[MUSIC PLAYING] The House will be in order.
The clerk will make an announcement.
The voting stations for representatives Dwyer
of Woburn and Tosado of Springfield are locked.
House will be in order.
Mr. Jones of North Reading now asks unanimous consent
to withdraw his request for a quorum roll call.
There's a chair objection.
Chair has none.
Mr. Galvin of Canton authors an order
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the order.
Order that notwithstanding any rules to the contrary,
a court officer shall be assigned to cast roll call
votes except quorum roll calls for the chairman,
vice chairman, and assistant vice chairman
of the Committee on Ways and Means
whenever said members are conducting deliberations
on amendment categories of the General Appropriation Bill,
during consideration of the General Appropriation Bill.
Question now is on adoption of the order.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The order is the adopted.
Under Rule 49, the court officers
will vote for representative Miceli of Wilmington.
Papers from the Senate.
The following petitions come from the Senate
with the endorsement and referred by
said branch as follows--
the petition of Bruce E. Tarr, Richard J. Ross, Donald F.
Humason, Viriato M. deMacedo, and other members
of the General Court for legislation
to ensure internet security and privacy.
To the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging
Technologies and a petition of Bruce E. Tarr and Ryan C.
Fattman, Richard J. Ross, Patrick M. O'Connor,
and other members of the General Court for legislation
to fairly fund early voting to the Committee on Election Laws.
Question now is on concurrence.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The House concurs.
Vote of committee.
The Committee on Rules and the Committees on Rules
are the two branches acting concurrently,
reports recommending that Joint Rule 12 be suspended
on a petition of David M. Nangle and others
with the approval of the Mayor and City Council,
that the City of Lowell be authorized
to use a certain parcel of land in the City of Lowell
and the town of Tewksbury for the construction
of a public high school and other school-related purposes.
To the Committee on Municipalities and Regional
Government.
Mr. Mariano of Quincy moves suspension of the rules.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Rules are suspended.
Question now is on suspension of Joint Rule 12.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Joint Rule 12 is suspended.
Are there any objections to receiving
with the orders of the day?
Chair has been informed calendar item 9,
second reading of the bill.
An act making appropriations for the fiscal year
2018 for the maintenance of the departments, boards,
commissions, institutions, and certain activities
of the Commonwealth for interest, sinking fund,
and serial bond requirements, and for
certain permanent improvements.
Question now is there an order to go to a third reading?
All those in--
Chair recognizes Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill.
As the gentleman approaches the microphone,
the Chair will respectfully ask the members
to please take your seats.
Court officers clear the aisles.
Chair recognizes Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you
to the members, good morning.
Mr. Speaker, today we begin debate
on recommendations for the House fiscal year 2018 budget.
Before I get into details, Mr. Speaker,
I do want to take a moment to thank
the gentleman from Winthrop, our distinguished Speaker,
for his great work as well as his staff for their expertise
and their guidance.
I want to acknowledge the great work of the gentleman
from Worthington, our vice chair,
as well as the gentlelady from Boston, our assistant vice
chair, for their efforts, as well
as the members of the House Ways and Means Committee,
the staff, and of course each and every one of you
for your suggestions, ideas, proposals.
I know that over the next few days,
the work that we do together will
improve on our recommendations and make
this a very good budget to send forward to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the committee proposal
before you today is a $40.3 billion
budget that seeks to balance fiscal responsibility
with targeted investments in the programs and services
that our constituents need.
Mr. Speaker, it's important to point out
that we start with the fundamentals
when we put together the budget.
We begin with a transfer of $100 million
to the stabilization account.
We do that, Mr. Speaker, to build on the reserves
that we have to continue to prepare us for uncertainty.
That will bring our stabilization account balance
to $1.4 billion dollars.
We lessen our reliance on the use of one-time monies.
Mr. Speaker, a very important point
to be made that in FY15 we're utilizing close to $1.2 billion
in one-time resources.
Today, in the proposal that you will consider,
that figure is less than $112 million.
Very significant progress and additionally, Mr. Speaker,
we continue to pay down our long-term obligations
by committing almost $200 million
for our pension liability.
So when we begin to look at how to craft a budget,
it's always important we believe to start
with those fundamentals, recognizing that it's
so important to the bond rating agencies
how we utilize our resources and our revenues.
And when you begin to put the budget together,
Mr. Speaker, just to take the members back,
that the decision and the process
began in December and January, where
we came together with the administration and the Senate
and determined that we would see an estimated revenue increase
of a little over $1 billion.
So we begin with $1.16 billion dollars,
and we begin to look at where that money goes.
And when you look at our obligations, Mr. Speaker,
you'll see that right out of the gate we commit $322 million
to MassHealth.
That's the net figure.
The gross figure is $758 million,
which is almost a 5% increase.
So we begin with that as the largest item
that we increase spending on.
We move to our pension obligation,
as I reference about $200 million,
and then we get into local aid.
And we increase that package by $164 million.
So when you start with a billion and you
look at just those three categories,
that leaves us with $332 million.
But I want to just highlight some of that spending,
because I think all of us have maintained a priority
to keep the partnership with our cities and towns.
So the $164 million investment, Mr. Speaker,
will allow for historically high levels
of local aid to our partners and municipal government,
a $40 million increase in unrestricted government aid,
as well as a $106 million increase in chapter 70,
ensuring a $30 per pupil commitment to our students
across the Commonwealth.
Additionally and importantly, we begin
to implement the recommendations relative to the foundation
Budget Review Commission.
When we look at other areas with respect
to education, Mr. Speaker, I want
to remind folks that it was early
last year that the gentleman from Winthrop
began to pull together a number of stakeholders
relative to the issue of early education
here in the Commonwealth.
For several months, meeting with providers, educators,
the business community, a number of recommendations
were made, which you will see in this budget proposal today.
Specifically, our budget proposes an increase
of $15 million reserve, coupled with other investments
in early education that will provide for a significant boost
to provide a community and allow them to recruit and retain
high-quality staff.
Other notable investments, Mr. Speaker,
we continue to make significant investments with respect
to housing and homelessness.
$18 million increase across various housing programs
that will continue the downward trend in shelter caseloads
and the house's efforts to eliminate
the use of hotels and motels from the entire system.
Another significant area, Department
of Developmental Disabilities.
We increased those line items this year, Mr. Speaker,
by $87 million, a very significant commitment.
Recognizing that it's important for us
to commit the resources to fund an additional 925 individuals
for our Turning 22 program, it's a very important investment
that we're very, very proud of.
Additionally, $6 million increase in various programs
assisting with substance addiction that
will increase access to recovery beds
and support centers throughout the Commonwealth.
In the field of workforce development,
we make $4.8 million ongoing investment to the STEM Starter
Academy to help prepare our students for science
and technology careers.
