills that committees other than Rules have moved this term, 70 of those bills have gone through Rules, which is about one in every six bills, a Gongwer News Service analysis showed.

Those bills have been spread across 12 committees, but most of them have been referred to the House Rules Committee by the House Regulatory Reform Committee and the House Health Policy Committee .

The hard and fast rule for when a bill is referred to his committee, Schuette said, is if it deals with the promulgation of or the creation of administrative rules.

Of the 70 bills that have been referred to Rules, 18 of them have been referred by the House Health Policy Committee, and 17 bills have been referred by the House Regulatory Reform Committee.

The House Education Committee has referred seven bills to Rules, and the House Government Operations Committee has referred five. The House Energy Committee , House Election Integrity Committee and House Natural Resources and Tourism Committee have all referred four bills each.

The House Agriculture Committee and the House Economic Competitiveness Committee have both referred three bills, while the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and House Finance Committee have both referred two.

The House Families and Veterans Committee has referred one bill to Rules. The House Insurance Committee and the House Judiciary Committee are the only two committees outside of the House Appropriations Committee that have not referred any bills to Rules.

“We’ve had a lot of bills from Health and a lot of bills from Reg, but we’ve also had bills from Natural Resources, and we’ve had bills from Education. We’ve had bills from Elections,” Schuette said. “So, a lot of great opportunities to work on a host of different issues.”

There have also been nine bills reported to the floor by other committees that were then re-referred to Rules.

For example, HB 4277 , sponsored by Rep. Parker Fairbairn, R-Harbor Springs, would require intermediate school districts to employ one emergency and safety manager and at least one mental health coordinator. The bill was reported by the House Education and Workforce Committee in April 2025 and advanced to Third Reading on the House floor a month later. On May 14, it was sent to Rules.

Similarly, HB 4244 , sponsored by Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, would require Michigan to recognize the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. It was reported by the House Government Operations Committee in April, advanced to Third Reading, and then was sent to Rules in May.

Another example is HB 4279 , sponsored by Rep. Jaime Green, R-Richmond, which would create an apprenticeship program for the Michigan National Guard. It was reported to the floor by the House Families and Veterans Committee on May 6, 2025, and it was referred to Rules later that month. The bill was then reported to the floor again by the Rules Committee in September with a new substitute, and it has sat on the floor since.

Schuette said the process of re-referring a bill to Rules allows the lawmakers to do more work on a bill without going through multiple floor amendments.

“If there’s a particular bit of legislation that has sat on the floor for a while and we think we need to do some additional work on it, there have been some cases where bills have then been referred to Rules for the opportunity to do that modification in a committee process,” he said. “The legislative process sometimes it takes building a consensus, and it takes collaboratively working on bills to do that.”

There are 34 bills and one joint resolution pending in the Rules Committee. Of the 34 bills, only one is a Senate bill. The committee has reported 62 bills so far this term.

Rep. Joey Andrews, D-St. Joseph, has had his bill, HB 4385 , sitting in the Rules Committee since last June. This, he said he believes is mostly because House Republicans introduced a similar bill sponsored by one of their own members.

Andrews said that he is supportive of the mission of the Rules Committee as it was introduced at the beginning of the term.

“I’ve been pretty vocal that the Legislature needs to take its rules-making power back,” he said. “I just don’t know that I’ve seen the Rules Committee do that.”

Andrews said he would love to see the committee dig into the overly broad administrative powers that departments can use to skirt around the Legislature, but so far, he said he feels the committee has largely operated as a “redundancy in the process.”
“What we’ve mostly seen is it’s been a holding place for bills on the way to the floor,” he said. “Testimony has been largely perfunctory.”

He said he had no objection to a committee that operates that way, but he said he felt if that was the case, House Republicans should call it what it is.

“Just have a Ways and Means Committee,” Andrews said. “That’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do.”

There was a Ways and Means Committee in the 2019-20 term that functioned as a holding spot for most bills before they could go to the floor.

Schuette said he was proud of the work the Rules Committee has done in the last year.

He also highlighted the report put together by the committee on regulatory reform.

“Another part of the Rules Committee mandate is to make sure that we’re not over delegating the Legislature’s power to state bureaucrats, to allow them, through the rule-making process, to gain more authority,” he said.

In the coming weeks and months, Schuette said he expected that many of the regulatory bills proposed by the report would be moving through committee and passed by the House.

“That’s just about making life more affordable for Michiganders and making sure the government isn’t getting in their way,” he said.

Michigan is the recipient of more than $173 million in funding from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services?under a provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday.

