The time having arrived to which the Senate had previously
adjourned.
The Senate will be in order.
The Chair would ask members, staff, and guests
to please rise and join the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr
in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.
Several resolutions have been presented,
which the clerk will read.
By Ms. L'Italien, resolutions congratulating [INAUDIBLE]
Anderson on the occasion of her retirement.
By Senator Ross, resolutions congratulating
Amelia Oh and Haley Bachman and Michelle Lee, [INAUDIBLE]
Murphy, and Julia Park, all of the town of Wayland,
on receiving the silver award of the Girl Scouts
of America, and congratulating Eric P. [?
O'Rourk ?] and Conner F. [?
O'Rourk ?] of the town of Wrentham on their elevation
to the rank of Eagle Scout.
The question now comes on the adoption of the resolutions.
All those in favor say, aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the resolutions are adopted.
Papers from the House.
Several House petitions come from the House
with the endorsement [INAUDIBLE] has
been suspended with [INAUDIBLE] and they've
been referred to their various committees.
The question comes on suspension of joint rule 12.
All those in favor say, aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the rule is suspended.
The petitions will be referred to their various committees.
If there is no objection, we will proceed
with the orders of the day.
Is there an objection?
Chair hears none.
We will proceed.
The only item on the calendar today
is calendar item number 5, House Bill number 3601.
The question will come on ordering the bill
to a third reading, coming first on an amendment
as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
A number of amendments have been filed
which will be considered following the initial comments
by the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr
and to whom he directs his questions.
[AUDIO OUT]
Well, well, Mr. President.
Good morning.
It is great to be gathered here with the members
of the Senate on this beautiful spring day
as the rain has cleared.
The sun is out.
And here in the light of day, we are
to debate how to spend billions of dollars of tax money.
Mr. President, I look forward to a robust and productive debate.
I want to compliment you on yet another outstanding purple tie.
It is radiant from the rostrum, Mr. President.
And it certainly sets an example of haberdashery
for all in the chamber.
But Mr. President, we have before us a very serious task,
Mr. President.
And that relates to trying to put together
a budget that addresses the fiscal priorities that we all
share and that the people of the Commonwealth have.
But also, Mr. President, to recognize the fiscal reality
that we live in, and that we'll likely
be dealing with in terms of uncertainty of revenues
for some period of time.
So Mr. President, I do have a series
of questions for our distinguished Chair
Lady of the Committee on Ways and Means.
And I would compliment her on the work that she and her staff
have done to compile this budget and respond
to a number of those priorities.
Mr. President, we do have a number
of questions about the internal balance
of this particular document.
But Mr. President, before I get to those questions,
I hope to resolve a particular matter
at the outset of this debate.
And so Mr. President, I am reluctant to interrupt
your conversation with the distinguished majority leader,
but I do rise to raise a point of parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. President, is the budget a money bill?
The budget is indeed a money bill.
Mr. President, it makes me so happy when you say that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. President, so a few questions, and I
think the best way to do this would be to go a few at a time
so as not to overwhelm the Chair of Ways and Means,
and also so that we can all fully
appreciate the answers to the questions, Mr. President.
But again, let me start with the first few.
First of all, Mr. President, current estimates
indicate that in fiscal year 2017
we are somewhere in the neighborhood of $462 million
below the established benchmark for revenue collection.
So does this budget address that reality
and take recognition of it?
In addition to that, Mr. President,
we've heard as the budget has come
through its developmental process
that there may well be a structural deficit that
needs to be addressed even before we try
to take into account the under-performance of revenue
collection.
And in addition to that, Mr. President,
we often resort in this chamber and in this building
to supplemental budgets to try to address underfunded accounts
and to try to make corrections to things we have done
in general Appropriations Act.
So Mr. President, I'm hoping that we can get clarification
on how many supplemental budgets we have had to do
so far in fiscal year 2017.
And with that, Mr. President, I look forward
to the answers of the distinguished Chair
of Ways and Means.
And again, as she prepares to rise,
I want to thank her for the tremendous amount of work
that's been done to get us to this point.
The senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And thanks to the minority leader
for asking some great questions.
I'm honored to begin debate today on my third budget
as Chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
This has been a truly collaborative process,
bringing in ideas and priorities of the committee
and of my Senate colleagues by meeting with all of you,
input from state agencies and advocates
in the expertise of so many organizations
throughout the state, constituents
across the Commonwealth who have met with me,
met with all of you, the wonderful Commonwealth
conversations.
Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership,
especially through these tough fiscal times.
Thank you very much.
And thank you to my Vice Chair, the senator
from Everett, my Assistant Vice Chair, the senator
from Sommerville, ranking minority member,
the senator from Plymouth, and all of the terrific members
of the Committee.
And thank you again to all of the senators
for your wonderful input, your caring, your advice,
and counsel.
For the third year in a row, we hope
to engage the public in the Senate budget process.
We have viewing areas open to the general public in room 428
and by the Walcott statue on the third floor.
We are live streaming this debate and live tweeting.
So everybody should partake in that.
We want this process to be accessible and available
to everyone.
The fiscal year 2018 budget we are debating this week
focuses on the theme of sustaining our Commonwealth.
We recognize the constraints as mentioned, the uncertain times,
the slow revenue growth, and our current unsteady fiscal
environment.
It is in these uncertain times, it's
now more important than ever, for us
to take care of each other and work
to provide opportunities for all of our people
in all areas of the Commonwealth.
The cover art-- and I do want to raise it
because its a beautiful cover.
It's art.
And it reflects our theme of sustaining our Commonwealth.
These beautiful images on the cover
were created by Massachusetts artists
working with an organization called
Art Lifting, a local organization that empowers
artists across the country impacted by homelessness,
having disabilities, addiction, or other challenges.
And they are lifting themselves through the celebration
and sale of their art work.
So that is very notable.
We can lift up and sustain our Commonwealth
by focusing on the fundamentals--
education, health and human services, the well-being
of our residents, housing.
This budget reflects our shared values
and our shared responsibility to foster our common good.
The Senate Ways and Means fiscal '18 budget
includes for $40.79 billion in total net spending.
This is a balanced and fiscally responsible budget.
We continue to reduce our reliance on one time revenues
and direct $98.4 million to the stabilization fund
to continue to build up this very important safety net.
This has been a Senate priority.
We also include several initiatives
to maximize state and federal revenue opportunities
and spend efficiently, including a standing tax expenditure
review commission to evaluate all of the state's tax
expenditures and their fiscal impact.
In line with the Kids First framework to invest
in our kids, this budget directs funding to high quality
education for everyone, including a bold $15.1 million
investment to expand access to preschool for low income
four-year-olds, $4.76 billion for Chapter 70 education
funding including--
and this is really important.
We've heard from all of you.
And we've all heard from our constituents--
continued implementation of the Foundation Budget Review
Commission's recommendations.
We go farther.
We have $545.1 million for community colleges
and universities and $534.5 million for U Mass.
The budget also take steps to contain health care costs
and invest in health and human services,
with a strong focus on mental health.
We have $143 million for substance abuse treatment,
intervention, and recovery support services, $91.4 million
for mental health services for young people, $24.2 million
to fully fund the DDS Turning 22 item, $3.5 million
to encourage collaboration among agencies schools
and community partners to strengthen early detection
and screening of mental illness in our children,
and $2.6 million for pediatric palliative care
to eliminate the waiting list.
This has also been a Senate priority
to eliminate the waiting list for services
for terminally ill children and their families.
We also continue our support for those who need our help,
including children, seniors, folks with disabilities,
and our veterans.
This budget also includes significant support
for housing and homelessness prevention,
focusing on preventative and supportive resources
to connect people with all different levels of housing
and have it be affordable, stable housing
as well as offering assistance to those
that are in housing crisis.
We have $464.1 million in total for the full spectrum
of housing services.
And I'll just give a few highlights, $165.9 million
for EA family shelters, $100 million
for the MRVP to allow 350 to 400 new rental vouchers,
$46.2 million for homeless individual assistance,
$18.5 for RAFT, and $2.5 million for Unaccompanied Homeless
Youth Services.
For some, it's the highest it's been.
We target also investments to promote self-sufficiency
among low income families to create
opportunities to truly once again help
sustain our Commonwealth.
So we have $30 million, for example, for Adult Basic
Education Services, $14.6 for the Department of Transitional
Assistance Employment Services program, $12.5 for summer jobs
and work readiness training for at-risk youth, $4 million
for the Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund.
And for the third year in a row, we
should be proud we have increased the children's
clothing allowance for low income families
to $300 per child, allowing children
to enter school, start their school year with new clothes
that all kids want.
And as we've noted, children at these ages grow like sprouts.
They need sometimes new clothes.
And this will help them.
These are only some of the highlights
of the targeted investments in this budget
to foster shared prosperity and support our children, families,
and communities.
As Horace Mann, the education leader, former Massachusetts
state president, and native of Franklin which
I am proud to say is in my district,
once said "Doing nothing for others
is the undoing of ourselves."
So this budget invests in children and their education,
the best investment that we can make in our future.
We invest in the health, the well-being of our people
and our families.
We invest in the support services
low income people need to find solid ground,
secure housing, health, and get back to work.
We are clear eyed about our current financial situation,
but I am proud to say that this budget reflects all--
and I really emphasize all--
of our values and invests in our future.
I look forward to this week's debate
as I know that there are many amendments
and this debate will make this budget even stronger.
I'm confident that after a spirited debate
here in the Senate that we will end our budget debate even
prouder that we have taken action
to sustain the fundamentals of our Commonwealth
and continue to build future success.
Thank you.
The senator from Middlesex and Suffolk, Mr. Di Domenico
Thank you, Mr. President, I wanted
to publicly thank the Chair of Ways and Means
and our president for their strong commitment
to children and families in this budget.
As the Senate president made it known to all a couple of years
ago, kids would be a first priority in this chamber,
for many of us and for the body as a whole.
And our Chair has taken that lead and she has,
as you can see in the budget books, taking that to heart.
And our kids definitely come first.
You know, we talk about early education.
We talk about child supports.
We talk about housing, mental health, public health.
And we talk a lot about these issues
in our offices and appointments and our district.
And a lot of times that talk doesn't always
transfer to the budget or transfer to legislation.
And I can tell you without a doubt,
our Chair has done more than we could have expected
in these trying times financially
for our kids and our families.
We have made a commitment in this chamber
to put our kids above all and our families above all.
And if you look at our budget and see that commitment
in terms of financial increases, you
can see that we made that clear.
We always talk about putting our kids first,
and we always talk about when our children have challenges.
We always want to put them in a spot
to succeed, to advance themselves, become
better people in society.
And we talk about all the great things
we do in our education system.
But if a child comes to school hungry,
has an unstable housing situation,
has trauma back at home, you can have the best schools, the best
technology, the best educators, and that child will not learn.
We have addressed that issue in this budget through our Chair,
and through a lot of your priorities
as well, to put our kids in a place
where they can succeed in academic
and also in our communities.
So I want to thank our Chair publicly,
and I can't thank her enough for doing what she has done.
And I do want to touch on two things that she mentioned, too.
Because she is a leader on these two issues.
And the Senate has become the place
to be when it comes to clothing allowance for our children,
and pediatric palliative care.
Those of us who have children, who have grandchildren, nieces
and nephews can't even imagine what these families
are going through to recieve pediatric palliative care
services.
And this budget clears the waiting list.
165 families were on the waiting list prior to this budget.
That is actually a shame, that families
would have to wait on a waiting list
to get pediatric palliative services for end
of life services and life limiting
services for their children.
We can't even imagine that but these families,
their whole world has come crashing down on them.
And the little bit of investment in whole terms of this budget,
$2.6 million in a $40 billion budget,
goes a long way to helping these families
and helping them deal with situations that will come down
the road for them, for their siblings and their parents.
So I want to thank the Senate president for all of his work,
and the Chair of the Ways and Means staff, my staff, and all
of our staffs for all they've done
to put this budget together and put us in a position
today to do both things for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
So I look forward to a great week,
and making our budget even stronger
as the process goes forward.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Tarr.
Mr. President, I apologize.
I was remiss in not inviting the Chair and the Vice Chair's
opening remarks.
But I still have some questions, Mr. President.
And in fact, those questions are I
think more important now than ever particularly
because, Mr. President, the Chair and the Vice Chair
have highlighted one important dimension of the budget.
And that is making sure that we respond
to important fiscal priorities.
And one of the things, Mr. President,
that was not touched on as much as I think
could be at this point is the notion
that in this budget as well we see some progress
on funding the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review
Commission, which members in this chamber
fought to reconstitute.
And particularly, Mr. President, thanks
go to the distinguished Chair Lady of the Committee
on Education, and everyone in this chamber for saying
that we need to consider how far the discrepancy is between what
we mandate for education to be provided in K through 12
systems across the Commonwealth, and what we provide
and require to be provided through the Foundation budget.
And for the first time, Mr. President,
we see an earnest attempt in this budget
to be able to respond to that, Mr. President.
Because those are real needs.
And those are commitments that we have already made.
And we need to stand by them.
And we need to support them.
But Mr. President, the other dimension of a budget
is also trying to make sure that we are fiscally balanced
and we consider the reality that the distinguished Chair
Lady of Ways and Means has already made reference to
but deserves, in my humble opinion,
some further consideration.
And thus, Mr. President, some questions relative to that.
The first being that we all know--
and we can't ignore just because we came into the chamber
and it is time to debate the budget--
what's happening with regard to revenue collections, Mr.
President, that are underperforming benchmark
by about $462 million.
And so it's a logical question to ask
as we gather to begin to plot our course collectively
for the next fiscal year, what does
this budget do to recognize what's
happening in this fiscal year.
In addition to that in the ramp up,
in the leading up to this particular budget, Mr.
President, we have heard about the fact
that prior to any underperformance
there may well have been a structural deficit that we
had to close.
And I think sometimes that fact is
lost as we consider some of the other things that
are in the budgetary universe, such as the under-performance
of revenue collection.
But it shouldn't be under-recognized
because it takes a lot of effort on the part
of the Committee on Ways and Means
to close the structural deficit.
And so I'm hoping that the distinguished Chair
Lady of Ways and Means can share with us information about what
that was prior to even thinking about some
of those other factors.
How much of a structural deficit did we have?
And how was it closed?
And then in addition to that, Mr. President,
I'm hoping that we can remind ourselves
through the sage advice and recollection
of the distinguished Chair Lady on the Committee
on Ways and Means of how many supplemental budgets we have
had to undertake to compensate for issues
with the original General Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2017, which we are still in.
But Mr. President, we all know that oftentimes we
use supplemental budgets to be able to address various issues
to ensure that the budget stays balanced in response
to its funding commitments.
So I'm hoping that we can understand how many of those
we've already had.
And Mr. President, as I did with my original request
for the information [INAUDIBLE] I'm
going to stop right there so that we can
do this in a digestible way.
Thank you, Mr. President.
From Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you
to the minority leader.
Hello.
Good morning.
As you know, as you've stated, our revenues
are not coming in as hoped or expected.
We are $462 million below benchmark by the end of April.
So we are closely monitoring the revenues.
We are very closely working with the House
and the administration, particularly
the Secretary of A and F to look at and analyze
this year's fiscal picture.
There are still two months left for tax collections.
And we'll see how that turns out, particularly
for the month of May.
This budget, like the house one budget,
the governor's budget and the house final budget
relied upon the consensus revenue
that we all agreed upon back in January.
That was based on a 3.9% revenue growth generating $27.072
billion in tax revenue before--
that would be before any pre-budget transfers.
So this amount that I alluded to a week ago
may need updating in June, like we did last year.
There's a lot of theories as to why April was not a good month.
There is no true clarity to say, yes, this is it.
Some people may have been holding on to their returns
and not getting it.
They may be filing more in May, which it seems by mid-month
that may be happening.
But we will see.
And then have a discussion working together
with the House and the administration
to really determine how to best address
any potential challenges that we have for fiscal '18, and what
we do with the budget.
So we will address it, if need be.
And we will work collaboratively which
I think you would agree is the best way to go forward.
There was a question as to how many supplemental budgets
there's been for fiscal '17.
And the governor has filed two.
We did one a few weeks ago.
And we may be doing, as a body, another one next week
or the week after.
There always are supplemental budgets, unforeseen items,
or sometimes we wait to see, for example,
CPCS in the Governor's budget was a little higher
for a balance.
Some of it has decreased a little bit.