We create a $2,000 new tax credit
to employers for the hiring of our veterans
here in the Commonwealth, to further build
on our reputation of leading the nation in support and services
of our returning troops.
Mr. Speaker, the budget before us continues
to move Massachusetts forward.
It builds on our strengths in fields like education
and health care to ensure that our economy continues
to grow and support the programs and services that our neediest
constituents rely on.
I look forward to the upcoming debate
and working with all of you to incorporate your ideas
over the next few days.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If there be no objection, reported committee.
The committee in conference in the [INAUDIBLE]
votes of the two branches with reference to the Senate
amendment striking out an clause and inserting in place
the text of Senate document number 2047
amended of the House bill providing
for the financing of certain improvements
to municipal roads and bridges, House Number 2783 amended.
Reports recommending passage of the accompanying bill and act
providing for the financing of certain improvements
to municipal roads and bridges, House Number 3648,
bond issue $290 million.
Report is signed by five of the conferees.
On the part of the House, William M. Straus, Brian S.
Dempsey, and Stephen S. Howitt.
On the part of the Senate, Thomas M. McGee and Donald F.
Humason, Jr.
Mr. Straus of Mattapoisett now moves suspension rule 7A.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Rule 7A is suspended.
Question now is on acceptance of the Conference Committee
report.
Question now comes on the acceptance of the conference
report.
Chair recognizes Mr. Jones of North Reading.
Mr. Jones has asked when the matter is taken.
It will be taken by call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise.
Monitors return the count.
First division.
15.
Second division, 23.
Sufficient number having arisen, roll call machine is now open.
Remain open for four minutes.
Court officers summon the members,
indicate roll call is in progress.
Chair would like to inform the members that those members who
are interested in local aid and education, the committee
will be meeting in room 348 at 11:30.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 154 members voted in the affirmative, none
in the negative.
Conference report is accepted.
Mr. Cusack of Braintree asks for unanimous consent
to be recorded in the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
Roll call number 24, Mark Cusack, yes.
Chair would like to take this opportunity
to wish Representative Brodeur a happy 40th birthday today.
[APPLAUSE]
Or maybe a little older, but I have it down as 40.
Miss Matias of Lawrence asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
On roll call number 24, Juana B. Matias, yes.
Miss Cronin of Eastham, Mr. Speliotis of Danvers
ask unanimous consent to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
On roll call number 24, Claire Cronin, yes.
Theodore C. Speliotis, yes.
[GAVEL]
House will now return to the General Appropriation Bill.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Chair recognizes Mr. Scaccia of Boston.
Amendment number 465.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston moves to amend the bill by adding
the following section--
section 6 of chapter 62 of the general laws as appearing
in the 2014 edition is hereby amended
by striking out lines 584, 585, the words any cost related
to the transfer of tax credits.
Section 2.
Said section 6 of chapter 62, in so appearing
is hereby further--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair has none.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Scaccia of Boston.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I really don't know which amendment that is,
but I'll be getting to them all very shortly.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make some preliminary remarks to show
the striking resemblance of this upcoming budget, fiscal '18,
to the present budget, fiscal '17.
In fiscal '17, this year's budget,
we were able to increase revenues
from the baseline of $1.11 billion.
And as the Chairman of Ways and Means
stated previously, of the extra money that we
had to spend that year, $275 million
went to pay for MassHealth, $226 million
went to pay for long-term pensions, $125 million
went to pay for debt service, and $93 million, Mr. Speaker,
went to the MBTA and the SBA.
That took up $719 million of the so-called extra $1.11 billion.
And it left for the rest of state government
$391 million dollars, and that included local aid.
The budget process, Mr. Speaker, was not even completed
when budget conferees cut $413 million from the bottom line
in reduced spending and in reduced income by $750 million.
In January of this year, the governor 9C-ed $96 million,
$54 million of which were legislative amendments,
knocking out every local legislative request
for this fiscal year.
In fact, three of the past four years,
we have seen 9C cuts to our budget.
Also in last year's budget conference, $142 million
in Medicaid payments were deferred to fiscal 2018.
For fiscal 2018, the budget that we're about to undertake,
the Chair of Ways and Means projects a $1.6 billion
increase.
Of that, MassHealth takes up $322 million,
long-term pensions $198 million, MBTA and SBA $93 million,
debt service $125 million plus.
And I'm on the low side of those figures.
In local aid, the addition this year is $164 million.
That's $902 million out of the $1.6 billion
that we project for extra revenue.
That leaves $158 million for next year for every other line
item in the budget.
And if you recall what I said a few seconds ago, $142 million
of Medicaid funding is transferred into fiscal '18.
That leaves $16 million for growth spending.
I admire and respect probably the soon
to be longest-serving Chairman of Ways and Means who
continues, unlike Washington, DC,
each year to balance the budget.
But even he cannot recreate the miracle of the loaves
and fishes.
Even he cannot feed and serve the population of this state
with an extra $18 million.
And let me add that MassHealth, pensions, local aid, and debt
service, the MBTA, and SBA will continue to grow and outpace
projected revenue in the future.
Now, the thing that worries me, Mr. Speaker,
is according to the feds, full employment is 4.5% to 5%.
And nationwide we're at 4.7.
So technically, we're at full employment
in the United States.
Massachusetts has an unemployment rate just
above 3%.
City of Boston where I come, have an unemployment rate
of 2.3%.
I'm sure we can do better employment-wise,
but how much more full employment will
we get in Massachusetts?
Because of the five items above, Mr. Speaker--
MassHealth, long-term pensions, MBTA, SBA, debt service,
and local aid--
we continue to have a spending issue.
Today, we must tackle and address the sources of revenue
to offset the unsustainable costs of these budget breakers
within our strictured--
strictured-- revenue base.
So humbly I propose three amendments to the film
industry, one to pension income and the last one
to the personal income tax.
Again, it's my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker,
that we do not have enough revenue to sustain our growth.
The first item, Mr. Speaker, is one
that I have come to the microphone year after year
and have been very unsuccessful in changing the film industry.
We give to film producers a 25% credit for production costs
and a 25% credit to payroll cost and an exemption
from the sales tax.
The credits can be used to reduce
tax payments and anything that exceeds the tax.
These companies received cash refunds
from the Department of Revenue equal to 90% of the amount
of the tax credits remaining.
The tax credits, Mr. Speaker, may also be transferred or sold
by these production companies to third parties who
can use the tax credits to reduce their Massachusetts
corporate tax, insurance tax, financial tax,
or personal income tax liabilities.
In some cases, Mr. Speaker, sales to third parties
are direct sales from the production
company to such third parties.
In other cases, the credits may be
sold to tax credit brokers who in turn may resell the credits
to Massachusetts taxpayers who use the credits to reduce
their state payments.
