[MUSIC PLAYING] Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Time for voting is expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
157 in the affirmative.
Zero in the negative.
The Consolidated Amendment on Energy and Environmental
Affairs is adopted.
House will be in a brief recess.
So now we have to wait for my--
Miss Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield
asks unanimous consent to be recorded on that last roll
call.
Does the chair hear any objection?
Chair hears none.
On roll call number 40, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, yes.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity
to introduce to the right of the rostrum, Brian Barthelmes,
a selectmen from Andover.
He is guest of Representative Walsh and [?
DeCost.
?] Welcome.
[APPLAUSE]
Chair would like to inform the members
for their own edification that the Consolidated
Amendment for Social Services and Veterans
are available to the right of the rostrum.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Miss O'Connell of Taunton offers an amendment
in the hand of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 971.
Miss O'Connell of Taunton and other members of the House vote
to amend the bill by adding the following section, chapter 23B,
of the general laws hereby amended
by adding the following section, section 31.
All applicants and household members
over the age of the 80--
Chair hears no objection.
The clerk dispense with the further reading
of the amendment.
Chair hears none.
For what purpose does this gentlemen rise?
Mr. Rushing of Boston offers a further amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Thank you, sir.
The clerk will read the further amendment.
Mr. Rushing of Boston moves to amend the amendment number 971
by striking out the text of said amendment,
and inserting in place the following section.
Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary,
the provisions of a section shall not
take effect until completion of the following.
There shall be established pursuant to section
2A of chapter 4 in the bylaws.
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with a further reading
of the further amendment.
Chair hears none.
Question comes on the further amendment.
The chair recognizes Mr. Rushing of Boston.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to submit this further amendment
because the main amendment calls us to do a major unusual set--
adopt an unusual set of rules for housing
in state-owned public housing.
It would essentially endanger people.
It seems it may endanger people who are already
tenants in that housing.
And it certainly changes the process
by which we would have additional people be
able to qualify for state public housing.
We in the state understand that there
are two forms of public housing--
federal public housing, which is controlled by federal laws
and regulations, and state public housing, which
is controlled by state laws and state regulations.
This main amendment that is proposed for us this afternoon
would significantly change all of the rules pertaining
to that housing.
And what this amendment says is let
us understand the implications of those changes
and what effect it will have, not only
on the tenants in that public housing,
but on anyone who might be thinking about qualifying
for that housing, anyone who is on waiting lists
for that housing.
So let us understand the implications of this
before we make a judgment on changing completely
the rules of admittance and residence at public housing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to address the concerns of the gentleman
who was just at the rostrum and who
offered the further amendments.
The underlying amendment does not
give us an unusual set of rules by which to follow.
It more closely aligns with federal guidelines,
and it simply states that we can ask for a social security
number for people who are applying for public housing.
And the reason that I have filed this amendment,
and the reason we know there are people in public housing
without social security numbers, is because housing authorities
came to me.
And they said that this is a problem.
And I'm going to quote you some information
from an article by a housing authority director.
She said, unlike the federal Section 8 program,
the Mass Rental Voucher Program does not
ask an applicant to provide a social security card.
Stateside, they don't ask for anything at all.
The current law all too often puts legitimate applicants
at a disadvantage.
We can move in an illegal alien even before someone who is here
legally because we cannot ask that question.
That is wrong.
That needs to be changed, and we should be asking that question.
In addition, this underlying amendment
provides exceptions for certain people that are applying.
Chair apologizes to the lady at the microphone.
For what purpose does the lady rise?
Does the lady yield?
I'm sorry-- just a minute, please.
The lady does not yield.
Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.
The underlying amendment provides exceptions
for people with special status.
And it actually protects people in housing,
because right now, there are people in housing
that we don't know who they are because we don't have
their social security number or we don't have their alien ID
number.
We cannot verify that they belong there,
we cannot verify that they qualify,
and we cannot do a CORI check on someone if we don't have that
information.
So not having that information, it
puts our senior citizens, our veterans, women and children
in danger.
Another quote from this housing authority director is she said,
"We have no idea who is living in public housing because we
cannot do background checks."
There are 53,973 state housing units.
If there was just even 1% of people living
there that did not qualify, that would mean 539 available units.
If it was just even a 1/2%, that would be 270 available units.
Think about how many constituents call your office
desperate for housing.
And they cannot get in because there are waiting lists of two,
three, and five years long.
This is the right thing to do.
The housing authorities want it done.
I hope that the further amendment is not adopted.
Chair recognizes Miss Decker of Cambridge.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With all due respect to the gentlelady from Taunton,
we actually really know what this is about.
This is not about actually ensuring
the safety of public housing tenants,
both those who are documented and undocumented.
This is not about creating more affordable housing.
There's a lot of paths to do that,
and given the gentlelady from Taunton
and I are both privileged to have
been housed in public housing, I'm
happy to work on those paths.
There are many people in this country who are documented
but who do not have access to social security.
But we already know that, because that's not
what this debate is about.
We're talking about families, who under federal law and state
law, who live in state publicly funded housing,
are allowed to be there.
To suggest that we move them out is also
to suggest that we are talking about displacing citizens who
happen to also be children, many women who also happen to be
victims of domestic violence.
And we've heard from testimony over the years
at a number of housing committee meetings--
I have not heard any cry from the housing authorities,
and I work closely with the housing authority associations
here in Massachusetts and around the country.
I've been asked many times to come and speak before them.
Not once have I been told there's
a problem here to be solved.
It's still unclear to me what the problem here
is to be solved, unless it's to pile
on the vulnerability, the hardship
that many immigrants come to this country and already face.
And let's be clear, this has not been
a great year for many of them.
Their lives have not been made safer.
They have not been made stronger or healthier.
We here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
we are a welcoming place.
And under the current laws, they are
entitled to be in the housing that they are entitled to.
To suggest that somehow we should create a vacuum of units
and create homelessness amongst children,
and to suggest that that doesn't cost us anything,
we push people out right now who are legally entitled
to be there onto the streets with their children, many
again, who I will remind you are citizens--
that does not mean that there is more money for the Commonwealth
to house other people.
We don't ignore people who are homeless.
We don't ignore people who are in need.
We are a place that helps people.
We problem solve.
We do not create hardships and problems
on the backs of people.
So if we together want to join forces and create
more affordable housing, because it's certainly needed here
in Massachusetts, let's do that.
We both have benefited from living in public housing.
We stand here today on the backs of people
who believed that everybody should have a safe place
to live.
By trying to step on the backs of those
who are living in public housing now
and put them into the streets, that's not
who we are as a commonwealth.
That is not kind.
It's not compassionate.
It's not fiscally sound.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When this is adopted, I hope the further amendment is passed.
[APPLAUSE]
The chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the passion of the gentlelady from Cambridge.
Just for the record, nobody wants to throw anybody out
on the street.
Nobody wants to put children out on the street.
Nobody wants to create homelessness.
We're just a simple thing.
When you apply for public housing,
you need a social security number.
Why do we have to study it?
If you don't want that to be the case, just vote against it.
Just say, we don't care.
We don't have a problem with that.
But this charade that we're going through-- five
for five, Mr. Speaker.
Andrew Benintendi, five for five,
broke Babe Ruth's record the other day.
It keeps going and going and going.
You don't want to vote on things.
If that's what you want, just vote for it.
We think that in order for us to make sure
that the citizens of Massachusetts
are protected first, then we need social security numbers.
It's not that we want to throw anyone out on the street.
I appreciate your passion, but to suggest that we do is crazy.
That's not what this amendment is about.
It's not what we've been talking about for six years, which
is we believe there has to be some form of determinations
made.
We believe that there has to be some standards put in place.
And all we're saying is we believe that you should
have social security numbers.
If you don't think that, just vote it.
It's simple, but don't give us--
Chair apologizes to the gentlemen at the microphone.
For what purpose does the lady rise?
Does the gentleman yield?
No, sir.
The gentlemen does not yield.
The chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So that's our position on it.
If you want to take the position that you don't think
social security numbers should be
required, I don't have a problem with that position,
but why continue the charade?
Just get up and say, we're going to vote on it.
Our position is clear.
We don't think social security numbers are even relevant.
And I think that would be being more forthright with the people
of Massachusetts.
Of course it would be.
We're saying you need them.
You are saying you don't want them.
Take the vote.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Chair recognizes Miss Decker of Cambridge.
Thank you.
I want to be clear that this will absolutely displace
people and make them homeless.
Let's not pretend that that won't happen.
It will.
And again, I want to reiterate many people are not
eligible for social security numbers, people
who are here who are also here and who are documented.
And that's a well known fact.
So if we want to stop the charade, you've lost this.
It's not what it's about.
