With amendment number 769 offered by the senator
from Suffolk, Ms. Forry, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Item 769 by Ms. Forry.
Special permission relative to the modernization
of the taxicab industry in Massachusetts.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Madam President.
You can imagine our intrigue when we saw an amendment
to modernize the taxi fleet in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
Mr. President, so far, it's a $40 billion budget plus.
I'm not sure what this would cost,
but it's certainly a noble thing,
and no one better to handle it than the offerer
of this amendment, so I'm hoping she
could give us an explanation.
Forry.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you to the members.
[INAUDIBLE] I hope to explain it [INAUDIBLE] has no money.
How about that, right?
No money.
It is a special commission relative to the modernization
of the taxicab industry in Massachusetts.
The Commonwealth, as all of you know,
is engaged in an unprecedented time of growth
in our business and economy.
From the small businesses on main streets of our communities
to the large corporations in our cities,
Massachusetts is where businesses
come to thrive and take part in an innovative community fueled
by the best colleges and universities in the world.
However, there are still some industries
that are unable to grow or even struggling
to survive due to antiquated regulations and business
practices.
The taxi industry is one of those examples.
The amendment I filed, a commission--
a commission would be created for the purpose
of studying the taxicab industry in Massachusetts cities
and towns.
The purpose of this task force is
to study the current climate of the taxicab
industry in our cities and towns,
but not limited to the rules and regulations, industry
viability, competitive issues facing the industry,
financial burdens--
cost and financing of medallions,
financing of medallions, and vehicle related issues.
Now, I say this because you all know last session,
we worked on the TNC bill, which is the transportation network
companies, whether it's Uber or Lyft,
are under innovative industries that are transportation
focused, moving people from point A to point B.
But also, we worked on trying to regulate and put
some structure around that when it comes around public safety.
But one of the industries that I think in terms of taxicabs
is something that we are somewhat forgetting about.
And so this commission is purposefully set up
to look at this in particular.
I will tell you that a lot of folks,
when you hear taxis or medallions, people
think that folks who own medallions own over 20 or 500
or what have you.
But 80%-- 80% of medallion owners in Massachusetts
own four or less medallions.
Now, I want to equate that to a small business owner.
Just as we experienced the foreclosure bubble
around housing, there is a serious concern
around these small businesses.
Medallions that have been financed--
Chair recognizes the senator from Suffolk, Ms. Forry.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Many of the owners, men and women, have--
live here and in search of the American dream.
And people buy taxi medallions to put
a mortgage on their home, to send
their kids through college.
But that is one of the pieces that is significantly
an impact on this industry.
And I say this because just as I was saying like a foreclosure
bubble around housing, where there was a market
and the value of a home was x amount of dollars--
$800,000 at some point when you get a mortgage--
the bubble burst, so there was predatory lendings type issues
taking place.
The value of that home is now $300,000,
but yet, you still have an $800,000 mortgage.
So I say this, because I want you to use that as an example
in terms of what it is with medallions.
One medallion can cost up to $500,000.
You have one individual who bought one medallion,
because that was how they're able to pay their mortgage
and put their kids through school.
But that medallion is no longer worth $500,000
because of the new innovative technology--
the TNC industry that's entered Massachusetts.
So the $500,000 value on this medallion is now $250,000.
And so there's a big discrepancy.
And so this commission is bringing together
members of the administration, the Department
of Public Utilities, which is regulating
TNCs, but also regulates somewhat the taxi industry.
We're bringing forth various people from the chair,
the Secretary of Housing and Economic Development
or a designee.
We're bringing together the governor, the House
and the Senate together to form this commission.
But we're also bringing in mayors
of these different cities or their designees,
whether it's Boston, Springfield, Worcester,
and Cambridge, because they in particular deal
with a certain type of regulation around taxis.
And so this is just a commission that
costs no money to say that we are
serious about transportation in our commonwealth,
that we are not abandoning the small business owner--
taxi medallion owners-- that we want
to make sure that they're able to thrive as well.
And so I ask that this amendment is adopted.
But this commission would look at regulations.
And how do we update regulations to support this industry when
sometimes currently you have one vendor--
a monopoly practice of one vendor--
rendering services to these small businesses?
There has not been really an opening of competition
to see how we can support this industry with TNCs
currently in the state.
So again, to everyone, my colleagues,
you all have medallion owners in your district.
And I will say that, no, they don't have 500 medallions.
They don't have 100 medallions.
They don't have 50 medallions.
They have four or less medallions.
You have constituents in your district
that have one medallion--
one medallion, because this is the job that they thought
would lift them into the upper class.
This is the job for a long time that
allowed them to put food on their table
and to support their families.
And so we have an industry that is struggling
and that is drowning.
And so that is why I am asking for this commission.
Thank you, Mr. President.
All those in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Number 770 is offered by the senator from Worcester,
Hampden, Hampshire, and Middlesex, Ms. Gobi, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 770 by Ms. Gobi.
Buy Local.
Senator from Worcester, Ms. Gobi.
Thank you, Mr. President.
[INAUDIBLE]
In Massachusetts, we have about 7,800 farms in Massachusetts.
With the Buy Local effort, provides about $450 million
in direct sales.
This is something that affects each and every one of us,
and especially this time of year when
we're looking for that good, fresh vegetables and fruits.
This is an opportunity for our Buy Locals.
And so I would ask that this is seen favorably,
because I definitely don't want to strike out at the plate
as Casey did earlier this morning.
And I would ask for your support on this amendment.
Do you like that?
The amendment, all those in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The next is offered, number 771, by the senator from Essex
and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr, the title of which the clerk will
read.
Amendment number 771 by Mr. Tarr.
Industry based survey.
Question comes under adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, opposed no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 784 offered by the senator from Worcester,
Hampden, Hampshire, and Middlesex, Ms. Gobi, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 784 by Ms. Gobi.
Sturbridge waterline study.
Question comes on the redraft amendment.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable, Mr. deMacedo.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I was hoping that the gentle lady might be able to--
from the previous amendment-- might be able to share with us
what the specific amendment does.
Ms. Gobi.
Thank you.
[INAUDIBLE] This amendment.
There's a very unfortunate situation
that is going on in some of my communities
and in the town of Sturbridge.
There is some contamination that is coming
into their private wells.
And there are carcinogens coming in to the area.
In fact, there's a particular neighborhood
that has been on bottled water since the beginning
of this year.
It is believed that these carcinogens are coming
from a neighboring community where
there is a landfill that is already contaminated wells
in the town of Charleton.
The DEP has found that particular landfill
to be responsible party for the Charleton contamination.
These folks that are in Sturbridge
are just down a little bit further south of that.
And while DEP has not said that that is the contamination
source, it is widely believed that it is.
But in the meantime, what needs to happen is that the town
of Sturbridge, to be prepared for this,
is that they need to get to a waterline study put
in, because we cannot be a Flint,
Michigan in 2017 and have people on bottled water for who knows
how long.
This will allow the town of Sturbridge
to do the water study, to have things in place.
And so that hopefully when DEP finds who the responsible party
is, then that party will be responsible for paying
for the entire mitigation on this project.
And I would ask that it's voted on favorably.
[INAUDIBLE] adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The next is 788.
It's on hold.
And 790 is offered by the senator
from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
A redrafted amendment, the title the clerk
will-- the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 790 by Mr. Eldridge.
Department of Environmental Protection administration.
Senator from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge.
Amendment 790 would increase the line item
for the administrative duties of the Department of Environmental
Protection by $1 million.
The Senate Ways and Means had proposed a $25 million
budget for DEP.
This Would increase it to $26 million.
I want to thank the chairwoman of Senate Ways
and Means for her support on this amendment.
I also want to thank the minority
leader for his advocacy, as well as
the vigorous advocacy by the gentleman
from Belmont for this amendment.
The Department of Environmental Protection,
of course, Mr. President, provides a critical role
to protect our air, water, land, and health
from environmental threats.
However, DEP staffing has been cut by about 30% since 2008,
the lowest staffing level in recent history.
If we are truly committed to keeping our air
and water clean, if we are committed
to addressing public health issues across the Commonwealth,
as well as implementing some of our climate change laws,
we need to make sure that DEP has the staff and the resources
to enforce our statewide laws.
In addition, Mr. President, there is, of course, concern
that there could be cuts at the federal level to the EPA.
And therefore, the DEP would have greater responsibilities.
So therefore, Mr. President, given the support
for this amendment and given the need for this $1 million
increase, I ask when we vote on this amendment,
we vote on it by a call of the yeas and nays.
[INAUDIBLE]
Gentlemen, I also want a vote on the matter
be taken by a roll call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with them rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having arisen
when the vote is taken to be taken
by a call of the yeas and nays.
The senator [INAUDIBLE] Mr. Tarr.
[INAUDIBLE] who just took his seat.
And I want to thank all of those who
have joined us in co-sponsoring this particular amendment.
Mr. President, if there was ever a case of east meets west,
this is truly it.
We oftentimes have different philosophical perspectives,
Mr. President, but one thing we should all agree on
is the importance of protecting our environment.
And Mr. President, I won't recite for the membership
or for the record all of the things
that the DEP is responsible for.
Suffice it to say, it's responsible
for those critical natural resources that
are essential for our quality of life
and in our lives themselves.
So Mr. President, this is a modest increase
to be able to respond to some of the needs of the Department
of Environmental Protection.
I know there are many of us that would
like to add a number larger than the one
as reflected in this amendment.
But we do have fiscal constraints,
and we have fiscal challenges.
But the significance of this amendment
is that among those challenges, we are finding resources
to substantiate, or support, the mission of the Department
of Environmental Protection, one that is indisputable
regarding its importance.