Mr. Speaker, between the years 2006 to 2017, $548 million
in tax credits--
$548 million in tax credits--
have been generated.
And $523.9 million have been sold as refundable credits
to third parties.
In the latest year of the report,
and I suggest some day that people might read this report
from the Department of Revenue.
And it was released on December 30th of 2016,
the most up-to-date report on the film tax industry.
Using the dynamic analysis, the film tax incentive program
generated $12 million in new state revenue, which partly
offset the cost of the credit.
And that includes the 12 new attorneys located in Quincy.
In the last year of this report--
2014-- $64.5 million in tax credits were generated.
And in 2015, $77.6 million were sold to third parties.
Mr. Speaker, this colossal--
and I mean colossal--
giveaway to an industry is paid for by the taxpayers
of this commonwealth.
Nearly 2/3 of the jobs in new spending credited
with this incentive were actually
used by those out of state.
Of the 1,351 jobs created by the film tax credit,
in one year only 750 went to Massachusetts residents.
The average cost for each local job from 2006 to 2012
was $100,000.
One new net job was created for every $118,000
in film tax credits issued.
In 2012 alone, 74% of the wages created through this credit
went to workers from out of state.
And of these wages, 1/3 of them were
paid to people who made more than $1 million.
My first amendment, Mr. Speaker, stops this giveaway.
The governor and the Senate are opposed to this giveaway.
Only the House keeps it alive.
My second amendment, Mr. Speaker,
stops the refundable credits to third parties
yet allows production companies to continue
to keep their credits and pay no state income tax.
So Mr. Speaker, from 2006 through 2014,
these companies have never had to pay
a penny in state income tax.
During all of this time, they only had to use $3 million
to offset their tax.
That means they gave $548 million to third parties
to offset their state income tax.
The third amendment, Mr. Speaker,
is one of transparency.
Make public the names of those who buy these credits
and use them to cut their income tax to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
The first amendment eliminates the credits,
the second prevents production companies
from selling those leftover credits to third parties.
And the third, if we are to keep this program,
publicly names the beneficiaries of those
who received the credits.
Remember, over the course of 2006 to 2014,
production companies themselves have had to use only $3 million
of the $548 million in credits to satisfy their tax
obligations to the Commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, today tax dollars are too precious to come by.
Full employment as measured by the feds
is here in Massachusetts.
And it's terribly difficult to squeeze much more
from that source.
Again, I don't know which of them
was what Mr. Speaker, but I think
I've gone through the film tax credit,
and I would love to hear from anybody
who opposes my amendment.
And I will come right back to do the state income tax
or maybe you want me to finish everything at once.
The question is, on your amendment 465, film tax credit,
all those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Jeez, at least I had some debate last year
on the issue, Mr. Speaker.
I'm stunned, Mr. Speaker by the Republican Party
whose governor tried to do away with this issue
for the last couple of years, but--
Gentleman there's Mr. Scaccia, Boston office amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 726, Mr. Scaccia of Boston
wants to amend the bill by adding the following section
of the Department of the State Secretary may retain as revenue
50% for the Massachusetts securities,
fines, and penalties up to $500,000 for general expenses
and beyond the $4 million anticipated revenue
for the Commonwealth for fiscal year 2018.
Chair recognizes Mr. Scaccia of Boston.
Is this the pension one?
This is the securities and fines penalties.
Pension one?
Security.
If there be no objection, the Chair
will consider no action on amendment 726.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 727.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston moves to amend the bill
by adding the following section--
section 2, chapter 62, to general laws appearing
in the 2014 official edition, hereby amended
by striking out line 42 the word income
and inserting in place of the following words--
the first $100,000 of income.
Chair recognizes Mr. Scaccia of Boston.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second amendment that I have filed,
and I call it the Fairness Doctrine.
All pension income in Massachusetts is taxed at 5.1%
except for those who work for state, city, town, federal,
and if there are any left, county government.
That in itself is unfair, Mr. Speaker,
because if you work in the private sector,
you pay from dollar one 5.1%.
This year, we will spend $2.395 billion
towards the unfunded pension liability.
In the past two years, $424 million
has been given to this fund.
You can imagine if we did $424 million in the last two years
what the cost is to cities and towns--
forget the feds-- the county government also.
My amendment is not the solution to this growing problem,
but at least we can start.
My amendment says that anyone making more than $100,000
in their pension would be taxed at 5.1% that amount that's
over $100,000.
So if you make $125,000 in a year
and have served in the Commonwealth for 30 years
and you are 65 years of age, and you
make $125,000 in your pension, you won't get taxed.
It's still the donut.
If you make $150,000 a year and work
for 30 years in state government and are
65 years of age on retirement, the first $120,000
is nontaxable.
The remaining $30,000 would be taxed at 5.1%.
You would pay for $150,000 pension $1,530.
Not many people years ago, Mr. Speaker,
who worked 30 years in state government and retired at 65
never got to those sums of money.
But today that is happening.
Pensions are a time bomb waiting to explode.
We should be looking at this subject soon.
And as I said, I consider it the Fairness Doctrine.
If you make $150,000 in pension income
and you only have to pay $1,530, that is today becoming unfair.
And more and more people, Mr. Speaker--
more and more people--
are at that figure in state government.
We should get back some small amounts.
Questions and outcomes on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston offers amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 728.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston moves to amend the bill by adding
the following section--
section 6 of chapter 62 of the general laws
as appearing in the 2014 official edition.
It is hereby amended by inserting after paragraph 8
in subsection L the following two paragraphs--
9, by electing the credits under the subsection
or under subsection 38x of chapter 63 or by--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair hears none.
Question now on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Chair asks that the amendment number 728 unanimous consent
to have no action on it.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
Mr. Scaccia asks unanimous consent
to withdraw his amendment.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston offers amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 1,100.
Mr. Scaccia of Boston moves to amend the bill
by adding the following--
section 4 of chapter 62 of the general laws
as appearing in the 2014 official edition,
hereby amended by strikeout subsection B and inserting
in place the following subsection B-- part B,
taxable income shall be taxed at the rate of 5.5% for tax years
beginning on or after January 1, 2017.
Chair recognizes Mr. Scaccia of Boston.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple amendment.
And I am sure I am going to receive
tremendous support, at least from my Democratic colleagues
on this amendment.
We are going to move up the personal income
tax from 5.1% to 5.5%.
Hopefully, this will raise nearly $1 billion.
Now, my beginning statements, Mr. Speaker,
were those that said we can't continue
the way we're going in state government
unless we get some revenue.
There are no dollars left, Mr. Speaker,
when we look at this year's budget.
And there are fewer than no dollars left, Mr. Speaker,
when we look at next year's budget.
We couldn't afford a supplementary budget next year
giving the figures that we have before us.
It's time we bite the bullet.
It's time we do the right thing.