It's about making people homeless.
It's a mean spirited thing, allowing people who are legally
living in housing, including citizens who are children,
and putting them in the streets.
So let's stop the charade and actually talk
what it's really about.
Mr. Speaker, speaker.
Chair recognizes Mr. Frost of Auburn.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I would just like to say that this is a great debate.
But yet what we're really supposed to be debating,
and we're reminded time after time when folks get up
to-- when members get up to talk,
is we're supposed to be debating the need for further amendment.
Though the gentlelady from Cambridge
is making an eloquent argument on why we shouldn't
do the underlying amendment, as the lady from Taunton
is making an argument on why we should do her underlying
amendment, let's do away with the further amendment.
Let's get to the crux of the matter, and let's
actually debate this, whether you're
for or against it, because that's
what we're debating right now.
So why do we need this further amendment to try to kill it?
Get rid of the further amendment.
Let's debate the main issue no matter where you fall.
Let's have an up or down vote on it no matter what.
Chair apologizes to the gentleman at the microphone.
For what purpose does the lady rise?
Chair recognizes Mr. Frost of Auburn.
Therefore I just ask the membership
to please vote down the further amendment.
It's not necessary.
I think people know where they are
on this one way or the other.
Let's continue this great debate, this great discussion
on this important issue, and let's
put it to the floor for a vote and let the membership decide
which way it should go.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Chair recognizes Miss Provost of Somerville.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
The gentleman from Auburn has asked
why it is that we should support the further amendment rather
than the underlying amendment in this case.
And there is an answer for that, which
is that the further amendment would
have us look at a lot of the nuance of the law of state
assisted housing, which is not clear at first blush.
It has been suggested that the laws governing access
to state assisted public housing are
unfair because they are different
from the federal laws.
The fact is--
Chair apologizes to the lady at the microphone.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Suggest the lady yield for a question.
Will the lady yield for a question?
Later on, but not at this point, thank you.
The lady does not yield.
The chair recognizes Miss Provost of Somerville.
Thank you very much.
We are told that the state law of access
to state-funded public housing is unfair because it's
different from the federal law.
Certainly, it is different, but let me emphasize some
of these points of unfairness.
Under state law, veterans get preference
across every category of public housing.
They don't get that preference under federal law.
Federal law leaves it up to the local housing authorities,
some of which do not prefer veterans.
Some people might think the veterans preference is unfair.
We might be inclined to keep that preference.
Another interesting fact-- we have undocumented veterans
because, in fact, serving in the armed forces
is a way that individuals who are not in the country
lawfully can regularize their status.
Military service is a way of acquiring status.
And it's very popular, especially
with young people who are brought
to this country as minors.
So we've got that complication.
Another complication I think is the fact
that what may be characterized as unfair
is a point of view, which is at variance
with the interpretation of our US Constitution, which
says that we do not discriminate against individuals
on the basis of alienage, of not being born in this country.
And back in the '70s, there was a lawsuit
brought in a federal district court against a housing
authority that was determined to discriminate
in favor of individuals, applicants
on the basis of alienage.
Now, that lawsuit was settled.
And it was settled by a consent agreement.
And by the terms of that consent agreement,
individuals are allowed to access
state-funded public housing regardless of their alienage.
And as the gentlelady from Cambridge has pointed out,
many families these days are what you would
call mixed status families.
Not everybody in the family has the same status
as citizen or non-citizen or even as category of immigrant.
So this is not the simple black and white, fair or unfair
situation that has been characterized.
There is a lot to look at.
And the consequences of violating the consent agreement
from 1977 could be serious, and would certainly
put the Commonwealth or some of its housing authorities
or both back in court.
So that is the reason why we would
want to support the amendment today,
to look at the full situation and not just
the rhetorical surface of the question which is raised
by the underlying amendment.
And so I would urge everyone to vote in support
of the further amendment.
Thank you.
Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So we keep hearing people talk about documented citizens.
If you are a documented citizen, this is not a problem for you.
This does not affect you.
And we've heard about the hardship
that this will put on people.
Well, what about people that are in line
waiting that are here legally that can not get into housing?
And also, that it will affect many, many, many families
and people.
Well, you know what, you have no idea
how many it will effect because you don't know
how many people are in housing without a social security
number.
I have some idea because some of the Housing Authority directors
have told me, and it is a small number.
A small number, but housing that we need available for people--
senior citizens, children-- people
that are waiting in line right now.
We're not ignoring people in need.
We're trying to help people in need.
And let me point out a few things
that almost all of you in here have
voted for that require a social security number--
for a program of short-term housing assistance to help
families in addressing obstacles to maintaining or securing
housing, provided further that any family in which a member
of the family fails to provide a social security number for use
in verifying the family's income eligibility--
Chair apologizes to the lady at the microphone.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Will the lady yield?
Would the lady yield?
No.
The lady does not yield.
The chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.
Something that you all voted for--
I'm going to have to read it again.
For the program of short-term housing assistance
to help families in addressing obstacles
to maintaining secure housing, provided further
that any family in which any member of the family
prevails to provide a social security number
shall no longer be eligible to receive benefits
from this program.
Here's another one.
For a program by rental assistance
for low income and elderly persons,
provided further that any household
in which a participant or a member of the participant's
household fails to provide a social security number
shall no longer be eligible for a voucher or to receive
benefits from the voucher program.
So you've all voted on it before.
There's nothing different going on here right now.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Chair recognizes Mr. Markey of Dartmouth.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just make one comment that gentlelady Taunton--
I think the gentlelady from Taunton answered the reason why
we have the further amendment.
She asked the question in a rhetorical fashion--
well, how many people are in line?
We don't know.
I don't know.
That's why we have a study.
Let's study it.
Let's figure out how many people are in line.
Let's see how many families who have social security numbers
are held in line, and people with undocumented individuals
who are cutting them for some reason.
Maybe we should study that, and then we
can make a deliberate, thoughtful decision and not
just a political statement to try
to get in focus on a constituency that has this
as their one political issue.
Chair recognizes Mr. Cabral of New Bedford.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the members.
It's actually fascinating that the good lady from Taunton
seems to know the numbers of those
who are in line because she claims that some housing
authorities have provided that information, at least
that's what seems to be what she's saying,
that some housing authorities have provided that information.
I would like to know which housing authorities those are
because that's private information.
The housing authority cannot provide information to no one
except the person that actually living there or without
their permission, so we would like to know--
I would like to request if the lady has
that information with her to provide to this House
which housing authority has provided that information.
That's private information that cannot be released by housing
authorities--
if the person has a social security number or not
because a social security number--
there are reasons why they cannot release that without
the permission, a petition that has to be signed,
a form that has to be signed by that particular individual.
So please provide to us the housing authorities
because they are violating the rights of those individuals who
are presently residing or in line to apply for housing.
That's a violation of the privacy of those individuals,
and I think they ought to be taken to court.
And perhaps the lady probably could be a witness to that
since she has that information.
Chair recognizes Mr. Dooley of Norfolk.
I also had a point of clarification.
On this, since the entire further amendment was not
read in its entirety, is this an actual study
or is this gamesmanship yet again?
Is there a set date that this study
is going to be reported back to this body?
Is there a make up of this study?
Is this a real legitimate study, or is this
once again the majority party being gamesmanship,
playing gamesmanship by saying, we don't want to take a vote
because we're afraid it's going to be
used against us in an election?
Or is this going to be a real study?
If this is a real study, I'm all for it, 100%.
I think everything--
Mr. Markey, the gentleman from Dartmouth,
had a wonderful point.
We should find this out.
But if this is not a real study-- so
my question to the chair, is this a legitimate study?
Have we set forth parameters, or is this
a quote unquote "study" that's meant just
to kill this measure?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
I'm going to answer that question for you.
I've been here for seven years.
I have yet to see any study done.
So the suggestion that we need this study--
with all due respect to the gentleman from Dartmouth,
he knows very well that that study is never, ever
going to happen.
The question is real simple because we
have a different opinion of what kind of regulations
ought to be in place.
And if the majority party wants to put rules and regulations
in place that says you don't need a social security number,
then just vote it.
This charade that we go through every time we bring up
these issues, it really is--
I mean, the public has to be-- if they even knew about it,
they would certainly be bored.
We've got five amendments so far, five studies.
Every one of us in here-- every one of us in here
knows there's no study coming.
Forget about it.
I'm going to read to you what the amendment says though,
just so people understand.
Applicants who you do not provide a social security
number shall not be eligible for housing
unless under lawfully protected status.
We're not trying to throw anybody out in the street.
I'm just so sick of that.
Every time we come up with an amendment,
we're going to throw people out in the street.
I grew up in the projects too, all right,
so I really don't need that anymore.