So Mr. President, again, I thank the gentleman
who offered the amendment.
Pleased to partner with him on this.
And I know that a roll call has been ordered.
I hope that it will reflect as many yes votes as possible.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The senator from Suffolk and Middlesex, Mr. Brownsberger.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to thank the chair of Ways and Means, especially,
and the minority leader, and also especially
Senator Eldridge for his advocacy on this issue.
I want to take note that on another environmental issue,
the DCR watershed management amendment,
we were unable to raise additional funds.
That was a similar sized amendment,
similar type of priorities, but particularly focused
on watershed quality.
And I hope that in the conference process,
we're able to do well on both of these areas.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The yeas and nays having previously been ordered,
the clerk will call the roll.
Joseph A. Boncore.
Yes.
Michael D. Brady.
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger.
Yes.
Harriette L. Chandler.
Yes.
Sonia Chang-Diaz.
Yes.
Cynthia Stone Creem.
Yes.
Julian Cyr.
Yes.
Viriato M. deMacedo.
Yes.
Sal N. DiDomenico.
Yes.
Eileen M. Donaghue.
Yes.
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman.
Yes.
Jennifer L. Flanagan.
Yes.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi.
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds.
Donald F. Hummer's Jr.
Yes.
Patricia D. Jehlen.
[INAUDIBLE]
Yes.
John F. Keenan.
Yes.
Eric P. Lesser.
Yes.
Jason M. Lewis.
Yes.
Barbara A. L'Italian.
Yes.
Joan B. Lovely.
Yes.
Thomas M. McGee.
Yes.
Mark C. Montigny.
Michael O. Moore.
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
Yes.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
Yes.
Marc 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. Timulty.
Yes.
And James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all members been recorded?
The senator from Middlesex, Mr. Barrett.
Have I been recorded, Mr. President?
You have not, sir.
Yes.
Michael J. Barrett votes yes.
Senator from Bristol and Plymouth, Mr. Montigny.
[INAUDIBLE]
Mark C. Montigny votes yes.
Senator from Berkshire, Mr. Hinds.
Mr. President, I wish to be recorded [INAUDIBLE]..
Adam G. Hinds vote yes.
That's everybody.
On this matter, 37 having voted in the affirmative, none
in the negative, the amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 802 offered by the senator
from Essex, Mr. Tarr, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 802 by Mr. Tarr.
Massachusetts aquaculture centers.
Question comes on the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Mr. President, many people may have forgotten,
but a number of years ago in an attempt
to advance our fishing industry that
was suffering and continues to suffer and also
to make better use of our marine resources and our capabilities,
we created three aquaculture centers
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
And Mr. President, over the years,
those aquaculture centers have created a new industry.
They've helped us to be able to propagate shellfish by catching
seed and growing it out.
They've helped folks to do things
like longline aquaculture and be able to culture things
like mussels and oysters.
And Mr. President, all along being
able to use our ocean environment in a way that
is good for the environment and in a way that
creates sustainable practices and income, particularly, Mr.
President, it has the potential to be supplemental income
for those that are displaced from things like commercial fin
fishing.
Well, along the years, Mr. President,
the funding for these aquaculture centers
has withered away to the extent that if we do not do something
in this budget, their very existence will be threatened.
So Mr. President, this amendment seeks
to fund them in the amount of $100,000 each
for a total of $300,000.
And I would argue, Mr. President,
that the failure to invest that $300,000 will have
dramatic consequences for the future
of the aquaculture industry in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
Now, in our case, Mr. President, in our part of the state,
we have something called the Northeastern Massachusetts
Aquaculture Center.
It is a partnership with Salem State University.
Mr. President, it has university faculty
that are in charge of its management and its operation.
And those faculty, Mr. President,
work not only with those that are already
established in areas that are relevant to aquaculture
like softshell clamming and mussels,
but, Mr. President, that institute--
that aquaculture center-- also works
with folks who would like to be entrepreneurs.
Now interestingly enough Mr. President,
one of the entrepreneurial activities that some
of the folks that are involved with that aquaculture center
have taken up-- and particularly,
some of the graduate level students--
is the growing and the harvesting of zebrafish.
Now, for those of you that don't know what is zebrafish
is, Mr. President, I will tell you
that their are genetic composition is actually very
close to that of a human being.
And so the necessity of having zebrafish
to be able to do some of the pioneering research that
is done within thousands of feet of this very building
is absolutely critical.
And so when we talk about the importance
of these aquaculture centers, it extends far beyond things
that people would consider traditional industries
into things like longline aquaculture
where mussels are grown in sacks on lines
so that they can be harvested without blocking off
too much of the ocean or interfering
with its use for other activities.
And it extends, Mr. President, to cutting edge research based
on the genetic code of the fish that are being aquacultured.
Now, Mr. President, I don't want to be alarmist about any
of this, but I would suggest to you that the very modest amount
of money that we are spending for these aquaculture centers
yields dividends that we cannot even fully comprehend as we sit
here at this moment in time.
So Mr. President, I am disappointed
that we've allowed this situation to get to the point
where it is.
But Mr. President, fortunately, we
have the ability to do something to change that if we can find,
in this budget of billions of dollars, 300,000 of them
to be able to support three very important agriculture
centers that serve the South Shore, Cape
Cod and the islands, and Northeastern Massachusetts.
And Mr. President, I actually--
I misspoke.
I believe there is also one that is inland
that is very important that deals with land
based aquaculture that's in lakes and ponds.
So Mr. President, I'm hoping that we can find the ability
to do this, and I hope that we will
make this investment for something that
is critical for now and in the future.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Mr. O'Connor.
[INAUDIBLE] Mr. President, through you to the membership
just to add on to what the minority leader said
with the agriculture centers.
In my district, we are blessed to have a multitude of oyster
companies that have started up.
And to see what the aquaculture looks
like in my district from where it was 15 years ago, especially
in Duxbury, which is one of the homes now to some
of the fastest growing oyster companies in the entire world.
And what they do there is bring them up
straight from the entire harvesting aspect,
put them into Duxbury Bay.
We have Island Creek Oyster Company.
We have a multitude of other companies that are there,
and they are growing, and they're stronger
than they've ever been before.
And I think that this is something
that will continue to highlight the growth
of the aquaculture industry here in Massachusetts, something
we should all be very proud of when we go
on vacation to different areas, and we look at that chalk
board, and we see where those oysters are from,
and we see some of the towns such as Wellfleet and Duxbury
and other areas of Massachusetts.
That should be a source of pride for us,
and these aquaculture centers will emphasize that pride.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President?
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Just to underscore a couple of the points
that have already been made on this.
And I thank the gentleman from Weymouth for his insight
into this particular matter.
But to put this in terms of real dollars, Mr. President--
and again, just to clarify, because I
think I may have not been as clear as I could have been.
The three centers are in Salem, Barnstable,
and at UMass Amherst, Mr. President.
Mr. President, did I mention that one of these centers
is at UMass Amherst, Mr. President?
You may want to write that down.
It's the Western Mass Center for Sustainable Aquaculture.
And Mr. President, since they have been in existence,
the value of aquaculture production in Massachusetts
has increased from $5.9 million in 1998 to $23.1 million
in 2012.
And Mr. President, in 2015 alone,
the Massachusetts shellfish aquaculture industry
was valued at over $23 million dollars.
And Mr. President, the industry supports more than 1,000 jobs.
1,000, Mr. President.
Did I mention there's one of these at UMass Amherst?
I'm not sure that I did.
But I want to make sure that I do.
And so Mr. President, when we talk about this,
and we talk about the relative value of the investments
that we make, I'm not sure if I mentioned that one of these
is in Amherst, Massachusetts.
But in case I didn't, I want to make sure to stress that.
We're talking about an industry that has made--
the aquaculture industry has become
the fifth highest producer of agriculture products
in the state.
And actually, Mr. President, these centers, one of which
is located in Amherst, is the 18th largest aquaculture
producing state in the country all for the very modest
investment of $300,000.
And that's for three, Mr. President.
That's not for one.
There is one in Salem at Salem State University.
And of course, there is one at the Southeastern Mass
Aquaculture Center Extension in Barnstable County.
And Mr. President, I'm not sure that I mentioned this,
but there's one at Amherst at the Western Mass
Center for Sustainable Aquaculture at University
of Mass Amherst.
I know, Mr. President, you may be
familiar with that institution.
Not sure how familiar you might be
with the aquaculture center, which is located
in Amherst, Massachusetts.
But Mr. President, again, just want
to point out that these centers have
been the catalyst for tremendous growth
in our agricultural sector.
They have been transformational for a group
of students who have begun to go down this career path.
They have influenced the world leading science
that is done in the life sciences
here in Massachusetts, and particularly
in the immediate Boston area.
And Mr. President, they represent,
if this amendment were to pass, $300,000.
A worthwhile investment.
I hope that we'll make it.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable, Mr. deMacedo.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I just want to ask the gentleman who offered the question, where
are these [INAUDIBLE] I thought it might
be good for the membership if they
knew where they were located.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I really--
Did you really?
Thank you, Mr. President from Amherst.
Mr. President, I would point out that there
are three of these in response to the gentleman's
question, which I most sincerely appreciate.
One of them is in Salem, Massachusetts.
That serves the Northeastern part of the state.
One of them is in Barnstable, which actually
serves the gentleman's part of the state that
asked the question.
And also, if we continue down just a little further,
the gentleman from the Cape and the Islands district
receives benefits from this, particularly many
of his small businesses that he has been so passionate about
and advocating for.
And lo and behold, the third one,
which you may not have known, is actually
in Amherst, Massachusetts, and it's
at the University of Massachusetts.
And it represents an incredible partnership
between an institution that some in this chamber
have been very passionate advocates for
and the Massachusetts agriculture industry.
