The time having arrived to which the Senate had previously
adjourned, the Senate will be in order.
The Chair would ask all members guests and staff
to rise and join the Senator from Worcester, Mr. Fattman,
in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.
Several resolutions have been presented
which the clerk will read.
By Senators Chandler and Moore resolutions--
congratulating VNA Care Network Inc. on its 125th anniversary.
By Mr. Hinds resolutions-- congratulating
the Town of Lenox on its 250th anniversary.
By Mr. Lesser resolutions-- commending Jim Madigan
on his lifetime of achievements in journalism and reporting.
And by Mr. Rosenberg--
resolutions commending the American Cancer Society
Massachusetts Division Inc. on its recognition
of the 25th anniversary of the Making Strides Against Breast
Cancer Walk.
Question comes on adoption of the resolution.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the resolutions are adopted.
The senator from Bristol and Plymouth Mr. Rodrigues
has presented a petition which the clerk will read.
A petition of Michael J. Rodrigues, Donald F. Humason,
Jr., Keiko M. Orrall, Paul A. Schmid III,
and others for legislation to reform
agricultural preservation restrictions.
The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr moves suspension of Senate rule
20 and Joint Rule 12.
The question comes on the motion.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the motion prevails.
And the petitions will be referred to the Committee
on Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture.
Report of a committee.
The committees [INAUDIBLE] branches out
to concurrently to [INAUDIBLE] refer the Senate Petition
of Eileen M. Donahue that provision
be made for an investigation and study by a special commission
relative to mattress recycling.
Reports recommend the journal [INAUDIBLE]
suspend with reference to Mark E. Montigny for the committee.
The senator from Worcester, Miss.
Chandler, moves that Senate Rule 36 be suspended,
so that the matter may be considered forthwith.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the rule is suspended.
The question now comes on suspension of Joint Rule 12.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the rules are suspended.
The petition will be referred to the Committee
on Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture.
One matter comes before the Senate for its final passage.
Actually two matters come before the Senate
for their final passage.
Senate Bill Number 2051, an act authorizing the town of Palmer
to issue an additional license for the sale
of all alcoholic beverages not to be
drunk on the premises and House Bill Number
2780, an act establishing the Department of Inspectional
Services and Permitting in the Town of Lakeville.
Question comes on passing the bills to be enacted.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it.
The bills are passed to be enacted,
will be signed by the President, laid before the Governor
for his approbation.
The Senate will be in a very brief recess.
--a report of a committee.
The Committee rules [INAUDIBLE] refer the Senate Bill
naming a certain bridge in the City of Fall River
as the Leonard Lenny Kaplan Memorial Bridge Senate Number
2098 reports the [INAUDIBLE] replace the [INAUDIBLE] day
for the next session with an amendment inserting
before the enacting clause in an emergency preamble.
Mark C. Montigny for the Committee.
The Senator from Worcester, Miss.
Chandler, asked unanimous consent
that the rules be suspended to allow the matter
to be considered forthwith.
Is there an objection?
Chair hears none.
And the rules are suspended.
The question now comes on ordering the bill
to a third reading coming first on an amendment
as recommended by the Committee on rules.
The question comes on the adoption
of the rules amendment.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the rules amendment is adopted.
The question will now come on ordering the bill as amended
to a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the bill is ordered to a third reading,
third reading of the bill.
An act naming a certain bridge in the City
of Fall River as the Leonard "Lenny" Kaplan
Memorial Bridge Senate Number 2098 amended.
The bill has been read a third time.
The question comes on passing the bill to be engrossed.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is passed to be engrossed.
Report of a committee.
The Committee on Ways and Means to whom
is referred the Senate Bill to further define
standards of employee safety, Senate Number 2072.
Reports recommend the same [INAUDIBLE]
to pass with an amendment substituting a new draft
with the same title Senate Number 2167,
Karen E. Spilka for the Committee.
The Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka,
has presented an order which the clerk will read.