We are here-- we believe in the rule of law.
We believe we should set standards.
And yet every time we come up and make a position like that,
it's that we want to throw people out in the street.
I would ask Mr. Speaker--
Mr. Speaker, I would ask when this vote was taken,
it would be taking my call of yeas or nays.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Lyons of Andover asked when a vote of this matter is taken,
be taken be call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with them will please rise.
Monitors and return the count.
First division, one.
Second division--
19.
Sufficient amount having arisen, a roll call in this matter
will be called forthwith and remain open for three minutes.
Court officer will notify the membership
that a roll call is in progress and will remain open
for three minutes.
Chair would like to take this opportunity
to introduce to the right of the rostrum,
Miss Rebecca Busansky of the Northhampton School Committee
and Elena Frogameni a student representative
from the Northhampton School Committee.
Welcome, ladies.
[APPLAUSE]
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
On the previous roll call, Miss Provost of Somerville
asks unanimous consent to be recorded.
Does chair hear any objection?
Chair hears none.
Roll call number 40, Denise Provost, yes.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
124 in the affirmative, 36 in the negative.
The further amendment is adopted.
Re-occurring question now comes on the adoption
of the consolidated--
Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers a consolidated amendment
to the hand of the clerk.
Chair is in error.
We didn't read it in yet.
Question now comes on the adoption of the amendment
as amended by Miss O'Connell.
All those in favor say aye, or those opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Now I can do the consolidated?
Now Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers a consolidated--
Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers a consolidated amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Does consolidated amendment D in the category of Housing, Mental
Health and Disability Services fiscal note, $3,050,611.
All the amendments have them accounted for.
Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill moves and others
move to amend the bill in Section 2 and Item [?
41 ?] 10 1,000 by striking out the figures.
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the further reading
of the consolidated amendment.
The chair hears none.
The question comes on the adoption
of the consolidated amendment.
The chair recognizes Mr. Honan of Boston.
Members will please take their seats.
Chair respectfully requests they subdue their conversations
and pay due attention to the gentleman at the microphone.
The chair recognizes Mr. Honan of Boston.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
I rise today as the chair of housing
in support of the Consolidated Housing Amendment.
I want to thank the speaker for your leadership on housing.
It's a critically important issue,
and I thank you for your continued support.
I also want to thank the gentleman
from Haverhill, who is so knowledgeable on all
these issues.
And I want to thank him for his tireless work and the work
of his two assistant chairs, who have been so helpful as we've
gone through this process.
This budget will build on our annual commitment to housing.
I also want to thank the gentleman
from the South End, our Assistant Majority Leader, who
has been an extraordinary advocate on behalf
of the homeless in Massachusetts.
This year's budget is a reflection
of our shared efforts to protect and advocate for those in need.
The legislature increased the homeless individuals line item
by $1 million.
We support programs for the chronically homeless,
like Home and Healthy For Good at $2.2 million
and vouchers for low income individuals
with disabilities at $5 million.
We fund the Massachusetts Rental Voucher
Program at $100 million.
The MRVP program and the Commonwealth
provides low income families with an opportunity
for safe, permanent, decent, affordable housing.
This year's budget will also make a language change
that will incentivize work by allowing families
to earn additional income while maintaining their voucher.
It's an important change that will support working families
as they try to make ends meet.
We also fund the Residential Assistance for Families
in Transition at $15 million.
RAFT helps families in transition out of shelters
and stay out of the shelter system altogether.
The vast majority of the people who receive RAFT
are single mothers with two children.
The median income is less than $20,000 a year.
It's a tremendous program with profound impact.
Past years, it's helped over 4,000 families
avoid homelessness.
This year's $15 million appropriation
will help families remain in stable housing
rather than motel, car, or emergency room.
In the issue of public housing, which
I know the legislature has a lot of interest in from our debate,
we have over a million dollars for the operating subsidy
which we recognize as a group here the importance
of public housing in our commonwealth.
We recognize from a housing committee and advocate for it
very strongly, so I thank the legislature for your commitment
to public housing in Massachusetts.
The cost of housing is so high in our commonwealth
that working families are having a very difficult time,
so we recognize that here.
I also want to thank the gentleman
from Mattapan, who's vice chairman,
and the lady from Cambridge, who are working diligently
to make sure that the reforms that we passed
in public housing over the last few years are implemented.
In closing, I just want to acknowledge again there
is a tremendous lack of affordable housing
in Massachusetts.
And the efforts that we put forth today in this budget
are good and decent efforts.
It's money well spent, so I thank all of you
for your help on that.
And I ask when a vote is taken, it
be called by the yeas and nays.
And I obviously, again, am in support
of this consolidated amendment.
Thank you very much.
Roll call being required.
Roll call will be called forthwith
and remain open for two minutes.
Court officers will notify the members
that a roll call is in progress and will remain open
for two minutes.
There's not much to look at.
Not much to look at.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
So after all-- oh.
Turn you microphone--
Have all members who wish to do so?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
160 in the affirmative, zero in negative.
The Consolidated Amendment in Housing is adopted.
House will be in a brief recess.
What was it, 160?
160.
Chairman would ask all members to take their seats.
The chair would respectfully ask all members
to take their seats.
Chair would also respectfully ask
members to clear all items from their desk.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
AT 2: 00 PM will be economic development and labor.
Chair would like to take this opportunity
to introduce to the right of the rostrum
the guest of Representative Ferguson of Holden, Loring
of NEADS, the service dog.
She's a real service dog, and she is the most friendliest dog
who we have in the house.
So welcome to Loring.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
This will be an honor.
Gentleman will rise.
Miss O'Connel of the Taunton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 347.
Representative O'Connell of Taunton
and other members of the House move
to amend the bill by adding the following section, Section [?
55-IB ?] of Chapter 18 of the general laws,
as appearing in the 2014 official [? dismiss,
?] hereby amended by striking out the last sentence--
court should be replaced rather than following court
or marijuana or marijuana products not prescribed under
the law for medicinal purposes, and by striking out section 5J
or on cruise ships in a certain place--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of paper.
Purpose of gentlemen rise?
Mr. Cusack offers the further amendment,
which he'll hand to the clerk.
Clerk will read the further amendment.
Mr. Cusack of Braintree posts to amend the amendment number
347 by inserting the following section,
notwithstanding any general or special law
to the contrary, the provisions of that section shall not
take effect until July 1, 2018 or until such time as the Joint
Committee on Marijuana Policy has filed a report,
the legislation has been filed, and acted pursuant to Part 2,
Chapter 1, Section 1, of Article 2 of the Constitution.
House will be in a brief recess.
Clerk will read the further amendment.
Mr. Kinzinger minding a a motion to amend the amendment number
347 by inserting the following section.
"Not withstanding the general special order to the contrary,
the provisions of the section shall not take effect until
July 01, 2018, or until such time as the Joint Committee
on Marijuana Policy has filed a report and legislation has been
filed and acted pursuant to part two, chapter one, section one,
Article II of the Constitution."
Question comes on the amendment.
On the further amendment--
I was made to rephrase that.
Question now is on the further amendment.
Chair recognizes Ms O'Connel of Taunton.
Is it a quorum, Mr. Speaker?
Ms. O'Connel notes the presence of a quorum.
As you can ascertain a quorum is not present.
Court officers summon the members
indicating quorum roll call is now in progress.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Ms. O'Connel of Taunton asks unanimous consent
to withdraw the quorum recall--
request.
Chair objection?
Chair has none.
Question now is on the further amendment.
The chair recognizes Ms. O'Connel of Taunton.
Further amendment, yes.
So, the further amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
The underlying amendment, just so you know,
is to prohibit the use of EBT cash assistance
in any form to purchase recreational marijuana.
The further amendment is just another delay tactic so
that we don't have to vote on the underlying amendment.
We're supposed to wait and see if it's included in something
next year in July, 2018.
Now the Commission on marijuana policy
is doing a lot of good work.
I know they have a lot of work ahead of them.
This is actually something that we
can take off their plate right now, and get it done for them.
All of the items that are prohibited from being purchased
with cash assistance are included in chapter 18, section
5 A and J. There's no special consideration,
no special statute, no special section,
for any of them-- for alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets,
tattoos, jewelry.
And keep in mind, when we passed gambling, back in 2011,
that was immediately included in this list,
in chapter 18, that you-- as a prohibited item
from using your EBT cash funds.
We didn't wait for the Gaming Commission to set the policy.
We didn't wait for the first facility to open.
We were proactive and we did something about it right then.
This is simply just avoiding the issue.
All of these other reforms have been done through the budget
process.
We have the opportunity to be proactive,
to tell the taxpayers that we're paying attention.