And that particular agriculture center,
because it's located in Amherst, Massachusetts,
actually focuses on agriculture that
can be conducted not in the ocean,
but actually in lakes and ponds and other bodies of surface
water, as well as in contained areas like tanks.
So Mr. President, it's important that we not
leave out Amherst, Massachusetts in the aquaculture equation.
And this amendment, of course, does not do that.
It treats Amherst, Massachusetts as an equal partner with Salem
and with Barnstable.
And because of that, and for many other reasons,
I hope the 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 unfortunately not adopted.
Unfortunate for the people in Amherst.
The next amendment offered by the same senator, 809,
the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 809 by Mr. Tarr.
EEA IT restoration.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
We are still at work at the minority printshop
colorizing our chart relative to the balance beam of imbalance.
But if we were to have it here, we
would see that this is the type of item that
causes internal imbalance.
This is a cost that we need to pay for.
It represents information and technology
for the executive office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs.
It is critical, Mr. President.
We have stood as the Senate just moments ago
to recognize the importance of our environmental agencies,
to wit the Department of Environmental Protection.
Mr. President, I hope we will continue that support
and advocacy, and I hope the amendment is adopted.
And by a roll call vote.
Yes.
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 824, offered by the senator from Bristol
and Plymouth, Mr. Rodrigues, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 824 by Mr. Rodrigues.
Contaminated shellfish fees.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Number 832, a redrafted amendment,
offered by the senator from Plymouth and Bristol,
Mr. Brady, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 832 by Mr. Brady.
Municipal energy projects.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Mr. President through to the members.
Mr. President, this amendment has
been run through the redraft-a-tron,
and probably in this case, the redraftatron
being powered by solar energy.
But I'm hoping that we can get an explanation of amendment
number 832 from its sponsor.
The senator from Plymouth and Bristol, Mr. Brady.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you
to our good friend from Gloucester
and to the rest of the colleagues.
This will add two years to the law expiring in 2017,
and it has gone through some changes working out
all the details on that.
But this will help some existing solar projects that
are in line to be built. And I think
there is a little difference in the House version,
so we're hoping to get everything
worked out moving forward.
But this will help move forward on some existing projects,
so they won't be delayed.
And this will be good, because it solar energy
as we move forward to get away from the fossil fuels
in the Commonwealth and move forward
with good, clean, and renewable energy.
Adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The next, number 839, offered by the senator
from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lesser.
The-- a redrafted amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 839 by Mr. Lesser.
Massachusetts emergency food assistance program.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I hope that we can hear a brief explanation from the offer
of this particular amendment.
I know that he's paging through copious amounts of notes
right now.
I don't-- I hope he's going to select at least a few of them
that are tabbed so that we can hear about this emergency food
program.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The senator from Hampden and Hampshire
has a few comments on the matter.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Through you to the members.
Massachusetts emergency food assistance program
is a very popular program with this chamber.
We've stepped up and supported it many years in a row.
It's a great program that connects our local commonwealth
growers and agriculture producers
and farmers with our food banks and those families in need.
It's worth pointing out that as the national government rolls
back a lot of these protections for our neediest citizens,
it's important that Massachusetts step up
to protect them.
I hope the amendment is supported.
Thank you.
The senator [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] one to vote
on the matter be taken to be taken by a call of the yeas
and nays.
Those joining with him rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having arisen when the vote is taken,
it will be taken by call of the yeas and nays.
The chair-- the clerk will call the roll.
Joseph A. Boncore.
Yes.
Michael D. Brady.
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger.
Yes.
Harriette L Chandler.
Yes.
Sonia Chang-Diaz.
Yes.
Cynthia Stone Creem.
Yes.
Julian Cyr.
Yes.
Viriato M. deMaceto.
Sal N. Didomenico.
Yes.
Yes Eileen M. Donahue.
Yes.
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman.
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'Italian.
Yes.
Joan B. Lovely.
Yes.
Thomas M. McGee.
Mark C. Montigny.
Yes.
Michael O. Moore.
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
Yes.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
Yes.
Marc R. Pacheco.
Yes.
Michael J. Rodrigues.
Yes.
Richard J. Ross.
Yes.
Michael F. Rush.
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka.
Yes.
Bruce E. Tarr.
Yep.
Yes.
Walter F. Timulty.
Yes.
James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all members been recorded?
Michael J. Baird votes yes.
Senator from Worcester and Norfolk, Mr. Fattman.
Ryan C. Fattman votes yes.
The senator from Plymouth and Barnstable, Mr. diMacedo.
Thank you, Mr. President.
[INAUDIBLE]
Viriato M. diMacedo votes yes.
Mr. President?
The senator from Essex, Mr. McGee.
Mr. President, I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.
Thomas M. McGee votes yes.
37 in the affirmative.
None Then negative.
On this matter, 37 having voted in the affirmative, none
in the negative, the amendment is adopted.
Number 843 offered by the senator
from Essex, Mr. Tarr, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 843 by Mr. Tarr.
Norton fence restoration.
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 same senator offers amendment number
845, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 845 by Mr. Tarr.
BC park improvements.
Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 847 is offered by the senator from Norfolk, Bristol,
and Middlesex, Mr. Ross, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 847 by Mr. Ross.
Revitalizing Plainville parks.
Question comes under 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 and Middlesex, Mr. Tarr,
offers amendment number 849, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 849 by Mr. Tarr.
DCR retained revenue.
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 857 offered by the senator from Norfolk
and Suffolk, Mr. Rush, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 857 by Mr. Rush.
Accessibility to open space.
Question comes on the amendment.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Why thank you, Mr. President [INAUDIBLE]
I'm hoping that we can get an explanation
of this particular amendment from the gentleman who
offered it.
We have not heard from him in a little while.
I know he's entering the chamber as we speak.
Mr. President, I'm going to ask the Senate be in a brief recess
so that he can actually enter the chamber
and get his bearings.
The Senate will be in order and debate
will continue on amendment number
857 offered by the senator from Norfolk and Suffolk, Mr. Rush.
Accessibility to open space.
Chair recognizes the senator from Norfolk and Suffolk,
Mr. Rush.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through to the members.
And I appreciate the question from minority [INAUDIBLE]..
I just want to talk a little bit about this amendment.
If this was filed, it would provide $150,000
to an access roadway at the state formerly known
as Medfield State Hospital.
And this was filed at the request of the gentleman
from Walpole who is no longer with us.
This was one of his priorities in the budget,
although he has gone on to big, bigger, and better.
Through our work here in the Senate, the parcel of land
has been transformed from an eyesore along the Charles River
to a serene open space that could be seen by all.
And unfortunately, in its current state,
it cannot be fully enjoyed by anyone with mobility issues
or disabilities.
I'm hopeful that the funding for the roadway
will provide accessibility for all citizens
of the Commonwealth, not just this particular area,
but all citizens to enjoy.
And I hope the amendment is adopted.
Thank you.
The adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Number 858 is a redrafted amendment
offered by the senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Plymouth,
Mr. Timulty, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 858 by Mr. Timulty.
Blue Hills Trailside Museum.
Question comes on the amendment.
The chair recognizes the senator from Norfolk, Bristol,
and Plymouth, Mr. Timulty.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
The Blue Hills Trailside Museum serves as the public window
into the Blue Hills Reservation, a pristine green oasis
just minutes away from downtown Boston.
It spans over 7,000 acres.
As a kid, I looked forward to visits
to the outdoor wildlife exhibits,
spotting the resident otters and snowy owls.
Today, my nieces, nephew, and I join over
100,000 visitors per year that come
to the Trailside eager to learn more
about the diverse array of wildlife that call
our great commonwealth home.
In addition to the visitors to the exhibits
and the universally accessible nature trails--
excuse me-- the museum provides over 200 schools per year
with environmental education programming,
both on premise and through school visits.
From exploring the importance of freshwater wetlands
in the outdoor classroom to the up close and personal visits
with one of the seven species of owls
that they now live in the Commonwealth,
these programs bring science textbooks to life,
supplementing classroom learning with hands on experience
sure to be remembered long after a student's elementary school
days.
In short, the Blue Hills Trailside Museum
is a true gem of the Commonwealth, a community asset
that extends its reach far beyond Milton and the Blue
Hills, maybe even someday to Amherst.
That is why losing more than 60% of its funding
as a result of Governor Baker's [INAUDIBLE] cuts
were so disappointing to all of us who
possess such vivid memories of our visits to the Trailside.
Thankfully, this redrafted amendment
will allocate $250,000 for the operations of the museum.
And I am truly thankful to the distinguished gentlelady
from Ashland for her outreach, her efforts,
and her valuable assistance and to several
of my colleagues for sponsoring this original amendment.
While I know that each and every dollar allocated to the museum
will go towards creating new memories,
and providing a window into the world of nature
for all visitors, I will continue,
along with my colleagues here in this room,
to advocate for the museum to receive additional funding.
For these reasons, I hope the amendment is adopted
and I thank you, Mr. President.
In favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
859 is on hold.
Amendment number 860, an amendment
offered by the Senator from Essex,
Mr. McGee, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 860 by Mr. McGee, Metropolitan Beaches
Commission.
Could we find Senator McGee please?
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm hoping that the offerer of this amendment
will be able to give us a brief explanation of the Metropolitan
Beaches Commission.
How much money this amendment may
cost the taxpayers of the Commonwealth,
and what its intended effect is on the Metropolitan Beaches
Commission.
And Mr. President, I move the Senate be in a brief recess.
Brief recess.
In order, as we continue debate on Amendment number 860,
the Metropolitan Beaches Commission as
offered by the Senator from Essex, Mr. McGee.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. McGee.