So for some of the-- particularly the
caseload-driven line items, it's difficult 12 months in advance
to know what the final true numbers will
be for that line item.
So as the year gets closer, sometimes that's
when we make some adjustments.
But I do just want to reiterate that even once again, even
during tough fiscal times, we have met our obligations.
And going back to the theme to sustain our Commonwealth,
to support and strengthen our residents, our communities,
the families, I'm proud to say that this budget reflects
the priorities of each one of you here today.
Each one of you has shared your statewide programmatic
priorities, your district priorities.
And this budget incorporates, even though it
has been a tough fiscal time.
Chapter 70 education, which has been
a top priority for the Senate reflects $128.8 million
increase over fiscal year '17.
Throughout the Commonwealth, we're
taking steps to implement the recommendations
of the Foundation Budget Review Commission.
And we address so many other areas that I said before.
So despite this tough time, yes, we did
raise some revenue, the Governor raised $300 million
in what he referred to as an employer assessment.
We did $180 million.
We direct the Governor to work in some ways
similar to the House.
But we also say you have choices either through an employer
assessment or contribution or through the EMAC the Employer
Medical Assistance Contribution.
So there are options and alternatives
and ways to raise some revenue.
All three budgets before--
the two budgets before us recognized
that we need to raise revenue and did so as well.
We raised $409 million to meet the obligations that
are before us.
So I do believe that this is a fiscally responsible budget.
It's a balanced budget.
And we will move forward as we debate.
Thank you.
Senator Moore and Senator Fattman.
The Chair calls upon Senators Moore and Fattman
to introduce some special visitors.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Good morning to the body.
I have the honor today of introducing the Northbridge
High School sophomore class, that came to see us in action
today, starting our budget debates.
Senator Fattman and I have the honor
of representing the town of Northbridge.
Senator Fattman.
I have the southern part of Northbridge
and Senator Moore as the northern part.
And then we'd also like to welcome our colleague
from the House who has all of Northbridge, Representative
David Muradian.
[AUDIO OUT]
-- happy to know that as we begin the budget debate here
in the Senate that the Senate made a very high priority
of funding for public higher education.
And the Governor, the Senate, and the House each
file a separate bill.
And then we work out the differences
in a conference committee as the next stage in the process.
And you'll be happy to know that the Senate included
a significant amount of funding, in fact a little bit more
than either the House and the Governor, I believe, in total.
But together we're working to try
to maintain the momentum we have because we have the best
public education system in America,
although we do have some gaps and room for improvement.
And through the work we do here in the chamber both policy
and budget, we hope that we will continue to make progress
so we can support young people in their education
so they can become productive adults to take
their place in society as informed
voters and effective, productive people in the workforce.
So thank you for joining us today.
And we'll continue with our debate.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Why, thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
I appreciate the gentle lady's explanation.
And she's actually covered a couple of the other questions
that we have and continue to have, Mr. President.
And that is whether or not the budget
as it pends before the Senate fully
addresses all of the known obligations
that we have with regard to a number of accounts, Mr.
President, and whether or not we're
going to need some additional supplemental spending, as we
stand here today, relative to those accounts.
And certainly it seems Mr. President
that the Chairs has indicated that it
appears that the budget addresses all of those things.
But when it comes to caseload-driven kinds
of things, the difficulty in predictability makes it hard.
But Mr. President we still are concerned about some
of those other obligations.
And we could talk about that later in the debate
about things that are not funded in this budget
that we know at some point will need to be paid for.
And so we're concerned about that.
In addition, Mr. President, we have questions
and continue to have questions about the sustainability
of this budget in light of current revenue trends.
The Chair Lady has addressed that.
Mr. President.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Mr. President, while many say that I
enjoy hearing myself speak, right now
I'm the only one that can have that pleasure.
I hope you'll bring the Senate to order.
The Chair would respectfully ask all members and guests
to please subdue their conversations so
that the gentleman who is speaking may be heard.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Why, thank you, Mr. President.
So Mr. President, we know that the budget
increases spending over fiscal year 2017 by about 3.3%.
And that's a significant amount of money.
And as we have said repeatedly from Minority Crescent,
it's important to think about all
of the dimensions of budgeting and certainly it's
glamorous to be able to speak to increases and priorities
that many of us share.
But Mr. President, it's also important not
to miss opportunities to save money as well as capture
opportunities to spend money.
So I'm hoping that we can hear from the distinguished
Chair about some mechanisms that may be in this budget
to actually capture savings as we embark on spending
almost $40.8 billion.
Thank you, Mr. President.
From Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And thank you for this question because the budget includes
many initiatives for savings and cost savings initiatives.
I will highlight just a few.
Otherwise, we might be here till this evening.
Again the theme of the budget is sustaining our Commonwealth.
So we've made very conscious efforts to direct funding
to programs to sustain our children, families,
and communities.
The budget makes significant investments in the state's
early childhood education.
In fact, $15.1 million for implementing low income early
ed programs across the state.
This will be an incredible return on investment, not only
for each individual child, both as they
go through the early education, but research
shows that that helps that child for the rest
of not only their school career but into their work career.
It helps them with the other aspects of education.
And it'll help them with success for their entire future.
For the Commonwealth, that will also
translate into cost savings as these kids grow and go
through the system.
They've had early identification for maybe
some educational reading help or whatever
else that might be needed.
And that they will turn into more
productive, self-sufficient adults,
saving the Commonwealth money later on
and help have self-sufficient productive families
as they grow up.
So that is something that I think
we can all be very proud of.
We also, like last year, another example,
is we have $150,000 for a pilot program
to fund grants to low income tax clinics.
These clinics will assist low income filers
to ensure that the Commonwealth is collecting
the appropriate level of taxes and that they are also
obtaining if say they have access to the EITC,
that they have the right to collect that as well.
We also change the ratio of public defenders
to private defenders within CPCS from the 25/75 to 20/80.
A.d.
We changed it to 25/75 years ago.
And they've never been able to reach the full 25.
That just has not worked out.
So we recognize reality and this will actually
save money for recruitment and retention,
but also generate some cost savings down the line.
So again, there's many, many highlights
in lots of different areas.
The money we've invested in the workforce, the Competitiveness
Trust Fund, we have other money for TRAIN,
it's a program specifically--
it's a Senate initiative specific--
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I apologize to the gentle lady, but it
is getting difficult to hear in the chamber.
And this is important information, Mr. President.
We're talking about the parameters
of a $40 plus billion budget.
The Chair Lady is explaining critical information
about what's contained in that budget.
And I would hope that the Senate would
be brought to order so that we can all share
in hearing that information.
The gentleman's point is well-taken.
And the Chair would again respectfully ask members
if you need to engage in conversation
and certainly there is plenty for people
to be talking about with each other,
we certainly understand that given over 1,000 amendments,
we would just respectfully ask that you consider
going into the lobby or the reading room
to conduct those conversations as necessary
so that those who are in the chamber
can fully engage and hear the debate that's unfolding.
So again, I thank you for your cooperation.
And we recognize the senator from Middlesex and Norfolk,
Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And I was just ending with one last example, which
is the TRAIN program which the Senate initiated last year
and we've expanded it a little bit.
We've all been hearing that long term
unemployed are having a difficult time getting back
to work.
This program focuses on the long term unemployed working
with our community colleges and the workers in the area
to find out what skills are needed
to help get these long term unemployed folks back to work.
So it specifically targets that.
It's been successful in getting off the ground
and helping people.
So we build upon that as well.
So I would suggest that the budget
is replete with initiatives for cost savings.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
I appreciate that.
And I would suggest that the Senate
is replete with spending that we hope will produce cost savings.
So Mr. President, I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.
But we do hope during the debate to offer some other initiatives
to be able to save some dollars in addition
to those that have already been explained
and those that will be explained.
But along those same lines, Mr. President,
there are some revenue raising initiatives.
The gentle lady who is the Chair of Ways and Means
has already made reference to one, relative
to employer assessments for health insurance.
I don't think we need to revisit that at this moment.
I think there is flexibility in this budget
to be able to address that issue and to be
able to in part create a cultural shift away
from the temptation to enroll folks into Mass Health programs
that otherwise would be covered by private insurance,
and should be covered by private insurance.
So I don't think we need to discuss that any further.
But there are, Mr. President, some tax initiatives
in the budget, Mr. President.
And that's because the budget is a money bill.
I just wanted to say that again.
But Mr. President could we hopefully
have an explanation from the distinguished Chair
Lady of Ways and Means about what
some of those tax changes, those initiatives are,
and to be clear on the record, Mr. President,
whether or not they are intended to be permanent
or whether they are being initiated in response to what
is a clear revenue issue that must
be addressed in this budget and going forward.
In addition to that, Mr. President,
there are some major spending increase initiatives
in this budget.
There is the expansion of the housing court.
There is a reserve for criminal justice reform.
And Mr. President, as we've talked about so many
of the important things that are in this budget and again,
we want to continue to focus on commitments that we've already
made to things like the Foundation budget
and to things like early childhood education
and to things like ensuring that we have
appropriate housing for folks.
What is the context and, Mr. President,
what is the rationale for major expansions
in a situation where we're facing declining revenue
and in a situation where in the future
it would not be unreasonable to suggest
we may have to reduce elements in this budget.
Why do we have major expansions?
And how were they accommodated given that reality?
Thank you, Mr. President.
The Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'll try to break down your question
and go through first just a few of the tax changes or revenue
enhancers that we did in the budget.
And I again note that the Governor did some in his budget
to a tune of a little bit more than what we did.
The House, about the same.
We did the $180 million for the employer assessment
or the EMAC.
The governor did $300 million.
We did what the Governor proposed, to some extent,
on accelerating sales tax remittance for $125 million.
However, after meeting with a lot of the businesses involved
in this-- and this a one time issue,
it would raise money one time.
And I do want to mention that the employer
assessment or EMAC, we limited it to two years,
knowing that this is only a short term fix.
And I do want to note our Chair of Health Care Finance
and others are in this, on a great working group,
to lower the overall cost of health care.
We're looking at long term cost containment.
So the assessment slash EMAC would be a short term
two-year fix.
The accelerated sales tax remittance,
we added a prepayment.
The businesses said other states have done that.
And that's more workable.
So we give the governor the choice
of working with the businesses, of doing that.
We do a tax on short term rentals, which some people
refer to as the Airbnb tax.
The Governor did one proposal in his budget,
we expanded it a little bit more.
So we have that in there.
We closed the loophole on room resellers.
So, for example, hotel.com, Expedia,
and some of the other large companies
that buy hotel rooms in bulk, get a low price.
They pay tax on that.
And then they resell those rooms to folks like you
and I and others across the state.
There's no tax currently paid on the increase that they charge.
So we closed that loophole as well.
So that is some of the tax revenue enhancers that we do.
And I do want to address the housing
court and the criminal justice reform.
Housing court, I would argue, is something that we simply cannot
afford to not do.
I think about 70% of our state has access to a housing court.
And this is something that I believe
the other areas of the state should have access to as well.
Expansion is long overdue.
Its an initiative that directs residents
to the lowest cost per case trial court.
The department's helped landlords and tenants
because they have the expertise.
And they can actually successfully
dispose of cases faster because of that expertise.
So it's [INAUDIBLE] to stabilize tenancies and prevent tenants
from facing eviction and becoming
homeless and increasing our homeless population.
With the criminal justice, as we all know,
the Governor, the Speaker, and the Senate President
have done a collaboration of an initiative
with CSG, the Council on State Governments,
to do criminal justice reform.
I won't go into all of the aspects of it.
But there is an agreement for this coming fiscal year
for the branches to allocate $3.5 million
towards this reform effort.
And all of the branches are agreeing upon this amount
so that we can get that criminal justice reform going.
We believe it's the right time to enhance
our support for the criminal justice initiatives.
This will help reduce recidivism, save money
in our prisons, directing more money
towards education and other programs to reduce recidivism.
The incarceration of just one individual costs about $50,000
a year.
If we can ensure that more individuals stay out of jail,
stay out of the criminal justice system,
and continue to be productive members of our state,
the benefits would be far reaching.
So supporting the socioeconomic success
of well-being of individuals and their families,
while also lowering the state's, and by extension
our tax payer's, costs.
Thank you.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Madam President--
Mr. President rather, and to the distinguished Chair.
I appreciate the explanation.
Mr. President, again, we understand
that there is some importance to some of these issues.
But again, with regard to the housing court,
it is a particularly important court in the Commonwealth.
It does tremendous work of resolving disputes.
And criminal justice reform is also important.
We just raise the issue of expansions
when in fact we are likely looking
at reductions in this budget.
But Mr. President and through you to the distinguished Chair
Lady, one of the things that we have to get our hands around
and one of the cost drivers in this and every budget
is the cost of Medicaid or Mass Health.
So I'm hoping that the distinguished Chair
Lady can explain to us, in this particular budget, what
percentage of spending is the Mass Health program.
And along those same lines, Mr. President,
why there are savings initiatives
contained in the budget.
Because it's one of those areas that
must be addressed if we are to contain and control
state spending so that we can respond to other priorities.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
As we know, Mass Health provides services
to 1.9 million residents here in the Commonwealth,
helping ensure that health insurance coverage is not
a barrier for any of our residents,
especially our low income residents.
Mass Health's spending in this budget totals $16.714 billion.
It is approaching approximately 40%
of our budget for fiscal year 2018.
And that is why the Senate, as I mentioned previously,
is taking steps to try to lower the overall cost of health care
with the working group that we have been working--
many of the senators have been working on.
So this is something that the Senate is keeping its eye on.
We also take some steps as was mentioned
with the assessment or EMAC to tide us
through a couple of years.
But in recognition that we need to help particularly
the small businesses here, we created
in the budget a Connector public awareness campaign.
We found in meeting with some of the businesses, particularly
the small businesses, some were not
aware of the tools that were already offered
and products available through the Connector.
So we think an enhanced public awareness campaign would help.
We also create a group purchasing cooperative task
force to improve the affordability
and efficacy of group purchasing cooperatives.
That would also lower costs.
The other initiative that we do is
we direct the Connector to have a premium sharing feasibility
study.
So that would look at establishing small employer
premiums, a sharing plan for the coverage
of individuals that are eligible to be on Mass Health
where the employer could contribute
a certain amount for the eligible employees,
their eligible employees, to help pay for that.
So there's just a few-- and that again is just a few
of some of the initiatives that we have taken in this budget
to try to continue to lower the overall cost of health care.
Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the explanation.
And I do think that it's critically important that we
continue to work on controlling the cost of health care
in general, and more specifically
on trying to control our Mass Health costs because they
are important.
It's important that we deliver coverage
and that we ensure health care coverage.
But it's also important that we're
expanding its availability, we ensure that it does not,
by virtue of its cost requirements,
devour other available resources that could
be spent on other things.
Mr. President, the distinguished Chair Lady of Ways and Means
has answered a variety of very complex questions.
And I appreciate those answers.
And not only the answers, but the knowledge and the focus
that enables her to provide them.
But now, Mr. President, perhaps the most difficult question
of all, and I'm hoping to test her expertise
and since has done so well in providing us with information
on other things.
Mr. President, I'm hoping she can tell us,
can the Boston Celtics win the NBA Championship.
The chair recognizes the senator from Middlesex and Norfolk.
In trying to get out my crystal ball,
I would remind the leader of a score
of a somewhat recent, famous in our parts, football game
earlier this year.
28 to 3.
And simply suggest that in Boston
and in Massachusetts, anything is possible.
The senator from Middlesex wants to talk.
I so appreciate that answer, because whether it's 28 to 3,
or two games to one, or 33 to 6, anything
can happen in Massachusetts, and we hope
that it will in this budget.
So Mr. President, I appreciate the explanation.
I would just take a moment to explain
part of why we're concerned.
Mr. President, we know that there
is an agreement on consensus revenue,
but we also know that situations are changing,
and that revenue trends are concerning with regard
to supporting that consensus.
And so we want to ensure in Minority Crescent
that at some point we don't engage in concealment
by consensus, and that we actually acknowledge
that there is a problem.
And Mr. President, we have been hard at work
in the Minority Print Shop, and this chart
comes to us from the Minority Innovation Chamber.
And it is a very simple one, given some of the other charts
that we may be sharing.
Mr. President, you don't need the calculator yet.
This one's very easy.
So we can make this available, and Mr. President, it
will be available in framed version
after the budget debate.
For those that would like one for their home or office,
they also make wonderful holiday gifts.