We care about this program.
We want to make sure people use their assistance
for necessities.
We want to help people become self-sufficient.
And we should be adding this to the statute right now.
There's no reason to kick the can down the road any further.
I hope the underlying amendment is defeated.
I mean-- excuse me, I hope the further amendment is defeated,
and the underlying amendment is adopted.
Thank you, Mr. speaker.
Chair recognizes Mr. Cusak of Braintree.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
The underlying amendment speaks about EBT cash assistance,
not for medical but for recreational, which will
take effect on July 1st, 2018.
Reading the further amendment, you
would understand that the further amendment simply
says that if the committee does not
address cash assistance in our legislation, which
we had the final hearing yesterday
and we're working on a six week process--
that if it is not addressed, this underlying amendment still
takes effect July, 2018.
So either way this is a win, and it's not
kicking the can down the road or delaying it.
Reading the further amendment, understanding
what it actually says--
that this will take effect if the legislation addresses it
or not.
But the committee finished our final hearing yesterday--
five hearings, 30 hours of testimony--
and we are on track to draft legislation over the next six
weeks to get something done by July--
July 1st of this year, in order for it to get up
and running a year out from the implementation
of recreational marijuana sales, which
is also what your underlying amendment does do.
So I ask that the further amendment
is adopted, Mr. Speaker.
[APPLAUSE]
Chair recognizes Ms. O'Connel of Taunton.
Congratulations to the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I did understand.
I did say we were expected to wait and see if it's
included in any legislation.
There's no reason to wait and see.
We're all here right now.
We can all vote on it right now.
It's a bipartisan issue.
There was an op ed where it said the Speaker of the House
agrees with it.
The governor agrees with it.
The folks for Yes on Four agree with it.
There's no reason, no good reason,
not to pass this right now.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Chair recognizes Ms. Balser of Newton.
The lady says there's no good reason.
With all due respect, one reason is called public input.
The lady is suggesting that in the middle of a process where,
of an issue that was of tremendous interest
to the public, there were public hearings going on.
The lady would have us ignore the public input
and just do it today during the budget.
I would just ask the membership to be respectful of the fact
that there's a very good reason for not
doing this kind of legislation in the budget.
And that's out of respect for the constituents
who we represent.
Question it comes under the option of further amendment.
Chair recognizes Ms. O'Connel of Taunton.
I would just like to point out that there was already
a hearing on the bill that I filed
for this, the same exact bill.
And no one testified against it at that hearing.
So there already was public input on this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And as for--
Question now on the further amendment.
All those in favor say Aye.
Ms. O'Connel asks for call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with her will rise and the monitor
will return the count.
First division zero.
Second division-- second division--
[INAUDIBLE]
The division leader will count the second division.
Recount the second division.
Recount the second division, Ms. division leader.
17.
A sufficient number having a resume when
the matter is taken, be taken by a count of the yeas and nays.
Roll call machine is now open, remain open for three minutes.
Court officers, summon the members, indicating roll call
is in progress.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
Time for voting is expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 121 members voting in the affirmative, 37
in the negative.
The further amendment is adopted.
Question now is on the underlying amendment,
as amended with the further amendment.
All those in favor say aye, all those opposed nay.
The ayes have it.
The underlying amendment with the further amendment
is adopted.
House will be in a recess.
House will be in order.
Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Officer, the amendment in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 864, by representatives
Lyons of Andover, O'Connel of Tuanton, Lombardo of Billerico
move to amend the bill by adding the following section,
Chapter one to 18 of the general law
is hereby amended by inserting the following new section.
"Notwithstanding any general or special order to the contrary,
there shall be an independent commission
to study the report of the recent--"
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Court officers, close the doors so that the chair can count.
Court officers, close the doors.
Members please take your seats.
Members will take their seats.
Court officers, close the doors.
Members will take their seats so we can count the House.
First division, the monitor will return the count--
15.
Second division-- second division--
court officer, count the second division.
30-- third division.
Third Division-- 24.
Fourth division-- fourth division--
18.
More than-- sufficient number are in the house.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a commission
to study medical abuse claims.
Many of us in the chamber remember Justina Pelletier,
who was taken away from her parents
because her parents decided to seek
another type of medical treatment.
And the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
engaged in a process that lasted over two years
where this young girl was kept away
from her family and her parents.
She was kept away from her religious services.
And she was basically kept in isolation
for a long period of time.
And the Commonwealth expended incredible amount of dollars
on keeping, basically, her parents away from her.
And we've never had an explanation
as to where the money went, and why
we spent so much money on this.
So what this commission basically does,
it should be an independent commission
to study and report on the case-- recent case
before the Department of Children and Families,
regarding Justina Pelletier.
The commission should consist of an Inspector General,
or a designee, the attorney general, or a designee,
the state auditor, or a designee,
and two members of the House of Representatives--
one who will be appointed by the minority leader,
and two members of the Senate.
The commission shall research and assess
the cost of the case and the evidence and reasoning
that led to the Department of Children and Families
to take Justina Pelletier away from her family.
The commission shall also conduct an investigation
of Massachusetts General law chapter 119, section 51(a),
focusing the number of families affected
and any changes that can be made to the law
and its improper use.
Said report shall be filed with the chair,
and the ranking minority member of the House Committee
on the Ways and Means.
I think this is absolutely imperative to us understanding
what goes on with the Department of Children and Families.
There are a number of representatives
that got involved in this case several years back.
The gentleman from Billerica was the one
who brought it to my attention.
And what we found out was that we had a parent, a father
and a mother.
Who had children who also had this disease in one
of the younger child's, and they had
to fight for the kind of medical care that they needed.
However, in Massachusetts-- what happened was,
these folks came up from Connecticut.
And it was on a snowy Valentine's Day
that they went to Tufts medical center,
and then were transferred over to the Boston Children's
Hospital.
And Mr. Pelletier tells the story
that he was sitting in a room, and they decided as parents
that they wanted to take their child back
to Tufts Medical Center.
And he tells the story that, as he
was sitting in the room making this decision,
he saw the doors lock around him.
He saw security guards come at him.
And they took his child away.
Just picture that.
Just picture that, that happens to you.
That they take your child away.
Just picture that you're out in Montana, or Illinois,
or some other part of the country, because that's
what happened.
He was coming here from Connecticut.
And what happened was, they immediately
went to have a court hearing.
He didn't even have an attorney.
And then they put a gag order on him--
a gag order in place that said he couldn't say anything,
or he would risk going to jail.
I mean, picture this.
Your child was taken away from you.
You're trying to help your child, and because you decide--
you decide to seek medical attention elsewhere,
the state comes in and takes your child away.
And it went on for over 18 months.
And during that process, the Patrick administration
spent millions of dollars keeping this child away
from her family, all because they
decided that they wanted to use a different type
of medical practice.
That should not happen here ever again.
And I think we as a legislature have a responsibility.
This is a real commission that we're
asking for, with real people, to give us a real report,
as to how much money and why the state was allowed to do this.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that when we have a vote on this,
that we have a vote call of the yeas and nays.
Mr. Lyons asks when matter is taken,
be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise.
The monitor will return the count.
First division-- zero.
Second division-- will the second division rise?
I would ask for a recess, Mr. Chairman.
We're counting the house.
Sarah, count the house.
13.
Third division-- zero.
Fourth division-- zero.
Less than sufficient number, there will be no roll call.
Our question is on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Lyons of Andover offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 892, Representative Lyons
of Andover, Lombardo of Billerica
move to amend the bill by adding the following section.
Subsection B of section two of chapter 18 of the general laws
as appearing in the 2014 official edition
is hereby amended by adding the following clause.
"T. Verify than an applicant for benefits
through any transitional assistance,
financial assistance program administered by the department
is a United States citizen, or lawfully present alien
prior to providing any benefits.
The department shall register for the systematic alien
verification entitlements program established
by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
and shall use said program to verify
an applicant's eligibility pursuant to this clause."
Section three of chapter 23, via the general laws is [INAUDIBLE]
is hereby amended by adding the following section.
"W. Verify that an applicant for benefits through any housing
program for low and moderate income families
administered by the department is a United States citizen
or lawfully present--"
If there be no objection the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Question now-- chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Speaker, thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this is another amendment, and basically
what this bill does, it says, chapter 109--
chapter 119 of the Massachusetts general laws
is hereby amended as follows.
A parent or legal guardian cannot be charged with abusing
or neglecting a child's need for medical care if the parent
or legal guardian has sought medical care for a child from
a licensed medical or health-- mental health provider.
The licensed medical or mental health provider
has made a diagnosis.
The licensed medical or mental health provider
has prescribed a lawful course of treatment,
and the parent of a legal guardian
is following, or willing to follow,
the recommended course of treatment.