And I would prefer, Mr. Speaker, that we
ask the citizens of this commonwealth,
through their elected reps, to consider this amendment instead
of relying on pot and on gambling
in hope to get the millionaires tax two years down the road.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that amendment is adopted.
Question now on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Chair would like them to inform the members that amendment
number 684 is going to go from revenue to recategorize
to legislative non-budget.
Chair would like to take this opportunity
to introduce to the right of the rostrum Rich [INAUDIBLE]
Kyle Remnick, Adam Burke, Ian Sullivan,
a group from the Salem business community,
who are the guests of Representative
Tucker and Senator Lovely.
Welcome to--
[APPLAUSE]
Miss Provost of Somerville offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
House will be in a brief recess.
Miss Provost of Somerville offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 42, Miss Provost of Somerville
moves to amend a bill by adding the following section--
section 4, chapter 62 of the general laws
hereby amended by striking out paragraph B
and inserting in place the following paragraph.
Paragraph part B of taxable income shall be taxed at a rate
of 5.10% for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.
Chair recognizes Miss Provost of Somerville.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
I rise today to speak in support of amendment 42, an amendment
which is just as simple and even more modest in scope
than the amendment just offered by the gentleman
from Readville.
This is an amendment that would freeze the falling state
rate of personal income tax at 5.1%
where it is now and has been since last year.
Even though I had already filed this amendment
by last week, when I was reading the business
section of The Boston Globe on the 20th of April,
I was stunned to see the headline
"next recession could make the state budget deficit explode."
This will be no surprise to any of us.
As my colleague mentioned, we have struggled with 9C cuts.
If you are like me and my colleagues,
and I think you are, because I've
heard you speaking in room 348, you
like me are hearing every day from colleagues about cuts
in appropriations to programs and services
that everyone in this commonwealth relies on--
public education, public higher education,
services to developmentally disabled persons,
to the elderly, to all of the people in need
in all of our districts.
And yet we are facing a budget which the state house news
service described today as one in a string of austerity
budgets.
Here we are facing austerity budgets
in this state that has the second highest per capita
wealth in this nation and yet at the same time
we are a national leader in the inequality gap--
the income inequality gap--
because as the Globe pointed out last week,
we have cut taxes year after year and, in fact,
we haven't even taken action to instigate
some of those cuts because of the legislation
that we created to implement the ultimate reduction of the state
income tax rate to 5%.
Until this January, we had experienced automatic rate
reductions year after year because of meeting the growth
triggers that were set up to be a safeguard against cutting
the state income tax during hard times.
But these were set up at a time when
no one had anticipated the great recession of 2007-2008.
So as we dug our way out of that recession,
we were triggering those benchmarks
and revenue was going down.
And as it does with these reductions,
which occur on January 1st-- they occur in the middle
of fiscal years--
we have got into a pattern of experiencing 9C cuts
as well as seeing lower appropriations in our state
budgets or level funding at best, which
makes a difference to services.
And I'm sure you, both in delivering constituent services
and in hearing from constituents, experience this.
Last July, I had a lady who was blind
and disabled, 94 years old, die while she was on the waiting
list for home care.
And I'm sure each one of you has similar stories.
We've since ended the waiting list for home care,
but this didn't help that lady.
So the projection that the Boston Globe puts forth
is a dire one.
And the solution which I put forth is a modest one.
It is not a new tax we're talking about.
It is the same tax rate that we are paying now
for personal income tax but much reduced from prior years.
In fact, the Globe said that during the '90s state
taxes amounted to 6.7 cents of every dollar earned
in Massachusetts.
Today it's more like 7.9, and if that
doesn't sound like a big change, it
adds up to something like $3.5 billion
no longer collected dollars every year,
more than enough to resolve the budget woes.
So 3/4 of a percent decrease in the rate of our biggest revenue
source, $3.5 billion.
I put it before you that unless we want to cut even further--
[GAVEL]
[INAUDIBLE] of the lady rise?
[INAUDIBLE]
I will yield.
[INAUDIBLE] going to yield.
Chair recognizes Tricia Farley-Bouvier.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know that in my district I get zero calls
for lowering the income tax.
And I get dozens and dozens and hundreds of calls
for restoring the 9C cuts or for funding the programs that
are so underfunded and to make sure chapter 70 is fully funded
and local aid is fully funded.
So given that we get these calls over and over again
from our local officials, from our constituents, Madam
Representative, can you let me know
what would be the increase this year?
What would we be saving this year in revenue
by not implementing the next rollback?
Chair recognizes Miss Provost of Somerville.
Thank you.
For this January 1st, we did not experience a rollback,
but the dollar value in revenue for the half year
would be $83 million, for the whole year $162 million,
whereas the savings to a middle-income family
is about $35 a year.
I hope that's responsive.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Question.
Now comes adoption of the amendment.
The Chair recognizes Miss Balser of Newton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
I rise to speak in support of this amendment.
This amendment would freeze the income tax in place,
and it would give us in the state
more revenue to fund the essential services
that it's government's job to fund
for the people of the Commonwealth.
The logic behind the whole system
of triggering to go back to 5.0 as at least some of us
remember, depending how long we've been here,
was that there was a voter initiative back in 1998--
I believe it was the year I was first
running for the legislature--
that voted to move the tax rate back to 5.0.
And there's been an idea that we should
honor the will of the voters.
And I just want to talk about that issue directly,
because of course we're all here to honor
the will of the voters every day.
That's why we're here, to represent our constituents.
One of the things I say when I bring students
into this chamber, and I give them a quick civics lesson,
I'll often say there are two ways to pass laws
in the Commonwealth.
One is by the legislature and the other
is by the voters in a ballot initiative.
I then point out that whether a law is passed
by the legislature or by the voters, either way,
it's like any other law and it can be amended.
We have a flexible system.
Every two years there are new legislators representing
their constituents, and there are
new elections with new opportunities
for ballot questions as well.
This isn't the only ballot initiative
that has been amended.
At that same era, the voters passed a campaign finance
reform bill, which several years later we
here in the legislature--
I was here-- we repealed it.
More recently, the voters passed a marijuana bill,
and we are currently looking at how to tweak and amend it.
I point to these other examples, not out
of any criticism but quite the contrary,
to make the point that we have a flexible democratic system that
responds to changes and new needs.
In 1998 when--
I remember the late Paul Cellucci, of blessed memory,
going around the Commonwealth promising
that if the voters passed for it there would be no cuts.
Paul Cellucci wasn't being dishonest.
He was talking from a 1998 perspective.
We were living through the biggest economic boom
in our nation's history in the '90s.
And so it was possible to make the argument
that even if we cut taxes, we wouldn't have to cut things.
Paul Cellucci and the others who voted
for that had no way of knowing what
was going to happen in 2001 when our nation was attacked
and our finances--
our whole system-- collapsed financially.