But Mr. President, this very simple chart
indicates on the bottom line state revenues.
And this is starting in 2009, and moving forward till 2017,
and then projecting 2018.
And then, Mr. President, looking at spending
in those same parameters.
And you can see--
and for those members that might like to see it,
I'm turning this way.
I know that you're being distracted,
but I think this is important.
And so Mr. President, this indicates the delta
of spending versus revenue.
And this is not something, Mr. President,
that has happened in the last year.
It is something that continues to be concerning,
and it is why we oftentimes try to reiterate the point over
and again about the need to initiate
important cost-saving measures, as well as noble spending
measures to respond to priorities that many of us
share.
Mr. President, again, the chart will be going away here
momentarily, but it will be available for inspection
throughout the debate upon request.
Mr. President, I'm not sure if folks can see it
in the gallery, so I'll just tilt it back
a little bit if you happen to be in the right gallery
so that you can see it.
And so I raise this, Mr. President, as a point
that we need to be concerned about the level
of our spending, and the rate of our spending.
And particularly, Mr. President, it's
important to note that we have issues, perhaps,
on both sides of spending, discretionary and
non-discretionary spending.
And that's why it's important to bear that in mind
as we begin this debate.
And I know that the chairlady of Ways and Means
understands that.
I know that she's tried to program in some savings
initiatives.
We plan to offer some more, because Mr. President,
we cannot continue on that path.
And I know, Mr. President, that there
are some who think that we can take a magic marker
and connect those lines by imposing
a surtax on a particularly small but significant group
of taxpayers in the Commonwealth within the next several months
through another initiative.
But Mr. President, I would suggest to you
that that chart suggests the fundamental problem
that we have that needs to be addressed,
and that we need to consider as we take up this budget.
The budget that pends before us now before the Senate
as a result of the good work of the Committee on Ways
and Means, again, includes many important things.
And I'm going to call attention, again, to the Foundation Budget
Review Commission, which was an important initiative that
took many years even to happen, Mr. President.
That review was supposed to start shortly
after we originally passed the Education Reform Act of 1993.
And but for the extraordinary work
of people in this chamber who were
passionate and committed to getting the Foundation Budget
Review Commission reorganized and revitalized,
we would not even be able to talk about some
of the recommendations that are in this budget.
Fortunately, we are.
We think we can improve upon some of the things
that are done, but that is not to say that we should not
recognize the fact that the budget--
Mr. President, we were talking about basketball
a few moments ago.
I know that you were referring to baseball on the rostrum,
but basketball, it's the one with the hoop.
So at any rate, Madam President--
Mr. President--
We started in Springfield, right?
We're all over the board here.
But Mr. President, I think it's important to recognize
that we do have things like the Foundation Budget Review
Commission.
We do have funding for a number of important priorities.
But as we move forward with those,
we need to ensure that at some point in the future,
our commitment to those will not be compromised
by a fiscal situation that raises a red flag of caution
for all of us to consider.
As we move through this debate, we
plan to offer a number of initiatives that will
try to help address that issue.
And we do so not because we think
that the Senate Committee on Ways and Means
is unsympathetic to that goal.
Quite the contrary.
We do so because we know the Senate Committee on Ways
and Means and its chair are interested in pursuing
reasonable cost-savings initiatives.
And we hope that we can meet in the middle
and be able to include some of those additional items
into this budget as we move forward.
And Mr. President, as the budget moves
forward toward what I would consider to be somewhat
of an uncertain future--
not through the making of folks in this chamber,
but as a result of the climate that we face.
Which presents us with many vexing challenges.
Particularly as we-- and it's been
referred to by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Particularly as we experience, in terms of unemployment rates
and other indicators, a robust economic recovery.
But Mr. President, we are not seeing
the kind of consensus revenue that
has been projected as a result of that recovery.
It is a fundamental issue, and we
raise it to ensure that it is in the minds of all of us
as we continue to debate this very challenging budget.
We raise it not as a derogation.
We raise it not as a criticism.
We raise it as a point of deep concern.
And we raise it because we know others share it,
and that we will hopefully have debate
that resonates with that very sobering reality
about the situation that we're in.
So Mr. President, we look forward to the debate,
and we look forward to the several amendments.
I believe we have over 1,000, Mr. President,
and I will accept responsibility for my share of those.
But we look forward to the debate.
Thank you, Mr. President.
[AUDIO OUT] have been presented, which we will
begin to debate at this time.
But first, offered by the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr,
number 1 is on hold.
The same senator offers number 2, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 2 by Mr. Tarr, Senior Citizen Property Tax
Relief.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Mr. President, we have a long way to go,
and I hope to lighten the load by requesting
unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment.
Gentleman asks consent to withdraw the amendment.
Is there an objection?
The chair hears none.
It is so ordered.
Amendment number 3, offered by the same senator, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 3 by Mr. Tarr, Expanding the Mandated Reported
Definition.
Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through to the members.
Mr. President, this is a very straightforward matter
to expand the definition of who in the Commonwealth
is a mandated reporter with regard to neglect or child
abuse.
So Mr. President, we all know that certain professionals,
medical, law enforcement, education, and mental health,
are mandated reporters.
And if abuse or neglect of a child is suspected or detected,
those reporters are required to file
a report about that suspicion with the Department of Children
and Families.
So Mr. President, this amendment adds a new outside section
to the budget, expanding those mandated reporters
to include public and private school employees, people
who care or work for a child in any public or private child
care facility, volunteers who regularly work with children
as part of a team or organization,
and people who are contracted for landscaping
for public or private school, and employees
of the Commonwealth.
Importantly, Mr. President, this definition
does not include those who are under the age of 18, who
might be in those positions as a result of their affiliation
with a team or an organization.
And Mr. President, the amendment also
requires that designated mandated reporters
are required to take child sexual abuse training,
as determined by the Office of the Child
Advocate and the Inter-agency Child Care Welfare Task Force.
And Mr. President, I would point out that something in addition
to this budget debate is happening in this chamber
and in this building today, or in this building.
And that is, it's the 17th annual Massachusetts Missing
Children's Day.
And it is occurring downstairs, and we
want to make sure, Mr. President, as we remember
missing children in the Commonwealth,
and remember the many cases, the tragic cases that we have
experienced, that we're doing all within our power to prevent
those cases from occurring.
And to ensure that we have appropriate reporting
mechanisms.
Mr. President, I hope the amendment is adopted.
[INAUDIBLE] comes on the amendment, the senator
from Essex, Ms. Lovely.
[AUDIO OUT] the gentleman from Essex
for filing this amendment.
I actually have a similar bill that I have filed on childhood
sexual abuse prevention.
I think any method that we can do
to prevent the sexual abuse of children, whether it's
through the budget process or through legislation,
is absolutely necessary.
And I want to thank the gentleman
for filing this amendment.
Thank you.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 4 is on hold.
Number 5 offered by the senator from Middlesex and Norfolk,
Ms. Creem.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 5 by Ms. Creem, Seasonal Camp Counselors
and Counselor Trainees.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Well, well, well, Mr. President.
This amendment comes to us by way
of the chamber's perhaps foremost expert on the Uniform
Commercial Code.
But she has spread her wings to another important area,
and I'm hoping that we can hear an explanation
of this particular amendment.
Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Creem.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you
to the minority leader.
From the UCC to the wage laws, thank you very much.
So this amendment is simple.
It clarifies language contained in the 2014 Minimum Wage Law
that we passed to provide for a clear exemption
in the case of camp counselors
Both past chairs of the committee which crafted the law
indicated in letters to the Department of Labor Standards
that the intent was to create a full-time exemption for camp
counselors.
We all know, whether we were camp counselors,
or our kids were happy they have-- doing something,
and they're getting something, if anything,
for their summertime.
This interpretation was also reported by previous director
of the department.
However, because the language is unclear,
current counselors at DLS have indicated
that a strict interpretation of the language
does not support the full exemption.
This is an important issue for summer camps,
which are gearing up for hiring for the upcoming summer.
Most of whom had budgeted under the previous interpretation
of a full exemption.
It is my recollection of the past debate
that a full exemption for camp was intended.
I remember that I thought we voted that,
and that this was the case.
So I would ask your support for this amendment,
to make our intent as clear as possible.
Thank you.
Question of adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor-- ah.
The chair recognizes that the senator from Plymouth
and Barnstable, Mr. DeMacedo, wishes to speak on the matter.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Appreciate the opportunity, and thank you to the senator
for bringing this issue up.
I think that clearly that was the intention
of this legislature in trying to address the needs,
and also be responsive to our many summer
camps, the YMCA, and the whole others that provide
such an important and needed respite for so
many young people around the Commonwealth.
And we're thrilled about that.
But to that point, I think that I just
want to make a point that I support this.
But I also want to make a point that there's reasons
that we have exemptions.
Because they make sense.
And there are other opportunities
that I think that we can do to make sense in regards
to the issue of minimum wage, because there are certain--
often times, people that go into the minimum wage
are individuals that are just learning.
A training wage that they can just learn
for a short window of time.
Because not everybody is at a living wage
trying to take care of and support a family.
So as we address this exemption, congratulations.
It makes a ton of sense, and I will support it.
But I also want to make the point now,
since we are discussing it, that we
have to consider this as we look at the whole Minimum Wage Law
as a whole.
Because there are other exemptions
that we might do that would help young people
get into the system, and be able to have a job where they
otherwise wouldn't have a job.
We want to create opportunities for employment.
And especially for those younger kids
that just want a short-term job, the first job
that they're ever going to get.
Create a training wage.
So with that, I just want to congratulate you
for taking this on, and to also highlight an opportunity
that I'm sure we're going to be addressing
this issue in the future, and highlight why it's always
necessary.
So thank you very much for the [INAUDIBLE]..
Now the question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 6 is on hold.
Number 7 is offered by the senator from Essex
and Middlesex, Ms. L'Italien, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 7 by Ms. L'Italien,
LGBT Aging Commission Reporting Technical Amendment.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Why thank you, Mr. President.
This is the First Amendment that we've
seen from the gentle lady from the Merrimack Valley,
and I'm hoping that we can get one of her usual sterling
explanations of what it contains.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex, Ms. L'Italien.
Thank you, Mr. President.
As chair of Elder Affairs, the LGBT Aging Commission
falls under my jurisdiction.
The group that meets on a regular basis
had asked that we change their requirement from annually
to every two years.
They feel that they'd be better served
by reporting every two years, by December 31 on even years.
But should we want them to file more often,
they would certainly be able to do that.
But they feel this would be sufficient.
Question comes an adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The next offered by the same senator
from Essex and Middlesex, the title of which
the clerk will read.
Amendment number 8 by Ms. L'Italien, LGBT Awareness
Training for Aging Services Providers.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye."
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 9 is on hold.
Number 10 is offered by the senator from Essex
and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr, is also on hold.
And we are now on number 11, offered
by the same senator, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 11 by Mr. Tarr, Room Occupancy Tax
Modernization.
The question comes on the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I move the Senate be in a brief recess.
The Senate will be in a brief recess.
Thank you, Mr. President, I know that a number of members
have not had an opportunity yet to make reservations,
and so I move that this amendment be temporarily held.
The gentleman asks that amendment number 11 be held.
We're now on amendment number 12,
offered by the same senator, and the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 12 by Mr. Tarr, Restoring the Income Tax to 5%.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Well, well, well, Mr. President.
We had in a discussion earlier, and I
think it's important that that discussion be on the record,
relative to when tax increases are intended
to be temporary or permanent.
And the subject of the instant tax measure
was in 1989 described as a temporary 18-month tax
increase of the income tax.
Well, Mr. President, 16 years later,
as opposed to 16 months later, the income tax
had not been reduced to its original 5%.
And the voters decided to act.
And Mr. President, that happened in 2000, and the voters
once again said, yes, this was intended
to be a temporary measure, and it should
be-- the rate should be 5%.
Well, lo and behold, Mr. President,
after the 2003 requirement for that, there was a freeze.
And Mr. President, it has been a very, very slow thawing period
to unfreeze that reduction.
And so Mr. President, this simple amendment
would reduce the tax in two predictable and logical
decreases, from 5.1 to 5.0 in January 2018.
And finally, to 5% in January 2019.
So Mr. President, we are engaged in a budget that has
historic high spending rates.
We are initiating a number of new programs.
And it seems that we, once again,
tend to forget some of the dimensions of budgeting.
And that is some relief for the people who pay the bills.
And so Mr. President, we offer this amendment to remind us
all that we tend to pay, and should pay, more
particularized attention to the will of the voters.
We have not acted on that will, Mr. President.
The tax rate is not what they have mandated.
This amendment is an attempt to remind us of that.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The senator from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
[INAUDIBLE] point of information.
[INAUDIBLE]
Mr. President, I'd like to know the reduction in revenues
this amendment would cost the Commonwealth if passed.
The gentleman requests a point of information
requesting that we know the number associated
with this reduction.
The chair recognizes the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the question.
We are calculating the precise amount of that right now.
And Mr. President, we are going to particularly calculate
that and reflect upon the spending increases that
are contained in this budget.
And surely, the amount of reduction
in the income tax that would be occasioned by this amendment
is less than that amount.
But the member who asked this question
deserves a precise answer.
We will develop that answer.
And Mr. President, I move that the amendment
be temporarily held.
The gentleman asks that the amendment
be held for providing time for research.
The chair recognizes the senator from Middlesex and Worcester,
Mr. Eldridge.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent
to make a brief statement.
The gentlemen asks unanimous consent
to make a brief statement.
Is there an objection?
The chair hears none.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I understand a minority leader has withdrawn his amendments.
From a back of the envelope calculation
I have made, each time we reduce our interest rate by 0.05%,
it's about $100 million reduction in revenue.
So if I'm not mistaken, and I do want
to have my own staff do the analysis,
this amendment, if passed, over two years
would reduce revenue for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
by over $200 million, at a time when we're already
facing a structural deficit.
Mr. President!
Ah, the chair recognizes the senator from--
not having previously spoken, the chair recognizes--
Point of parliamentary procedure, Mr. President.
One moment.
I have to recognize you.
[INAUDIBLE]
The senator from Worcester and Norfolk, Mr. Fattman.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Point of parliamentary inquiry.
Gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry.
My question is, was the amendment withdrawn, or was it
temporarily put on hold?
The amendment was put on hold, not withdrawn.
The chair recognizes the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
And Mr. President, first of all, we
did not withdraw the amendment.
And that will enable us to have the opportunity
to discuss this further so that we can further
verify the information that's been presented
by my good friend from--
I guess we would call it the Metro West Region.
And Mr. President, I would suggest this.
If his information is correct, that it's a $200 million
reduction, then we have to ask ourselves,
as he pointed out, if we're in a time
of tremendous fiscal constraint, then
why the budget increases by 3.3%?
That's a lot more than $200 million.
So Mr. President, that's without a decrease in taxation.
It begs the very question about what we
are doing here in this chamber.
Mr. President, I hope that we get an answer very shortly,
and I move the amendment be held.
And also the next amendment as well, Mr. President.
[INAUDIBLE] amendment number 13 also be held,
and now we're on amendment number 14,
authored by the Senate from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 14 by Mr. Tarr, Post-Employment Benefits Review
Commission.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, we know that one of the things that
has been a serious challenge, not only for state government,
for cities and towns, is the requirement
that was enacted a number of years ago for governments
to carry on their balance sheet the cost
of other post-employment benefits.
Creating a liability, because those had not been necessarily
funded in advance.
So Mr. President, this is an amendment
to create a commission to look at ways to try
to address that to be able to help municipalities, as well
as state government.
I hope the amendment is adopted.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 15, offered by the same senator, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 15 by Mr. Tarr, 2017 Sales Tax Holiday.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you.
You've preempted me.
Mr. President, you were always ahead of the curve,
and it's proving itself here again today.
[INAUDIBLE]
Mr. President, once again, this amendment
would require there be a sales tax holiday in mid-August.
We are spending 40-plus billion dollars.
This amendment, I believe, would cost somewhere in the range--
if we consider it a cost, which is an interesting idea.
Would require us to forego about $20 million
in revenue to help the average person be able to do things,
like buy school supplies for their kids
before they return to school in the fall.
I hope the amendment is adopted.
Question comes on the adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 16 is offered by the senator
from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 16 by Mr. Eldridge, Earned Income Tax
Credit.
The chair recognizes the senator from Middlesex and Worcester,
Mr. Eldridge.