No mandatory repoke-- mandatory reporter as defined
in section 21 of this chapter shall
file a report of abuse or neglect
under section 51 of this chapter based solely on a parent's
or legal guardian's decision to follow the recommended
treatment of a licensed medical or mental health provider.
A parent or legal guardian has the right
to follow the advice and treatment of a planned--
a licensed medical or mental health provider
over a contrary opinion or recommended treatment
of another licensed medical or mental health provider,
when the des--
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Does the gentleman yield?
No, Mr.-- Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I was told that we were doing 870.
You want me to talk on 892?
Talking on 892.
Oh.
Well, I can talk about that one also.
Does the gentleman yield?
No.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So this is amendment 892.
I apologize for the error.
This goes to the heart, I think, of what
the gentleman from Dartmouth was looking for a few minutes ago.
This is a verification for entitlement programs.
And what this basically does, it instructs
that we verify the applicant for benefits
through a transitional assistance financial assistance
program, administered by the Department,
is a United States citizen or lawfully present alien prior
to providing any benefits.
So what would this basic amendment does,
and it's the third or fourth year that we've filed it--
what it does is make sure that we know who, in fact,
are receiving benefits, provides exactly the information that
the gentleman from--
the gentleman from Dartmouth was looking for,
because as he pointed out, it's important to know
who these people are and who are receiving benefits.
Just as a matter of course that we know who are receiving
and where our tax dollars are going.
So consistent with the request of the gentleman
from Dartmouth, I would hope that the--
my colleagues would support this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that when this vote is taken,
it is taken with a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise,
the monitor will return the count.
First division-- zero.
Second division-- the division chair will count the second
division--
14.
Third Division-- zero.
Fourth division-- zero.
Less than sufficient number count.
Chair recognizes Mr. Rushing of Boston.
House will be in a brief recess.
Will you come up-- the [AUDIO OUT]
Question now is on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Lyons of--
Mr. Lyons of Andover offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 870, representatives Lyons
of Andover and Lombardo of Billerica move to amend
the bill by adding the following section,
chapter 119 of the general laws as appear in the 2014 official
edition is hereby amended by adding the following subsection
section-- new section 5(i)--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
This is the one I was talking about earlier.
I won't bore everybody with it again,
but basically what this does, it prevents people
from getting arrested and, I mean, losing their children
and having DCF come in and be charged with a 51(a) claim
because they simply want to change doctors.
It's a very simple amendment to the ledger--
to our budget, which makes it so that when
a parent goes in and has to take care of their child,
they don't get charged with any kind of violation of any law
or-- when they simply want to use a another medical provider.
And I would ask, Mr. Speaker, when
this amendment is taken, that it be taken
by a call of the yeas and nays.
Mr. Lyons of Andover asks when the matter
is taken, it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise.
The first division-- zero.
Second division-- 15.
Third Division-- zero.
Fourth division-- zero.
Less than sufficient number.
Mr. Speaker [INAUDIBLE].
Sufficient number having risen the matter is taken.
Be taking call of yeas and nays, roll call machine is now open.
Remain open for three minutes.
Court officer, summon the members,
indicate a roll call is in progress.
Mr. [INAUDIBLE]--
Now it's working, sorry.
Mr. McGonagle of Everett has unanimous consent
to be recorded in the last roll call.
Chair objection, chair has none.
On roll call number, 43 Joe McGonagle, yes.
Mr. Naughton of Clinton asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection, chair has non.
Roll call number 43, Harold P. Naughton Jr., yes.
The moment is voted for us to do so.
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 30 members voting in the affirmative,
126 in the negative.
The amendment is not [AUDIO OUT]
What purpose does the lady rise?
Mr. Speaker, could I ask for unanimous consent
to be heard on an issue that was just brought before the House,
and I was not able to speak on it?
Lady from Groton asks unanimous consent to make a statement.
Chair objection?
Chair has none.
Chair recognized Ms. Harrington of Groton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
I don't usually make a habit of trying to speak about an issue
after we've already had a vote on the issue,
but this issue is an overriding issue
that's going to face us throughout this session
outside of budget, with regard to some bills that
will be coming forward this year relative to the protection
of children.
Some of you that were here before me
remember that I spoke a few years ago when this issue came
up, and along with the Chairman from Natick
and the rest of the Post Audit and Oversight Committee,
we did an extensive investigation that year
into the Department of Children and Families, and into the--
and we actually looked into their interaction
with children in need and parents.
And we did get information relative to the Justina
Pelletier case.
What I'll say to you with regard to the issue
of medical treatment and parents authority over children is,
in my opinion, it does not exist.
I recently have received a book called, "The Constitutional
Parent."
And what it basically spells out for us
is that a child, like any other citizen of these United States,
has civil rights.
And they have the right to be protected at all costs.
I hope that our commonwealth changes our standard
in care and protection cases this session
to advocate in the best interest of the child.
But prior to that time, I will remind you that no other human
being's rights--
a parent included-- is superior to that child.
And if there are medical professionals,
and social service professionals,
that find an issue with those parents--
I don't care if it's their parents, their teachers,
their friends, their grandparents,
I don't care who it is.
No one's rights to be protected is
superior to their own civil rights.
And I think that we need to approach every single issue
involving children in our care and protection
system with the realization that we will not
deprive those vulnerable children to losing
their civil rights.
And I thank you for the opportunity to be heard,
even though the decision was made.
And I hope that when future bills
come before this legislative body
that we consider the civil rights of all of our children.
Thank you.
Ms. O'Connel of Taunton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 966, of representative O'Connel
of Taunton and other members of the House,
move to amend the bill by adding the following three sections.
Subsection A of section 5(i) of chapter 18 of the general laws
as--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
What purpose does the gentlemen rise?
Mr. Kulik of Worthington offers a further amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the further amendment.
Mr. Kulik of Worthington moves to amend amendment number 966,
by inserting the following section.
"Notwithstanding any general or special order to the contrary,
the provisions of the three sections
shall not take effect until such time
as the Executive Office for Administration of Finance,
in conjunction with the Executive Office of Health
and Human Services--"
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question now on the further amendment.
Chair recognize Ms. O'Connell of Taunton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, to the members.
Mr. Speaker, so, of course, the underlying amendment
was to stop the spending of cash assistance in other states
except for border states, because we recognize
that people may live right near New Hampshire or right
near Rhode Island and need to spend their money there.
The problem is, we're seeing money, cash assistance,
this is a-- it's a temporary program.
It is meant to help people in need for a short time.
It's meant to help them get back on their feet.
Unfortunately, we're seeing money
spent in California, Hawaii, Florida,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico.
That's not really consistent with necessities and someone
who is trying to get back on their feet.
I think the goal of this program,
and a goal we all share, is to help
people become self-sufficient.
But people do not become self-sufficient,
and they're not encouraged to become self-sufficient,
if we don't have rules in place that encourage
a certain type of behavior.
I know many people in here are fond
of taxing people to encourage a certain type of behavior.
Let's tax sugar so people won't drink so much soda
or eat so much candy.
But when we're talking about taxpayer money,
about a program that only has a certain amount of funding,
you don't want to put any rules in it, any regulations on it.
And I will remind the members that similar language
to stop out-of-state spending was
included in one of our previous budgets,
so you all voted for it then.
But now, all of a sudden, you want to study it.
It's hypocritical.
It's just another fake study that's
never going to happen, to avoid voting
on the underlying amendment.
I hope the further amendment is not adopted.
Question on the further amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
The further amendment is adopted.
What purpose the gentleman rise?
[INAUDIBLE]
Gentleman [INAUDIBLE] ask for call of yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise.
And the division chairs will return the count.
First division.
Zero.
Second division.
17.
Sufficient [INAUDIBLE] the roll call machine
will now be open and remain open for three minutes.
Court officers, some of the members
indicate a roll call is in progress.
Mr. Wagner of Chicopee asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair hear objection?
Chair hears none.
In roll call number 44, Joseph F. Wagner, no.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
More members voted?
Time for voting is-- by the clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 123 members vote in the affirmative,
35 in the negative.
The further amendment is adopted.
Question now is on the underlying amendment, amended
with the further amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
[INAUDIBLE] move the further amendment is adopted.
Mr. Atkins of Concord asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the previous roll call.
Chair hear objection?
Chair hears none.
Roll call number 44, Cory Atkins, no.
Mr. Linsky of Natick asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair hear objections?
Chair hears none.
Mr. Kane of Shrewsbury asks unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair hear objection?
Chair hears none.
Representative Kane of Shrewsbury, no.
Question now is on the consolidated amendment.
Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers a consolidated amendment
in the category of social services
and veterans services and soldiers homes.