Ordered that notwithstanding Senate Rule 7 or any other rule
to the contrary, the Senate Bill to further define
the standards of employee safety,
Senate Number 2072, the Committee on Ways and Means,
having recommended the bill be amended
by substituting a new draft Senate Number 2167,
shall be placed in the orders of the day for second reading
on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.
All amendments shall be filed electronically
in the Office of the Clerk of the Senate
by 5:00 PM on Monday, October 2, 2017.
And all such amendments shall be second reading amendments
to Senate Number 2167.
But further amendments in the third degree to such amendments
shall be in order.
The Clerk shall further specify the procedure and format
for filing all amendments consistent with this order.
After the bill is amended, it is ordered to a third reading
and shall immediately be read a third time.
And the question shall then immediately
be in passing it to be engrossed.
And no amendments shall be in order
of the third reading of the bill unless recommended
by the Committee on Bills in the third reading.
Under the rules, refer to the Committee on Rules.
Report of--
The Committee on Rules to whom is referred
send an order report recommending the same
ought to be adopted.
Mark C. Montigny for the Committee.
The Senator from Worcester, Miss.
Chandler, moves that the rules be suspended,
so that the matter may be considered forthwith.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the rules are suspended.
The question now comes on adoption of the order.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the order is adopted.
Report of a Committee.
The Committee on Ways and Means to whom
is referred the Senate Bill relative to handicap parking,
Senate Number 2099.
Reports recommend the same ought to pass
with an amendment substituting a new draft with the same title,
Senate Number 2168.
Karen E. Spilka for the Committee.
The senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka,
has presented an order which the Clerk will read.
Notwithstanding the Senate Rule 7 or any other rule
to the contrary, the Senate Bill relative
to handicap parking, Senate Number 2099, the Committee
on Ways and Means having recommended that the bill be
amended by substituting a new draft, Senate Number 2168,
shall be placed in the orders of the day for the second reading
on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.
All amendments shall be filed electronically
in the Office of the Clerk of the Senate
by 5:00 PM on Monday, October 2, 2017.
All such amendments shall be second reading amendments
to Senate Number 2168.
But further amendments in the third degree to such amendment
shall be in order.
And the Clerk shall specify the procedure and format
for filing all amendments consistent with this order.
After the bill is amended, it is ordered to a third reading.
It shall immediately be read a third time.
And the question shall then immediately
be on passing it to be engrossed.
And no amendment shall be in order
of the third reading of the bill unless recommended
by the Committee on Bills in the third reading.
[INAUDIBLE] to the Committee on Rules, report of the Committee.
The Committee on Rules to whom is referred
[INAUDIBLE] Senate order reports recommend the same ought
to be adopted, Mark C. Montigny for the Committee.
The Senator from Worcester, Ms. Chandler,
moves that the rules be suspended,
so that the matter may be considered forthwith.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the rules are suspended.
The question now comes on adoption of the order.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the order is adopted.
If there is no objection, item number
52 on page three of the calendar, an act amending
the charter of the city known as the Town of Barnstable,
House Bill Number 3706 will be considered forthwith.
Is there an objection?
The chair has none.
The question comes on ordering the bill to a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it.
And the bill is ordered to a third reading.
Third reading of the bill--
An act amending the charter of the city known
as the Town of Barnstable House Number 3706 amended.
The question now comes on passing the bill
to be engrossed.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is passed to be engrossed.
Is there any objection to proceeding
with the orders of the day?
The chair hears none.
On page one, the first item is Calender Item Number 39,
Senate Bill Number 2114.
The question comes on ordering the bill to the third reading.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is order to a third reading.
The next item is Calendar Item Number 40, Senate Bill Number
2115.
Question comes on ordering in the bill to a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.
Next is Calendar Item Number 41, House Bill Number 2424.
The question comes on ordering the bill to a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.
The next is Calendar Item Number 42, House Bill Number 2779.
Question comes on ordering the bill to a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.
On page two, the next item is Calendar Item Number 43,
House Bill Number 2789.