And we've been struggling ever since then
to recapture the revenue.
And so when the good lady from Somerville says, you know,
we can rethink this.
We have to go back down to 5.0 because we're
in a new situation.
And our constituents have sent us
here to adapt to new situations.
And I, like the lady from Pittsfield,
I don't get calls from people asking me
to lower their tax rate to 5.0.
But I get lots of calls from people
wanting more investment in education,
more investment in public safety,
more investment in environmental protection,
more investment in the arts, more investment
in civil legal aid.
And so I stand here today to say I hear the will of the voters.
And I know my constituents have asked me to be flexible
and to do the best I can in the present.
And in the present, we could use the new revenue
to support the essential services
that the people of Massachusetts need and deserve.
I ask you to support this amendment.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker.
Chair recognizes Miss Atkins of Concord.
As the lady approaches the microphone,
the Chair would like to indicate to the members
that constitutional offices, state administration,
and transportation will be in room 348 at 1:30.
In addition to that, the Chair would inform the members
that amendment number 836 will be
recategorized from legislative non-budget
to state administration.
Chair recognizes Miss Atkins of Concord.
Thank you Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
I agree with my colleagues--
the lady from Somerville, also the lady from Pittsfield,
and the lady from Newton.
I campaigned during the time of that referendum
to bring the income tax back to 5.0.
And I reminded people that if they voted for that,
they would pay for that in their property tax,
because if they take away funds from the state,
there isn't going to be the amount of revenue
that they would have been able to get in local aid.
Sure enough, if you go back and check
in all of your communities as to what happened to the property
tax from the year 2000 until now,
it has gone up like a fighter airplane.
It is just amazing, and it's because the state doesn't
have the revenues.
In my office, I too have not received one single call
to lower the income tax, but I've
received call after call after call to restore the 9C cuts,
to add to the homelessness accounts,
to the legal funds accounts, to the arts and to tourism.
Every call I get on this budget is to add to an account,
not to take away from it.
I agree with the lady from Newton.
That referendum happened in the highest economy
we have seen in our lifetimes.
We have a foundational fundamental $1 billion
deficit that we have been struggling
with for the last decade and a half.
And it has affected how we budget and how we go forward.
We need the revenues to clean that up
and also to respond to the current needs
of our constituents.
So I support this amendment.
Thank you very much.
Chair recognizes Mr. Connolly of Cambridge.
I rise to offer a few comments in support
of the amendment for my colleague
from Somerville, amendment number 42,
and I think we should strongly.
[GAVEL]
Chair will be in a brief recess.
Chair would ask the gentlemen to come to the rostrum.
Chair recognizes Miss Provost of Somerville.
Miss Provost of Somerville asks unanimous consent
to withdraw her amendment.
Does the Chair have objections?
Chair hears none.
Mr. Dwyer, a vote moving to ask for unanimous consent
to be recorded on roll call number 24.
Does the Chair have objection?
The Chair hears none.
On roll call number 24, James Dwyer, yes.
If there be no objection, the following [INAUDIBLE] bills
have been rightly and totally prepared and now
before the House final passage.
House 3450, an act establishing a sick leave bank
for Marie Visco, an employee of the Department of Public
Health.
Under the Constitution, separate vote is required.
Those voting in favor will rise.
The monitors will return the count.
First division, three.
Second division.
Eight.
Third division.
Five.
Fourth division.
Four.
Sufficient number have arisen.
Those opposed.
First division, 0.
Second division, 0.
Third division, 0.
Fourth division, 0.
20 members having voted in the affirmative,
the emergency preamble is adopted.
House 3648, an act providing for financing
of certain improvements to the municipal roads and bridges.
Under the Constitution, a separate vote is required.
Those who are voting in favor will rise.
The monitors will return the count.
First division, three.
Second division.
15.
Third division.
Five.
Fourth division.
Eight.
Six.
Those in opposition.
First division, 0.
Second division, 0.
Third division 0.
Fourth division, 0 on this matter.
29 members having voted in the affirmative,
the emergency preamble is adopted.
House will be in order.
Miss Atkins of Concord offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment 104.
Miss Atkins of Concord moves to amend the bill by adding
the following three sections to the definition of tangible
personal property in section 1 of chapter 64(h) of the general
laws--
If there be objection, the clerk will dispense
with reading the paper.
The Chair hears none.
The chair recognize Miss Atkins of Concord.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
This bill is one of my pet peeves, because even
in the height of the Depression, this branch
was not willing to take away the tax exemption
on airplanes at small airports.
And those include a lot of private and corporate jets
and all of their parts for when they're being fixed.
And it was because members are notified
that they have an airport in their district, and they will--
that the mechanics working at those airports will lose jobs.
Well, interestingly enough, that's not true.
Tom Glynn, who's head of Massport,
didn't even know that there was a tax
exemption for these airplanes and gave me
a list of the number of jobs we were actually talking about.
And the numbers don't exceed 300 jobs around the Commonwealth.
And it's hard for me to believe that people
will fly to New Hampshire to have their million dollar
jets maintained just because the state has stopped issuing
their tax-exempt status.
Now think of this--
millionaires.
These people fly-- some of them are my friends--
to New York to go to a show or to dinner.
And they can't pay their sales tax?
So I think it's an easy revenue adder.
I have no idea how they got the exemption in the first place.
I have no idea how they got a sales tax exemption,
that the head of Massport, who knows everything
about all the aircraft at Logan Airport,
does not know this specific fact?
So I can see no reason why the Commonwealth should
exempt this industry at airports throughout the Commonwealth.
And it's a good source of revenue when we need revenue.
Thank you.
Question on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
House will be in a brief recess.
House will be in order.
Mr. Lyons of Andover offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 861.
Mr. Lyons of Andover and other members of the House
move to amend the bill by adding the following section
notwithstanding the general special law or rule
or regulations as contrary.
Valid question 4 of 2000 to reduce part B income tax
rate to a maximum tax rate of 5.0%,
which was adopted by a 59.4% vote--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the continued reading of the paper.
The has none.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Mr. Chairman, I doubt the presence of a quorum.
Mr. Lyons doubts the presence of a quorum.
Chair can ascertain a quorum is not present.
Court offers that some of the members in today a roll call
quorum is now in progress.
[GAVEL]
Chair would like to take this opportunity
to introduce to the right of the rostrum
guests of Mr. Rogers of Norwood and Mr. Carpenter of West
Roxbury, the St. Catherine of Sienna School basketball
team, the Hawks.
They are the 2017 Archdiocese of Boston champions,
being undefeated in the regular season
and the archdiocese tournaments.
They're joined by their coaches Eileen O'Toole
and Margaret Lavanchy and principal Mary Russo.
Welcome to the House of Representatives.
[APPLAUSE]
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
The clerk will call Mr. Speliotis.