0500, funds the operation and upkeep of the metropolitan
beaches from [INAUDIBLE] to Nantucket.
Significant improvements have been made on these beaches
as a direct result of the work of the Metropolitan Beaches
Commission, which I co-chair.
And I've worked with members of this body,
both past and present, and other colleagues in the House
of Representatives.
The bipartisan broad based commission
has worked since 2006 with the support of Save the Harbor,
Save the Bay to improve the quality of our beaches,
to promote tourism, economic growth,
and recreational opportunities, and improve quality of life
for residents along the coast.
As a result of a sustained commitment
to protect, preserve, and promote
the natural resources of our coastline,
the metropolitan beaches have become destination attractions
to the community through concerts, festivals,
and other opportunities for being
able to enjoy those beautiful resources.
Close to 1.5 million people live within 25 minutes or a half
an hour of these beaches.
Funding for programs enhances and diversifies
the beaches users experience.
Funding for improved ground maintenance
has made the beaches a prime recreational outlet
for residents.
Specific funding is included in this line
item for removal of the rare paella algae and [INAUDIBLE]..
Funding for the removal of the algae
in the past several budgets has had a tremendous impact
on making that stretch of coastline, which
is in my district, accessible and attractive
for residents, tourists, and programs for inner city youth.
Without removing the algae, the beaches
become unusable in the prime of the summer,
when temperatures reach into the 80s and 90s,
and the algae bakes on the beach and creates a really unbearable
smell, and diminishes the recreational value
of the beaches for all who live and work on the North Shore.
I appreciate your listening.
This is an important amendment.
And I hope that it is accepted.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The amendment, all those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The Chair would announce that Amendment number
698 has been withdrawn.
And if there's no objection, we'll
take one amendment out of order.
It's amendment number 1020 offered by the Senator
from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lesser.
Is there an objection?
The Chair hears none.
The clerk will read the title.
Amendment 1020 by Mr. Lesser, Springfield to Boston
high Speed Rail Feasibility Study.
The question comes on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Hampden and Hampshire,
Mr. Lesser.
In support of Amendment 1020, this amendment
would instruct the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
to conduct a feasibility study of high speed rail access
between Springfield and Boston.
This project has the potential to be
among the most transformational our commonwealth has ever
undertaken.
We all speak with great pride about the recent "US News
and World Report" ranking of Massachusetts
as the number one state in the union.
We should be proud of that accomplishment.
It's the result of much work that's
been done in this chamber, our colleagues in the House,
and our Governor, to make Massachusetts
the envy of the world.
But there's another story behind that ranking.
And there's another story behind much
of the progress Massachusetts has seen.
And that's if you leave the 617 area code of Massachusetts,
there are many areas of our commonwealth
that have been falling behind.
Mine, for one, used to be a great manufacturing center.
It has now seen those factories close, seeing those businesses
move elsewhere and many of our families
worry about their children's ability
to stay and raise their families and prosper in the communities
where they themselves grew up, and lived, and worked.
Frankly, everyone talks about this.
Everyone says this.
Politicians on the left and the right,
Democrats and Republicans alike, talk about this changing
economy, an economy where a 19-year-old who
develops an iPhone app can become a billionaire overnight,
but millions of other families feel left behind and left out.
Unless we act, unless we take bold action,
unless we have ambition in our proposals,
those words and those peons to the middle class
fall on deaf ears, and frankly are ineffectual.
Boston right now is booming.
If you walk outside that door, you
can't throw a baseball without hitting a construction crane.
And that's a good thing.
Western Mass and the people of Central and Western Mass,
and the north coast and the south coast
have supported and stood by this chamber, and this body,
and this building's initiatives to build
that prosperity in Boston.
Our taxes paid for the big dig also.
Our taxes pay for the green line extension also.
Our taxes and our investment help lift all boats in Boston,
and we proudly do it.
We're ready to step up and pay our fair share, because we
understand how important the Boston Metro
area is to supporting the commonwealth as a whole.
But quite frankly, at the same time,
we weren't doing our part to invest
in eastern Massachusetts, families
in our part of the state we're struggling.
We are ready to do our part to help the prosperity in Boston,
but we do want and expect fairness in return.
And the nice thing about this is it will help everyone
in Massachusetts, if we take a holistic view of growth
in our commonwealth.
Because this project has the potential to help both
ends of Massachusetts through a truly transformational
exchange.
The single biggest challenge facing the Boston metro area
is the out-of-control cost of living,
the out-of-control cost of housing,
and the asphyxiating and strangling congestion
and density issues that we have in this area.
Many of our colleagues have spoken very eloquently
over these three days about those crushing
burdens of rising housing costs, rising costs of living.
We have an inverse challenge in Western Massachusetts
and in Central Massachusetts.
We have great housing.
We have affordable living.
We have a good cost of living and a good quality of life.
But we don't have access to the same high quality, high paying
jobs.
So an exchange will happen.
Through good reliable, high speed commuter trains,
we will be able to give Western Massachusetts and Central
Massachusetts access to those high paying jobs.
And we will be able to give Boston residents and greater
Boston residents access to a more affordable way
to live and get to work.
That's why the Boston Chamber of Commerce
supports this initiative.
That's why businesses and organizations
at every stop across our commonwealth
support this initiative.
I would just close, Mr. President by saying this.
Yes, it's an ambitious project.
Yes, it would likely be an expensive project.
And when you take on big, ambitious, and potentially
expensive things, there are a lot
of people that like to nay-say.
There are a lot of people that like
to doubt these projects before they even
get the oxygen to have serious consideration.
So something I would say is to think about this from a little
bit of a different perspective, which is that we cannot afford
not to do this.
We cannot afford not to take on this initiative.
Because what is the cost to our commonwealth?
If we continue to vacuum out our communities outside
of the 617 area code, and forget about communities and families
that are struggling in this modern economy.
We have to take this on.
Our commonwealth will not continue to be number one,
will not continue to succeed until we
do the bold, ambitious things we all need to do collectively
to make sure that no matter where
you live in Massachusetts, no matter what part of this state
you were born in, you have the same shot at living out
your God given potential as everyone else.
Mr. President, I appreciate and I thank our chamber
for supporting this initiative, now two years in a row.
Hopefully, this will be the third year in a row.
We will keep at it, because it is so important.
And I ask when a vote is recorded,
we do so with a talllying of the yeas and the nays.
The matter to be taken will be taken
by a call of the yeahs and the nays.
Those joining with him, rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having arisen, when the vote is taken,
it will indeed be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Hampden and Hampshire,
Mr. Humanson.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman
and other [INAUDIBLE].
Thank you to the previous gentleman who spoke before me.
This has been almost a singular cause of his since the time
he came into the legislature.
And he speaks well on behalf of us
in Western Massachusetts in the 413 area code.
I hear from individuals in my district, the second Hampden
and Hampshire, almost every day, when is rail coming to us,
so that we, who live in Western Mass,
can take advantage of the economic largess
here in the eastern part of the state.
We have, as the gentleman said, so many good things in Western
Massachusetts, a great quality of life, many, many--
much housing stock, low housing costs,
things that are very beneficial, to the east and the west.
But it is important that we undertake
this study, which I expect to be extremely comprehensive, as it
should be.
Because of if rail from Western Mass--
Eastern Mass to Western Mass is to take place,
we have to look at many, many factors,
including the cost, the subsidy, and all the other things
that you and I, as stewards of the public tax
dollars have to be concerned about.
But as I said, this is an issue that
is important to people that live in my district.
And one that I have been happy to support.
As the gentleman said, this is an issue
that this Senate has supported several times.
I know we will do so again today.
I look forward to getting this passed so
that the study can take place.
So that we can know all those things that are not known now,
and begin to plan, if this is to become a reality, for what it
will take for the commonwealth to have east-west rail.
Again, thank you to the gentleman who spoke before me.
Thank you for his advocacy.
And ladies and gentlemen of the Senate,
thank you for your support of this amendment as well.
Thank you, Mr. President.
From Worcester, Hampden and Hampshire, and Middlesex,
Ms. Gobi.
Thank you, Mr. President, and to the two senators
that spoke before.
One thing that people might not know,
in 1960, there were five trains a day
that went from Springfield to Boston.
If you go to my town of Palmer, and if you're at the Steaming
Tender Restaurant, and you will see there a restored train
station.
And you will see the four way stops.
You know what you also see?
You'll see trains go by all day.
The freight trains go by all day long.
There are Amtrak trains that go by, including a train that
goes from Boston to Chicago.
You know what you won't see?
You won't see them stop.
You won't see them pick up passengers.
And from what you have heard, we need regional equity.
There's no reason for this.
We're not starting from scratch.
The tracks are there.
They're there.
They need to be updated.
They need to be high speed.
And there's no reason.
This Senate, as we went around the state
and listened to the commonwealth conversations,
we know that we're number one in education.
Remember where we were in transportation?
I think 47th.
What do people say?
Rail.
We've listened.
The Senate has listened.
The Governor needs to listen.
The other people in the state need to listen.
And we have to bite the bullet on this.
The silver bullet, and get that train, high speed train
from Springfield to Boston.
Ms. Chandler.
Mr. President, and through you to the body,
my colleagues have spoken so eloquently,
but I would like to add my words to this as well.
This is such an important issue in Central Massachusetts, as
well as Western Massachusetts.
Here we are, such an important state, such a critical state,
and we have no way of really getting
from Boston to the western part of our state, or vice versa.
This is crazy, in this day and age,
that we're in this position.
And we've been here so long.
I would suggest that it is not just
to help Western Mass come into the Boston 617 area.
It will make such a difference to Central Massachusetts
as well.
First of all, it will bring all three of our major cities
together.
And give economic growth opportunities
that they don't have right now.