The fiscal note is $1 million, $969 million.
And all the amendments have been accounted for.
Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill and others
move to amend the bill in second two, an item--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question now, on approval of the consolidated amendment.
Mr. Hay votes.
Roll call vote on a roll call machine
is now open and will remain open for three minutes.
Clerk will call Mr. Hay of Fitchburg.
Stephan Hay answers present.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
All members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 157 members voted in the affirmative, none
in the negative.
The consolidated amendment is adopted.
[?
For the ?] committee.
--committee on public service [INAUDIBLE]
referred the petition, the joint petition,
of Robert M. Koczera and Mark C. [?
Montigne ?] by vote of the town.
What's recommended in the accompanying bill,
an act amending the charter of the town of Acushnet
to eliminate the residency requirements
for town administrator.
House number 1409 ought to pass [INAUDIBLE]..
Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling
reports recommending that the matter is scheduled
for consideration by the House.
Mr. Murphy of Weymouth moves suspension of the rules.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Rules are suspended.
Second reading of the bill.
An act amending the charter of the town of Acushnet
to eliminate the residency requirement
for town administrator.
House number 1409.
Question now is on honoring the bill with a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The bill is honored to a third reading.
[INAUDIBLE] committee.
Committee on Public Service.
[INAUDIBLE] you've heard the joint petition
of Hannah Kane and Michael [?
O. Moore ?] by vote of the town.
Reports recommending its accompanying bill,
an act amending the residency requirement
for the town manager of the town of Shrewsbury.
House number 2795.
Local approval received, ought to pass.
The Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling
votes recommending the matter be scheduled for consideration
by the House.
Mr. Murphy of Weymouth moves suspension of the rules.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Rules are suspended.
Second reading of the bill.
An act to amend the residency requirement
for the town manager of the town of Shrewsbury, House number
2795.
Question now is on honoring the bill with a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Bill is honored to a third reading.
[INAUDIBLE] House will be in a brief recess.
[INAUDIBLE] committee.
The Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling
reports recommending that the House bill establishing
a sick leave bank for Donald [?
Stewart, ?] an employee of the Department of Correction,
House number 3647, be scheduled for consideration by the House.
Mr. Murphy of Weymouth moves suspension of rule 7A.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Rule 7A is suspended.
Second reading of the bill.
An act to establish a sick leave bank for Donald [?
Stewart, ?] an employee of the Department of Correction.
House number 3647.
Question comes on honoring the bill with a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Bill is honored with a third reading.
Board of committee.
The Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling
reports recommending a House bill establishing a sick leave
bank for Elizabeth C. Cox, an employee of the Department
of Public Health, House number 3645, be scheduled
for consideration by the House.
Mr. Murphy of Weymouth moves suspension of rule 7A.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Rule 7A is suspended.
Second reading of the bill.
An act establishing a sick leave bank
for Elizabeth C. Cox, an employee
of the Department of Public Health, House number 3645.
Question now is on honoring the bill with a third reading,
pending which Mr. Puppolo of Springfield
offers an amendment in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number one, Mr. Puppolo
of Springfield moves to amend the bill
by inserting in line four, after the name Cox, the following.
"To care for her child."
Question now is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
And those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Question now is on honoring the bill with a third reading as
amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Bill is honored to a third reading as amended.
House will be in a recess.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Roll call number [INAUDIBLE],, Claire Cronin, yes.
Mr. Walsh of Framingham asks consent to be recorded on roll
calls 44 and 45.
Chair hear objection?
Chair hears none.
Roll call number 44, Chris Walsh, no.
Roll call number 45, Chris Walsh, yes.
For the edification of the members,
in room 348 at 4:00 PM, the last categories
will be public safety and judiciary.
So in room 348 at 4:00 PM, public safety and judiciary.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Chair would like to announce that public health is now
on the third reading desk.
No, on the rostrum.
And available for the members.
Mr. Straus of Mattapoisett offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 659.
Mr. Straus of Mattapoisett, Ms. Peake of Provincetown,
move to amend the bill by adding the following section.
"The director of the Division of Marine Fisheries,
in consultation with the commissioner of the Department
of Fish and Game, shall conduct a study of the current lobster
fishery and provide recommendations
as to the advisability of enacting
statutory or regulatory changes to allow
the processing of lobster parts for the sale--"
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
The question now is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Straus of Mattapoisett offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 548.
Mr. Straus of Mattapoisett moves to amend the bill
by adding the following section to general laws
as appearing in the 2014 official edition, hereby
amended by inserting--
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, nay.
The ayes have it.
Amendment is adopted.
Ms. Peake of Provincetown offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 636 changed.
Ms. Peake of Provincetown moves to amend the bill
by inserting, after section 9, the following section, section
9b, chapter 10 of the--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
The question now is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Khan of Newton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 1059.
Representative Khan of Newton and other members of the House
move to amend the bill by adding the following section,
section 5 of chapter 18 in general laws appearing
in the 2014 [INAUDIBLE] is hereby amended by--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Puppolo of Springfield offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 71, Mr. Puppolo of Springfield
moves to amend the bill by adding the following section.
Section 1AF of chapter 164 of the general laws, most recently
amended by chapter 75.
The act of 2016 is hereby amended in line 6
by deleting the words "and are constructed prior to December
31, 2017" is replaced with the following words,
"and are constructed prior to December 31, 2019."
Question now is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Parisella of Beverly offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 1024.
Mr. Parisella of Beverly moves to amend the bill
by adding the following two sections, chapter
32 of the general laws appearing in the 2014--
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, nay.
The ayes have it.
Amendment is adopted.
Mr. Khan of Newton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 1030, Representative Khan of Newton
and other members of the House move
to amend the bill by adding the following section.
"There shall be a task force on child welfare."
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, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Khan of Newton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 1049 changed.
Mr. Kahn of Newton moves to amend the bill
by inserting after section 58 the following section, section
58C.
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Amendment is adopted.
Mr. Mariano of Quincy offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 377, change, Mr. Mariano of Quincy moves
to amend a bill by inserting after section 63
the following section, section--
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, nay.
The ayes have it.
Amendment is adopted.
Chair would like to take this opportunity
to wish Mr. Frost of Auburn a very happy birthday.
[APPLAUSE]
If there be no objection, the chair
will consider no action on amendment number 636
by Representative Peake of Provincetown.
Chair hear objection?
Chair hears none.
Mr. Cassidy of Brockton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 613.
Mr. Cassidy of Brockton moves to amend the bill by adding
the following section.
Section 1A of chapter 164--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Amendment is adopted.
Mr. Carvalho of Boston offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 1006.
Mr. Carvalho of Boston moves to amend the bill
by adding the following.
"There shall be a special legislative commission
established pursuant to section--"
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, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Collins of Boston offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 993.
Mr. Collins of Boston and other members of the House
move to amend the bill by adding the following section.
"Any contract issued for services--"
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Donahue of Worcester offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 302.
Mr. Donahue of Worcester moves to amend the bill in section 49
and [INAUDIBLE] by striking out "disability" and--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Ms. Ferguson of Holden offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 529.
Representative Ferguson of Holden
and other members of the House move
to amend the bill by adding the following section.
Section 5D of chapter 164--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair hears none.
Question on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Amendment is adopted.
Ms. O'Connell of Taunton offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 1069.
Representatives O'Connell of Taunton, Lombardo of Billerica,
and Diehl of Whitman move to amend the bill by adding
the following section.
"The governor shall annually issue a proclamation setting
apart the first Saturday and Sunday following Thanksgiving
Day as Small Business Weekend, and recommend
that said weekend be observed by the people
in an appropriate manner."
Question is on the amendment.
Chair recognize Ms. O'Connell of Taunton.
Doubt the presence of a quorum.
Ms. O'Connell doubts the presence of a quorum.
Chair can ascertain a quorum is not present.
Court officers, summon the members, indicating quorum roll
call is in progress.
Representative O'Connell of Taunton
asks unanimous consent to withdraw her request
for a quorum.
Chair hear objection?
Chair hears none.
Chair recognizes Ms. O'Connell of Taunton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, to the members.
This is an amendment to promote small businesses
in all of our communities.
We are all fond of saying how small businesses are
the backbone of all of our communities.
What purpose the gentleman rise?
Gentleman having difficulty, as members are,
in hearing the gentle lady at the microphone.
Court officers, clear the aisles.
Members, please subdue your conversation.
Pay attention to the lady at the microphone.
Chair recognizes Ms. O'Connell of Taunton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the members,
as well.
I know this will be an important amendment to you,
because it is to recognize all small businesses in each
and every one of our communities.
As I was saying, we are all fond of saying
how small businesses are the backbones of our communities.