Theodore C. Speliotis, yes.
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 154 members have indicated their presence.
Chair would like to take this opportunity
to introduce to the right of the rostrum
guests of Mr. Rogers of Norwood, Mr. Kafka of Stoughton,
Mr. McMurtry of Dedham, and Mr. Dooley of Norfolk
the Walpole High School field hockey
team, who are this year's Division 1 champions.
And they're joined by their coaches, Marianne Murphy
and Jen Quinn.
The Chair would also like to recognize in this special way
Head Coach Marianne Murphy, who retires this year after 15
years of coaching the Walpole High School field hockey team.
Welcome to the House of Representatives.
[APPLAUSE]
Chair would like to indicate to the members
that at 2:45 this afternoon, Energy and the Environment
will be heard in room 348.
Mr. Lyons of Andover offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Mr. Lyons of Andover and other members of the House
have moved that member number 861,
that the bill be amended by adding
the following outside section, notwithstanding
general special law, rule, regulation to the contrary--
If there be no objections, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair has none.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that when this amendment
vote is taken, it is taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Mr. Lyon asked when the matter is taken,
to be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with them will rise.
The monitors will return the count.
First division.
0.
Second division.
24.
Sufficient number having risen when the matter is taken,
to be taken by call of the yeas and nays.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you again Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, recently in November,
the people of Massachusetts voted
to implement a marijuana bill.
And the bill was passed by 53% of the vote.
53.7% of the people codified chapter 334
of the Acts of 2016.
We have heard all kinds of talk about the will of the people
and what this amendment does basically--
I'll read it-- notwithstanding any general or special law
or rule or regulation to the contrary,
Ballot 4 a 2000, which was to reduce the income tax to 5%,
passed by the people of Massachusetts 59.4%
of the people.
So what this bill does, basically
says that at the same time that the marijuana bill is
implemented, the will of the people that
was voted on in 2000 would also be implemented.
It's a very straightforward amendment.
I would ask that the members join me
in implementing this particular amendment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Question now on the amendment.
Roll call having been requested.
Roll call machine is now open and will remain open
for three minutes.
Court officer, summon the members,
indicate roll call is in progress.
Chair would like to inform the members that amendment number
197 has been recategorized from revenue
to legislative non-budget.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 35 members voting in the affirmative,
119 in the negative.
The amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Rogers of Cambridge asking unanimous consent to be
recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair has none.
On roll call number 26, David Rogers, no.
Miss O'Connell of Taunton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 666.
Representative O'Connell of Taunton
and other members of the House move
to amend the bill by adding the following
section, notwithstanding a general or special order
to the contrary for the consecutive third Saturday
and third Sunday in August each year--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
Purpose of the gentleman rise.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington offers a further amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington offers a further amendment
the clerk will read.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington moves that the amendment number
666 be amended by adding the following section--
notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary,
the provisions of the section shall not
take effect until such time as the executive officer,
administration, and finance--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair hears none.
Chair recognizes Miss.
O'Connell of Taunton.
Mr. Speaker, I was unable to hear the clerk.
I'd like a copy of the amendment so I can read it, please.
The clerk's office will provide you
with a copy of the further amendment.
Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.
[GAVEL]
Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
So the further amendment, of course,
is a study for the sales tax holiday.
And what the underlying amendment aimed to do
was create an annual sales tax holiday.
And coincidentally, this amendment is number 666.
So I guess I should have taken that as a sign of things
to come down here on the floor, but--
and I was going to talk about a few different things.
And I'm sure you probably thought
I was going to come down here and talk
about the legislative pay raises that happened
and the fact that it was the first order of business
that we took up.
And they were passed very quickly
with an emergency preamble, also the fact
that it's going to cost our constituents $18 million.
But I was not going to talk about those things.
I wanted to talk about why the tax payers and businesses
deserve a break and a very small break in the scheme of things
and start with fairness.
Everybody here talks about fairness a lot,
fairness in justice, social justice, environmental justice,
pay equity, all very important things.
But where's the fairness and the equity for the taxpayers?
Each year they pay more in taxes.
They pay more in fees.
They pay more in rates--
property taxes, health care rates, utility rates.
But there's just two days a year--
two days-- where they ask to keep just a little bit more
of their money in their pocket.
And this is a time when parents and families are out
buying school supplies, and some parents really
struggle to buy school supplies, especially when you have
three, four, five children.
Nearly 80% of people polled are in favor of an annual sales tax
holiday.
So I don't think it's too much to ask.
And it's not too much of a burden on us.
We should relieve the burden on the taxpayers.
I hope the further amendment is defeated
and the underlying amendment is adopted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Mr. Speaker, every time--
every time we want to give money back to the taxpayers,
we study it.
Every time we want to raise taxes or raise fees or increase
regulations, we vote on it.
This is another example of us doing
what we have consistently done.
We take a piece of legislation that's
going to help the taxpayers, and we study it.
Do we have a date that we're going
to be receiving that study back by
or is this just one more of those studies
that we put out there to tell the taxpayers that we're
actually trying to figure out why we shouldn't give them
tax relief in August?
So I would urge that the further amendment be defeated
and that the underlying amendment be passed.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Question now on the further amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The further amendment is adopted.
Lady doubts the vote, asks for a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with her will rise.
The monitors will return the count.
First division.
First division, 0.
Second division, 22.
Sufficient number have arisen.
Roll call machine is now open, remain open for three minutes.
Court officer, some of the members
indicated roll call is in progress.
Mr. Williams of Springfield, asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
On roll call number 26, Bud L. Williams, no.
Mr. Lombardo of Billerica asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
The chair has none.
On roll call number 26, Marc Lombardo, yes.
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter 115 members voted in the affirmative, 38
in the negative.
The further amendment is adopted.
Mr. O'Day asks unanimous consent to be recorded on the last roll
call.
Chair objection?
Chair has none.
On a roll call number 27, James O'Day, yes.
Question now is on the adoption of the amendment offered
by Miss O'Connell of Taunton, further
amended by Mr. Kulik of Worthington.
All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment and the further amendment are adopted.
Chair will once again indicate to the members that at 2:45
in room 348 will be Energy and Environmental Affairs.
In room 348 at 2:45.
That's room 348.
The following [INAUDIBLE] bill, having
been rightly and totally prepared
is now before the House for final passage.
House 3450, an act establishing a sick leave bank
for Marie Visco, an employee of the Department of Public
Health.
Question now is on passing the bill to be enacted.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
The bill is passed to be enacted.
Mr. Rogers of Norwood asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the roll call number 26.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
On roll call number 26, John Rogers, no.
Mr. Murray of Milford asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
The roll call number 27, Brian Murray, yes.
Mr. Diehl of Whitman offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 9.