By Lily Guiney 
Gongwer Law

Michigan is the recipient of more than $173 million in funding from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services?under a provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday.

The funds have been allocated in part to all 50 states via the Rural Health Transformation Program, which was added to the 2026 federal budget to assuage political fallout among blue-state congressional Republicans during negotiations and offset the impact of the bill’s Medicaid cuts, which opponents and medical industry officials said would hit rural communities hardest.

The program split a $50 billion appropriation in half, distributing 50% of the funding to every state equally. The other half was doled out in sums which brought state totals to between $147 million and $281 million, based on a weighted model that considered rural population size, the financial health of each state’s medical facilities and population health outcomes.

Rural health dollars will be distributed over five years, and the ongoing funding includes $12 billion to be tied specifically to states’ implementation of “Make America Healthy Again” initiatives championed by U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., like banning the purchase of sugary foods with SNAP dollars or requiring schools to participate in the Presidential Fitness Test. The funding will be re-calculated annually based on states’ fulfillment of the Trump administration’s policy goals.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said the grant funds will be important for Michigan’s rural communities, but stopped short of thanking the federal government for dollars she said will largely have to make up for the loss of services that are likely to result from the OBBBA’s Medicaid cuts.

“Today’s investment will support access to health care for rural communities across Michigan as we deal with funding shortfalls caused by federal Medicaid cuts,” Whitmer said in a statement. “This $173 million grant will help us connect more Michiganders to the care they need and provide essential wraparound supports. In Michigan, we have successfully worked together to protect quality, affordable health care, and we will continue finding ways to secure more federal funds, expand coverage and lower costs.”

DHHS Director Elizabeth Hertel did not comment directly on the impact of the grant dollars versus the cuts, but said the proposal her department put together to receive the funding plans to support regional partnerships among rural providers and organizations to improve care coordination, expand access points and financially sustainable care models, create a rural technology catalyst fund to improve data exchange and telehealth services and recruit and retain health care workers in rural areas, among other things.

“Michigan continues to support a resilient and innovative rural health system where every resident has access to high-quality care close to home,” Hertel said in a statement. “Our approved proposal for these federal funds focuses on enhancing the long-term sustainability of rural providers while supporting their growth and continued service to their communities.”

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said the “unprecedented federal investment” would help expand access to care in rural areas and strengthen the health care field in those communities by growing its workforce and updating facilities and equipment.

“Today marks an extraordinary milestone for rural health in America,” Oz said in a statement. “Thanks to Congress establishing this investment and President Trump for his leadership, states are stepping forward with bold, creative plans to expand rural access, strengthen their workforces, modernize care, and support the communities that keep our nation running. CMS is proud to partner with every state to turn their ideas into lasting improvements for rural families.”

DHHS hosted an online survey and two listening sessions before submitting its application, to gather input on how the funding could help increase and improve sustainability for rural providers, a press release from DHHS said.

Hypocrisy is not just a staple in our politics, it is part of the foundation and thus, most of the time, we accept it with a yawn.

By Berl Falbaum

Hypocrisy is not just a staple in our politics, it is part of the foundation and thus, most of the time, we accept it with a yawn.

Oh-hum, we say when faced with it, nothing new there.

But everyone once in a while a hypocritical political act or statement stands out, it reeks of chutzpah (Jewish for gall).

To have some fun, we’ll begin with a little pop quiz to see if you can identify the politicians involved in the latest gold-standard hypocrisy.

Who said that military personnel should not follow illegal orders?

Wrong. Yes, six Democratic members of Congress did say that on a special video message, but they were not guilty of ever having said the opposite.

Try again. Okay, this is a toughie so we’ll give you part one of the answer.

It is none other than Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Yep, the guy who called the Democrats the “Seditious Six,” and their video “despicable, reckless, and false.” In addition, the Pentagon said last month it would be investigating one of the six Democrats, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy captain, for possible breaches of military law.

Well, it turns out that Hegseth has echoed the views of the seditious gang. During two taped interviews in 2016, Hegseth said there must be “consequences” for carrying out unlawful orders.”

“If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief,” said Hegseth in one interview.

“There’s a standard, there’s an ethos, there’s a belief, that we are above […] so many things our enemies or others would do.”

In the second interview, Hegseth offered that then-candidate Donald Trump was wrong for suggesting that military lawyers and commanders would violate the laws of war if he ordered them to kill the families of terrorists or revive banned forms of torture.

“The military is not going to follow illegal orders, and so the Trump campaign was forced to change their position and say, we’re going to try to change the law so that the military can operate within the law.” 