Mr. President [AUDIO OUT] the Earned Income Tax Credit,
one of the most powerful anti-poverty tools
we have in our hands in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and across the country, to 30% of the federal EITC.
The amendment also requires the Department of Revenue
to administer an outreach program
to make sure that EITC-eligible taxpayers are
aware of the tax credit.
There are literally hundreds of thousands
of residents, Mr. President, that
do not know that they are eligible for the Earned Income
Tax Credit.
And I want to emphasize this is for people who are working.
This is for working families.
I want to thank Chairwoman [?
Skilker ?] for including in the budget a crucial reform
to the EITC, assisting victims of domestic violence
by allowing married filers who are living apart from
their spouse due to domestic abuse to claim the credit.
I want to thank her for her compassion
for putting that into the Senate Ways and Means Budget.
And of course, two years ago, Mr. President,
we expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit
from 15% of the federal EITC to 23%, where it is now.
So what this amendment is looking to do
is increasing it by another 7%.
It would cost approximately $70 million.
Mr. President, we live in a state that has the 45th highest
level of inequality, according to the U.S. News & World
Report.
This is unacceptable in a commonwealth
where the economy is booming in many parts of the state,
and yet, there are many other parts of the Commonwealth
where families are struggling.
Obviously, here in Massachusetts,
we have high housing costs.
We have high energy costs.
High property taxes.
And this is a measure to provide some tax
relief to hardworking families across Massachusetts.
The benefit of the EITC is also that this money,
unlike some of the corporate welfare we give out
across the Commonwealth, is money that more often than not
is spent locally.
So if a family receives a check, a tax refund
through filing with EITC in the tax filing season,
they're going to use that money to pay for local costs.
Whether it's health care costs, rent, or local needs
they have to provide for their families.
Specifically, this amendment would
provide for a family of four an average of a $400 credit.
That's a credit that will make a difference,
even if it's a small amount, in the difference for families
across Massachusetts.
Now, I mentioned the bill also includes language
that asks the Department of Revenue
to engage in an aggressive and comprehensive EITC promotion.
This would make sure that families that may not
know that they're eligible for the EITC know about it,
and apply to get that full EITC.
I am very proud of the efforts the Senate has advanced
over the past several years to assist
those who are less well-off.
Many of those provisions are already
in the Senate Ways and Means Budget we're debating.
But the reality is that we're not
doing enough to help the working poor in Massachusetts.
These are families in each of our communities,
and yet we're not doing much in this budget, or outside
of the budget, to assist working poor families.
So I urge my colleagues to support
this expansion of the EITC.
It has generally been a bipartisan effort,
and so I urge my colleagues to support
this important expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Thank you.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Worcester and Norfolk, Mr. Fattman.
Point of inquiry.
Mr. President.
To the gentleman from Middlesex, Worcester, and--
That's it.
OK, Middlesex and Worcester.
Thank you.
You had mentioned the cost of-- let
me begin by thanking the gentleman for his big heart.
I think that the program is worthwhile.
He mentioned $70 million that it would cost for this expansion.
Is that correct?
Yes.
What about the role of the Department of Revenue?
How much will it cost them to promote the program,
and what additional cost might that add to the program?
Has it ever been done?
Just would like to have an answer to that question,
please.
[AUDIO OUT] from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
Thank you.
I thank the gentleman from Sutton for his question.
I do not know the exact cost for the DOR
to run an aggressive outreach campaign for the EITC expansion
that I filed.
However, I think it's fair to accept or suggest
that it would be a very modest cost,
because we're talking about an effort these days
through online, through social media,
through, perhaps, a modest advertising campaign.
To state agencies where, more often than not,
working poor families are already interacting.
So that they know about the EITC.
We also have a robust number of non-profits
throughout Massachusetts that help residents
apply for the EITC.
So those, of course, have some state funding.
But often, they raise money on their own.
And so my opinion is it would be a rather small amount of money
that would literally help hundreds of thousands
of families across Massachusetts.
And again, the average increase for a family of four
to expand the EITC would be about $400
above what they currently receive.
So I think for whatever investment
it'd take for the Department of Revenue to administer,
perhaps, this expanded program, it is minor
compared to the benefit to hundreds of thousands
of families across Massachusetts.
[INAUDIBLE]
[AUDIO OUT] Senator from Plymouth and Barnstable,
Mr. DeMacedo.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And again to the gentleman from Acton,
in light of your previous question to the gentleman
in regards to his addressing another previous amendment,
you asked a question of cost.
And so you've addressed the $70 million cost.
I guess the question is, in light
of the financial situation I think that we all
face, that we all know that we're in right now,
and we understand that a 3.3% increase in a budget
is a tall order.
We're trying to figure that out at this particular juncture.
And I stood with you and supported last time
when we went from 15 to 23%.
We understand that, so I don't want
to make a point of that it's wrong to try.
But the reality is, I guess I'm asking the question, how would
you justify the expenditure?
In the sense of, how are we going
to pay for that $70 million?
Because from what we can tell at this particular juncture,
we don't necessarily have an extra $70 million dollars
at this point to expend.
And so I'm certain that you have the answer to that,
and that's what I'm trying to understand.
Because I understand the concept.
We, as you said, bipartisan supported it in the past.
However, this is a different budget cycle
that we're in right now, and it seems
to be a very tight fiscal budget cycle.
So to that extent, I would love to hear the gentleman
from Acton's response on how we're going
to afford the $70 million.
The senator from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the question from the Plymouth,
and I do pride myself in filing many amendments to increase
the bottom line to the budget.
By more often than not, also filing proposals
to raise revenue.
And in this budget, I have actually filed amendment 23.
That would close the single sales
factor corporate tax loophole for the mutual fund
industry for companies like Fidelity Investments.
The estimate is that this would raise about $143 million
for FY18, and it has cost the Commonwealth,
according to the Department of Revenue, $155 million in FY17.
So since we're halfway through the fiscal year, this amendment
that I have filed, and will hopefully later debate,
conveniently matches with the expansion of the EITC by 7%,
by a round of $70 million.
And I think this is an important point
that, perhaps, Republicans and Democrats will have today
and throughout the debate, is where
do we want to see the cutting or raising of taxes.
What is truly a fair tax system?
And are we truly investing in our communities properly?
I would submit that a 20-year-old tax cut
for some of the wealthiest corporations in this country,
serving often the wealthiest families
in this country and the world, is not the best
use of our taxpayer dollars.
And I'd rather see that money spent
to expand the EITC for hardworking families
across Massachusetts who will use that tax credit to spend
money in their own communities, benefiting the general economy.
Compared to a tax break for a very large corporation.
[INAUDIBLE]
The senator from Middlesex, Ms. Jehlen,
not having previously spoken.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm so grateful to the gentleman from Plymouth
for being fiscally responsible, and asking that when
we propose a tax cut, that we propose offsetting
cuts in expenditures.
And I am expecting to hear that when
there are proposals from the Minority
section about other tax cuts.
But I also want to appreciate the gentleman from Acton
for proposing offsetting tax cuts and tax restorations.
The reason this one is important is
because many of our constituents are
worried about the effect of decisions in Washington
on the people of the Commonwealth.
And the president has proposed cutting the Earned Income Tax
Credit, which would hurt the poorest working
people in Massachusetts, and across the country.
And he has proposed lowering taxes
for corporations and the wealthiest people
in the country.
So these two proposals taken together
offset some of the damage that may come to us from decisions
in Washington.
So I support strongly the work of the gentleman from Acton,
and hope that we will favorably consider
both of his suggestions.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable, Mr. De--
I'm sorry, from Norfolk.
Mr. Fattman.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The gentleman from Middlesex and Worcester
had pointed out that the Earned Income Tax
Credit will help hundreds of thousands of families,
and I agree with that.
But what I would also suggest is that when
people voted to reduce the income tax down to 5%,
that also would help hundreds of thousands
of working families across our commonwealth.
Providing more disposable income for them
and their families to decide how they would spend that money.
And it was not just merely a suggestion when
they voted on it in the ballot.
It was a mandate.
And it was 60% of this Commonwealth plus
that voted for it, and we have waited 18 years.
And so I think when we talk about issues of fairness
in our tax code, let's go back to 2000, when people voted.
Their will should not just be heard by this body,
it should be heeded.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 17, offered by the senator
from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 17 by Mr. O'Connor,
Southfield Redevelopment Authority Bond Technical
Correction.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor.
Mr. President, thank you, and through you to the membership.
And I want to thank my partner in the project at Union Point,
John Keenan, Senator Keenan.
This amendment is very straightforward.
It essentially allows for a series of 2010A bonds
to be reissued.
The structure of the Southfield Redevelopment Authority
as such, where the towns of Weymouth, Rockland,
and Abington had full control when it was a former South
Shore tri-town development corporation--
excuse me.
Enabling legislation changed that in 2014,
and left the bond with $600,000 still remaining in it.
This bill would allow for this bond
to be spent for public purposes at this development.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Norfolk and Plymouth, Mr. Keenan.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to thank my colleague from Weymouth
for his lead on this.
The Union Point Development is obviously a big development.
Many of the senators here are familiar with it,
having visited the location.
They've made great progress over the last several years
in developing that old Naval site there,
and there's great hope for what may come.
One of the things that they need is the ability
to continue on with their financing programs.
And this enabling legislation that
was passed a couple years ago allowed
for them to put out bonds, but said
that they could not necessarily, after a certain date,
use ad valorem property taxes to fund those bonds.
What this does is say that in cases
of re-issuing or refunding bonds,
that language doesn't necessarily apply.
So it is critical that the base, or that
the developer of the base, have this flexibility to continue on
with their development program.
So again, I want to thank my colleague for his great work
in moving this forward.
And I think it bodes well for the development
of that particular site and its impact
upon the regional economy.
I urge your favorable action.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Number 18, offered by the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 18 by Mr. Tarr, Super Research
and Development Tax Credit.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 19, offered by the senator from Plymouth
and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 19 by Mr. O'Connor, Home
of Senator Daniel Webster and Governor Winslow.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 20, offered by the senator
from Norfolk and Plymouth, Mr. Keenan.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 20 by Mr. Keenan, Commuter Transit
Benefits.
The senator from Norfolk and Plymouth, Mr. Keenan.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'll make this as brief as possible.
What happened back in 2005 was that there
was a change in the federal code that
had to do with Commuter Tax Benefits.
And it established commuter tax benefits
for those who drive and park at their places of employment,
those who take public transportation,
and also there was a provision in there for those
that may go by bicycle.
Our tax code here in Massachusetts
does not match that of the federal government.
So what we have is a difference in the pretax commuter
benefit that's available to the residents of Massachusetts.
For instance, in the area of public transportation
in particular, those that go to work by public transit,
the Federal Credit is $255, which
matches the Parking Credit.
But here in Massachusetts, our Public Transit Credit
is only $130.
So rather than incentivize people
to use public transportation, we're giving them an incentive
to drive to work and to park, because the commuter
tax benefit for that particular mode of transportation
and the parking associated with it is greater.
What this amendment does would equalize our tax code
with the federal government's tax code.
So it would raise our Parking Credit
to match the federal government's Parking
Credit of $255.
Additionally, this amendment would add a credit of $20
for those who are commuting to work by bike.
The purpose behind that is to incentivize
people to use that mode of transportation to access work.
This amendment would also tie future increases
to that, which happens at the federal level.
So that we do not have to keep coming back and trying
to play catch up.
If the federal commuter tax benefit increases,
our state commuter tax benefit would increase.
This is a benefit, obviously, to commuters of all types.
And it's also a benefit to employees,
because it is a program that they
can offer an incentive they can offer to their employees.
And in the instances where it affects parking
and public transportation, because those would now
match the Federal Credit, it would be much easier
administratively for the employer
to provide those credits, and make sure that they make sure--
provide for the proper accounting of those benefits.
So I think this is a pro-commuter tax credit.
It is one that certainly is pro-commuter,
in the sense that it's encouraging people
to use public transportation.
It's also pro-employee, because it
makes their administrative burden much less.
So I would urge favorable passage on this, Mr. President.
Thank you.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor,
offers an amendment, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 21 by Mr. O'Connor.
Conductive Concrete Study.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr O'Connor.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Through you to the membership.
This is an amendment that would call
for the University of Massachusetts,
one of the schools of engineering,
to conduct a feasibility study for the benefits
of conductive concrete.
Conductive concrete is a relatively new invention
from Christopher Tuan at the University of Nebraska
at Lincoln.
And essentially, what this conductive concrete
does is it takes regular concrete,
includes with it steel shavings and carbon powder,
which make up about 20% of the entire mixture,
to then essentially allow this concrete to heat
with 48 volts of electricity.
Which is below the standard that is
set as far as for inspection.
These 48-volt batteries are connected to a 220-volt source,
and this source can then heat this concrete between 35 and 55
degrees.
This has been studied in multiple areas.
There's five patents in five different countries.
The individual who created this, again, Christopher Tuan,
I talked to him on the phone recently and told him
I was filing this amendment.
And he was thrilled not only to get the call that this
is going to get some momentum, but to get
the call from Massachusetts.
And being such an innovative state
that we are, that this is something that he thought
could bring tremendous benefit to the Commonwealth.
The current installation of it in
a 30-foot long, 7-foot wide bridge that they have
costs an average of $3 a day.
This electricity can also be turned off.
So what they're doing right now in Nebraska
is turning this on about three hours
prior to a storm happening.
And the bridges which they primarily
put these on do not freeze, do not ice.
Therefore, there's not an opportunity for the salt
that we currently use, which is not good for our roadways.
Massachusetts set aside $40 million--
just the financial impact of this.
They set aside $40 million in 2014 to fix potholes.
An average motorist spends $539 a year
driving on roads in needs a repair.
And salt and de-icing chemicals used on roadways corrode
concrete, and they also cause serious negative impacts
on our environment.
And again, this isn't to go forward with anything drastic.
This is just to say to one of our great schools
of engineering at the University of Massachusetts,
let's look into this.
Let's see if this could be a cost-saver to the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
And also, let's see if this can be
something that's going to be beneficial to our environment.
I hope this amendment passes.
The chair understands that there's
a request been made to put this amendment on hold.
Number 22, offered by the senator from Essex, Ms. Lovely.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 22 by Ms. Lovely, Taxation of Cider.
Question comes on the amendment.
The Senator from Essex, Ms. Lovely.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Last year, I was contacted by a local cidery in my district,
Far From the Tree Cider, about the taxation of hard cider.
And I learned that there are 22 cideries
and cider-producing breweries across the Commonwealth,
and that hard cider is the fastest-growing segment
of the alcohol market.
Currently, Massachusetts law caps the cider tax rate
at 6% alcohol by weight.
Above 6%, cider is taxed as a sparkling wine
at a much higher rate.
Cider with an alcohol by weight between 3% and 6% is taxed
at $0.03 per gallon, while champagne and other sparkling
wines, including ciders above 6%,
are taxed at $0.70 per gallon.
Alcohol content for hard cider is
closer to that of a beer or malt than it
is to a sparkling wine, which has a much higher alcohol
per volume level of 12% to 15%.
So for these reasons, the Federal Congress
passed the Cider Act of 2016.
The Cider Act increases the alcohol
by volume limit for alcoholic cider to 8.5%,
in order to more accurately reflect
the natural fermentation process of apples.
That act went into effect on December 31st of 2016.
And this amendment will bring Massachusetts in line
the federal definition of hard cider
by amending the Mass General Law to increase the minimum alcohol
level for alcoholic cider to up to 8.5%.
This will support a growing hard cider
industry in our Commonwealth, and I
hope the amendment is adopted.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Very good.
Question of adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say "aye".
Opposed, "no."
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 23, offered by the senator
from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
The title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 23 by Mr. Eldridge,
Closing the Single Sales Factor Tax Loophole.
Senator from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
Mr. President, we wish to unanimously request
withdrawal of the amendment.
[INAUDIBLE] unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Is there an objection?
The chair hears none.
It is so ordered.
The senator from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
I'd like to unanimously request permission
to make a brief statement.
Consent to make a brief statement.
Is there an objection?
The chair hears none.
The senator from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The amendment that I had filed and just withdrew
would have closed the single sales
factor for the mutual fund industry, companies
like Fidelity Investments.
And really, this is the beginning
of a conversation where we're making
some progress in this budget on the appropriateness
of continuing with the corporate tax credits that have passed,
especially over the past 20 years.