Representatives Diehl of Whitman, O'Connell of Taunton,
and Lyons of Andover move to amend the bill by adding
the following section.
Notwithstanding any general or special order
to the contrary for the days of March 22
to 27, inclusive of each calendar
year, the tax imposed upon meals pursuant to chapter--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
For purpose, gentlemen rise.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington offers a further amendment.
Clerk will read the further amendment.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington moves to amend amendment number 809
by inserting the following section.
Notwithstanding general or special order to the contrary,
the provisions of the section shall not
take effect until such time as the executive officer
administration on financing--
If there be no objection, to clerk
will dispense with reading the paper.
The Chair hears none.
Question now on the further amendment.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Diehl of Whitman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
I rise today to speak in favor of amendment number 809
and against the further amendment.
Amendment 809, which I have filed along
with several of my colleagues, proposes a meals tax holiday
here in Massachusetts.
And the idea behind this amendment is very simple,
but it's profoundly important.
Here in Massachusetts, patrons of restaurants and other eating
establishments are required to pay a 6.25% state meals tax
whenever they go out to eat.
With this amendment, we are proposing
to suspend that tax for just one week in March
to support the restaurant industry
and to save taxpayers a little bit of money in the process.
The idea of offering up our businesses and citizens a tax
holiday is not new, as you well know.
In fact, up until last year, it had
become somewhat of a tradition in this chamber
to propose a temporary suspension on the sales tax
to stimulate our economy and allow
people to make certain important choices of purchases tax free.
What's important to note, however,
is that the sales tax holiday has always
eliminated a tax on purchases of goods for a couple days,
but it's never touched a reduction
on the tax on food and beverages at restaurants, which are taxed
by our state at the same rate.
So that leads to an important question.
Why not?
[GAVEL]
Brief recess.
Chair recognizes Mr. Diehl of Whitman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And so, again, I speak to the further amendment
when I say why not pass this amendment?
Why don't we give restaurants the same break
we give to other businesses when we have a sales tax holiday?
Restaurants might look different from other businesses
because they serve a different product
and cater to different customers.
But the truth is, restaurants are just
like any other business.
Many of them are small businesses
owned by husband and wives, employing family members
or local people from your town.
They still have a bottom line to meet, and the sales they make
are important to our economy.
And the employees they hire make up a huge share
of our state's workforce.
And if you talk to someone in the restaurant business,
they'll tell you how hard it is to meet the bottom line.
In fact 75% of restaurants actually fail in this state.
Food costs are expensive, and there's not much of a margin.
Plus many restaurant patrons pay by credit card,
and the convenience fee for these transactions
also takes a bite out of the restaurant's profit.
When you tack a state tax of 6 and 1/4
onto your tab, which the further amendment would continue
to allow, not to mention the additional meals
tax some communities charge as a local option,
it's not difficult to see why many of our restaurants
have trouble staying in business.
When costs go up, people go out to eat less.
And when people eat less, restaurants go out of business.
Restaurants are an important part
of our fabric of our community, and we
should do whatever we can to support them
and the food industry.
I say it's high time we step up and establish a sales tax
holiday during what's traditionally
the most sluggish week of the year for restaurants,
the last week in March.
Let's give our restaurants and the taxpayers who patronize
them a break on their meal.
Giving restaurants a one-week reprieve
from having to pay meals tax to the state
would decrease our revenues only modestly,
but it would make a real difference
to the small business owners who operate many
of our eating establishments.
It could make the difference between serving food and hiring
workers on the one hand and closing the doors on the other.
And so I again urge against the further amendment,
because it also is important to note that this amendment would
not negatively impact cities and towns,
because it would still allow them to collect a local option
meals tax as permitted by law during the meals tax holiday.
So let's act.
Let's take a vote.
Let's support the food industry in Massachusetts
and give them the same type of break
we've traditionally given to so many other businesses
here in our state.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues
to vote against the further amendment,
and I ask that a call of the yeas and nays be made.
Mr. Diehl of Whitman asked when the matter
is taken it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise.
The monitors will return the count.
First division, 0.
Second division.
16.
Sufficient number having arisen when
the matter is taken to be taken by call of the yeas and nays.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover
on the further amendment.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we're two for two on further amendments
today.
Every time we want to raise taxes, wide open.
Let's vote.
No studies needed.
But we want to give money back to the taxpayers,
we have to have a study.
Seven years, Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen one study yet.
I just think it's simply unfair.
What's wrong with taking a vote?
If you want to vote against it, vote against it.
But the fact that you want to study it
so you don't have to vote on it, I just
think that's unfair to the taxpayers.
There's nothing wrong, folks, with taking a vote yes or no.
But Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned,
this is about the further amendment,
and we are two for two.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Question now is on the further amendment.
Roll call having been ordered, the roll call machine
is now open.
Remain open for three minutes.
Court officer, summon the members, indicating roll call
is in progress.
Chair would like to inform the members
that amendment number 115--
1115.
--1115 has been recategorized from educational local affairs
to legislative non-budget.
Mr. Rogers of Cambridge asking unanimous consent
to be recorded on roll call 27.
Chair objection?
The chair has none.
Roll call number 27, David Rogers, yes.
Mr. Cusack of Braintree asking unanimous consent
to be recorded on roll calls 26 and 27.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
On roll call number 26, Mark Cusack, no.
Roll call number 27, Mark Cusack, yes.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
In this matter, 117 members voted in the affirmative, 39
in the negative.
The further amendment is adopted.
Question comes on the adoption of the amendment offered
by Mr. Diehl of Whitman and further amended
by Mr. Kulik of Worthington.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Further amendment is adopted with the amendment.
[GAVEL]
Chair recognizes Mr. Diehl of Whitman.
Roll call.
Wait, wait.
Does he want a roll call on that?
Mr. Diehl of Whitman offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 815.
Representative Diehl of Whitman and other members of the House
move to amend the bill by adding the following section--
section 2 chapter 64(h) of the general laws that are appearing
in the 2008 official edition.
It is hereby amended by striking 6.25% and replacing it with 5%.
Section 2--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Chair recognizes Mr. Kulik of Worthington,
who has a further amendment.
Place it in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the further amendment.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington moves that amendment 815
be amended by adding the following section.
Notwithstanding any general special order to the contrary,
the provisions of the two sections
shall not take effect until such time as--
If there be no further objection,
the clerk will dispense with reading the paper.
The Chair hears none.
Chair recognizes Mr. Diehl of Whitman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
Unfortunately, I doubt the presence of a quorum.
Mr. Diehl of Whitman doubts the presence of a quorum.
The Chair can ascertain a quorum isn't present.
Court officer, summon the members, indicating quorum roll
call is now in progress.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 151 members voting in the affirmative, none
in the negative.
Quorum is present.
Question now comes on adoption of the further amendment.