Hegseth said, “That’s a tall order also. The military’s not gonna follow illegal orders. You’re not just gonna follow that order if it’s unlawful.”.

Addressing Trump proposed policies, Hegseth said: “He [Trump] says, ‘Go ahead and kill the family. Go ahead and torture. Go ahead and go further than waterboarding.’

“What happens when people follow those orders, or don’t follow them? It’s not clear that Donald Trump will have their back. Donald Trump is often times about Donald Trump. And so, you can’t; if you’re not changing the law and you’re just saying it, you create even more ambiguity.”

He also said that refusing illegal orders was a part of a soldier’s obligation and ethical standards.

But now, in defending military strikes in international waters near Venezuela that many military and civilian experts have claimed are illegal, Hegseth said:

“If you are working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you.”

In his flip-flop, Hegseth argues that President Trump has the power to take the questionable military action, proclaiming, “President Trump can and will take decisive military action as he sees fit to defend our nation’s interests. Let no country on Earth doubt that for a moment.”

We’ll take a breath here before we continue. If you noticed, I said I would help with part one to the answer. Here is part two:  

Attorney General Pam Bondi has uttered an almost identical view of the military not following illegal orders that you would conclude she and Hegseth were dating.

In a brief filed last year with the Supreme Court when Bondi served as a lawyer for the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, she wrote:

“Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders. The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the president to kill nonmilitary targets. Indeed, service members are required not to do so.”

During an exchange with justices, she said, “A president cannot order an elite military unit to kill a political rival, and the members of the military are required not to carry out such an unlawful order. It would be a crime to do so.”

After Trump learned about the remarks by Hegseth and Bondi, Trump told them he bought them tickets for a cruise because they were working so hard.

Both declined the kind offer when they learned part of the cruise was in the waters off the coast of Venezuela.

In a recent column, I wrote that it was time to recite the last rites for the Earth as a habitable planet for humans and the animal kingdom.

By Berl Falbaum

In a recent column, I wrote that it was time to recite the last rites for the Earth as a habitable planet for humans and the animal kingdom.

I did not address dozens of insoluble environment issues but focused exclusively on global warming, pointing out that the goal of world powers is to keep temperatures below 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) which is 0.4 higher than the increase in temperatures we already have experienced since the pre-industrial era (about the mid-1800s).

If we are burning up now -- and we are -- then, obviously, any increase will be even more devastating.

Given this scenario, I followed closely the 30th international summit meeting on the environment known as COP30 (the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), which met in Belém, the capital in the state of Pará in northern Brazil, the gateway to the Amazon rainforest. The 11-day conference closed November 21.

Sadly, after every previous summit, the environment on the planet continued to deteriorate, despite all the dire warnings from numerous world leaders, including U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who has cited a “code red” alarm for the Earth numerous times.

Well, COP30 proved to be no different. Overall, it was business -- no meaningful business -- as usual: Lot of speeches, “negotiations,” “promises,” but few, if any, definitive actions that will save the planet.

The most drastic flaw in the final agreement reached by some 200 countries participating was no mention of working toward a reduction in fossil fuels which account for 90 percent of CO2 emissions and are a major culprit in destroying the Earth.

Early in the meeting, a draft text included a resolution calling for “phasing out fossil fuels,” but pressure from Saudi Arabia, India, Russia and China, forced that wording to be deleted. (Worth noting: For the first time in 30 years, the U.S., the world’s second worst emitter of CO2 behind China, did not attend the meeting.) 

Consider, this was just a nonbinding resolution, not a specific plan with timetables and financing. If simple words in a resolution cannot be accepted, how can we expect the world to ever launch a serious attack on the poisons killing the Earth?

“Under no circumstances are we going to accept this,” European Union (EU) Commissioner for Climate Wopke Hoekstra said in a statement before the final vote on the agreement.

The EU indicated it could “move beyond its comfort zone” on finance for developing nations, but only if proposals to cut planet-warming emissions were enacted. It was not to be despite the strenuous objections of 80 countries.

“These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

“…[T]his is the COP of truth,” said Daniela Durán González, a Colombian diplomat. “The truth cannot support an outcome that ignores the science.”

Added Ilan Zugman, Latin American and Caribbean director for 350.org, an environmental group: “The lack of concrete commitments in the final text of COP30 shows us who is still benefiting from the delay: the fossil fuel industry and the ultrarich, not those living the climate crisis every day,” 

As I stated in the previous column, the politics and economics are too difficult to overcome.