Mr. President, there's a report that we all
received from the Mass Budget and Policy Center May
10th, The Growing Cost of Special Business Tax Break
Spending.
And I want to highlight that between 1996 and 2018,
the tax breaks for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
have risen from $370 million in fiscal year '96
to about $1 billion in fiscal year 2013.
Exactly the number that our structural budget deficit
was before our April tax numbers came in, adding to the deficit.
Mr. President, I think it's time for us
to revisit whether we can continue to pay
for these corporate tax breaks.
And I want to thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership,
and the leadership of colleagues,
in supporting tax expenditure commissions
in previous budgets, previous jobs
bills over the past session, that unfortunately did not
become law.
But it's important to emphasize that if we're
really serious about investing in our communities,
if we're serious about all the amendments that we have all
filed to benefit our districts, to benefit people struggling
with accessing housing, to protecting the environment,
and to needing social services, we're
going to need to have a conversation about closing
corporate tax loopholes.
Now, there is conversation about what the legislature could pass
this session through the Mass Fair Share Amendment,
and the voters could pass next year
that would raise, perhaps, about $2 billion in revenue
for the state.
But the reality, Mr. President, is that money essentially
has a commitment to being used for transportation or education
costs.
For those of us that care deeply about the environment,
about human services, about making sure
that the investments are made in every single one
of our communities to oppose and stop poverty,
we're going to have to raise more revenue.
And what I would say, Mr. President,
is that there are few better places
to look at to find that revenue than the corporate tax
breaks that we have picked and choosed for the past 20 years
to very specific corporations.
Now, the amendment that I filed to close
the singles sales factor tax loophole for the mutual fund
industry eliminates paying tax on the profits of products
sold out-of-state by companies that exist in Massachusetts.
A small estimate, and I passed out a handout,
is that if a multi-state company makes $1 billion
in total profits nationally, and 20% of those profits
are in Massachusetts, before 1996,
they would pay approximately $95 million
in corporate excise tax.
After 1996 changed, they would pay about $20 million
in corporate excise tax.
So you can think about the scale, Mr. President,
about the revenue that we're losing.
Now, this is a particularly outrageous corporate tax break
because of the behavior of the corporation.
This tax break was passed in 1996
with a promise by Fidelity Investments
that they would maintain the number of jobs
they had in Massachusetts.
At the time, it was about 10,000 people working at Fidelity.
And part of that tax cut was a promise by Fidelity
to keep that job workforce at 10,000 people for five years.
Well, Mr. President, guess what happened in 2001?
Fidelity Investments started shedding jobs,
either laying people off, or sending jobs to other states.
So that now, Mr. President, you have a workforce
at Fidelity of around 5,000 people.
But Fidelity Investments continues
to receive this tax break.
Last year, it cost us about $155 million,
and it's estimated that this would
cost about $143 million dollars for the Commonwealth.
So at a time when we're facing the fact that we're not
funding our education system well enough, that entities
like the DP have lost a third of their workforce
over the past 10 years, when we clearly
have an inadequate transportation system,
I would submit that it's time to look at corporate tax breaks
like the single sales factor for the mutual fund industry.
Now, Mr. President, we have the added concern,
which has already been touched upon today,
of federal budget cuts coming down to impact Massachusetts.
And at a briefing that some senators received
in Washington, DC, by the Mass Budget and Policy Center,
we know that about 25% of our state budget
is backed up by federal taxpayer dollars.
So whether the Trump budget passes,
which has just been proposed this week,
or whether Republicans in Congress
pass their own version of the budget,
we know that cuts are going to happen in Massachusetts.
We know there's going to be cuts to Medicaid, to housing,
to the EPA, to human services.
And that is going to make our job all the more difficult,
not only to balance the budget, but making
sure the investments that we have committed to
in this budget are sustained.
So Mr. President, I urge in the future
that we strongly consider eliminating
the single-sales factor for the mutual fund industry.
I want to thank you, as well as the Chairwoman of Ways
and Means, for putting into this budget
a Tax Economic Development Commission that reviews,
under our auditor, all of the corporate tax
breaks that we currently issue in making recommendations
to the legislature.
Let's make sure that commission stays in this budget
after the conference committee, and let's make
sure we have an independent analysis
about whether these corporate tax breaks are the best
use of our taxpayer dollars.
Thank you.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr?
Thank you, Mr. President.
I request unanimous consent to make a brief statement,
but include a question there.
The chair hears none.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
So Mr. President, in [INAUDIBLE],,
we believe as much as anyone in having proper analysis
of so-called tax expenditures.
I think too often, Mr. President, we
forget about the fact that the money that we collect in taxes
is not our money.
It belongs to people, and we take it from them
for various particular purposes, many of which are justified.
But Mr. President, it seems to me
that the particular tax relative to the single-sales factor
for the financial services industry, one,
was passed unanimously when it was passed in the Senate,
and two, Mr. President, it seems to me--
and my recollection could be vague-- that what was required
was that payroll was required to be maintained
at a certain level, as opposed to number of employed
positions.
And Mr. President, when we are facing a situation where
we continue to look at why our economic recovery has not
been as robust as we would hope it would be,
I think we would do well to look at the issue of why
wages are part of the problem.
Because Mr. President, we understand
that we have had a tremendous increase in employment.
But many of those who have tried to understand the perplexing
situation of why we haven't received commensurate
increases in tax revenue have explained to us
that one of the challenges that we face
are having high-wage jobs that will contribute more
to the income tax disproportionately than some
of the lower-wage jobs, which are still important.
And so we are presented, Mr. president,
if that is true, with a challenge.
And that challenge is to not only elevate
those in Massachusetts who are currently earning a lower
wage to positions where they earn a higher wage,
but also not to chase out of the Commonwealth employers that
are paying the higher wages and the people that work for them.
That is why it was implicit, in my recollection,
in the single-sales factor when it was passed
through financial services, that we looked
at the amount of payroll.
And Mr. President, I stand to be corrected
if that's not correct.
But I also hope that we will look
at the payroll of these financial services companies.
And when we look at our tax expenditure
review and consider the very interesting problem
that we have, Mr. President--
not that we have too many of these employers,
but we have too few, and too few high-wage employees--
to be able to contribute money for the kind of priorities that
are reflected in this budget.
I hope we'll look at this carefully.
The senator from Bristol and Plymouth, Mr. Montigny.
Mr. President, it's early in the budget,
and I find myself in the place of strongly disagreeing
with the minority leader.
But I'm not going to take him on on this argument from
the progressive side-- which I could do, perhaps--
because I, for one, have worked with some of these folks
to close the loopholes over the years,
not so much so that we have more money to spend on programs,
although, I think we should have honest debates every budget
and every session on what priorities are.
And there are some very legitimate concerns
people have right now in, are we meeting our basic needs?
But I argue it from a market perspective.
You've heard me say many times on this floor
that perhaps I've had more experience,
particularly prior to coming to the building.
But now that I've been here so long,
I can no longer say things like, well, I've
had more time in the market than I
have in the odd place of government,
because now I've been here so long that I'm
a member of that-- a proud member.
But I still think through these things
first and foremost as market decisions.
When a government body makes a decision to give these away--
and many times, they are exactly what I call them,
and I know perhaps I've over used the word,
only because we have over-used the tax break--
in many cases, they're just well-lobbied boondoggles.
There's a flavor of the month.
The Tom Cruise comes to town with Johnny Depp
and says, give us more money, and we do.
So we have a $100 million film tax credit.
Fidelity says in 1996, give us money or we'll leave.
So we do.
I happen to have the great honor at the time to sit in the room
as the Ways and Means chairman when Bob Kraft was
looking for a free stadium.
And I'm so happy that we were able to tell
the very successful, wonderful, popular billionaire,
we're not going to build your stadium.
We helped him.
We did the infrastructure that we should do.
We encouraged the team to stay here.
But anybody who fell for the bluff
that Bob Kraft was going to move his team to, I don't know,
where?
Where was he going to go?
The NFL was saying, you're not going anywhere.
It's based on a media market in Boston.
No, you're not going to move down to Rhode Island.
That's a joke and a bluff, but some people fell for it.
You're not going to move to some faraway place.
There was lots of choice places within the bluff.
Same thing-- I am not arguing the merits
of the decision at the time.
What I'm saying is that the world changes,
and government is always the last to figure it out,
it seems.
Because here's what's happened with the marketplace.
Companies like Vanguard and BlackRock and others
have tooled, in quotes--
excuse the term-- the companies who
have held fast to manage mutual funds with high fees.
Very simple reason why--
very simple reason why.
All of the studies and all of the calculations show that
if you put your money in a very low-fee index fund over
the last 10 years, you've done far better than dealing--
and I'm sorry, sorry folks.
Very happy that State Street is in Massachusetts.
Very happy that Fidelity is here.
But I'm a markets guy.
If somebody lets me save a nickel off their fee,
I'm spending my money somewhere else.
That's what we should be doing.
We passed this break in '96.
It may have made sense back then.
Again, I'm not arguing the merits.
I'm not arguing the merits.
I'm saying it's 2017, and payroll--
well, of course, if you want to calculate payroll,
look at the salary of Abigail Johnson and anybody else
at Fidelity.
I mean, if it's only based on payroll,
then all we're doing is rewarding people
for paying the absolute highest salaries to a few folks,
and not keeping up to the job creation suggested.
I'm not blaming this on Fidelity.
And by the way, it's unbelievable.
I'd love to own it.
It's a privately held company.
I'd love to be standing here or out in the hall
defending the tax break to you and benefiting from it.
But I'm here to represent constituents,
not so I can grab the money and spend it.
Here's what I'm here to tell you,
since the minority leader made a very good point,
it is not our money.
But here's the funny thing we've done since we gave these tax
breaks to specific flavor-of-the-month companies,
like the boondoggle we get to the biotech industry
that's dying to be in the state because of the best
universities and research hospitals in the country.
And we make it a good place, and their executives
want to be here, and we help them save lives.
We respect their work.
But the two things we don't belong doing
is simply overpaying for drugs because they tell us
they want us to, and then give them $1 billion over 10 years.
Why?
If the money was growing on trees
and flowing as easily as we all wish,
perhaps you could make the argument.
But if not, every program and every dollar we
spend and every tax break we grant,
we ought to know the efficacy of it.
And you've heard me say it before,
but I want to remind you.
Very few days in this building where I felt embarrassed,
because I'm proud to serve here--
that doesn't mean we couldn't do better--
and I sat and listened to a prior governor
and his secretary of economic affairs.
And I had some very simple questions, Mr. President,
like, how does it work?
How much does it cost?
How many jobs does it create?
How many jobs does it retain?
But for this grant or tax break, would
the private sector company make the decision anyway?
Because here's what I know.
Almost no chief executives of companies, many of whom
I've invested in personally or as a former chamber of commerce
president, listened to them doing their bidding
on economic development issues.
And almost, to a person, not one has ever said,
we make the decision solely based on some tax giveaway.
We want comfortable regulatory environment.
We want educated people.
We want good roads and bridges and infrastructure
and a good public transportation service, et cetera, et cetera.
Almost never do they say, just give us one
of those wonderful giveaways.
And then, of course, it's their fiduciary responsibility--
whether it's a private company, and particularly
when it's a stockholder company--
if you offer the money, they'll take it.
That's the fiduciary responsibility.
That's what shareholders expect from management.
But what the taxpayers expect from us, Mr. President--
whether it's the film tax, the single sales factor,
you go down the list.
I'm not saying get rid of everyone.
I'm saying that we should-- and by the way,
I said this 10 years ago and everybody said, well,
there's a tax commission.
There's this commission.
There's this commission, there's that commission.
We're going to do this, we're going to do that.
And the only thing that has remained
the same is all of those tax breaks
are still baked into our base, and none of them
have been judged by the efficacy of how they actually stimulate
the economy and create jobs.
Why is that important?
Again, I'll conclude with this, Mr. President.
Not because I want to argue for more revenue for more
programmatic spending--
quite the opposite.
I voted against the sales tax in this body
and had, to the chagrin of some of my progressive fellow
senators who felt we were so desperate at the time
that we needed more revenue, I voted against the increase
in the transportation tax, partly
because I didn't agree with the way it was put together.
But this was my consistent reasoning, Mr. President.
Until and unless we take back what isn't working--
and we respect that the marketplace over the last 20
years has completely changed with mutual funds.
It's not the same world.
And ironically, Fidelity is actually now doing well,
because they finally woke up to that.
They understand that the world changed.
Those high-fee, highly-managed mutual funds no longer
are in demand the way that low-fee index funds are.
By the way, take a look at your retirement account.
And study every single percentage in that account.
And unless there's a 10-year track record where they've
gone beyond the index fund, dump the company and the higher fee,
including if it's a Massachusetts company.
Put your retirement money thinking of yourself.
And that is the lowest fee relative to the highest rate
of return.
How is that relevant to this?
Very, very simply-- the industry has changed.
It's good that they're employing less people,
from their perspective.
It might not be good for those that are laid off
and it might not be good for our overall economy.
But the marketplace dictates that Fidelity change.
I'm not disrespecting that they have less headcount.
That's not for me to decide.
The market is very harsh.
What I'm complaining about is we as a government
are 20 years behind the eight ball, as usual.
And if I want to be charitable, I'll
say we're five or six or seven years, because a lot of this
has happened in the more recent years.
And here's what we did.
Fidelity signed a deal, because whenever a private sector
company--
the defense industry is a better example.
I won't get into that today.
But whenever a private sector company
has their team of lawyers across the table,
like we did with the Big Dig negotiations
with the Bechtel family, whenever the counterparty is
government, you can be sure we lose almost every negotiation.
And I said that at public hearings and meetings,
and people said, ah, where'd you come up with that?
And then I say, well, I challenge you.
Go out and find a good deal.
This is a lousy deal.
We got a five-year sunset on the jobs,
but we didn't sunset the break.
Now, where can I sign up for that deal?
I make a commitment to you to do something.
And remember, this is economic development public policy,
Mr. President.
So the policy--
Mr. President, I can't hear myself think--
which perhaps is good, but if you could just--
Thank you.
The chair asks that the chair and others respect the fact
that the gentleman is speaking, and that we subdue
our conversations so that the gentleman's comments may
be heard.
I have no doubt that [INAUDIBLE] off my mark.
So I'll sit down.
And I promise I will.
I promise.
I'm on a roll here.
This is why my staff attempts to write my speeches
and I never read them, because then I
wouldn't get rolling like this.
I honestly want to close with this, on a serious note.
I don't just respect the decision made in fiscal year
'96.
I don't disrespect the company that has done
enormous good in this state.
What I'm saying is, when a government
makes a policy decision to provide a grant or a tax break,
it ought to be based on that policy.
But for this, the private sector might not have done x.
In this case, I'm not even trying
to argue whether they kept to their bargain.
I'm saying they signed a five-year deal
and we gave them a lifetime annuity.
I mean, I've never seen anything like it.
I wonder how I chose a career, because I'd
like to choose a career where I can get that deal.
I want to make a commitment to you for five years,
and I want you to pay me for it for the next 20 or 30.
I'll sign that deal.
So Mr. President, I hope, in the commission
that we've put together, we will finally--
and I have no doubt, because I've listened to Senate members
on this.
These are not easy votes, but I've
listened to Senate members.
The only thing I'm asking is that we
keep every tax break that actually meets
the need of job creation in this state
and kill every one that doesn't meet the purpose that we set.
And the way you do that is you sunset every single, one
and then you make the proponents prove that it works.
We will save billions of dollars.
And I'm not making the judgment whether progressives
should win on spending it.
I'm saying I don't ever want to take another penny out
of a working person's pocket on something like the sales tax
when I'm giving the Johnson family $140 million,
or whatever.
I mean, they're not the only mutual fund company
in Massachusetts.
But it's clear it was named the Fidelity tax
break for a reason.
And it's got to stop, Mr. President.
Or at least, we have to be able to justify it.
I will sign on to any of those breaks,
again, if we sunset them and judge them for their efficacy
on how they help the average person that's
paying the highest sales tax.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The next amendment before us is #24,
offered by the senator from Plymouth and Norfolk,
Mr. O'Connor, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #24 by Mr. O'Connor, electronic communications.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you, to the membership.
This amendment very easily changes the way
that the unemployment assistance works.
Right now, it's an opt-out provision for postal service.
This would be an opt-in correspondence
with email service.
