[MUSIC PLAYING]
House will be in order.
Question is on passing the bill of be engrossed pending
with Mr. Linsky of Natick offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number one has changed.
Mr. Linsky of Natick moves to amend the bill by adding
the following three sections.
Chapter 140 of the general laws is hereby amended
by inserting after section 131q as appearing
in the 2016 official edition the following section.
If there will be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Chair now recognizes Mr. Linsky of Natick.
As the gentleman approaches the microphone,
the chair will respectfully ask the members
to please take your seats, subdue your conversation.
Chair recognizes Mr. Linsky of Natick.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
When this matter is called for a vote,
I'd ask that it be called by a call of the yeas and nays.
Mr. Linsky asks when the matter is
taken, it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with then will rise.
Them monitors with return the count.
First division, 12.
Second division, second division--
10.
Sufficient number have risen.
Matter will be taken with call of yeas and nays.
Chair recognizes Mr. Linsky of Natick.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
Mr. Speaker, I am offering an amendment today
that will continue to make the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
the safest state out of the 50 states
in the union with the lowest rate of gun violence out
of all of the 50 states.
Mr. Speaker, this country faced a tragedy
of unspeakable proportions last week
when 58 innocent people lost their lives
in Las Vegas and more than 500 more were seriously wounded.
Following that, this body, which has
a record of being a national leader in gun violence
prevention, conducted a study of our statutes
to see whether or not a particular device that
was attached to a semi-automatic weapon in Las Vegas
called a bump stock was legal under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and legal under the laws of the United States of America.
Unfortunately, this particular device,
which is designed to increase the rate of discharge
of an otherwise legal semi-automatic weapon
to mimic that rate of discharge of an automatic weapon
is in fact legal under the laws of both the Commonwealth
and the laws of the United States.
We, as a civilized society, cannot allow this type
of device to be in private hands.
This particular device, known as a bump stock,
or other similar devices that are
used to alter an otherwise legal rifle, shotgun,
or firearm to increase the rate of discharge
has one purpose and one purpose only.
That purpose is to kill or to wound
as many people as possible in a short period of time.
We have to draw the line somewhere.
Bills are now pending in the United States Congress
and in other states.
But Massachusetts is once again leading the way in gun violence
prevention.
We have an opportunity today by the passage of this amendment,
and then eventually the enactment of this bill,
to ban bump stocks and to ban other similar devices.
The statute that I am proposing today would read as follows.
"Whoever possesses, owns, or offers for sale
any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun,
or firearm except a magazine that is designed to increase
the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun,
or firearm, whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun, a firearm
with the intent to increase its rate of discharge
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state
prison by not less than three nor more than 20 years."
Again, this type of device has no place in civilized society.
Today, by taking this action, we in the Massachusetts House
will be leading the way once again.
We in Massachusetts should be proud of the way
that we have handled gun violence.
We are proof that strong gun laws work
and that strong gun laws reduce gun violence.
In this country, 33,000 people a year
die by firearm use, 93 people a day.
That is a tragedy and it is a statistic that we as a nation
should be ashamed of.
But here in Massachusetts, we have consistently
taken steps, led by this House of Representatives,
led by you, Mr. Speaker, to reduce firearm violence
as best as we possibly can.
There is always more that we can do.
There are always loopholes that we can fill.
And today we are taking an important step
to fill a loophole.
On another day, we may do more, but today we
have this opportunity.
I'd ask that all of us join in passing this amendment when
this bill is enacted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question is on the amendment.
Roll call having been ordered, the roll call machine
is now open, remain open for three minutes.
Court officers, summon the members.
Indicate a roll call is in progress.
[NO AUDIO]
Under rule 49, court officers will vote
for Mr. Miceli of Wilmington.
Clerk will make an announcement.
The voting stations of representatives Mariano
of Quincy and Madaro of Boston are locked.
[NO AUDIO]
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
[NO AUDIO]
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 151 members vote in the affirmative,
three in the negative.
The amendment passes.
Ms. Dizoglio of Methuen offers and amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number two, Representatives Dizoglio
of Methuen and Hunt of Sandwich move
to amend the bill by adding the following section.
Subsection B of section 14 of chapter 94g of the general laws
as appearing as amended by chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017
is hereby amended--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with the reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Question on the amendment.
The chair recognizes Ms. Dizoglio of Methuen.
Court officers, clear the aisles.
Members will please take their seats.
Members will take their seats and subdue the conversation.
Please clear the aisles.
Chair will respectfully ask the members to take their seats
and subdue their conversation.
The chair recognizes Ms. Dizoglio of Methuen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in support of house amendment number
two, Mr. Speaker.
And I want to thank you for your leadership
on expressing your support to this membership
and to the Commonwealth the idea of putting our money where
our mouths are when it comes to substance misuse
and anti-addiction efforts.