COP30 officials touted achievements in increasing proposed -- focus on “proposed” -- financial aid to developing countries, totaling some $1 trillion, and several other initiatives to save forests and increase the use of clean energy.

But $1 trillion is just the proverbial drop in the bucket to what is actually needed and there is no guarantee that “rich” countries follow up on this obligation.  

The agreed-upon deal does specify where the money would come from -- wealthy nations themselves, banks or the private sector.

(An anti-deforestation initiative, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, sought to raise $25 billion in public financing that would help countries protect forests. The result: the program received around $5 billion in pledges from small countries including Norway, Indonesia and France. Germany said it would “soon” contribute some funds.)

Most important, commitment to the agreement is not compulsory; there is no punishment for those who ignore the agreement they signed.  It is all voluntary. We cannot be confident that any of the initiatives will be implemented. And if COP history tells us anything, it is we cannot expect any change of heart from anywhere in the world.

Too ironic to ignore: A major fire broke out on the grounds of the conference held at the doorstep of the Amazon Forest which is considered the “lungs of the planet” because it absorbs CO2. Despite the obvious symbolism, the delegates also failed to adopt measures to protect the forest.

“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Su. 

COP 31 -- the next Conference of Procrastination -- will be held a year from now in Antalya, Turkey.

I wish that Shakespeare was still around to help me understand Prince Andrew giving up some of his royal titles.

By Berl Falbaum

I wish that Shakespeare was still around to help me understand Prince Andrew giving up some of his royal titles.

I’m not sure I would get it even then because I could never follow the family lines in Shakespeare’s history plays on John, Henry IV, V, VI and VIII, and Richard II and III. I think it would have helped if they had last names.

In any event, there was big news last week when Andrew surrendered his title of Duke of York. While headlines blared this news, stories added that Andrew will retain the dukedom. So, what’s the big deal?  

But this gave me the idea to apply for the title of “duke” in my gated subdivision. I would love to have my wife call and tell me, “Duke, sir, your dinner is ready.” 

Andrew also surrendered “use of his honors” as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO), which is awarded for service to the monarch and the royal family, and if that weren’t enough, also the Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, which involves membership to the oldest organization of knighthood.

I think it would have been enough punishment for Andrew to surrender one of these honors. But both? What cruelty. I’ll skip applying for those titles in the subdivision; I would never be able to remember the names.  Moreover, I don’t deserve either; I haven’t even attended association meetings.

However, my claim to fame: I was vice president of my senior class in high school, but no one called me “Mr. Vice President” or “Your Royal Highness.” I did overhear some references to “royal pain.”

Andrew also will no longer use the title of Earl of Inverness or Baron of Killyleagh, both titles presented to him on his wedding in 1986 by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. My parents gave my wife and me some dishes.

“And everyone thought you would not amount to anything,” the Queen said in presenting her gift. “I am so proud of your achievement.”

Andrew also will no longer be addressed as His Royal Highness (HRH).

Now, If I were royalty, that would #^%* me off.

This all stemmed from the fact that Andrew has been involved in scandals related to the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of other royal no-nos.

Now, much of what you read from here on in we are reporting exclusively.

We learned that Andrew argued with King Charles, his older brother by 12 years, to give him a pass on his behavior.

“Look, your majesty my bro, if Trump can commute the sentence of George Santos, who is a pretty bad guy, I think you should be able to look the other way.”

When HRH insisted on giving Andrew the royal shaft, Andrew called Santos asking for assistance.

“Do you think Trump can help me?” Andrew asked Santos, who allegedly lied about every facet of his life. 

In one paper Santos wrote he was Jewish and then corrected it, stating he meant he was “Jew-ish.”  That clears it up.

“Don’t know, Andrew,” Santos replied.  “Give him a call.  Tell him I sent you.”

As Andrew called Trump, Santos contacted King Charles asking if he could be given the vacated titles because he had “royal blood” dating

all the way back to 2022 when he campaigned for Congress. 

“Let me ask, are you Jewish or Jew-ish?  I am Christian not Christian-ish.”

“It’s complicated, your highness. Gotta go. I’ll tear up the stationery that I had printed with the title, ‘Duke Santos.’”

Here is the transcript of Andrew’s call to Trump:

Andrew: “Mr. President, remember we had pretty good times years ago with Epstein. We were good friends.

“Can you pressure my brother to give me back my titles? Maybe there is something in the official papers settling the revolutionary war that let’s you order Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict him.

“Did I mention that George Santos said you might be sympathetic?”