Right now, the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce
Development says that 80% of the claims that
are filed with unemployment are filed via the internet,
and that the users of unemployment assistance
are computer literate and have access to the internet.
Therefore, they may be more comfortable with email.
Right now, the postage cost to the executive offices
is a half a million dollars a year.
The funding comes from an administrative grant, as well
as the federal government.
And rather than spending this limited funding on postage,
they would like to spend this money on other operations,
such as language services.
I believe overall, this amendment
continues the ongoing effort that the legislature
and the administration have made to modernize government,
streamline our services, and make communication
faster and more efficient.
I hope this amendment is adopted.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
#25 is offered by the senator from Essex and Middlesex,
Mr. Tarr, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #25 by Mr. Tarr, Title V income tax credit reform.
The chair recognizes the senator from Plymouth and Norfolk,
Mr. O'Connor.
Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be temporally held.
The amendment will be held.
We're now on Amendment #26, offered
by the senator from Bristol and Plymouth,
Mr. Rodrigues, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #26 by Mr. Rodrigues, Section 90G 3/4 of Chapter 32.
The question comes on the amendment.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'd just like to ask the sponsor of the amendment
for a brief explanation.
The chair recognizes the senator from Bristol and Plymouth,
Mr. Rodrigues.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
I'm happy to provide a brief explanation of what
Amendment #26 does.
This amendment addresses potential concerns
raised about the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act, so-called ADEA,
and removes a potential violation of age discrimination
by allowing all members from age 70
and upwards to continue to participate in the retirement
system under the same conditions as all other employees
for benefit purposes on a pretax basis.
Right now, the election provided to current employees
under Section 90G 3/4 of Chapter 32 results
in the ability of an employee to choose whether or not
to have tax-deferred contributions
made to the employee's retirement system.
This amendment repeals the election provisions
under Section 90G 3/4.
And members who reach age 70 would simply
continue to participate in the retirement system
under the same conditions as all other employees,
and their contributions will remain on a pretax basis.
And this would eliminate the concern
that there would be a problem with age discrimination,
and I hope this amendment is adopted.
--comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
#27, offered by the same senator, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #27 by Mr. Rodrigues, single-risk limitations.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment,
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
#28 has been withdrawn.
#29, offered by the senator from Plymouth and Bristol, Mr.
Brady, the title of which the clerk--
the chair recognizes the senator from Hampden and Hampshire,
Mr. Lesser.
For what purposes does the gentleman rise?
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you, to the members.
--objection.
The chair hears none.
The senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lesser.
Thank you.
I thank you, Mr. President, and through you, to the members.
I rise in support of Amendment #28, the community investment
tax credit.
This tax credit has generated nearly $23 million
in private philanthropic investment
over the past three years alone in our commonwealth.
Just in 2016, these dollars built or preserved 1,195 homes,
created or preserved 3,903 jobs, assisted 717 small businesses,
and served 70,840 families.
The reason this tax credit works so well
is that it entitles donors to a 50% refundable state tax
credit for donating $1,000 or more
to a participating community development corporation.
This tax credit is available to any taxpayer, including
individuals, corporations, and nonprofit organizations.
This tax credit is building up our communities
by injecting funds into organizations
that provide the missing link to resources
our citizens desperately need.
In Jamaica Plain, for example, the Neighborhood Development
Corporation is providing affordable child care
that one parent has said was the best
decision she made for her son.
In Lawrence, Community Works is providing adult ESL classes
so that our immigrant communities
are better prepared to apply for jobs
and pursue higher education.
In Springfield, where this program
is especially important, Way Finders
is forming bonds between [INAUDIBLE],, a retiree
in her 70s, and the young people she has met and mentored
through Let's Play Days at Donna Blake Park.
Throughout Western Mass, organizations
are providing emergency shelter for people like Francisco
and his three-year-old daughter, who needed a place
to stay after he had a workplace accident
and couldn't pay the rent while he recovered.
This is all thanks to this program,
to the community investment tax credit.
All over our commonwealth, people
have access to housing when they need it,
to job training when they most need it,
and to education when they need it.
Most importantly, they have access to their community
and to the organizations that are doing this work closest
to home in their neighborhoods.
As was discussed at the opening of our budget debate,
our theme is lifting all families,
lifting all communities in our commonwealth.
This program, the community investment tax credit,
does just that.
I'm looking forward to this moving through the committee
process with my colleague from Everett,
who filed this legislation, and seeing the successful extension
of this tax credit.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President?
[INAUDIBLE]
--from Middlesex and Western, Mr. Eldridge.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I request permission to make a brief statement.
--an objection.
The chair hears none.
The senator is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I just want to commend the gentleman from Longmeadow
for filing this amendment.
And it really is an important tax credit
that complies with the rules and recommendations
that a previous tax commission had recommended
with clear clawback standards.
And when the gentleman from Everett
filed and helped pass this community investment tax
credit several years ago, we made
sure to comply with those standards.
That's dramatically different from most other corporate tax
credits.
But I also just want to say that I
would agree with the gentleman from Longmeadow's assessment
of the value of the tax credit.
In the district that I represent,
the organization CDC [INAUDIBLE] has expanded its service area
to part of the district I represent,
including the towns of [INAUDIBLE],, Shirley,
and Harvard.
And I've already been familiar with the CDC
due to my work with them before, and they really
do an incredible job at turning around poor neighborhoods
and poor communities, helping create jobs, build
affordable housing, help entrepreneurs--
often immigrants-- start their own businesses.
So it's a very viable tax credit that I
hope we can extend sometime this session.
But I just want to commend the gentleman from Longmeadow
for filing this, for his advocacy.
And I do hope we can pass this at some point this session.
Thank you.
--is Amendment #29, offered by the senator from Plymouth
and Bristol, Mr. Brady, the title of which
the clerk will read.
Amendment #29 by Mr. Brady, equitable support
for enhanced 9-1-1 services.
The senator from Plymouth and Bristol, Mr. Brady.
Thank you Mr. President, and through you, to the members.
There is a bill filed on this matter that's going
to be heard in the near future.
So I ask this amendment to be withdrawn.
Requests the amendment be withdrawn.
The gentleman requests that the amendment be withdrawn.
Is there an objection?
The chair hears none.
It is withdrawn.
The same gentleman asks unanimous consent
to make a brief statement.
Is there an objection?
The chair hears none.
The senator from Plymouth and Bristol, Mr. Brady.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you, to the members,
this amendment that was filed-- and the bill
is going to be heard shortly in the near future--
would generate $2 million a year from users who have never
shared the cost of the 9-1-1 service,
and adheres to a 2002 mass mandate
that enhanced 9-1-1 will be supported by all customers who
have access to 9-1-1, and it ends
current inequitable situations with the 9-1-1 fee
as paid by wire line, host-paid wireless,
and internet-based voice services users,
while prepaid wireless users pay nothing.
And 40 other states have passed similar legislation.
But I know that there is a hearing scheduled shortly
on this, so thank you for the--
--next amendment before is Amendment #30,
offered by the same senator, the title of which the clerk will
read.
Amendment #30, by Mr. Brady, further regulating
temporary inventory adjustments of malt beverages.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr,
offers Amendment #31, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #31 by Mr. Tarr, senior circuit breaker tax
credit.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The Nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted #32 has been withdrawn.
#33 is on hold.
#34 has been withdrawn, as has number #35.
#36, offered by the senator from Norfolk, Bristol,
and Middlesex, Mr. Ross, the title of which
the clerk will remember.
Amendment #36 by Mr. Ross, encouraging smoking cessation.
The senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex,
Mr. Ross.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you, to the members.
I file this amendment with the goal
of increasing tools in our arsenal for reducing the impact
of smoking on the Commonwealth.
We've taken important measures in the Senate
to lower the number of smokers that we have, citizens
with cigarettes to lower the impact of tobacco on our youth.
An action I hope will help further this cause
is to encourage the use the smoking cessation aids,
such as the patch, as an alternative to smoking.
Cessation aids provide valuable assistance
to individuals wishing to eliminate their addiction.
It is my hope that eliminating the sales tax on these products
will encourage more residents to freely use these,
and to get their smoking under control.
I hope this amendment passes.
--the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
#37 is offered by the senator from Worcester and Norfolk,
Mr. Fattman the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #37 by Mr. Fattman, singles sales rate factor
analysis.
The senator from Worcester and Norfolk, Mr. Fattman.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you, to the members.
If I had been told we'd be talking
so much about the single sales factor
this early in the budget, I wouldn't have believed it.
But we've heard from the gentleman from Middlesex
and Worcester, the gentleman from the Second Bristol
and Plymouth district-- and if you were listening closely,
you even got some retirement advice,
which as a young millennial, I appreciate.
But this is a dynamic analysis that I'm proposing--
and actually, re-proposing.
We actually passed this unanimously.
And I think the genesis of the debate that
happened just a few minutes ago is
the reason why we wanted to study and do
a dynamic analysis.
Yes, it is true that a single sales
factor is likely to reduce corporate income tax.
However, the impact that it has on sales tax, personal income
tax, property taxes is something that's unknown.
We heard a $140 million in tax breaks.
However, what we don't know is how payroll taxes went up,
how income taxes went up, how sales taxes went up,
how property taxes went up.
Because without a single sales tax factor,
apportionment is done and a burden on Massachusetts.
So the more employees that you have
in Massachusetts, the more burden of corporate income
taxes are paid.
Therefore, it's a disincentive to bring jobs here
to Massachusetts.
Same thing with your property footprint--
if there's not a single sales tax factor-- in fact,
you don't have any interest in expanding
your physical footprint here in Massachusetts.
Why?
Because your business income tax burden is greater.
Mr. President, last year, this body adopted this unanimously.
I think, with the challenges that we face in revenue
and looking at and modernizing our tax code,
I think this is appropriate for DOR
to take a dynamic analysis once again.
The Senate supported it last time.
I hope this amendment is adopted,
and I ask for a call of the yeas and nays.
The gentleman asks--
[AUDIO OUT]
The gentleman asks that when a vote on the matter be taken,
it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with him rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen, if the vote is taken,
it will be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
[LAUGHTER]
The Senate will be in a very brief recess.
--will be temporarily laid aside.
This is the film tax credit.
Mr. Leader?
[AUDIO OUT]
--Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
We have had such an interesting discussion of dynamic analysis
that we'd like to ponder the dynamic analysis a little bit
further.
And in order to do that, I move that there
will be a Republican caucus until the hour of 1:30 PM.
Under the rules, a caucus has been granted
until the hour of 1:00 PM.
We will begin promptly--
1:30 PM.
EXCUSE ME, PROMPTLY AT 1: 30 PM, with the majority leader
in the chair.
--now come to order.
The senator from--
The senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex.
For what reason do you rise?
How are you today?
What a great time in Wellesley the other day.
I'm rising to doubt the presence of a forum.
OK.
The Senate doubts a quorom.
Five, six, seven, eight, nine.
A quorum is not present.
[AUDIO OUT]
The court officers will call the members and shut the doors.
The court offices will call the members and shut the doors.
[AUDIO OUT]
--returning to the calender.
OK, returning to the calendar.
Amendment #38-- the senator from Bristol and Plymouth
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #38 Mr. Rodrigues, film tax credit adjustment.
The question--
OK, I'm sorry.
I thought Senator [INAUDIBLE] was standing.
[AUDIO OUT]
--Middlesex.
For what do you stand?
Thank you, Madame President, and through you, to the members.
How wonderful it is to see that you
have ascended to the rostrum, Madame President.
And you're doing an outstanding job.
Madame president, I'm hoping that we
can have an explanation of the pending
amendments from his sponsor, the good gentleman
from [INAUDIBLE] River.
Thank you.
The senator from First Middlesex and Plymouth.
Bristol.
Madame President, we ask for a brief recess.
--President, and through you, to the members.
Let me take this opportunity to explain what Amendment #38
does, the title of which is a film tax credit adjustment.
And that's exactly what this amendment does.
It makes two very small adjustments
to the Massachusetts film tax credit.
As most of you know, we provide in Massachusetts
a 25% tax credit on qualified expenditures
in the film industry.
And because of this tax credit, we
have seen a great amount of growth in the film industry
here in Massachusetts, whether it is in feature films
or if it's in television or network series.
We've seen investments in [INAUDIBLE],, in studios.
And we're very, very happy with the momentum
that's being built here in Massachusetts in the film
industry.
However, what we have heard from a number of individuals--
bipartisan, both Democrats and Republicans--
is the need to maybe make a couple of small adjustments
in the tax credit to ensure that more of the benefit of the tax
credit is realized here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
by residents and citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and to ensure that the amount of tax revenue that we are
forfeiting as a result of this credit
is done so more fairly and equitably.
So the two things that this tax credit does is first,
it modifies the eligibility for production expense credits
by raising the in-slate principal
filming days threshold from 50% to 75%
and raising the in-state spending
threshold from 50% to 75%.
So currently, in order to be eligible to receive any tax
credit, you need to either expend 50% of the total film
budget in Massachusetts or film 50% of the number of film days
here in Massachusetts, one or the other.
We are raising that threshold in both instances to 75%
to ensure that Massachusetts' businesses, Massachusetts'
employees get more of the benefit of this text credit.
The second thing that this amendment does,
second section--
it would exclude any salaries in excess of $1 million
as an eligible production expense.
This change puts an end to Mass payers' taxes
subsidizing 25% of actors' or actresses' or directors'
salaries over $1 million.
We spent a lot of time today this morning
talking about the revenue constraints
that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is in.
This film tax credit is a refundable tax credit,
which means that it acts the same way as a grant would,
that the control of Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
after being certified by the Department of Revenue,
cuts a check, writes a check to the qualified eligible
recipients.
And it's estimated that by making these two
very small adjustments in the Massachusetts film tax credit
program, we would save $14 to $15 million
annually here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Madame President, I hope this amendment is adopted.
Thank you.
The senator from First Essex and Middlesex.
Thank you, Madame President.
I appreciate the gentleman's explanation.
And the gentleman, at the close of his comments,
indicated that by enacting this amendment--
and if it were to become law-- we
would regain somewhere in the neighborhood of $14 million.
But Mr. President--
Madame President, I'm sorry--
it's not clear that that would be the case.
In fact, it could actually be the case
that we would lose much more than that if we
were to begin losing production companies in Massachusetts that
have had a tremendous benefit in this commonwealth
as a result, largely, of this text credit being in place.
And how big is that impact, Madame President?
Well, since the tax credit became law,
170 productions have filmed in 190 cities and towns.
And television alone, Madame President,
has seen about 33 cities and towns see production
as a result, largely, of the tax credit.
Madame President, we talked a little while
ago about the need to have jobs that
pay good wages to be able to address
our current underperformance of revenue collections.
And in fact, Madame President, from 2006 to 2014,
over 14,500 of those jobs were created
by the industry that responds to this particular tax credit.
And interestingly enough, Madame President,
the average salary of those jobs was $70,000, or $67,000.
I'm sorry.
And 70% of them went to Massachusetts residents.
Clearly, Madame President, this is a tax credit
that is working as it is currently constructed
and for its intended purpose.
Interestingly enough in addition to that, Madame President,
companies have been created in the Commonwealth
to be able to respond to the demand
of this particular industry.
More than 50 high-tech post-production
and visual effects companies have been created,
and they employ over 550 highly skilled workers.
And in order to accommodate those businesses, Madame
President, more than two dozen colleges and universities
have developed academic programming
to support jobs in this industry.
And currently, there are 4,000 film and media students
that can seek a career path and move forward into the industry
as it continues to grow.
Madame President, we already have in this budget
a commission to study all these types of tax credits and tax
expenditures, as they are called.
It is curious that this one is being singled out
without the kind of analysis that the others will have.
Madame President, we should not act
on something that has been so productive and so effective.
It is not broken, and we do not, therefore, Madame President,
need to fix it.
And I move, Madame President, that when
a vote is taken in this matter, it be taken by a standing vote.
Thank you.
The gentleman moves that the vote
be taken by a standing vote.
The question comes on adoption of--
[INAUDIBLE]
I was getting there.
[CHUCKLES]
All those in favor of the amendment rise and be counted.
[AUDIO OUT]
The clerk will--
Please be seated.
Those opposed, please rise.
23 in the affirmative.
Nine in the negative.
23 in the affirmative.
Nine in the negative.
The amendment passes.
Amendment is adopted.
Amendment #39, offered by the senator
from Bristol and Plymouth.