Just a few months ago in March, I was so pleased, so
very pleased that you announced, Mr. Speaker, at the greater
Boston Chamber of Commerce to business leaders
across the Commonwealth that you wanted to use the tax revenue
garnered through marijuana sales in Massachusetts
to combat the state's opioid epidemic.
Now for the benefit of the members who
didn't get to attend that event or read about the Speaker's
remarks, I have them right here for you just
so we're all on the same page.
Speaker said, "We have a rare opportunity
to deploy a new tactic to fight what
has become the fastest growing killer
of young adults and other Massachusetts residents.
Aided by the state proceeds of marijuana,
we will create the substance addiction
fund dedicated to addiction and recovery efforts."
Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you for those words.
I'm up here today to encourage its membership
to support those words and that effort, Mr. Speaker.
Because the reality is when the marijuana bill came
to this floor for a vote the first time, we in the House
voted for the provision to fund that substance addiction fund.
We tried to get that funding included in the House
version of the bill, but when the final version
of the bill reported out by the conferees came out,
it included no language whatsoever that guaranteed
funding to a substance addiction fund of any kind.
Now I know many of the members of this House
were as shocked as I was to read the final version of the bill
and find no dedicated revenue to this fund,
as that fund really was the main reason we gave
the general public about why we had to have such a tax
rate on marijuana sales to begin with, right.
Now I know that we voted in the House
before this bill went to conference committee
to allocate millions towards this substance addiction fund.
with specific monies dedicated to Massachusetts
public schools for the purpose of intervention, prevention,
and education efforts.
And I want to thank the members of this House for that vote.
Unfortunately, when those provisions that we all
voted to support were stripped of the bill
during conference committee, we didn't see them
in the final version of the bill.
For what purpose, Mr. Speaker, I still don't know.
But when the bill came back to this chamber,
all of the funding that we said we
were going to allocate towards addiction recovery efforts
was made subject to appropriation
and directed to the general fund.
And guys, we know what that means, right?
It means the funding we said we were going to guarantee
goes towards substance abuse is now not guaranteed at all.
It will now, instead, be determined
by whoever happens to be in leadership in any given year.
If the funding is available if leadership at that time
chooses to appropriate that funding to these causes,
then we may see some of that funding.
If not, then we don't.
Again, this is because that funding during conference
committee was made subject to appropriation
and directed marijuana revenue to the general fund
with zero dollars invested in the substance addiction fund.
Friends, this is still the most prevalent, vile, despicable,
life ruining issue ravaging families across the nation.
How can we be OK with implementing the legalization
of marijuana with no funding guaranteed toward addiction
services of any kind while we're still
in the middle of a substance misuse epidemic that's
now America's leading cause of death for people under 50?
And speaking of 50, that's the amount in millions
that we dedicated toward the substance addiction
fund when we first voted on this bill.
Now when I questioned why all of that money for that fund
was completely deleted when the bill that we first voted on
came back from conference committee,
I was told by leadership that the tax percentage on marijuana
changed from 28% in the House version
to 20% and the final version.
So because of that difference, we
couldn't allocate any money now towards the substance addiction
fund.
Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable.
I'd like to know how in the gaming bill
we were able to make sure that 5% of generated revenues
from gambling goes towards addiction services.
But in the middle of the worst drug epidemic in history,
we can't dedicate any funding towards addiction efforts?
The final bill that we passed still
sets the marijuana tax rate at 20%,
that's eight percentage points higher
than what the voters approved on the ballot.
And what we told voters we were suggesting the higher tax
rate for was because we desperately needed the funding
for the overwhelming need for treatment, recovery,
intervention, prevention services surrounding addiction.
So this amendment that I'm offering today
accounts for the change in that tax rate
while still allocating a significant amount of revenue
towards addiction services.
The proposal I'm offering today offers $30 million
or 15% of the total generated revenue
go toward a substance addiction fund with $5 million
or 2.5% going towards Massachusetts
public schools and their efforts to combat addiction.
And I want to remind everybody, this provision for our schools
was supported by the Mass Teachers Association,
the American Federation of Teachers,
the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents,
the Massachusetts Association of School Committees.
It's time for us to back up our words with action.
Mr. Speaker, we have a very important issue
coming up on the ballot next fall which I support.
And that issue is the fair share tax amendment.
Our constituents who are on the fence about that proposal
say that while they're supportive of the idea
of a new revenue source for education and transportation,
that they're deeply concerned that this body won't actually
allocate the funding towards education and transportation
once the bill makes its way from the ballot to this chamber.
So I say to my colleagues today, we have an opportunity.
We have a unique opportunity.
Or as you said Mr. Speaker about this issue,
we have a rare opportunity to prove to the voters
that we mean what we say.
To get this issue squared away, to get our tax policy right
before recreational marijuana sales really
begin here in Massachusetts.