Trump: “Look Andy, buddy…I can’t call you His Royal Highness anymore --I never even heard of Epstein and I don’t remember you.”

Andrew: “I have a photo of you and me.”

“Trump: I take lots of photos with people. That was probably taken when you were waiting in a crowd to shake hands with me when I was campaigning.

“Look, pal, Charlie welcomed me recently with a hellava reception. So, I gotta go with him. Your request is tempting though because, to be honest, I am a little miffed because he turned me down in trading Mar-a-Lago for Windsor Castle. I even promised not to tear up the castle to build a new ballroom.

“Regarding, Santos, as I said, he always voted Republican so what was I supposed to do?”

Andrew: “I understand. I do have a little time while in D.C. Do you have Bondi’s phone number?”

Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York, will give up her title and will be known as Sarah Ferguson. Finally, a last name. Their two children, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, however, will remain princesses, and be called only by their first names. I am sad for Mrs. Ferguson -- note the use of “Mrs.” -- but very happy for the kids.

The good news: Andrew retains the title of prince since he is the son of Queen Elizabeth and Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. Incidentally, Edinburgh is larger than York. But then he was Andrew’s daddy.

If only Andrew had lived, let’s say, in the 11th century, he would not have needed Trump or the Jew-ish Santos. He could have asked Lady Macbeth for help.

By now, I am going to guess that you heard that Taylor Swift is engaged to a guy named Travis Kelce.

By Berl Falbaum

By now, I am going to guess that you heard that Taylor Swift is engaged to a guy named Travis Kelce.

When the announcement was made, a reporter covering national news, breathlessly gushed that the “world was stunned.”

A little ashamed, I have to confess I wasn’t stunned. I felt guilty until I asked several neighbors if they were stunned.  Nope, they weren’t stunned either. I did not check Patagonia but I am fairly confident they weren’t stunned either at the tip of South America.

In my case, while I knew a little about Swift, I had never heard one of her songs. Followers of Swift, I discovered, are known as “Swifties,” I guess I am a “Slowie.”

I had no idea who Kelce was, but I read he plays football for the Kansas City Chiefs. I know my ignorance is un-American.

Those credentials will not get me an invitation to the wedding.  

But I will tell you what has stunned me.  

In Japan, several men have married robots. That’s a wedding I would pay to attend.

One of these was Kondo Akihiko, a 38-year-old Tokyo resident who married virtual pop singer, Hatsune Miku. 

“I love her and see her as a real woman,” Akihiko says.

If I took a robotic fiancée to meet my mother, I know the first thing she would ask:

“Is she -- I mean it -- Jewish?”

I would tell her not to worry; I can get software to make her Jewish.

“If you can fix her, can you help me with your father?”

Being able to design your wife has lots of advantages like deleting the microchip that orders you to take out the garbage.

Also, if you have a major fight, I suppose you can just turn off your spouse’s power source.

After some research, I learned that about two years before COVID, Akihiko spent around $17,300 on the wedding, one which permitted him to converse with a three-dimensional and artificial intelligence-powered hologram of Miku.

Miku reportedly told Akihiko that she hopes “you’ll cherish me” when he proposed, according to news reports.

The stories said, Akihiko fell in love with Miku’s robotic voice called Vocaloid which is synthesizer software that gives a literal voice to cyber celebrities like Miku.

“Will you marry me because I just love your voice?” doesn’t sound very romantic, but it might touch a robot’s heart.

But, alas, love doesn’t last in marriages to robots either. Several newspapers reported he is separated from Miku.

No, Miku didn’t catch Akihiko cheating on her with another robot. He wasn’t drinking too much or gambling.

The problem? A software problem.  

The New York Times and The Mainichi, a Japanese newspaper, told us the “limited production model of Kondo’s wife, had run its course.”

The server company announced that it was discontinuing its virtual Miku service. 

“Instead of a good evening, Kondo was greeted with the words ‘network error’ when he got home after work one day,” The Times said.

Akihiko, however, told the newspaper that “my love for Miku hasn’t changed. I held the wedding ceremony because I thought I could be with her forever.

“I stayed in my room for 24 hours a day, and watched videos of Miku the whole time.” 

Instead of a robotic marriage counselor, we are tempted to recommend Akihiko see a computer whiz, one that is about 12-years-old.

The Times stated Akihiko commissioned a life-size Miku doll to keep him company.

Ah, love.

Now, if invited to the Swift-Kelce wedding I would have no idea what to get them.

But for a wedding involving a robot, I would give the groom a long extension electrical cord and a backup battery to assure that when he gets the urge, his wife has the power to respond.