And the clerk will call the--
Amendment #39 but Mr. Montigny, promoting safe and appropriate
access to prescription medications.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Amendment #40--
Is on hold.
--is on hold.
Amendment #41-- the senator from Bristol and Plymouth
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment #41 by Mr. Montigny, protecting consumers
through an update to Betty's law.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex.
Oh, I'm sorry.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex.
Thank you, Madame President.
How refreshing it was to hear from the gentleman from New
Bedford earlier in this debate, with his robust comments.
Madame President, he whet our appetite for more of the same.
And so I'm hoping that we can have
an explanation of Amendment #41 as it currently
pends before the senate.
The minority leadership be careful what he wishes for.
The last time that I took to this microphone,
he seemed to imply that I droned on and on.
So he's given me another opportunity.
I would have been happy to retain my seat,
but I am excited to share my thoughts on this.
So it's only coincidental, of course,
that it appears that the first two issues
that I've had to speak to, I look at it as the Senate--
or a good majority of us in both parties--
acting, in a sense, as the watchdog against some
of the unfortunate damage done by special interests
in this building.
So if you remember in the budget two years ago,
we closed a very--
excuse me, we passed a very important amendment that,
surprisingly--
because anybody who's been here longer than
a day knows the power of the insurance industry,
not just here in Massachusetts but across the country,
in terms of passing legislation, challenging important consumer
provisions in the court of law-- again,
not simply in capital cities, but primarily in Washington.
So from time to time, it is, I think, something to celebrate
when the Senate, as is usually the case,
takes the lead on a pro-consumer issue.
And if you remember what the issue was,
we had been hearing--
and I didn't realize at the time just how prevalent it was.
I had had some examples in my own district,
and also had agents representing consumers
calling and talking about what is, in essence, an outrage.
And I think when I remind people of the law
and then tell you quickly how this closes a loophole,
you'll agree.
So a minor accident--
if you are in a minor accident, up
to $500 under the law that predates
the passage of the underlying law,
you will be surcharged three points.
And by the way, until 2008, all companies
would go through the SDIP, the safe driver insurance plan.
And then under deregulation--
I won't get into all the funny business that
can be done in terms of redlining and discrimination
of the consumer based on geography,
based on a bunch of other things.
Very simply, after many, many, many years
of holding that threshold at $500
and the insurance industry battling any change,
finally the consumer said--
and think about this.
If you have been to an auto body shop in the last 10 years,
you know that even a scratch on a bumper
is going to cost you more than that.
Many people now have the-- they're not
the old metal bumpers where you could leave the scratch there.
You replaced the whole bumper.
Madame President?
Yes?
I'm having difficulty hearing the gentleman.
Thank you.
The senator has asked, and she has difficulty hearing.
So if you have conversations, please take them
outside the rail.
Thank you, Madame President.
I appreciate my colleague being so interested in what
I had to say, because once again,
I was having trouble hearing myself speak.
And then you start to lose your train of thought.
So this is a great benefit, to have my colleagues stand
and defend my rights to speak on behalf of the consumer.
So Madame President, the threshold--
$500-- has now been increased.
Current law is now $1,000--
which, if you represent anyone who
struggles to pay their bills and struggles to pay their auto
insurance, you know that under the old law,
it was a real burden, mainly on people
that were struggling already to pay their insurance bill.
Major accidents, the threshold used
to be anything over $2,000, where
you get four points on your driving record surcharges.
That's now $5,000.
So great news-- and we all celebrated it.
It actually was a really good news day
when we could beat the insurance industry on behalf
of the small business agents--
but really, more than that, on behalf of the consumer who
was complaining to those agents.
So the law is signed.
The governor even took a picture and sent it to me signing it,
because I think he was so strongly in support
of it also, Madame President.
And then, wouldn't you know-- it's like playing whack-a-mole
with the insurance industry--
they'll find a loophole, even if they
have to create the loophole on their own.
And in fact, their argument in the front page Globe story that
said, hey, this is the law.
Why aren't you conforming?
Was that our law that we passed was ambiguous.
So we expect that they will now celebrate this amendment,
because we're taking away any ambiguity
and we are saying that every consumer should
be treated the same--
that if you are Liberty Mutual--
real stories-- if you are Progressive,
if you are All State, if you are Geico--
all of the abusers that have been
taking advantage of the consumer and flouting the law,
now will have to conform.
So all this does is closed a loophole
and updated the law to say one simple thing.
The law says a minor accident is anything under $1,000.
You will not surcharge the consumer.
So here's what they've been doing.
And I'll close with this, because I don't use words
like "outrage" lightly.
They have been sending out notices for a surcharge
to somebody who has a $500 accident, for instance.
They're under the state law.
We debated this.
It's been signed.
It's law.
They're sending out a surcharge.
If the consumer pays it-- which many
do, because they can't take a day off for an appeal,
or they can't afford the chance that they'll pay the $50 fee
and then be turned down, because most consumers feel
they're not going to get a fair shake, frankly,
by their government.
So guess what happens?
In every case, the consumer is winning the appeal.
If you ever needed to know that this law is standing
and the insurance industry is taking advantage of it,
the proof is right there.
A consumer conforming to the law should not
have to pay for an appeal, take a day off from work,
and then go in and win anyway so the insurance industry can turn
its nose up at an existing law.
It's incredible.
I've seen plenty around here by this industry.
This one caught me by surprise, because I thought
once you had a debate in here and you
win on the merits, which we did, and then you win in a tough--
a conference is tough on policy matters.
It's not an easy thing for Ways and Means chair and conferees.
And we won it.
This simply says that's the law, and now it
applies to all auto insurers, not just
those that choose to use the merit rating board
and go through the SDIP plan.
Again, many of them go through their own plan
under deregulation.
Thank you, Madame President.
And thank you for the question to the minority leader.
Thank you.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
[INAUDIBLE]
I asked that when a call was taken,
it be taken by call of the yeas and nays.
The senator from Bristol asks that when a vote is taken,
it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those members joining with him, please rise and be counted.
A sufficient number, Madame.
A sufficient number of members are present,
have risen, and the yeas and nays will be ordered.
And the clerk will call the role.
Thank you, Madame President.
[AUDIO OUT]
[INAUDIBLE]
Yes.
Joseph A. Boncore?
Yes.
Michael D. Brady?
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger?
[INAUDIBLE]
Harriette L. Chandler?
[INAUDIBLE]
Sonya Chang-Diaz?
Yes.
Cynthia Stone Creem?
Yes.
Julian Cyr?
Yes.
Viriato M. DeMacedo?
Yes.
Sal DiDomenico?
Yes.
Eileen M. Donahue?
Yes.
James B. Aldridge?
Yes.
Ryan.
C. Fattman?
Yes.
Jennifer L. Flanagan?
Yes.
Linda Dorcena Forry?
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi?
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds?
Yes.
Donald F. Humason, Jr.?
Yes.
Patricia D. Jehlen?
Yes.
John F. Keenan?
Yes.
Eric P. Lesser?
Yes.
Jason M. Lewis.
Yes.
Barbara A. L'Italien.
Yes.
Joan B. Lovely.
Yes.
Thomas M. McGee.
Yes.
Mark C. Montigny.
Yes.
Michael O. Moore.
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
Yes.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
Yes.
Mark R. Pacheco.
Yes.
Michael J. Rodrigues.
Yes.
Richard J. Ross.
Yes.
Michael F. Rush.
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka.
Yes.
Bruce E. Tarr.
Yes.
Walter F. Timilty.
Yes.
And James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all members been recorded?
Senator Chandler?
Harriette L. Chandler.
Yes.
Yes, Senator from Belmont--
Suffolk and Middlesex.
William N. Brownsberger votes yes.
All set.
All members--
Yes.
37 in the affirmative, none in the negative.
The amendment has been adopted.
Amendment 42 is held.
Amendment 43 is held.
Amendment 44, the senator from Essex and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr.
Mr. Tarr moves on Amendment 44, Municipal Gas Tax Exemption.
All those in favor vote aye.
All opposed.
The amendment is not adopted.
The same senator moves item number 45.
The clerk will-- the title of which the clerk will call.
Amendment number 45 by Mr. Tarr, Excess Revenue For Local Aid.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The same senator from Essex and Middlesex
moves Amendment number 46, and the clerk will--
Essex and Middlesex moves Amendment number 46,
and the clerk will call the title.
Amendment number 46 by Mr. Tarr, Surplus Funds for Local Aid.
The question comes on the adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
The senator from Cape & Islands, Senator Cyr,
moves item number 47.
Amendment number 47 by Mr. Cyr, Nickerson State Park.
Madam President?
Yes?
[INAUDIBLE]
And that is the senator from Cape & the Islands.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 48 has been withdrawn.
Number Amendment 49 has been withdrawn.
Amendment number 51-- the senator
from Essex and Middlesex has crowd
in amendment, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 51 by Ms. L'Italien, Tewksbury Fire
Department.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex, Ms. L'Italien.
This amendment is set up to acknowledge the fact
that the town of Tewksbury has a lot of costs that is attributed
to their fire department in response to the Tewksbury State
Hospital.
So this is an amendment that we filed
over the last couple of years, and we've
been able to recognize and provide
some financial relief for the town of Tewksbury.
So this is a $90,000 amendment to reimburse
the town of Tewksbury for their work
with the Tewksbury State Hospital.
Comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
Amendment number 50 has also been withdrawn.
Amendment number 52 is held.
Amend-- yes.
That's Mr. Tarr.
Just a moment to look it up.
Madam President, I move the Senate be in a brief recess.
Brief recess.
Amend 53.
The senator from Essex has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 53 by Ms. Lovely, Danvers Technology
Improvements.
The senator from Essex, Ms. Lovely.
Thank you, Madam President.
This amendment provides $50,000 for municipal technology
improvements in the town of Danvers.
In February of 2016, the Collins Center
for Public Management in UMass Boston
completed a high level information technology review
for the town, and the report show
that funding would be used to implement recommendations,
including eliminating redundancies and developing
and implementing an IT strategy going forward.
These improvements are wide-ranging and long overdue
and would help the town provide government services
more efficiently and effectively to its residents.
I hope the amendment is adopted.
Thank you.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
Number 54.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 54 on Mr. Tarr, Essex County Sheriff Registry
of Deeds Partnership.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it.
Amendment number 55.
Senate be in a brief recess.
The Senate's in a brief recess.
Senator from Essex and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr.
Why, thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I request a unanimous consent
of the Senate--
consider having taken no action on a virtuous amendment, number
54.
Is there any opposition then to his request
that no action be taken?
And also laid aside temporarily.
It will be laid aside temporarily.
Item number 55.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 55 by Mr. Tarr, Grace Center Day Program.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex
again has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 56 by Mr. Tarr--
It's on hold.
OK.
Amendment number 57.
Again, the senator from Essex and Middlesex
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 57 by Mr. Tarr, Open Door Youth Program.
The Senator from Essex and Middlesex.
Thank you, Madam President, and through you to the members.
Madam President, I move that this amendment be held.
I'll take it.
The item number 58 is held.
Item number 59 is held.
Item number 60 is held.
Wow, busy.
Item number 61 is held.
Item number 62 is held.
Item number 63-- the senator from--
[INAUDIBLE]
63.
I don't have--
63.
65.
The senator from Norfolk and Suffolk
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will call.
Amendment number 65 by Mr. Rush, West Roxbury Main Streets.
Yes.
[INAUDIBLE]
Thank you, Madam President, and through you to the members.
Madam President, I'm hoping that we
can hear an explanation of this amendment
from its sponsor, who is rising and with a huge smile, Madam
President.
Yes, the senator from Norfolk and Suffolk, Mr. Rush.
I thank the minority leader, my good friend, for the question,
and I relish in the opportunity to explain my amendments
to the body this afternoon.
Boston, as we all know, is a city of neighborhoods.
But prior to 1995, many of our neighborhood business districts
were in disarray, disrepair, and people were not
going there to shop, eat, or do their day-to-day business.
At the time, in 1995, then-Mayor Tom Menino
launched an initiative known as the Boston Main Streets Program
with the idea to look at each individual downtown
area of our city's many neighborhoods,
develop public-private partnerships to revitalize them
and bring them down a road to success.
This has happened.
The Boston Main Streets Program is a national model.
It has been chosen by the Pew Partnership
as one of 19 solutions for America.
This amendment specifically looks at the West Roxbury Main
Streets Program, which is a nonprofit private-public
partnership.
It's located in the heart of the business district
in the neighborhood of West Roxbury.
Much like all the other Main Streets Programs, the key
to success are fourfold.
Number one, enhancing the physical appearance
of the commercial district.
Number two, improving its economic stability.
Number three, marketing its features and benefits.
And number four, promoting community involvement.
This amendment will help this local Main Streets
do all of that by giving it funding to create open space
areas for community use, enhance tying the entire neighborhood
business district together, for really outstanding success.
And I ask that the amendment be adopted.
Thank you.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
The same senator from Norfolk and Suffolk
has filed an amendment, Amendment number 66, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 66 by Mr. Rush, Mother Brook Arts
and Community Center.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Oh, no.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
The senator from the Cape-- the senator
from Plymouth and Barnstable.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I was hoping that the gentleman from West Roxbury
might be able to enlighten us.
I've heard of this Mother Brook Arts Center,
and I would hope that you might be
able to clarify a little bit more detail what exactly we're
doing here.
The senator from Norfolk and Suffolk.
I thank the gentleman, my colleague and friend,
from Plymouth.
In fact, I think you did hear of it,
because I think you were there.
Back several months ago, this body
undertook a second term of listening tours
across the state, led by the Senate president and minority
leader.
And it gave this party an opportunity
to see wonderful things across our districts
and the entire Commonwealth.
And if you remember, one morning we went to East Dedham,
and we viewed what is known as the Mother Brook Arts
and Community Center in the town of Dedham.
This building, and the dedicated people,
run the facility essentially to the cultural and community
viability of the town.
All who were present on that tour came away impressed
and acknowledged that this is a model public-private
partnership that should be shared
all over the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
for the feature and promotion of the arts
throughout all of our communities.
This amendment provides $30,000 for the development
of an outdoor park for summer programs
to enhance that facility.
And I hope that the amendment is adopted.
Thank you.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
The same senator from Norfolk and Suffolk
has filed an amendment, number 67, the title of which
the clerk will read.
Amendment number 67 by Mr. Rush, Norwood Regional Facility.
Yes.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And to the gentleman from West Roxbury,
obviously you had some inkling in regards to Mother Brook,
but I have no idea what the Norwood Regional Facility is.
And so maybe you could enlighten the body
on what that is, because we were all impressed with the Mother
Brook, but Norwood Regional Facility,
we're not so sure about.
Senator from Norfolk and Suffolk, Mr. Rush.
Thank you, Madam President, and through you to the members.
And I thank you for the question again.
And of course, if you weren't sure--
another piece of that is the Mother Brook,
located in Norfolk County, is the oldest man-made canal
in the United States, attaching the [INAUDIBLE] Neponset
River to the Charles River, and ultimately
led to a real flourishing of mills along that brook.
But I digress.
As we all work with our local municipal partners,
this is an example of Amendment number 67
and working with the town officials
in the town of Norwood.
And my local representative from that town--
they are looking to create a regional recreational facility.
As part of that, they need to relocate tennis courts
to enhance and expand the space.
And they came to me and asked if we could help out on this end
to help them as they're looking in a private-public partnership
to complete the program.
And I told them, as we all do to our municipal officials,
I'd be more than happy to lend a hand
to create recreational opportunities for folks
in that town and the entire surrounding area.
And that's what this amendment does.
And Madam President, I hope that the amendment is adopted.
The question comes on the adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Number 68.
The senator from Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire,
and Middlesex, Senator Gobi, has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 68 by Ms. Gobi, Brimfield Windmill.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to ask the gentlelady from--
where exactly is that from?
Worcester-Hampden district.
Now, I happen to be a very big fan of antiquing,
and I'm a big fan of the Brimfield Fair.
I don't recall ever seeing this Brimfield Windmill.
So maybe you might be able to speak a little bit about this
and how this is going to enhance the Brimfield
experience that so many of us across the Commonwealth
go to enjoy three times a year.
The senator from Worcester, Hampden--
Yes.
The windmill is from the 1800s.
It's actually right on Route 20, so
as you are-- if you're going that way,
driving into Brimfield on Sturbridge Road.
And one little thing on this--
I think it may say in yours for $50,000.