They create three out of every four new jobs.
They hire locally.
They contribute to good, charitable causes.
And they volunteer in our communities.
So they are deserving of recognition and praise.
This amendment simply directs the governor
to issue an annual proclamation naming the Saturday
and Sunday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Weekend.
And putting this in statute is really important.
It shows our commitment to small businesses.
And it also shows our gratitude.
And it will allow our local chambers and small businesses
to prepare for this weekend, to advertise, to promote it,
and to really make blockbuster sales, hopefully,
on that weekend after Thanksgiving,
when everyone is out shopping.
And I looked up some other awareness months,
and we have in statute, Literacy Awareness Month, Lupus
Awareness Month, Thrombosis Awareness Month,
Stalking Awareness Month, Head Injury Awareness Month.
So doing this for small business,
we should add them to that list.
And I hope you will join me in supporting small businesses
throughout our communities and recognizing
them each and every year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question now on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
What purpose the gentleman rise?
I doubt the vote.
Gentleman doubts the vote.
Division chairs will monitor the count.
What purpose the gentleman rise?
Yes?
First division.
Zero.
Second division.
Second division, the chair, division chair,
will count the division.
15.
Second-- third division.
Zero.
Fourth division.
Zero.
Less than sufficient.
Question now is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Sir, we would like to take this opportunity
to introduce to the right of the rostrum, Terinan
Ash, the son of representative Brian Ash,
who's a freshman in Endicott College.
Welcome.
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 880, Representative Lyons
of Andover, DeCoste of Norwell, and Lombardo of Billerica
move to amend the bill by adding the following section.
A Mass One, AA, MassHealth expenditures
from the executive office of Health and Human Services--
If there'd be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair hears objection, the Chair hears none.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lombardo of Andover.
Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons of Andover.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask when this amendment
is voted on we vote it with a call of the yeas and nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Lyons moves that when a call is taken,
it be called by the yeas and nays.
Those joining him will rise and the division chairs
will return the count.
First division, zero.
Second division, 10.
Third division, fourth division, insufficient number have risen.
The matter will be taken.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that I'm talking
about with this amendment is MassHealth.
I have several amendments here, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make sure I have the right one.
Amendment number 880, Representative.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
So currently, Mr. Speaker, MassHealth is almost 40%
of the state budget.
And the gentleman from Hyde Park yesterday I think
did an excellent job articulating
how much money MassHealth is actually
costing the Commonwealth.
He talked about $275 million in MassHealth
being spent in the '17 budget.
And he talked about $322 million being spent in the '18 budget.
Just to put that in context, that's $597 million
in the last two years.
If you take a look at the local aid
and Chapter 70 money from fiscal year 2009,
the increase in both of those line items combined
was $211 million dollars.
So in the last two budget cycles alone,
we spent almost three times as much money
as was spent to our local cities and towns
since fiscal year 2009.
Something has to give.
Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker of the House said,
we cannot continue to go down this path.
And what we are attempting to do is to offer suggestions,
offer ideas, so that the legislature actually
knows what makes up this $16 billion in spending.
Because I would challenge anyone to be able to tell us that
they have any idea.
So what has happened since 2009?
Well, first of all, on the government's own website--
I refer to it as the government's solicitation
for free health care--
it says on line 1, even if you work or have private health
insurance, you may still be able to get no cost, or low cost
health insurance, or help paying your premiums
and out-of-pocket costs through MassHealth.
So I want everyone to understand from the beginning
so we don't have this discussion later on,
that in the language of one of our amendments,
it says provided that any such appropriation shall continue
to fund all required MassHealth programs that serve individuals
with disabilities, seniors, pregnant mothers, individuals
with breast or cervical cancer, individuals who
are HIV positive, and all those eligible individuals who
are at or below the federal poverty line.
So since the explosion took place in MassHealth,
we had an 82% increase in the numbers
of people who came onto MassHealth from June of 2013
till January of 2016.
That's an 82% increase in the number of people on MassHealth.
At the same time that we had an 82% increase, 360 to 390,000
people, the uninsured rate remained the same or went up.
So we conclude, as others have, that those folks had
private insurance somewhere else,
or they were people who newly came to Massachusetts.
And I think if we're serious about controlling health care
costs, then that's what we have to do.
And what this amendment does is it
provides for a way for MassHealth
to actually have folks share in the costs
of the subsidized health program.
And what we've done is we've put in place a series of reforms
that address this very issue.
And what we're doing is we're limiting the cost
under the line item budget to no more than 30%
of the MassHealth budget.
In 2009, the MassHealth budget was 30%
of the overall state budget.
At that point in time, we spent $8 billion, $700 million
on MassHealth.
This year we're going to spend $16 billion,
100% increase over 2009.
So what we're proposing is that we take
and we limit the spending to 30% of this year's budget, which
is approximately $40 billion, which would give MassHealth
$12 billion dollars to spend.
And we're also putting in place a mechanism
for those who are above the federal poverty limit
to share in the costs, as all the tax payers of Massachusetts
have to do.
Persons above the federal poverty level
may qualify for health insurance subsidies
paid for by the working families of Massachusetts.
For example, a person may qualify
for 80% of their health insurance premium paid
by the working taxpayers.
The beneficiary would then be responsible for the remaining
20% of the premium, along with any co-pays or deductibles.
This will be a very progressive benefit,
so the less off financially, and the larger the family,
the greater the subsidy will amount to.
That's exactly what the hard working families
of Massachusetts are responsible to do.
So we're asking no more than what
we're all responsible to do.
We think it's time to level the playing field.
We think it's time that we give consideration
to those who pay the bills and those who play by the rules.
One of the things that we uncovered in our discovery
process was that 4%, according to the Deval Patrick
administration, roughly 4%--
4% to 7% of the population on MassHealth,
according to Deval Patrick's administration
were those who were undocumented immigrants,
or folks who were not yet qualified.
If you take a look at that number,
and you add in what the cost of health care is today,
it's roughly $8,500 per person.
That means that somewhere between $650 million and $1.1
billion are being paid to people who basically are not
in the country with proper documentation.
Now, if the Commonwealth wants to do that,
if they want that to be the regulation that's in place,
then we ought to just tell the people of Massachusetts,
when you're spending 40% of your state budget on health care,
it is critically important that people understand just where
their money is going.
And what we're trying to do through a series of amendments
is to control the cost of Mass Health.
We also put in place what we call a Massachusetts Control
Board, very similar to what was put in place at MBTA.
The kind of growth that took place
at the end of the Deval Patrick administration
is simply beyond what most administrations
need to deal with.
The Baker administration however has taken this issue on head
on, head on.
They looked at the beginning to begin the redetermination
efforts by taking a look at the overall population.
And initially ruled, I think, anywhere from 180,000
to a quarter of a million people off of the rolls of MassHealth.
So the problem that we're dealing
with today, if it wasn't for the work of the administration,
would be far greater.
However, we believe given the scope,
given the scope of this particular issue,
that of fiscal control board, based
on what we see happening at the MBTA, could be very productive.
When you take a look at the comparisons between a billion
dollar agency and a $17, $16 billion agency,
one can see the problems that exist.
So Mr. Speaker, it is our intent to have a conversation
about MassHealth.
And the conversation should be about making sure, making sure
that the poor and the disabled don't get crowded out.
Because when an agency goes from 1,200,000 to 1,900,000
in less than 25 months, that's a significant amount of growth.
And I challenge any government agency
to be able to handle that without additional help.
So let's talk about the 1.2 million people that
are on MassHealth, who are above the federal poverty line.
We think it's only fair that we take a look--
[INAUDIBLE] gentlemen rise.
The Chair would respectfully ask the members
to subdue their conversation, pay attention
to the gentleman at the microphone.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
So we think it is only fair that the folks who are benefiting
become part of the cost sharing burden
that MassHealth has become.
Everyone's talking about increased revenue, that we
don't have enough money.
Well, when you have an agency or an organization that
grows from 8 billion a year to 16 billion
in a very short period of time, it's no wonder,
it's no wonder that we don't have any money
for any other programs.
So 40% of our state budget is being spent in MassHealth.
The growth has been absolutely off the charts.
When you compare $8 billion increase in MassHealth
versus $300 million for our local cities and towns,
one has to ask what are our priorities.
What are our priorities?
Are our priorities to take care of 1.2 million people
who are above the federal poverty line
and put everybody on MassHealth?
Is that our goal?
To let this go down the road, so six years from now,
instead of spending $16 billion, we're
going to spend $32 billion?
I mean, just think about that.
That's what we've done in the last six years.
We've grown from 8.7 billion in 2009, to 16 billion.
If we continue on this path, there
will be no more money, simply no money.