And it's not just helping the western part of the state.
It's not just helping the central part of the state.
Whatever we do for those two areas really helps everyone.
As our colleague from Longmeadow has said,
a rising tide helps all boats.
It is high time that the tide rises here.
Anybody who has been on our Mass Turnpike
recently knows that is not the way that we're
going to make this connection.
That is not the way we're going to really encourage
economic development.
It's overcrowded, it's not-- we don't
have the opportunities to develop that
as fully as we need to.
So I would say let's do this, let's be bold,
let's be smart about this, and let's get it done.
And let's do whatever we have to do to make
sure we keep it in conference.
It's very important.
The Senator from Middlesex, Ms. Spilka.
I too just want to take a moment to lend
my support to this amendment.
We are woefully behind our infrastructure funding.
And my sons go traveling, more than I do.
I wish I could travel the way they do.
They come back from all corners of the world,
talking about the infrastructure other countries are investing
in, and particularly have noted that high speed rail,
whether it be to get across Korea or other countries.
And just amazed at how much we lack in infrastructure.
So it is beyond time.
We should have high speed rail on the Northeast coast,
Massachusetts should be a part of it.
But I am happy to say that this amendment will also
take into account some--
there are two at grade crossings,
notably both within my district.
One at Framingham, one at Ashland,
which we cannot have high speed rail if we have at grade
crossings that the trains must stop, dead stop,
in order to keep going.
So we have one in Framingham and then
just a couple miles later, in Ashland.
We need to take care and do something
about these at grade crossings.
So I urge everybody to please support this amendment.
[INAUDIBLE]
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
I would like to start by commending the senator
from Hampden and Hampshire for his consistent and effective
work on this critical issue.
I used my first opportunity to speak to this chamber
to talk about the importance of investing
in our infrastructure and our transportation
as a means for bringing opportunity
to every corner of the state, and for connecting workers
and our residents to economic centers nearby.
And this is at the center of that effort.
Its one reason why I'm in favor of it today.
It's the reason why I co-sponsored the amendment.
And it's another reason why I hope that this is just
the beginning.
Because quite honestly, it's most effective
if we see it using the existing trail,
we go from Boston to Springfield and onto the Berkshires
in Pittsfield, and even to Albany and innovation centers
in upstate New York.
But this is a great start.
It's where we need to start.
And I look forward to continuing work on this, Mr. President.
Yeas and nays having been ordered,
the clerk will call the, roll beginning with the Chair.
Rosenberg?
Yes.
Michael J. Barrett?
Joseph A. Boncore?
Yes.
Michael D. Brady?
William N. Brownsberger?
Yes.
Harriette L. Chandler?
Yes.
Sonia Chang-Diaz?
Yes.
Cynthia Stone Creem?
Yes.
Julian Cyr?
Yes.
Viriato M. deMacedo?
Yes.
Sal N. DiDomenico?
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue?
Yes.
James B. Eldrigde?
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman?
Yes.
Jennifer L. Flanagan?
Yes.
Linda Dorceno 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 N. McGee?
Yes.
Mark C. Montigny?
Yes.
Michael O. Moore?
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor?
Yes.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives?
Yes.
Marc L. 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.
James T. Welch?
Yes.
Have all members been recorded?
[INAUDIBLE]
Michael J. Barrett votes yes.
[INAUDIBLE]
Michael D. Brady votes yes.
38 having voted in the affirmative, none
in the negative, the amendment is approved.
The chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Why thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, I move that pursuant to Rule 13(b),
there be a Republican caucus until the hour of 4:00 p.m.
Gentlemen, under Rule 13(b) requests a
caucus until the hour of 4:00 p.m.
And under the rules, it is so ordered.
And the Chair would announce that the Democrats will
meet in the Senate President's office immediately,
and the Republicans in the Minority Leader's office.
And we will reconvene at 4:00 p.m.
[INAUDIBLE] for what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Thank you, Mr. President.
I doubt the presence of a quorum.
The gentleman doubts the presence of a quorum.
The clerk has ascertained there is in fact a quorum present,
so we may begin the business of the Senate.
And we will do so with Amendment number
861, offered by the Senator from Essex, Mr. McGee.
The amendment by Mr. McGee, Metropolitan Beaches Trust
Fund.
On hold.
We're now, 871 is on hold.
The next amendment is number 872,
offered by the senator from The Cape
and The Islands, Mr. Cyr, the title of which the clerk will
read.
Amendment number 872 by Mr. Cyr, Cape Cod Water Protection
Trust.
Amendment, all those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
The next is offered, number 873 by the Senator from Worcester
and Norfolk, Mr. Fattman, the title of which the clerk will
read.
Amendment number 873 by Mr. Fattman, Douglas State Forrest
Trust Fund.
Adoption of the amendment, all those in favor,
say aye, opposed no.
The nos have it.
The amendment is not adopted.
Number 878 is offered by the Senator
from Suffolk in Middlesex, Mr. Brownsberger,
a redrafted amendment.
Amendment number 878 by Mr. Brownsberger, Park Improvement
District.
The question comes on adoption of the redrafted amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The next is on hold, number 886, as is number 887.
The Chair recognizes the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
For what purposes does the gentlemen rise?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I move the Senate be in a brief recess.
The gentlemen asks the Senate be in a brief recess,
and of course, we will agree.
This senate be in order.
The next item is Amendment number 888,
offered by the Senator from Norfolk and Suffolk, Mr. Rush,
a redrafted amendment, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 888, by Mr. Rush, Eastern Massachusetts
Goal Settting and Relapse Prevention Program.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it and the redrafted amendment is adopted.
Number 892 is offered by the Senator
from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lesser, a redrafted amendment,
the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 892 by Mr. Lesser,
Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance,
Western Massachusetts Office.
The question comes on adoption of the redrafted amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Amendment number 893 authored by the Senator
from Bristol and Plymouth, Mr. Rodrigues, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 893 by Mr. Rodrigues,
Bristol County DA, State Police Overtime.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Bristol and Plymouth,
Mr. Rodrigues.
Asked that the amendment be put on hold.
The Senate will be in a brief recess.
The next amendment is Amendment number 894
offered by the Senator from Hampden, Mr. Welch, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 894 by Mr. Welch, Hampden District
Attorney.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Hampden, Mr. Welch.
Thank you Mr. President and through you to the members.
The amendment before us now would provide an increase
in funding to the Hampden County District Attorney's Office.
This is a historically underfunded and understaffed
office, especially in comparison with the other DAs
across the commonwealth.
Here are some statistics they may
be edifying for the members.
According to the trial court statistics,
the Hampden County District Attorney's Office
disposed of 885 criminal cases in FY2016, the most
if any district in the state.
And about 70 more than even Suffolk County.
The Springfield District Court is the busiest district court
in the state, entering 1,000 more cases than Worcester,
which is the second busiest.
The Hampden DA employs only 63 DAs, fewer than half the number
employed by two other offices and sevenths most out of the 11
offices across the state.
Hampden DA is, however, only the sixth highest funded
out of the 11 DAs across Massachusetts.
Last year, you may recall, other District Attorneys
across the state took the extraordinary step
of coming together and advocating for their colleague
in Hampden County.
This was a testament to the tremendous work of the Hampden
County office does with limited resources.
These resources are being further stretched
by the opioid crisis, which has drastically
increased the workload for the DAs and employees.
I offer this amendment.
And I congratulate the Chair of the Senate Ways
and Means, with her work regarding county sheriffs
in this year's budget, and the plan that
has been put forward together.
And I do hope that in the future,
we can apply a similar plan to District
Attorneys across Massachusetts.
And I ask that this amendment be considered.
And I hope it's 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.
Number 896 is offered by the Senator
from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Creem, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 896 by Ms. Creem, MLAC.
The senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Humason.
Thank you, Mr. President.
[INAUDIBLE] will rise and speak on the amendment.
I'm very happy to hear about the explanation for what it does.
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk,
Ms. Creem.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you, I
am truly so appreciative to those
who worked so diligently to make civil legal aid a priority
in this budget, including the many senators who
co-sponsored this amendment.
But I particularly want to thank the Senate President
and the Chair of Ways and Means, the lady
from Ashland, who has been so sensitive to the needs
of individuals with limited means
to have equal access to representation
in civil legal matters.
Her support for this item is a testament
to her care, core principles, which
have guided us on this budget.
The MLAC funding-- the MLAC funding
goes toward legal assistance to people with disabilities,
elders, immigrants, children, domestic violence survivors,
and individuals with limited English proficiency.
The funding assists those who do not have financial resources,
and must rely on civil legal aid to help them seek redress
to serious events.
Clients' issues can include unlawful evictions, lack
of shelter access, wrongful deportation, inadequate health
care, lack of education supports,
wage theft, discrimination, and a host of other matters
that threaten the safety and stability of families
and individuals in our state.
We can all attest to the fact that we are living in a time
where we see the effects of this more than we want to.
Insufficient funding forces civil legal aid programs
in Massachusetts to currently turn away
65% of the eligible residents that seek legal help,
and more than 7,000 people per year, 65% of those
that need it are turned away.
And when low income litigants turn to representing themselves
in the courtroom, it creates an array
of issues that impede efficiency, hinder the court's
ability to treat all legal litigants fairly,
and make it harder for judges and court staff
to successfully do their job.
Every dollar invested in civil legal aid
yields a return of $2 to $5 to the state in savings
on costly social services.
In the FY16, the state's $17 million
in dollars of investment in civil legal aid
generated a return of $49 million.
Funding civil legal aid shows the commitment
our commonwealth makes to equal protection of the civil values
and rights of all people, regardless
of their economic status.
I want to thank you again for your support.