Question comes on ordering to a third reading.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.
The Senate will be in a brief recess.
There will be in order.
The orders of the day have been completed.
That's what we call later.
The Senate will be in a brief recess.
Senate will be in order.
The Chair calls to the rostrum the Senator
from Essex, Mr. Tarr and the Senator
from Essex, Ms. O'Connor Ives for the purpose
of making a special introduction and, perhaps
later, a presentation.
[INAUDIBLE]
Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning.
It is nice to be with you here this morning.
It's nice to see a tremendous purple tie
as we initiate the beginning of our fall formal sessions.
Senator O'Connor Ives and I are very
pleased to have a very distinguished visitor
to the Senate with us this morning.
He is Gerry Maguire, formerly known as Gerard McGuire,
who has recently retired as the Director of Veterans Services
for North Andover and Boxford.
Mr. President, Gerry, in addition
to being a tremendous Veteran Service
Officer for the people in our region,
also has a very distinguished history of serving our country.
Mr. President, he has served our country for 45 years.
And 11 of those were in the United States Army.
And Mr. President, while in the army,
he was part of the third cavalry,
the fourth infantry, the Berlin Brigade,
the first of the 76th Field Artillery,
and the 89th and 76th Transportation Corps.
Mr. President, due to an injury, he
was honorably discharged from the United States Army
as a Staff Sergeant at the rating of E6.
And while working for the Veterans Services Post
active duty, he was a VA social worker with the Veterans
Affairs Support Housing.
And he worked as a substance abuse and suicide prevention
counselor.
And we know how important those roles are.
And we're very fortunate, Mr President,
that on the completion of those services,
he came to the Towns of North Andover and Boxford
to be our Veterans Services Agent.
And I want to ask Senator O'Connor Ives
to say a few words as well.
Because he is our guest.
And we're very proud to have him here with us.
Thank you very much.
I think it's very fitting to be in this formal setting
to recognize Gerry Maguire's contributions.
The thing that is special about him
is that even though we have the confines of our district
and his specific scope of responsibilities,
he feels very strongly that no matter where
a veteran lives they are his brothers and sisters.
And they deserve the strongest advocacy possible
whether they're alive with us and need access to benefits
that they've earned, or to make sure that their memories are
honored, no matter when they passed,
no matter where they live.
So it's with some regret that we see you go.
But we know that you won't be able to help but to stay
in the mix and continue to help every veteran that
crosses your path.
We thank you for your public service.
And we wish you the very best in your future endeavors.
[APPLAUSE]
Senator [INAUDIBLE].
Oh, sure.
Thanks.
Do you want to spend a few minutes right after this?
Senate will now stand in recess until the hour
of 1:00 PM, at which time we will promptly resume
the business of the Senate.
Because we have a full afternoon of activity
which we must dispose of as efficiently as possible.
Senate stands in recess until the hour 1:00 PM.
Senate will be in order.
One matter comes before the Senate for its final passage.
And under the Constitution, there
is a requirement of a call of the ayes and nays.
An act authorizing the City of Cambridge to use certain land
acquired for park, playground, or recreation purposes
for other municipal purposes, House Bill Number 1100.
The Clerk will call the roll.
I need another [? pencil. ?]
[INAUDIBLE]
Yeah.
Yes.
Michael J. Barrett.
Yes.
Joseph A. Boncore.
Yes.
Michael D. Brady.
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger.
Yes.
Harriette L. Chandler.
Yes.
Sonia Chang-Diaz.
Cynthia Stone Creem.
Julian Cyr.
Viriato M. deMacedo.
Yes.
Sal N. DiDomenico.
Eileen M. Donoghue.
James B. Eldridge.
Ryan C. Fattman.
Yes.
Jennifer L. Flanagan.
She's not even on there.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Anne M. Gobi.
[INAUDIBLE] Let's switch.
Switch with me.
OK.
That's right.
That one's right?
Cindy F. Friedman.
Yes.
That's so weird.
Do you have another one?