It's actually $15,000.
This is for-- there's a 501(c)(3) that had been formed
to do a complete restoration of the windmill.
They're about $15,000, to get them over the top,
and they've raised all the rest of the funds themselves.
So the next time you're going to Brimfield
during July, hopefully you'll see it in operation by then.
Thank you.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 69.
The same senator from Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire,
and Middlesex has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 69 by Ms. Gobi, Wales Food Pantry Driver.
The senator-- OK.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
The same senator from Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire,
and Middlesex has filed Amendment number 70, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 70 by Ms. Gobi, Hardwick Pond Invasive Species.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I'd just like to take this opportunity
to ask the gentlelady a question in
regards to this specific amendment,
in regards to Hardwick Pond, and what
exactly this particular amendment would be doing.
Thank you.
The senator from Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire,
and Middlesex, Senator Gobi.
Thank you, Madam President.
In this case, this pond is located, actually,
fairly close to the Quabbin Reservoir,
about two miles away.
And again, our group has been working very diligently
to try to remove this.
As you know, we have a big problem
with invasive species in our lakes and ponds.
This $40,000 will help them finish
doing what needs to be done for the management.
Once they get this done, then this group
intends to be up to manage it completely on their own.
They needed this kind of infusion
to help them to begin with, and then hopefully this
will be the last time I need to come back
to ask for any money for Hardwick Pond.
So thank you.
Thank you very much.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
The senators-- Amendment number 71.
The senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex,
Senator Ross, has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 71 by Mr. Ross, Natick School Overcrowding.
The senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex,
Mr. Ross.
Just had the wrong one.
Sorry.
I rise in support of this amendment, which
would provide $200,000 to the town of Natick
to assist in overcrowding at the Natick public schools.
It's important that our students receive high-quality education.
They have many projects that they're working on there,
and it's difficult for teachers to divide their time with too
many students in the classroom.
So this will help them get the number of students
down in their particular classrooms
and to assist the students in learning more
during the course of their learning day.
Thank you.
Comes into adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nays have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 72 is on hold.
Amendment number 73.
The senator from Plymouth and Bristol, Mr. Brady,
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 73 by Mr. Brady, Public School
Reimbursement.
[INAUDIBLE]
Mr. Brady.
Thank you, Madam President.
Let me just ask to make a brief comment on this.
And I ask for unanimous consent.
Thank you.
This amendment I filed is due to the unforeseen cutbacks
in school funding across the Commonwealth
for a lot of less fortunate districts
that don't have the revenue that other parts of the Commonwealth
has.
And I know that the Senate president in this body
has put more money into the budget than was in the House
side, or the governor may have proposed.
And I thank the leadership and the House Ways and Means
chairperson to help communities such as Brockton.
Upper Brockton has still been devastated
by the foundation for them that this governor has proposed
in change in the way they fund school districts, especially
less fortunate school districts.
So I file this amendment in hopes
that we can get some more money into the budget.
It provides aid to Chapter 70 money--
no less than the previous year.
It provides additional aid to districts with rising costs,
and without additional aid, increased resources
would lag behind the increase in the cost.
And as was noted in the media, a community
such as the city of Brockton--
I know there's other communities similar to Brockton that has
shut out many, many pink slips.
And without the support of the state,
our school systems would not survive.
So I thank the leadership and this body that
put additional money into the budget
for our school districts, but I'm just
asking if there's any possibility
to find some more revenue to go back to our school districts.
Thank you.
Comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 74.
The senator from Worcester, Mr. Moore,
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Offered by Mr. Moore, Municipal Modernization Updates.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable.
The district might be able to give us
an explanation about these municipal modernization updates
that you are advocating for.
The senator from Worcester, Mr. Moore.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
This amendment would make some minor changes
to the Municipal Modernization Act related
to the revolving funds used in the city and town's overlay
accounts.
The first section allows the overlay
accounts to be used for interest payments in any fiscal year.
The second section provides a temporary one-year reprieve
from the requirement that revolving funds be established
by bylaw or ordinance.
I understand that there has been quite a bit of unhappiness
in our cities and towns with this requirement
that it has to go to on bylaws.
So they would like to see it adjusted
till they can have either option.
I ask for your support in the passage of this amendment.
Thank you.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 75 is on hold.
Amendment number 76.
The senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex,
Mr. Ross, has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 76 by Mr. Ross, Norfolk Police Carport.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 77 has been withdrawn.
Amendment number 78.
The same senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 78 by Mr. Ross, Traffic Improvements
in Norfolk Intersection.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 79.
The senator from Plymouth and Bristol, Mr. Pacheco,
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 79 by Mr. Pacheco, Carver Council
on Aging.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 78.
The same senator from Plymouth--
80.
I'm sorry.
Amendment number 80.
The same senator from Plymouth and Bristol
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 80 by Mr. Pacheco, Wareham Veterans
Council Moving Wall.
The question comes on the adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 81.
Again, the same senator has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 81 by Mr. Pacheco, Taunton Education
and Training Collaborative.
Senator from 1st Essex and Middlesex.
Well, well, well, Madam President.
The gentleman from Taunton is certainly on a roll
here this afternoon.
But Madam President, I'm hoping that he
can explain to us the pending amendment, which
is for the Taunton Education and Training Collaborative.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk-- from Bristol.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Let me just begin by thanking our Senate
president and the Chair of Ways and Means and the Ways
and Means staff, all those leaders on the Ways and Means
Committee, for putting together this budget.
And it is a very difficult budget this year.
But we see in this budget to try to deal with a lot of issues,
at the local level in particular, that have
been pending for some time.
Back when we did the significant bill
relative to biotechnologies here in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, as part of that legislation,
we had set into state statute an education
and training center in the city of Taunton
at the Miles Standish Park.
And many of you that went on the Commonwealth Conversations Tour
visited the Miles Standish Park and saw the new facility
that Martignetti Corporation is housing there.
As you can remember from that tour,
there was a lot of logistics technology
that was set aside as part of that corporation.
Right now, at the park, we have over 8,000
private sector jobs that have been created
at the Miles Standish Park.
A significant number of companies,
cutting-edge technologies, that are starting
to hum within the park.
And what we created here was an education collaborative
within the southeast region, working
with the existing public and private higher education
institutions throughout southeastern Massachusetts,
to locate this education and training center
right in the heart of where there's
education and training that is needed
to upgrade skills and technology in the Miles Standish Park.
And so this amendment--
there's already been a study done on it,
that it is something that ought to go forward.
We have over $5 million set aside
in capital authorization that has been approved
and authorized but has not been released, unfortunately,
by the executive branch yet.
The $250,000 that's in this line item
will allow for the operational money and an implementation
study to be done, so we can get the management study done,
so the administration can see exactly how the management will
be implemented.
And we already have a board that has been appointed already,
so we have the center in place from a virtual perspective.
But to actually have this center come from the ground
and build up, so that we can actually
work to help educate and train the existing workforce,
we need these funds to get to the next level
of implementation.
So that's what this bill does, this amendment does.
Adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 82.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor,
has filed an amendment, to the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 82 by Mr. O'Connor, Hingham Sidewalk
Plow.
The senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor.
Madam President, thank you for the opportunity [INAUDIBLE]
a local earmark for $40,000 for a sidewalk
plow in the community of Hingham.
The two sidewalk plows that the town of Hingham
currently have right now are 17 years old and 19 years old.
I think that, in reading through the amendments
over the past week, that a lot of our local communities
are facing the same issue.
With the rising costs of health insurance,
as well as pension liability schedule and the looking down
the barrel of the gun at OPEB, that a lot of our communities
can't afford some of these essential items
that are incredibly important to the quality
of life of our residents and our constituents.
And I would really hope for favorable action
on this specific one so that we can replace one of the two
sidewalk plows that are nearly 20 years old
in the town of Hingham.
Thank you, Madam President.
The senator from Plymouth.
Thank you, Madam President.
I'm hoping if the gentleman--
if they were able to do conductive concrete,
would they need these plows?
And so I was hoping you might be able to answer that.
The question comes on the adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 83 the senator from Plymouth and Bristol,
Senator Pacheco, has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 83 by Mr. Pacheco, Taunton Opioid Tax
Force Community Follow-Up Pilot Program.
Yes.
The senator from 1st Essex and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr.
Well, thank you, Madam President.
The roll continues here for the gentleman from Taunton.
This amendment has to do with a very important subject,
and that is opiates and confronting
the opiate epidemic.
And this amendment appears to focus specifically
on Taunton, or at least the region around Taunton,
and I'm hoping we can get an explanation of it
from its very prolific sponsor.
Senator from Plymouth and Bristol, Mr. Pacheco.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
As the line-item explanation in the text shows,
this is for outreach and education for the Taunton
opioid task force community.
They're working on a pilot program in the region.
As you know, Taunton was very hard-hit
early on with the opioid crisis, what's
happening with fentanyl, what's happening
with this new drug called "pink" that's out there.
The number of suicides that we've had
has been truly tragic.
So the task force has been doing some great work in education
and outreach, not only in Taunton itself
but in the Taunton region.
So I think this is $50,000 well spent at the local level
to hopefully prevent future problems and overdoses that
take lives.
Thank you.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 84.
The senator from Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire,
and Middlesex has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 84 by Ms. Gobi, Dismas House.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 85.
The senator from 1st Essex and Middlesex
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 85 by Mr. Tarr, Dyslexia Screening Procedures.
Yes.
The senator from 1st Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Madam President, and through you to the members.
Madam President, one of the things
that we've learned over the last number of years
is how important it is to have effective screening
and intervention early on in a student's career
to be able to address issues that might arise
and issues that may become more complex, more intense, and more
difficult to address as that student gets older.
This amendment, Madam President, is very simple,
in that it requires the Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education to develop and issue guidelines
so that school districts can identify students that
may have dyslexia or other neurological issues or learning
disabilities so that they can be addressed
early on with effective interventions.
So Madam President, there's already
been a lot of discussion in this budget debate about trying
to make investments and to try to do things now
that will save money in the future.
This amendment not only does that
by ensuring that we can address neurological learning
issues earlier on and in a more cost-effective way,
but it also makes sure that students
are getting the interventions that they need so
that their quality of life and that their learning
potential is maximized.
So Madam President, this amendment
would be a very hard one to disagree with.
I suspect no one will.
But I hope, Madam President, that the amendment is adopted.
On the amendment, all those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no-- oh, I'm sorry.
I apologize.
The senator from 2nd Middlesex, Senator Jehlen.
[INAUDIBLE] Madam President.
I didn't hear you recognize me.
She recognized you.
OK, thank you.
I couldn't even hear myself being recognized.
Thank you.
Madam President, I hope the amendment is not adopted.
This amendment does address an issue
of identifying children as early as
possible who may have dyslexia.
There is a bill before the education committee,
but it is also now being considered
by the early literacy expert panel which it references
in adding a member to that.
That panel is expected to be issuing a report
in the next few months.
And so I ask that we allow them to do their work
and allow the education committee to do its work
and not adopt this particular amendment in the middle
of the budget process.
Thank you, Madam President.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
Amendment number 86.
The same senator from Essex and Middlesex
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment--
Oh, wait, it's on hold.
It's on hold.
Item number 87.
Senator from Essex and Middlesex, Senator Tarr,
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 87 by Mr. Tarr, $40 Minimum Per-Pupil Aid.
The senator from Essex and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr.
Madam President, and through you to the members.
Madam President, I move that the amendment be temporarily held.
Senator moves that the item be temporarily held.
Item number 88.
The same senator from Essex and Middlesex
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 88 by Mr. Tarr, $50 Minimum Aid Per-Pupil.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The nos have it, and the amendment is not adopted.
The same senator, on a roll, has filed--
Amendment number 89.
Senator from Essex and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr,
has filed an amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 89 by Mr. Tarr, Unfunded Education Mandates.
Yes, so senator from Essex and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, one of the things
that I know we all hear whenever we
go to meet with school committees or school officials
or educators is about the terrible drain
that unfunded mandates have on their ability
to be able to have the resources to perform
the critical functions that they need to perform
in educating our students.
And so Madam President, lots of times all of us
will have those conversations, and we'll say,
well, give us a list.
What are the unfunded mandates?
What are the specific problems?
And sometimes it's difficult to assimilate one of those lists.
So rather than put all of those things
into a single amendment, Madam President,
the specific amendment, or the pending amendment,
requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education to be able to hear appeals
about specific mandates--
and if they are found to be not productive, or not necessary,
to be able to give a waiver so that those mandates
don't need to be complied with.
But if and only if the department
also determines that the quality of education will not be lower.
So Madam President, if you want us to move forward
and to say that we should have a process--
just a process-- so that unfunded mandates can be
considered and relief can be at least hoped for--
then this is an amendment that you should support.
And Madam President, I can already
see that it's generating interest and excitement
in the chamber this afternoon.
And I welcome that interest and excitement, because Madam
President, this is an area that we often talk about
and we seldom act on.
This is an opportunity to take important action,
and I hope that the amendment is adopted.
Senator O'Connor Ives.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President, and through you to the members.
I want to also seize this opportunity
and vocalize my support for this amendment that specifically
looks at unfunded mandates in the area of education.
Because we know, through speaking to our educators
and administrators, that it's the children that ultimately
suffer when our professionals in the education sector
are forced to push paper and do reporting that
have very little to do with educating our young people.
So I think this is a common-sense amendment.
It asks only for those unfunded mandates
to be considered that would not impact education.
And I think the Senate should go on the record
as saying we hear our local officials and their desire
to have quality public education,
but they can't do it in the face of these unfunded mandates.
Thank you, Madam President.
Very much.
Senator from Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire, and Middlesex.
Senator?
Thank you, Madam President.
I also want to add my voice in support of this amendment.
As the Senate chair for the Regional Schools Caucus,
in meeting with our superintendents,
this is pretty much one of their number-one--
or in the top five, I will say--
for them, issues for them.
We hear it over and over and over again.
And a lot of times, the legislature
takes blame for these unfunded mandates, when in fact it
is [INAUDIBLE].
And all this is asking is to say, hold back a little bit.
Not that you can't put them in, but maybe
take a step back, and at least to give
our schools a little bit of breathing room,
especially during these very difficult economic times.
So I'm in full support of the amendment.
Thank you.
The senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex
district, Senator Ross.
Thank you very kindly, Madam President.
I too hear from all of my communities
about what unfunded mandates are doing to their budgets.
And many of them have asked me to be a strong voice for them,
and I'm hoping to be able to do that
by encouraging us to bring this up repeatedly in this debate
until we solve the Chapter 70 problem.
We need to make this a priority.
I hope we can address these issues in the budget debate
as we go forward.
We need an open mind, and we need
to not be afraid to take on these challenges now.
These are things that we need to correct.
Thank you.
Yes.
Senator from 1st Essex and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr.
I think you can see--
I think we can see from the flavor of the discussion
here that this is a common issue.
And it's one that begs some relief
and a mechanism for relief.
And again, I would point out that this is not
an amendment that outright repeals a number of mandates.
It gives the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education the opportunity to consider them
and to weigh them, and if they are found on a case
by case basis to not be effective
and to compromise the quality of education
in a particular community or a particular school district,
gives them the opportunity to offer a waiver.
Madam President?
Yes.
Madam President, I'm having difficulty
hearing the gentleman from Gloucester.
Yes, the senator from Plymouth and Norfolk
is having difficulty hearing.
So if everybody could take their speeches outside,
that would be great.
Yes, please, Senator Tarr from Essex and Middlesex.
Thank you, Madam President.
It's seldom that the complaint is
received that I can't be heard.
But I do appreciate the gentlelady
for calling the Senate's attention to this,
because this is a critical matter.
It is one that is of a recurring nature.
And it is one that begs a form of solution.
And this is a way to address it.
Now, Madam President, I know in the past
there have been a number of studies and a number of ways
to look at this.
But they have not been conclusive,
and they have not delivered the kind of results
that our school districts could hope for.
And so Madam President, I would hope
that we would all be unanimous in our support
of this particular amendment, because we all
recognize the problem.
We all want to do something about it.
And as a result of that, in order
to also be able to express our support,
I move that when a vote is taken on this matter,
it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
The senator from Middlesex--
senator from Essex and Middlesex has
asked that when a vote is taken, it
be taken by call of the yeas and nos.
Those members joining with him, rise and be counted.
Thank you.
The Senate will be in a brief recess.