So when the gentleman from Hyde Park was here yesterday,
he was right, he was right.
This MassHealth is eating up all of our budget.
And we have a responsibility as legislators, at least,
at the very least, to understand why.
And I don't think we have any idea why.
So I know there are some members of the House
who are going to be able to speak
to certain things in this budget, and I appreciate that.
But I really do think that anyone
that can look at this number and say that this is what we should
continue to do just doesn't understand simple math,
let alone some of the complex issues that
are involved in MassHealth.
So Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
to speak to this issue.
And I'm done.
Questions on the amendment?
All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Lyon of Andover, offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 876.
Representative Lyons of Andover, and DeCoste of Norwell,
and Lombardo of Billerica move to amend the bill by adding
the following section.
As used in sections 108, the following words
will have the following meanings unless the context records
otherwise.
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading the paper.
The Chair hears none.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Mr. Speaker, should I repeat what I just said?
The question comes on adoption.
The purpose the gentleman rise?
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lombardo of Billerica.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Andover,
laying out the huge challenges that the MassHealth
budget provides to this body and to the Commonwealth.
You know, here in budget week, we all gather in room 348,
and we advocate for those things that
are really important to us, that are important to our districts.
The funding that we want to put forth to programs that really
matter to the people throughout the Commonwealth.
And unfortunately, we can't fund everything.
The Chairman has told us of the challenges of revenues
that we're facing in regards to the request for expenses.
The Governor in this year's budget
has introduced 9C cuts because revenues are not meeting what
benchmark was expected to be.
And when you look at this budget,
the elephant in the room is MassHealth and the explosion
of growth and the costs.
This year, MassHealth is nearly 40% of this budget.
One line item, 40% of our budget.
Now in 2009, when the budget was $29 billion,
MassHealth was $8 billion.
In this budget of $40 billion, MassHealth is $16 billion.
So the overall growth in our budget in the last eight years
of $11 billion, MassHealth has accounted for nearly 75%
of those dollars.
It's simply unsustainable.
We believe we need to look at eligibility of MassHealth
to protect the poor and the disabled,
to ensure that this program is viable for those
who truly need this program.
I don't believe that those earning at the median income
or above in Massachusetts should receive
free or subsidized health care.
I don't believe that those who have millions of dollars
in assets, who don't have those assets
checked upon for their eligibility,
those individuals should not get free or subsidized health care
through MassHealth.
This amendment would put in place a fiscal control board.
And the overall package of amendments
would start to get MassHealth under control.
We've seen the tremendous success the fiscal control
board has had over at the MBTA.
That billion dollar organization has seen $500 million
in savings already.
MassHealth being a $16 billion dollar organization,
I'm sure we could find substantial savings
to ensure that this program is viable, but fiscally
responsible going forward.
I don't think anyone in this room
would say that MassHealth is operating at its most
efficient and pristine level.
Together, we need to send the message
that we need to change to ensure the program will exist
into the future for the poor, the disabled, and those
who truly need it.
So I would ask my colleagues to please join us
in supporting this amendment.
I ask when this vote be taken, it
be taken with the call the yeas and nays.
Mr. Lombardo of Billerica asks that the matter
is taken, to be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise.
And the division chairs will return the count.
First division, zero.
Second division, six.
Third division, zero.
Fourth division, zero.
Less than sufficient having arrised,
the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, those opposed, nay.
The nays have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Lyons of Andover offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number 878, Representative Lyons
of Andover, and other members of the House
move to amend the bill by inserting
at [INAUDIBLE] of the following sections.
Section 9A of Chapter 118, of the general laws
as appearing in the 2014 official edition
is hereby amended by inserting after paragraph
8, the following paragraph.
There being no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The Chair did not want to interrupt the clerk while he
was reading the amendment.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
I doubt the presence of a quorum.
The court offices will close the doors.
Members will take their seats.
Check and ascertain a quorum is not present.
Court officers summon the members,
indicate a quorum roll call is in progress.
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 156 members have indicated the presence.
The question now is on the amendment.
All those--
The purpose the gentlemen rise?
Put his mic on.
Mr. Speaker, when this amendment is heard,
I would like it to be a call of the yeas and nays.
Mr. Lyons of Andover asks when the matter
is taken, it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him will rise and the division chairs
will return the count.
First division, zero.
Second division, second division, 12.
Third Division, zero.
Fourth division, zero.
Less than sufficient have risen.
The chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It really is remarkable, 40% % of the state budget,
we're trying to come up with a solution, and yet,
we cannot even get a roll call.
I mean that is simply amazing.
When you look at the fact that this budget has blown up
in the last six years.
And we can't even get a roll call
to discuss one of the most important parts of this budget.
It really is amazing.
If anyone wants to know why that this budget has exploded,
it's simply because of that.
We are not serious about the way we take
and we look at spending our tax dollars.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The question comes on the adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, oppose nay.
The nays have it.
The amendment's not adopted.
The Chair would announce that Amendment number 293 has
been recategorized from Elder Affairs
to the category of Legislative Non-budget.
And Amendment 856 has been recategorized
from Public Health to the category
of Legislative Non-budget.
This is consolidated Amendment F in the categories
of Health and Human Services and Elder Affairs.
The fiscal note is $7,562,000.
All of the amendments within the category
have been accounted for.
If the Chair hears no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the further reading of the amendment.
Does that Chair hear objection?
The chair hears none.
On a consolidated amendment, the chair
would recognize Mr. Sanchez of Boston.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, to the members.
I stand here before you to thank the hard work of the Chairman
of Ways and Means, and their incredible staff,
in putting together a consolidated amendment that
is built, and continues to build on the success
that we've had in so many ways in the area of Health and Human
Services, and all the agencies and throughout
that secretariat.
This consolidated amendment, within the budget,
makes significant investments in Health and Human Services
and Elder Affairs.
For example, there's $35.5 million
for wages for direct care workers at nursing homes,
the nursing home supplemental rate is actually $18 million
above House One, and includes $15 million
for recognizing Medicaid's share of the nursing home assessment,
as well as $2.8 million for the Nursing Home
Pay for Performance program.
There's also $4 million for the Adult Health Rates
program, which so many of us value
within our communities, that keep our seniors active and out
of the nursing homes, and in environments in which they
thrive with their neighbors, with their friends,
and with their families.
Not only that, we've also protected adult foster care
rates at 2016 levels.
And we've also included $15 million
for the Health Safety Net Trust Fund, which
fills the gap in funding from House One,
which did not fund any contribution to the Health
Safety Net Trust Fund at all.
There's also $13 million in supplemental payments
for hospitals that serve a high share of Medicaid enrollees.
And we also have a $225.7 million
transfer from MassHealth for community choices,
while consolidating the Home Care Services
program into Home Care.
This consolidated amendment provides important investments
into the FY18 House, Ways and Means
budget, which include a $75,000 increase in homelessness
prevention services, which will aid in the process of helping
homeless and at-risk elders, $642,000 for providers
of naturally occurring retirement communities,
and it's going to allow more seniors
to stay in their community, and keep seniors
from costly nursing homes.
There will also be $750,000 for home delivered meals
under the Elder Nutrition program, which will increase
the funding for 22 nutrition programs
that support ASAPs throughout the state, that provide home
delivered meals to our elders, that program, which
we all value, Wheels on Meals, that has been on the attack
in Washington, but definitely not here,
in our Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We also have a $337,500 increase for various Council
of Aging facilities, and half a million dollars
for housing and support services to address
the needs of unaccompanied homeless youths.
We also direct the Executive Office of Health and Human
Services to offer MassHealth applications
and other materials in various Chinese translations.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the hard work of all of us
here in this body, really this work
that you, the Chair of the Ways and Means, and the staff,
and everybody that put their hard work into this
will continue to make a difference
and build on so many good things that we've
worked on for so many years.
Make no mistake about it, we're hearing a lot
coming from Washington, D.C.
It is just the beginning.
These investments will continue to build on our successes,
while at the same time, we keep our ears to the grindstone,
and we keep our eyes focused on where
our principles and our values lie,
in terms of making sure that we provide health care and quality
care to everyone here in the Commonwealth.
I hope when a vote is called, that the vote is called
by a call of the yeas and nays.
The question comes on acceptance of the consolidated amendment.
Roll call having been ordered, the roll call
is now open and will be open for three minutes.
Court officers will summon the members,
and inform them that a roll call is in progress.
For the edification of the members,
upon the completion of the roll call vote,
there will be a maiden speech.
So the Chair would request that all members remain
in or around the chambers.
And the House will break for the dinner period
after the maiden speech.
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
The time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 157 in the affirmative.
One in the negative.
The consolidated amendment is adopted.
The House will be in a brief recess.