Now I know a lot of people in this chamber
wanted that substance addiction fund included in the marijuana
proposal.
And although you supported and voted for the marijuana
proposal for the comprehensive bill,
you very much wanted this funding included.
Well, here's your opportunity to support that provision.
Mr. Speaker, I hope with all my heart
that this lifesaving amendment is adopted and then fought
for this time and included in the conference committee report
so that we don't have to keep bringing this issue up
every time there's an opportunity.
Because I will be relentless in my fight
for the funding for this fund.
The cost of doing nothing is far more expensive than the costs
of implementing this proposal.
When a vote is called, I ask for a call of the yeas and nays.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Dizoglio asks when the matter
is taken it be taken by a call of yeas and nays.
Those joining with them will rise.
Monitors will return the count.
First division.
One.
Second division, 24.
Sufficient number have arisen.
When matter is taken, be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Chair recognizes Mr. Hunt.
[NO AUDIO]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to everyone here.
I also rise in support of this amendment.
And I'm very pleased to work with my colleague
from Methuen to get this done.
I've been asked three questions that I want to address.
One of those is how do we get our arms
around this opiate addiction scourge?
It's a huge question.
We've been asking this for a number of years.
We've done a lot of things, including
an omnibus bill last year in March to deal with this.
But from my perspective, I think we
need to look at this from 100,000 feet
and say we need to go upstream.
We need to deal with our kids, our students in the schools.
We need to put more effort into prevention and education
and early intervention so that all of those people
will not get to the point where we're
dealing with the cost of addiction treatment.
That's how we get our arms around this.
Similar to what happened with tobacco on a national basis,
there is a stream of funding that
came out of the federal court decision that
was generational in time.
And it worked.
It was a dedicated pool of funding that we
could use for education.
In a very odd way I saw the results of one
of these surveys that was done at a high school on Cape Cod
where the children there, the kids, the teenagers,
these were high school kids, said
that they felt that smoking cigarettes, tobacco cigarettes
was more dangerous than grabbing a random pill out
of the bowl at a rave party.
Now I bring that up because we're
doing a pretty good job on the tobacco message, not so
good job on the rest of this.
But to be able to deal with this for the next 20 years,
we need to have a dedicated source of funding that is not
subject to the whims of the budget debate
that we have every year, but is guaranteed.
This bill, this amendment will do that.
And it won't overspend.
In case anybody objects to this saying
we don't know how much money is coming in,
that's not a problem.
Because it's the lower of the percentage or $30 million.
So 15% of a million dollars that comes in is only $150,000.
We think that the revenue that will come in from this
is somewhere between $100 and $200 million.
Which brings me to the second question.
And that is, how can I make sense of that?
What is $100 or $150 or $200 million?
How can I measure that?
The ABCC that has a lot more outlets that they have to deal
with has an annual budget of $2 1/2 million and they have 30
employees.
Now the issues about recreational marijuana
and medical marijuana may be more complicated,
but to give you that perspective,
we're spending $2 1/2 million a year for the entire activity
of the ABCC.
That brings me to the third question,
and I'll close with this.
If someone objects to how we're dealing with this funding,
that it's an unknown.
$100 to $200 million cannot possibly be spent--
and I say that with a little bit of a tongue in cheek--
by the Cannabis Control Commission and the people
they are going to hire around them.
I think it is very safe to say we could spend
15% of the money that comes in.
It's well within what the budget would allow.
And I urge everybody to vote for this amendment
so that we can put this particular issue to rest.
And hopefully in a generation, we'll
have our arms around the issue and we can finally
say that that was just a bad memory.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Roll call having been ordered, the roll call machine
is now open, remain open for two minutes.
Court officers, summon the members.
Indicate a roll call is in progress.
Ms. Malia of Boston asked the unanimous consent
to be recorded on the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair has none.
On roll call number 267, Elizabeth Malia, yes.
[NO AUDIO]
Have all members voted who wish to vote so?
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Have all members voted?
Time for voting has expired.
On this matter, 40 members voted in the affirmative,
107 the negative.
The amendment is not adopted.
Question now is in passing the bill be engrossed pending
with Mr. Jones of North Reading offers an amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk will read the amendment.
Amendment number five has changed.
Representative Jones of North Reading, Hill of Ipswitch,
Poirier of North Attleborough, Gifford of Wareham,
Frost of Auburn, Smola of Warren move
to further amend that the bill be
amended by inserting after section 17
the following new section.
Section 17a, section two of chapter 47 in the Acts of 2017
is hereby further amended by inserting after item 0521
triple aught 1--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Chair recognizes Mr. Jones of North Reading.
Once again, the members are asked
to please take their seats, pay attention
to the gentleman at the microphone.
Chair recognizes Mr. Jones of North Reading.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members.
I have--
Chair apologizes to the gentlemen at the microphone.