I hope that when this matter is called, that it's called by--
A vote on the [INAUDIBLE] the yeas and nays.
Those joining with her, rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen,
when the vote is taken it will be taken
by a call of the yeas and nays.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Suffolk and Middlesex,
Mr. Brownsberger.
Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator
from Brookline and Newton for her longtime leadership
on this issue.
The senator from Brookline and Newton
has been such a strong advocate for the civil legal aid
through the years.
And the funding that we're achieving today
is substantially the result of her advocacy.
And I strongly support her efforts in this area.
We need civil law aid more now than ever
in the time of what's happening in Washington.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The clerk will call the roll, beginning with the Chair.
Michael J. Barrett?
Joseph A. Boncore?
Yes.
Michael D. Brady?
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger?
Yes.
Harriette L. Chandler?
Yes.
Sonia Chang-Diaz?
Yes.
Cynthia Stone Creem?
Yes.
Julian Cyr?
Yes.
Viriato M. deMacedo?
Yes.
Sal N. DiDomenico?
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue?
Yes.
James B. Eldridge?
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.
Marc R. Pacheco?
Yes.
Michael J. Rodrigues?
Yes.
Richard J. Ross?
Yes.
Michael F. Rush?
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka?
Yes.
Bruce C. Tarr?
Yes.
Walter F. Timilty?
Yes.
James T Welch?
Yes
Yes.
Have all members been recorded?
The Senator from Middle--
[INAUDIBLE]
Michael J. Barrett votes yes.
On this matter, 38 having voted in the affirmative, none
in the negative, the amendment is adopted.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from The Cape
and The Islands, Mr. Cyr.
For what purpose does the gentlemen rise?
Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that no action be taken on amendment 872.
[INAUDIBLE] no action as having been taken on Amendment number
872, is there an objection?
The Chair hears none.
The Chair recognizes the same senator.
[INAUDIBLE]
The gentleman ask unanimous consent
to withdraw the amendment.
Is there an objection?
The Chair hears none.
It is so ordered.
Amendment number 897 is offered by the Senator
from Essex, Mr. Tarr, the title to which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 897, by Mr. Tarr, Housing Court.
The question comes for adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed--
the Chair was in error.
He did not see the gentleman stand.
However, he would like to hear what the gentleman from Essex
wishes to communicate.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, I want to make it clear
that I actually appreciate the work that the housing
court does.
I think it provides some very cost effective resolution
to disputes that involve housing,
and its work is admirable.
But Mr. President, the reason that I
offer the amendment, relative to striking it
is because it's an expansion.
And Mr. President, if we get out the balance beam of imbalance,
we'll see that this is one of those things that's
an expansion that causes us to be further
out of internal balance.
So I'm hoping, hoping, Mr. President--
The Chair thanks to the members.
The Chair recognizes the Senator From Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I am hoping that someone
is going to be able to explain to us,
again if we look at housing court expansion,
it's right there.
And I'm hoping that someone's going
to be able to explain to us how we can accommodate
this type of expansion, as laudable and as noble
as its purpose is, given the fact that this sweet spot,
right in the middle of internal balance,
continues to be elusive.
I hope that someone can explain how we can accommodate this.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Again the Chair would respectfully
ask members, staff, to please, please
subdue their conversation.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, which
eliminates the sections in the Senate budget expanding housing
court.
I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but I
believe the minority leader's district is lucky,
has the benefit of housing court in his district, I believe,
which is great.
Housing courts are in about 70% of the state.
So 30% of the residents, including my district,
do not have access to housing courts.
They are a specialized legal forum
for landlords, tenants, and others
with assorted housing issues.
Housing courts enforce the state and local health
and fire codes, protect people from becoming homeless,
bring abandoned property back into use,
stabilize neighborhoods, address mortgage fraud,
and handle numerous, complex housing matters.
Since their inception, and I would
note that in 1972, the first housing court came to Boston,
housing courts have spread across the state,
and they have proven to be effective and efficient avenue
for resolving housing disputes.
Indeed, the housing court department of the trial court
has the lowest cost per case in the entire trial court.
It is very cost effective for complex cases.
So they are cost effective ways, not only saving money,
but to stabilize tenancies, and prevent tenants
from facing eviction and becoming homeless, which
we are all working in this budget
to help prevent homelessness.
This is consistent with the Senate's priorities.
The housing court's tenancy preservation program,
or TPP, as it's referred to, helps
persons with mental disabilities retain their housing,
and in 2015, TPP successfully prevented homelessness
in 498 out of the 537 cases that it addressed.
So it prevented homelessness in 498 families or persons.
By helping to keep individuals and families in their homes,
The TPP helps save the commonwealth
millions of dollars each year.
Each successful case is an individual
or a family that avoided expensive and unfortunate state
funding emergency shelter programs.
In fact, the governor recognized the importance
of this expansion and included a million dollars in his budget
for housing court expansion, which I was happy to see,
because the Senate has tried to do this in the past.
So the governor recognizes the importance of this.
So we have included a million dollars
to help spread it to the other areas of the state that
do not have it.
And these funds will be targeted to those areas.
So with this relatively small investment,
we will begin to see the benefits of finally
having a statewide housing court that is long overdue.
And from a cost expense effectiveness prospect,
which the Ways and Means, and I know the minority leader always
looks at these areas as well, it's
something that will be well worth it.
So for these reasons, I urge a no.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
I just want to clarify, and perhaps the gentlelady
who leads the Committee on Ways and Means
might have missed this, I agree with everything she said.
My only question was how we do a million dollar expansion
in a budget that's already fiscally constrained.
That was the extent of it.
I believe in the housing court.
I think it's a wonderful institution.
It's not in my district, but it serves my district.
My question is how do we justify a million dollar expansion
in a budget that is already, if we
believe the revenue numbers that are coming in, underfunded.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
[INAUDIBLE] serves your district.
You're lucky.
You have at least access to housing court.
My residents, my constituents, do not.
And I do want to just reiterate that
by preventing people from becoming
homeless saves millions of dollars each year.
So to put in one million to save tense of millions,
I think is worth it.
So again, I urge a no on this amendment.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
I was hoping to get some justification
for this expansion.
I've been offered one.
I'm willing to give the proposition that
has been advanced by the Chair lady and opportunity.
I'll be watching this closely.
And Mr. President I request unanimous consent
to withdraw the pending amendment.
Consent to withdraw the amendment.
Is there an objection?
The Chair hears absolutely no objection.
So ordered.
The next amendment offered by the same senator, Amendment
number 898, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 898, by Mr. Tarr,
Modernizing the Wiretap Law.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And Mr. President, this amendment
was intended to draw attention to something
that we've tried to address, not only in a number of budget
vehicles, but in a number of pieces
of freestanding legislation over the last several years.
And that is the inability of the folks
who were charged with protecting us in law enforcement
with being able to use the tool of wiretapping.
Now, Mr. President, the statute that we have is antiquated.
It requires a nexus between organized crime
and whatever is being investigated, Mr. President.
And it doesn't take into account all
of the various means of electronic communication
that have developed and can be used nefariously
since the statute was most recently passed, and most
recently envisioned.
So Mr. President, this amendment is
intended to be a way to say let's
bring this tool into the modern era.
And Mr. President, it's also intended to remind folks that
in order to be able to proceed with wiretapping,
it cannot be done arbitrarily.
It cannot be done easily.
There's still a requirement of the obtaining a warrant
and other kinds of safeguards so that it cannot be used
inappropriately.
And those things can be challenged
if in fact they are given.
In fact, Mr. President, it's been
50 years ago, 50 years ago, that the wiretap
statute took effect.
That was back in 1968.
And Mr. President, that was before even you and I were
in the legislature.
And Mr. President, since that time, millions of people
have ready access to powerful applications on cell phones.
And some of those applications are designed for the express
purpose of providing anonymity.
So Mr. President, there have also
been a series of tools that have been developed
since that time, where law enforcement could use,
if it was allowed to, a number of technologies.
The 50 year passage of time makes it clear
that we need to address this issue.
In the past, Mr. President, sometimes we've
talked about things like those who
were engaged in the sale of drugs that wind up causing harm
and death in our communities.
And Mr. President, it's not clear
that wiretapping is available even in those cases,
unless this issue of organized crime can be met.
And it's so narrowly defined, Mr. President,
that it requires activities of a continuing enterprise
to supply illegal goods and services.
And Mr. President, the problem with that is the definition
is too narrowly tailored.
And so, Mr. President, a number of folks
have tried to focus on this, particularly
because serious crimes, a number of them,
do not necessarily have a connection to organized crime,
such as murder, rape, possession of explosive devices,
human trafficking, trafficking in firearms.
Mr. President, people in law enforcement
deserve to be able to use the tool of wiretapping
in those particular cases.
And so, Mr. President, some of the things that this amendment
does are update the definitions to reference electronic
communications that were not in use in 1968,
to explicitly cover communications between
out-of-state parties involving an in-state crime,
authorizing law enforcement officials to use contractors,
such as translators, to monitor communications,
and requiring that law enforcement obtain an ordinary
warrant for the interception of information that is not
the content of communications--
that is the content of communications, rather than
a special wiretap warrant.
In addition to that, Mr. President,
the amendment extends the amount of time
that a court can authorize an interception before requiring
the renewal of a warrant, so that in appropriate cases,
law enforcement does not have to be burdened with seeking
as many frequent renewals.
In addition, Mr. President, this amendment
also responds to a concern that some
have that by exempting the use of body cameras and police
cruiser cameras by readily and identifiable law enforcement
personnel from the statute, because many folks would
like those things to be more readily available.
Mr. President, we continue to talk about this issue.
And we continue to see the need for greater
use of this particular tool.
And yet, we have not acted.