So just put Friedman as [INAUDIBLE]..
[AUDIO OUT]
Anne M. Gobi.
Gobi?
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds.
Yes.
Donald F. Humason Jr.
Yes.
Patricia D. Jehlen.
Yes.
John F. Kennan.
Yes.
Eric P. Lesser.
Yes.
Jason M. Lewis.
Yes.
Barbara A. L'Italien.
Yes.
Nope.
[INAUDIBLE]
Joan B. Lovely.
Yes.
Thomas M. McGee.
Yes.
Mark C. Montigny.
Yes.
Michael L. Moore.
Yes.
Yeah.
Patrick M O'Connor.
Yes.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
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 Timilty.
Yes.
James T. Welch.
Yes.
Yeah.
28.
If all members have been recorded,
[INAUDIBLE] recognizes the Senator
from Essex and Middlesex, [INAUDIBLE]..
Mr. President, have I been recorded?
You have not.
[INAUDIBLE] recorded as yes.
Barbara L'Italien votes yes.
The Senator from Middlesex and Worcester, [INAUDIBLE]..
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Senator from Middlesex [INAUDIBLE]..
Mr. President, have I been recorded?
You have not.
[INAUDIBLE]
Eileen M. Donahue votes yes.
Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Miss [INAUDIBLE]..
Yes, Mr. President, [INAUDIBLE] recorded [INAUDIBLE]..
Cynthia Stone Creem votes yes.
Senator from Worcester Ms. Chandler.
Mr. President, have I been recorded?
You have.
Senator from Suffolk, Ms. Chang-Diaz.
Mr. President [INAUDIBLE] recorded [INAUDIBLE]..
Sonia Chang-Diaz votes yes.
The Senator from Plymouth and Norfolk, Ms. O'Connor Ives.
Mr. President, [INAUDIBLE] recorded [INAUDIBLE]..
Kathleen O'Connor Ives votes yes.
Cyr and Forry, right?
Cyr, Forry, DiDomenico.
Yeah.
[AUDIO OUT]
Shall N. DiDomenico.
Yes.
[AUDIO OUT]
Yes.
Julian Cyr votes yes.
[AUDIO OUT]
On this matter 36 having voted in the affirmative,
none in the negative, the bill is passed to be enacted,
will be signed by Mr President, lay before the Governor
for his approbation.
One matter comes before the Senate for its final passage,
an act amending the charter of the city known
as the Town of Barnstable, House Bill Number 3706.
The question comes on passing the bill to be enacted.
All those in favor, say aye, opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill is passed to be enacted.
The-- what is this?
The Chair would respectfully ask members--
the Chair would respectfully ask members to please
subdue their conversations.
It's extremely difficult for the Clerk to hear the votes
while we're going through roll calls.
And as you know, the rest of this afternoon
will be virtually all veto overrides,
and therefore roll calls.
So we're asking you to please be in your seats.
Do not leave the chamber.
Because we're not going to be able to wait in order
for people to come back and forth, because we
have many items to consider.
And we can now practice this, because one matter
comes before the Senate for its final passage.
And under the Constitution, there's
a requirement of a call of the ayes and nays,
an act authorizing the Town of Lincoln
to exchange certain landfill property for conservation land
House Bill Number 3692.
The Clerk will call the roll.
3692.
93.
19.
Michael J. Barrett.
Yes.
Joseph A Boncore.
Yes.
Michael D. Brady.
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger.
Yeah.
No.
He said no?
Yes, he said yes.
He said yes.
William N. Brownsberger votes 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.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Cindy F. Friedman.
Yes.
And M. Gobi.
Yes, of course.
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 L. 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. Timilty.
Yes.
James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all members been recorded?
Yes.
[AUDIO OUT]
On this matter 36 having voted in the affirmative,
none in the negative, the bill has passed to be enacted,
will be signed by the President and laid before the Governor
for his approbation.
It is now my pleasure to call upon the Minority
Leader, the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr for a very, very
special presentation which you will all
want to pay attention to.