Court officers clear the aisles.
Clear the aisles.
Can we subdue our conversation.
Chair recognizes Mr. Jones of North Reading.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through to members.
And I have offered what I hope is a fairly
straight forward amendment.
And I appreciate the work of the Committee
on Ways and Means in sort of perfecting it.
Last session we passed a law to allow for early voting
in the Commonwealth.
And subsequent to that passage of that law
and the subsequent election last November,
the state auditor determined that that constituted at least
in part an unfunded mandate.
It identified an amount of money about $720,000
that needed to be set aside to make our cities and towns
whole.
The legislature had appropriated a portion of that money
at the time.
So in working with the Committee on Ways and Means,
we've identified the delta, if you will, which in this case
is about $485,000 that needs to be appropriated.
Which when coupled with the money
that we had already appropriated would
make cities and towns whole.
And we create a 60 day window for cities and towns
to essentially get their invoices in, if you will,
to be reimbursed for those costs associated with early voting.
Obviously, going forward it'll have
to be part of our debate of our annual budget process.
But this will at least address the issues identified
by the auditor's report that early voting constituted
an unfunded mandate.
So I appreciate the cooperation and work
of the Committee on Ways and Means
to come up with an amendment that I
think addresses the issue.
I would hope that when the amendment is voted on,
Mr. Speaker, it would be voted on by a call of the yeas
and nays.
Mr. Jones of North Reading asks when
the matter is taken it be taken by a call of yeas and nays.
Those joining with them arise.
Monitor return the count.
First division, five.
Second division, 24.
Sufficient number having arisen.
When the matter is taken, taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Roll call having been ordered, the roll call machine
is now open and remain open for three minutes.
Court officers, summon the members.
Indicate a roll call is in progress.
[NO AUDIO]
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
[NO AUDIO]
Have all members voted?
[NO AUDIO]
Have all members voted?
[NO AUDIO]
Have all members voted who wish to do so?
Time for voting is expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 153 members voted on the affirmative, none
in the negative.
The amendment is adopted.
Mr. Sanchez of Boston offers a technical amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read.
Brief recess.
[NO AUDIO]
Mr. Sanchez of Boston offers a technical amendment
in the hands of the clerk.
The clerk will read the technical amendment.
Amendment number 16, Mr. Sanchez of Boston
moves to amend the bill in section two
CI by inserting after the item 41 90 1100 the following item.
Community colleges, 75 10 0 200 $1 million.
And moves to further amend the bill
by striking out in section 20 and item 14 10
0 the following words.
Brief recess.
Clerk will reread the amendment.
Amendment number 16 has changed.
Mr. Sanchez of Boston moves to amend the bill in section 2CI
by inserting after item 41 90 1100 following--
If there be no objection, the clerk
will dispense with reading of the paper.
The chair has none.
Mr. Sanchez of Boston asked for a roll call vote.
Those joining with him will rise.
Question now on the technical amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
Technical amendment is adopted.
Question now is on passing the bill to be engrossed.
Mr. Sanchez of Boston asked for a roll call vote.
Those joining with him will rise.
Monitors will return the count.
First division, 15.
Second division, 1.
Sufficient number having arisen, matter
is taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Roll call machine is now open, remain open for three minutes.
Mr. Linsky of Natick asks unanimous consent
to be recorded in the last two roll calls.
Chair objection?
Chair has none.
Roll call number 268, David Linsky no.
And on roll call number 269, David Linsky yes.
Chair would like to inform the members
that it anticipates no further roll calls this afternoon.
[NO AUDIO]
Mr. Vega of Holyoake asks unanimous consent
to be recorded in the last roll call.
Chair objection?
Chair has none.
On roll call number 269, Aaron Vega, Yes.
Have all members voted?
Time for voting is expired.
The clerk will display the tally.
In this matter, 154 members voted the affirmative, one
in the negative.
The bill is passed to be engrossed.
[NO AUDIO]
Mr. Petrolati of Ludlow.
Calendar 188 on page 18.
Moves suspension of rules to take up on page 18 calendar
item number 188.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
Rule 47 is suspended.
Third reading of the bill.
An act establishing a sick leave bank
for Amanda Rodrigues, an employee of the trial court.
Question now is on passing the bill to be engrosses.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
The bill is passed to be engrossed.
[NO AUDIO]
Fair enough.
Mr. DeLeo of Winthrop offers an order
in the hands of the clerk.
Clerk read the order.
Order that when the House adjourns today
it will adjourn early tomorrow at 11:00 AM.
Question now is on the adoption of the order.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
They ayes have it.
The order is adopted.
Mr. Frost of Auburn now moves that the House
stands adjourned.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it.
House stands adjourned to meet tomorrow, Thursday,
11 AM in an informal session.
[NO AUDIO]
[MUSIC PLAYING]