So Mr. President, I suspect that we are not poised to act today.
And so I'm very concerned about this.
I hope that we will stay focused on this issue.
I hope that we'll continue to work on it.
And this amendment, Mr. President,
falls in the category of something
that I hope we're not forced to talk about when we next
gather here to talk about the next fiscal year's state
budget.
So having said all that, Mr. President,
I request unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment.
The Senator asks unanimous consent
to withdraw the amendment.
Is there an objection?
The Chair hears none.
It is so ordered.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Plymouth and Barnstable,
Mr. deMacedo.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Thank you, Mr. President.
I ask for unanimous consent to make a brief statement
on a previously disposed amendment.
The Senator asks consent to make a brief statement.
Is there an objection?
The Chair hears none.
The Senator from Plymouth and Barnstable, Mr. deMacedo.
I will try to be as brief as possible,
but this is a very important issue.
It was a previous amendment filed from my good friend
from Westport.
And it addresses the issue of the DEP.
This is an area where we've been trying to get
greater resources to the DEP.
This new $1.4 million water quality
advancement line item would support 12 new FTEs
to provide enhanced water quality science to assist
the Mass DEP and its long term goals of developing a program
to allow Massachusetts to join 46
other states in administering the NPDES program.
And I know many of you are asking,
what is the NPDES program?
That is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Program.
And what that does is it enables us
to do a better job of protecting the water
quality of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The funding will allow Mass DEP to build a robust program that
will result in better information on water quality
in the Commonwealth.
It will use integrated water management
to ensure a practical big picture
approach to make permitting and water quality decisions.
And it would enable for more up to date permits
through an enhanced technical assistance, that addresses
current environmental issues.
It is my hope that all that we have done,
and I know the gentleman from Acton just recently advocated
for another million dollars to go
to DEP to enable them to be in a position
to do a better job of protecting our environment.
This goes hand-in-hand with it.
I hope that we will understand the significance of why
amendment 876 was filed.
Because it will empower the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
instead of right now, where it's in the hands of the EPA.
It will bring it closer to home and put this responsibility
in with the Mass DEP.
Thank you Mr. President.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
To the raucous behavior that was occurring
in the rear of the chamber.
But now Mr. President, I hope to offer some remarks,
and so I request unanimous consent
to make a brief statement.
The Senator asks unanimous consent
to make a brief statement.
Is there an objection?
The Chair hears none.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
And through you to the members.
I too wish to speak to Amendment number 876,
knowing that that amendment has not been adopted.
But Mr. President, the--
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, Amendment number 876 calls our attention
to a very serious issue.
And it's the issue of how we are going
to enforce various environmental regulations that are not
necessarily being enforced in the most effective way
by the National EPA.
And so in order to make a change,
so that our Department of Environmental Protection
can enforce these laws in an effective way,
the amendment would require about $1.4 million
so the DEP could have sufficient personnel to be
able to give a tailored approach to enforcing
laws that are very impactful.
And Mr. President, those laws are
known as the National Pollution Elimination System Program,
or NPDES.
And Mr. President, NPDES has tremendous ramifications
for cities and towns and others throughout the commonwealth.
And interestingly enough, 46 other states actually
have received delegation of the authority
to enforce these laws, 46 other states.
And the reason that they've done that
is because they understand that they have a better working
knowledge of the natural environment
and the resources in their state.
And they have a better ability to cooperatively enforce
these requirements in a way that's cost effective
and receives a better result for everyone.
And currently, Mr. President, we know those permits
are issued by the US EPA.
And while we have admiration for the US EPA,
they are not always on the ground
here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
having the same understanding.
And so, Mr. President, I would point out
that all of the communities currently,
for instance, in my senatorial district,
are impacted by the small municipal separate storm sewer
systems general permit.
And if you haven't heard about this, I guarantee you,
you will in your part of the state.
That permit is known as MS4.
It is just now taking effect.
And it will affect communities in some very substantial ways
over the next decade.
And so I would encourage people to focus on this,
and maybe take a moment and call some of your local officials,
and ask them about MS4 and find out a little bit more about it.
But interestingly enough, Mr. President, the new permit
was issued in April 2016.
It becomes effective in July 2017.
So MS4 is becoming a reality.
It's much more detailed than the similar permit
that was issued in 2003.
And here's the interesting thing, Mr. President,
it requires communities to meet over 200 separate reporting
requirements, 200 separate reporting requirements.
And it is expected to cost municipalities between $10,000
and $300,000 per year.
So again, I remind folks, you want
to talk to your local officials about MS4, because it's
taking effect in July of 2017.
Now in addition to that permit, which generally
deals with treatment of stormwater
and other things, Mr. President, a number of our communities
hold individual NPDES permits.
And those permits are for wastewater treatment
facilities.
And again, they can be very costly.
And if we don't have the right partnership between regulators
and municipalities, we can not have the best result,
either for the environment or the people
that we represent in those municipalities.
So interestingly enough, Mr. President,
just in my area alone, the Town of Wilmington,
has been subject to long delays in the NPDES permit being
issued by the EPA.
I don't think those similar delays
would occur from the DEP.
And similarly, Mr. President, the city of Gloucester
has been dealing with a number of challenges
in trying to get its wastewater treatment facility
re-permitted by the EPA.
Currently the city operates under a 301(h) waiver
which exempts the city from requiring to meet
secondary treatment standards.
And Mr. President, the city is the only facility
in Gloucester, in the state, with this particular waiver.
So Mr. President, the EPA, as part of the renewal process
indicated they plan to deny the waiver
and cause the city to upgrade the treatment plant to comply
with a new permit.
And the upgrade, Mr. President, may
require things that elude common sense, like using a performance
standard as opposed to an outright requirement
of particular equipment.
If the goal is to protect the environment
and to do it in the most cost effective way,
then there could be a different way to approach this.
But under the current paradigm, those opportunities
are rare, if they ever occur.
So Mr. President, this is a very important issue
for consideration.
I know that the amendment has been rejected.
But I would suggest that we look at this issue very carefully,
and particularly, Mr. President, look
at the bill that represents this concept, which is House 2777.
And Mr. President, I hope that as we deal with MS4,
and as we deal with municipalities with NPDES
permits, and as we deal with the possibility of dramatic changes
at EPA at the federal level, that we
think about putting the folks at DEP to work on protecting
our environment and doing it in partnership with permit holders
and the people that are responsible for operating
our municipalities.
So Mr. President, again, I know this amendment
has been rejected.
This issue will continue.
And I hope that we'll continue to focus on it.
And I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief statement.
The Senator from Norfolk [INAUDIBLE]..
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I desire to make a brief statement as well.
[INAUDIBLE] can make his brief statement
if there's no objection.
Does the chair hear objection?
The chair does not.
Senator.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
I also rise in support of this bipartisan amendment that
was defeated, which is also supported bypartisanly
in the administration.
This will help DEP, would have helped
DEP, develop a program to administer
the national pollutant discharge elimation system.
Currently permits are issued by the EPA,
but I have felt that it would be better
to run more effectively by the DEP here in Massachusetts.
The program would also allow DEP to provide much needed water
quality monitoring and technical assistance to many communities
here in the Commonwealth, Mr. President.
And this is to many of the communities that I represent.
This would result in many better environmental outcomes.
I ask you to join me in supporting enhanced quality
management, and when we have the opportunity in the future,
to vote yes on this important issue.
Just a point of clarification, I think
we're having unanimous brief statements on a matter that's
already been resolved.
Is that correct?
OK.
The chair recognizes the Senator from Worcester, Ms. Gobi.
For what purpose does the lady rise?
It's just for a little clarification hopefully
for the members as well.
This bill is still in committee.
It's before the Environment and Natural Resources
and Agriculture Committee at this time.
And obviously, I'll be happy to listen when the bill comes up
for a hearing.
And I expect that that will happen in a few months.
And it'll be more debated at that time.
So, thank you.
The chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex and Worcester,
Mr. Eldridge.
For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
Thank you, Mr. President, I ask for the unanimous consent
to make--
The gentleman asks for unanimous consent to make--
on a subject that's been resolved.
Is there an objection?
The chair hears none.
The senator is recognized.
I just wanted to add that the [INAUDIBLE] from Spencer
just said that, of course, the issue about changing
the regulation of wastewater from the federal government
to the state is a bill filed by the governor in the Environment
Committee, which I happen to have serious concerns about.
The good news as far as this budget goes
is there has been a $1 billion increase in the DEP
administrative line item, which I worked on very closely
with the minority leader, speaking
to the fact of the need for more resources for the DEP
to regulate our state laws and federal laws.
But I just want to note that I do have concerns
about the governor's proposal and how that would potentially
weaken the enforcement of cleaning up our rivers
and streams through the enforcement of the Clean Water
Act.
And now, I've been asked to consider
that the Senate consider that no action as having
been previously been taken on Amendment number 771.
Is there an objection.
The chair hears none.
It is so ordered.
And now we return to Amendment number 913,
offered by the Senator from Essex and Middlesex,
Ms. L'Italien, a redrafted amendment, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 913 by me Ms. L'Italien, Middlesex County
Restoration Center.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
The chair recognizes the Senator from Essex and Middlesex,
Ms. L'Italien.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
This amendment was actually filed
on behalf of our late colleague, Senator Ken Donnelly.
This was something that he cared very deeply about.
It's for the Middlesex County Restoration Center.
And so I'm going to speak a little bit about this.
This appropriation would provide funding
for the first year of a multi-year project,
a four-year pilot that would move Massachusetts
to a more effective, efficient, and humane model
for treating people with serious mental illness,
including those with co-occurring conditions
of serious mental illness and substance abuse
disorder, something that Ken cared very deeply about.