Because it truly is, Senator Pacheco, a very, very special
presentation by the Minority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
It's wonderful to be gathered back with you today
as we begin the resumption of formal sessions for the fall.
And Mr. President, we begin anew some traditions.
It's wonderful to have you on the rostrum.
You have a wonderful purple tie.
And as we think about those traditions,
it's important to think about one that we
have had to revisit of late.
And that is the symbol that must be in our chamber
during legislative debate.
So Mr. President, we may all recall
that when we first relocated to this satellite chamber,
it was duly noted that there was an absence
of one particular codfish in the chamber, which
is a requisite element of a legislative chamber
here at the State House.
And many members may recall that Senator Lovely
came to our rescue with the fish that is now above the rostrum.
But Mr. President, we all know that we truly
need to have the genuine article in the form of a codfish.
And so it was, Mr. President, that I put out
the call to the Cape Ann Chamber of Commerce.
And they searched far and wide for the appropriate artist
to be able to produce for us a codfish that
could remain in this satellite chamber and be,
Mr. President, a due extension of the tradition
that has lasted in the Chamber for so long.
And Mr. President, if the members would indulge me,
I would just point out that the first sacred cod believed
to be actually the third iteration of it
was originally installed at the old State House in 1784.
In 1798, it was moved to the new State House in what we all
know was originally the House Chamber, and then later
our Chamber.
And then in 1895, on the last day
the House was in the now Senate Chamber,
the sacred cod was relocated to the new House Chambers.
But of course, Mr. President, the Senate
was not to be outdone.
So we incorporated a cod into our wrought iron chandelier.
And so to be a little bit different from the House,
we identify ours as the Holy Mackerel.
Now, Mr. President, we all know that the sacred cod
has remained in its position of prominence in the House
with the exception of a brief time in 1933
when it was stolen by the members of the Harvard Lampoon.
That was referred to as a cod-napping.
And Mr. President, it caused such a shock
that some legislators felt it would
be sacrilegious to transact business
in the absence of a cod.
State detectives were called to the scene.
And law enforcement efforts even went so far as
to drag the Charles River to try to find the missing cod.
Well, fortunately, Mr. President,
we had a tremendous response from the Cape Ann
Chamber of Commerce.
And two artists are with us today.
And I'd ask them to join us on the rostrum,
because they have created for us a new sacred cod that we can
place here in our legislative chamber,
so that we can carry on this most important
of legislative traditions here at the State House.
And Senator Montigny, I know, also recognizes
the importance of this codfish.
And Senator, if you would like to join us here
on the rostrum for this presentation,
you would be most welcome.
[INAUDIBLE]
Yes.
OK.
What do you need?
What?
Yeah.
Go up there?
Yup.
Go right up there.
And you could present that to the--
And then present it to me.
Oh, OK.
Unfold it.
Unwrap it.
OK.
Well, it's a great honor for us to do that.
I can tell you that.
[INAUDIBLE]
So--
So why don't you hold it?
You guys hold it.
[APPLAUSE]
Senator Montigny.
Well, I look like the short man.
[APPLAUSE]
[AUDIO OUT]
Introduce for the edification of the members,
Robert Bliss from Gloucester who crafted this sacred codfish.
And I'd ask us all to give him another round of applause.
[APPLAUSE]
And also, we have Ken Riehl from the Cape Ann
Chamber of Commerce who has a gift, Mr. President, for you.
Mr. President.
I'd like to present to you from the Cape Ann
Chamber of Commerce and the City of Gloucester
and all the residents of Cape Ann, a symbol
that we are very proud of, a new Gloucester T-shirt
and a new Gloucester symbol.
We're very happy to be here today.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
[AUDIO OUT] size extra small.
[LAUGHTER]
[AUDIO OUT]
--recognizes is the Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk,
Ms. Spilka for remarks with regard to the matters
pending before us for the remainder of today's session.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I am informing the members that today we will be beginning--
well, starting the process--
of addressing some of the Governor's
actions on the fiscal year 2018 budget, the Conference
Committee budget.