Chair recognizes Mr. Diehl of Whitman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and through you to the members.
I ask that I may speak against the further amendment
that the roll call be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Mr. Diehl moves where the vote is
taken on the further amendment be taken
by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise and monitors
will return the count.
First division, 0.
Second division.
17.
Sufficient number having risen, when
the matter is taken be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Chair recognizers Mr. Diehl of Whitman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and again through you to the members.
I rise today in support of amendment 815
and against the further amendment to send it to study.
Amendment 815 would roll back our state sales tax
rate from its current level of 6.25% to 5.0%.
And Mr. Speaker, as some of the members of this House
may remember, I have a history of standing here and arguing
in favor of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility
for the benefit of the hardworking men
and women of Massachusetts.
And that was particularly true a couple of years
ago when I stood here and argued that the legislature should not
pass an overwhelming permanent increase to our state's gas
tax.
And with all due respect to my colleagues,
this body went too far and overreached
into the wallets of everyone who lives in this state.
And eventually I led a successful measure
at the ballot box to defeat that tax increase
and we rolled it back.
Well, I'm back here at the microphone again
today because we find ourselves in a similar situation
with a state sales tax.
And let me explain by offering a little bit of history
for those members who weren't here before.
Our state first imposed a tax on sales
and the use of certain tangible property back in 1966.
Back then, the tax rate was 5% and stayed that way
for more than half a century.
But in 2009, the House voted to increase our state sales
tax from 5.0% to 6.25% as an emergency measure.
The people of Massachusetts were told back then
that the increase was necessary to fund
all of the important things that our state government provides.
But let's be honest, that vote became nothing
but a Beacon Hill money grab.
And that's something that is as wrong today
as it was back then.
And that is why we don't need to vote
for this further amendment.
According to the Department of Revenue, the sales and use
taxes, now our state's second biggest source of tax funding
behind the income tax, representing nearly 1/4
of all the money our state collects from taxpayers.
And it's worthwhile to remember where that money comes from.
First and foremost, it comes from every single person
who buys a taxable item here in our state.
Whether you're buying a car or an appliance for your home
or school supplies for your children,
you're paying a sales tax.
And since 2009, you haven't just been paying a sales tax,
you've been paying an extra premium
to feed our state's never-ending appetite for spending money.
And that's proven by the amount of money
being proposed for spending in this year's budget.
Since 2009, the total number of unadjusted dollars
our state spends in the budget has grown by nearly 1/3.
That's right, 1/3 more spending in less than a decade.
So we need to vote against this further amendment
because sadly that growth in spending
has been balanced at least in part
on the backs of hardworking men and women
in this state and their families through the sales tax.
Remember, the sales tax doesn't discriminate.
If you buy a taxable item in our state,
you're required to pay the same tax even if you don't earn
as much money, even if you have a lot of other expenses
for your family.
As a result, the sales tax takes a particularly strong bite
out of the wallets of lower-income people
in our state who spend more of their income
on things they need just to get by.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to say the plain truth
is that our state doesn't have a revenue problem.
We have a spending problem, and that's nowhere
more evident than in our state sales tax.
We must vote against this further amendment
because it's time to correct the error of our ways.
It's time for us to roll back the tax increase
this house passed back in 2009.
It's time for us to restore the sales tax back to 5%
and give the state tax payers a break.
Mr. Speaker, we voted on this measure several times before.
And usually when that happens, the vote
has been to send the study to proposal, as is happening now.
But we all know what that means.
A vote to study is really a vote to commit the idea
to a legislative wasteland where it
will meet a quiet, slow, and seemingly painless demise.
But there is real pain being felt
by the people in the communities we represent
when it comes to the sales tax.
And I don't need another legislative study.
I'm sure you don't need one to tell us that.
I talk to friends and neighbors in my district every day,
and while they're full of optimism about our future,
they remind me that times are still tough out there.
Families are still scrimping and saving to get by.
It takes more and more to live here and raise
a family, especially when health care costs go up annually
by at least 25% a year.
To make matters worse, last year,
not only did this legislature vote
to keep the sales tax at 6.25%, they also
didn't even give Mass residents a sales tax holiday.
There was zero relief, not even one single day
for taxpayers in Massachusetts.
Imagine the burdens we could save Massachusetts residents
by giving them even a small break with a lower sales tax
rate.
Let's remember, if we roll back the tax from 6.25% to 5%,
that's not a tax decrease of 1.25% for Massachusetts
taxpayers, it's effectively cutting the amount of sales tax
they're required to pay by 20%.
I'd call that real relief.
Mr. Speaker, let's not study this any more.
Let's take a vote and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the further amendment.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Do you want to instruct me again?
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Mr. Speaker, I know what a sports fan you are,
and the gentleman from Uxbridge was reminding me
of the last time we had a 400 hitter in the major leagues.
That was in 1941.
Ted Williams.
Some of the younger folks might not
remember who he is, but I know you do, Mr. Speaker.
And he hit 406 in 1941.
I was there in 1960 when he hit that last home run.
I know everybody else says they-- but I really was there.
The reason I bring that up to you, Mr. Speaker,
is the Democratic leadership is now
batting 1,000, three for three.
Three times-- three times--
we have tried to roll back taxes or have
a discussion about rolling back taxes,
but no, you've decided once again to study it.
So Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that that puts you
in Ted Williams's category.
However, you are batting 1,000.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Question now on the further amendment.
Roll call having been on, the roll call machine is now open.
Remain open for three minutes.
Court officer, some of the members indicating roll call
is in progress.
Have all members voted that wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 118 members vote in the affirmative,
39 in the negative.
The further amendment is adopted.
Question now comes on adoption of the amendment
as further amended.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment and the further amendment are adopted.
House will be in order.
Mr. Lombardo of Billerica offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 901, representatives Lombardo
of Billerica and other members of the House
move to amend the bill by adding the following section.
Section 12, chapter 64(a), the general laws as appearing
in the 2014 official edition--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair has none.
Chair recognizes Mr. Kulik of Worthington.
For what purpose?
Mr. Kulik has a further amendment
to place in the hands of the clerk.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington moves that the amendment number
901 be amended by adding the following section.
Notwithstanding a special or general law to the contrary,
the provisions of the section shall not
take effect until such time as the executive office.
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the further amendment.
Question now is on the further amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The further amendment is adopted.
Question now comes on the adoption of the amendment
as further amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The further amendment is adopted as a amended.
Mr. Lyons of Andover offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Mr. Scibak of South Hadley asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair hears none.
On roll call number 30, John W. Scibak, yes.
Mr. Lyons of Andover offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 859.
Representatives Lyons of Andover, Lombardo of Billerica
move to amend the bill by adding the following section.
Paragraph 5 of subsection B of part B of section 3
of chapter 62--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair hears none.
House will be in a brief recess.