And folks that are at high risk of interacting with law
enforcement, or have interacted with law enforcement,
the courts, and the Department of Corrections,
because of their mental illness.
There's a crisis in the mental health system in Massachusetts.
Individual programs exist in silos.
And there's no plan to provide a comprehensive and integrative
set of services that meet the needs of those
with acute and persistent mental illness.
Individuals with severe mental illness and their families
struggle to get timely and adequate treatment.
And more often than not, try to navigate
a system that appears to create barriers to treatment, rather
than providing access to it.
For most, treatment options are determined
by insurance companies or woefully inadequate state
funding levels.
So this is, again, something that Ken Donnelly
cared very deeply about.
It's a program that will be administered
through the Middlesex County Sheriff's Office.
It's a pilot program.
And it will provide a mechanism for diverse agencies
to collaborate and communicate across the mental health,
physical health, social services and criminal justice systems
in order to provide seamless care.
And this is based on a model of delivery
done in Texas and in Florida.
It's been highly successful there
in reducing incarceration and emergency room
visits, adversarial interactions with law enforcement,
court usage, and all the associated
costs that are incurred when proper treatment is denied.
I feel very, very honored to have
been asked by Senator Donnelly's staff
to carry this on behalf of him.
We all miss him.
We see the empty seat this evening.
And this is something he cared very, very deeply about.
So I'm incredibly honored to carry this in his behalf.
Thank you, and I hope the amendment is adoption.
Adoption of the amendment, all those in favor
say aye, oppose, no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The next was offered by the Senator
from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 914 by Ms. Donoghue, Shannon Grants.
The chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue.
[INAUDIBLE] and through you to the members.
I rise in support of this crucial amendment
to increase funding for the Shannon Grants, by $2 million
to a total of $7 million dollars.
Shannon Grants funds organizations and programs
that reduce gang violence and involvement and youth
violence in more than 40 communities, where
gangs are prevalent.
Undergirding the grant program is the understanding
that gangs are not simply an law enforcement problem.
Youth violence is the result of a web
of social and economic factors.
And we can best combat it by addressing those underlying
factors.
Shannon Grant's support outreach workers, job training programs,
social activities, after school programs,
and many more youth oriented initiatives.
They also facilitate better coordination
between law enforcement and social service agencies,
helping to steer gang involved young people toward more
positive pursuits.
The results are impressive.
Consider the impact that Shannon Grant funding
had on my home city of Lowell during the most
recent fiscal year.
Nearly 3,008 youths were served by roughly $560,000 in funding.
78 young people completed a subsidized summer employment
program.
268 received street outreach services.
And 1,262 participated in youth development programs.
Shannon funded programs help replicate the kind of impact
in dozens of other cities and towns, with just shy of 20,000
youth served around the state.
And statistics show that those programs
are making a real difference.
From 2012 to 2016, communities that received Shannon Grants
saw significant declines in youth violence.
The number of arrests of young people
declined 19.5% for aggravated assaults,
25.4% for simple assaults, and declined a whopping 51%
for robbery.
This amendment calls for the additional $2 million
that will sustain the programs and make the community safer
and set at-risk youth on a path to healthier, happier,
and more productive lives.
I hope the amendment passes.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Are we going to do a roll call?
Do you want a roll call?
I ask that when a vote is taken, it
be taken by call of the yeas and nays.
[INAUDIBLE] to be taken to be taken
by a call of the yeas and nays.
Those joining with her, rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen,
the roll call is ordered.
The clerk will call the roll, and call the chair,
and take Senator Tarr out of order.
Rosenberg?
Yes
Yes.
Bruce E. Tarr?
Yes.
Michael J. Barrett?
Yes.
Joseph A Boncore?
Yes.
Michael D. Brady?
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger?
Yes.
Harriette L. Chandler?
Yes.
Sonia Chang-Diaz?
Yes.
Cynthia Stone Creem?
Yes.
Julian Cyr?
Yes.
Viriato deMacedo?
Yes.
Sal N. DiDomenico?
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue?
Yes.
James B. Eldridge?
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman?
Yes.
Jennifer L. Flanagan?
Yes.
Linda Dorcena Forry?
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi?
Yes.
Adam J. Hinds?
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.
Marc R. Pacheco?
Michael J. Rodrigues?
Yes.
Richard J. Ross?
Yes.
Michael F. Rush?
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka?
Yes.
Walter F. Timilty?
Yes.
James T. Welch?
Yes.
Have all members been recorded?
Adam G. Hinds votes yes.
[INAUDIBLE] Bristol, Mr. Montigny.
[INAUDIBLE] I decided to be recorded in the affirmative.
Marc R. Pacheco votes yes.
On this matter, 38 having voted in the affirmative, none
in the negative, the amendment is adopted.
The next is Amendment number 922, offered by the Senator
from Essex, Mr. Tarr, the title of which the clerk will read.
Number 922 by Mr. Tarr, creating the Commonwealth Technical
Rescue Regions and Coordinating Council.
The 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 925 offered by the Senator
from Middlesex and Worcester, Mr. Eldridge, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 929, by Mr. Eldridge,
Resolve to Stop the Violence Project.
The Chair calls upon the Senator from Middlesex and Worcester,
Mr. Eldridge.
Thank you, Mr. President, this amendment 925
would fund a new program in the Department of Corrections
called Resolve to Stop the Violence Project,
with funding for $300,000.
Mr. President, in the gallery is a activist and someone
who has visited many of our offices, Char Simpson,
in advocating for this restorative justice program.
And for those of you who are familiar with the legislation I
have filed for the past six years
an act to promote restorative justice practices,
I have been encouraging us and our criminal justice system
to embrace restorative justice, whether it's
diversion in the courts, or in this case,
our restorative justice in our state prisons.
What we have seen is that restorative justice
is a very powerful tool, both to address a person who
has committed an offense coming to terms with the offense
that he or she has caused, but also to create healing
with the victims that person has hurt.
The Resolve to Stop the Violence Project, RSVP, is
a unique restorative justice program providing
an intensive 12-hours a day, six days a week
restorative justice program for incarcerated men
with violent behavior in our state prisons.
Its a program that currently exists
in the City of San Francisco.
There's a very powerful documentary about it.
And what we are trying to do is bring this program
to Massachusetts.
The good news is that restorative justice is already
happening in our prison system not only with prisoners,
but interestingly, with many correctional officers, who also
struggle with the day to day difficult job of being
a correctional officer.
What we know is that restorative justice
works in many other countries.
It is growing across the United States.
And the Resolve to Stop the Violence Project, RSVP, is
just such a program that I believe
would address dealing with prisoners who are still
coming to terms with the crimes they committed, helping them
transition, if they are leaving the prison at some point,
as well as improving overall the culture within prisons across.
Massachusetts.
I would just finish and say that clearly this session, there
is a big push for criminal justice reform,
and part of that theory, in part, led by the lady
from Jamaica plains legislation, the Justice Reinvestment Act,
is that if we save money through criminal justice reform,
we use some of that money for treatment,
for vocational training, and also
to help change and address the culture of violence
within our prisons, and communities
across Massachusetts.
The RSVP program is just such a project
that I would hope would be funded.
So I urge my colleagues to support this project
to begin the efforts of innovative programs
within our prison system in expanding restorative justice.
Thank you.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The nos have it at this time.
But like some other measures, we'll see it again.
The question now comes on Amendment number 927, offered
by the Senator from Suffolk and Middlesex,
Mr. Brownsberger, the title of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 927, Mr. Brownsberger,
Municipal Police Training Fund.
The senator from Middlesex--
Suffolk and Middlesex, Mr. Brownsberger.
Thank you Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent to make--
to withdraw this amendment and then to make a brief statement.
Unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Is there an objection?
Chair hears none and now the gentleman
asks unanimous consent to make a brief statement Does
chair hear objection?
Chair hears none.
The Senator from Suffolk and Middlesex, Mr. Brownsberger.
Thank you, Mr. President.
This is an amendment that had a lot of support in the chamber.
I think about half the members.
Unfortunately for those who co-sponsored it with me,
we were unable to agree on a workable funding source.
And therefore, the agreement-- it
was felt best to withdraw the amendment,
so that's what we've done.
Thank you, Mr. President.
933 offered by the Senator from Suffolk, Ms. Forry, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 933 by Ms. Forry, Suffolk County
Children's Advocacy Center.
The question comes on the adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
Number 940 offered by the Senator
from Suffolk and Middlesex, Mr. Brownsberger, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 940 by Mr. Brownsberger,
the Elimination of Parole Fees, Part One.
The senator from Camden, New Hampshire, Mr. Humason.
Thank you, Mr. President.
With respect to Amendment number 940,
we're hoping the sponsor can get up and tell us what it does.
Thank you.
Senator from Suffolk and Middlesex, Mr. Brownsberger.
Thank you, Mr. President.
In our wisdom some years ago, I believe in 2003,
we decided to start charging people
for the privilege of being on parole.
This is one of the most ironic decisions
we've made, because in fact, people who are on parole
are, almost all of them were indigent when they entered
prison, and certainly they are all indigent upon the time they
leave prison, and especially unable to work.
So this amendment would simply abolish parole fees
and this related amendment would have
the effect of holding the parole board harmless.
Currently they have a retained revenue amount
from these parole fees which they're
able to use for sex offender supervision.
This would abolish the fees and give them
the money that they had through an appropriation.
This is a very sound criminal justice measure.
Thank you, Mr. President.
[INAUDIBLE] the amendment, all those in favor,
say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted.
The same senator offers Amendment number 941, the title
of which the clerk will read.
Amendment number 941 by Mr. Brownsberger,
Elimination of Parole Fees, Part Two.
The question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The amendment is adopted.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr asks for a brief recess.