During the conference process, if you remember,
the House and Senate were tasked with addressing
another difficult revenue shortfall.
We worked very closely with the House
and ended up cutting hundreds of billions of dollars
from the budget, over $700 million.
And this was after the administration had notified us
that they believed that the shortfall was somewhere
between $400 and $900 million.
We cut over $700 million, which was very challenging.
And it left some of our top priorities
reduced or even left them on the floor.
They were cut totally.
But we made the necessary tough decisions
to produce a balanced budget.
We submitted that balanced budget to the Governor.
And the Governor submitted back additional cuts
that will only serve to limit and, in some ways, some
of the cases, totally eliminate valuable services
across the Commonwealth.
So these items that we intend to take up today
are pretty much state-wide in scope.
And we have taken careful consideration
of those programs that have also been a priority of all of you
in the Senate Chamber.
By the close of today's session, we
aim to act on approximately 60 line items, line item vetoes,
totaling a little over $60 million.
Overall, to refresh your memory, the Governor
vetoed $320 million, $320.6 million
to be exact, from the Conference Committee budget,
impacting a total of 169 line items.
These cuts spanned across our priorities
from adult basic education to--
we tried to eliminate, once again
this year, the waiting list for pediatric palliative care,
so we don't have to tell terminally ill children you
have to wait till next year.
Some of them may not have a next year--
to recovery high schools, which has been a Senate initiative,
important initiative.
We in Ways and Means have been closely
monitoring the fiscal year '18 revenue, which
to date has remained relatively stable compared
to our benchmark.
Through the end of August, we were slightly
below, only slightly below, the year to date revenue benchmark.
by $11 million.
And if you remember, this is a $40 billion
budget, so $11 million is not much.
However, our September mid-month collection
surpassed expectations.
Through September 15th, our monthly collections
are $181 million or 13.9% higher than through the same period
in fiscal year 2017.
So while I admit that this is simply a mid-month report,
I remain confident that our Conference Committee budget
did produce a balanced budget.
And I am optimistically awaiting a strong full month report
for September, which is one of the largest
month for collections.
I, therefore, urge you to override these vetoes
and restore the funding that the legislature provided
for our communities and residents
across the Commonwealth.
Thank you.
A brief recess.
[AUDIO OUT]
Senate will be in order.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Why, thank you, Mr. President and through you to the members.
Mr. President, I want to make sure
that we all understand that which presently pends
before the Senate, which are a series of overrides
of gubernatorial vetoes which, if adopted, Mr. President,
will add significant sums of money back into the fiscal year
2018.
budget.
Mr. President, I would first like
to ask the distinguished Chairlady of Ways and Means
who has so expertly, Mr. President,
not only worked to produce that budget,
but also analyzed the current situation and the context
in which we may consider these vetoes, Mr. President, what
the current state of balance is of the budget
in this fiscal year?
Are we in deficit?
Mr. President, I know that she has indicated that the August
revenue numbers pointed us to the direction of being
approximately $11 million below benchmark, which would seem
to indicate Mr. President, that the budget is currently
out of balance if the revenue benchmark that
was used on which to base the budget
has now been underperformed by actual revenues.
So Mr. President, my first question is, with regard
to where we stand year to date, is the budget in balance?
And to what degree has revenue met the benchmark that
was utilized to develop the final General Appropriations
Act?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator from Norfolk-- excuse me,
Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. [AUDIO OUT].
And I thank the gentleman from Gloucester, the Minority Leader
for his question.
I thought I was clear, but evidently I wasn't.
So I will just reiterate that August we were $11 million
below benchmark, by the end of August.
By the middle of September, September alone
was $181 million above benchmark.
So you subtract the $11 million we were below
by the end of August, that brings us to $170 million
above benchmark.
So if we do $60 million, I believe
that that will still keep us well within a balanced budget.
[AUDIO OUT] Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And I do appreciate the clarification.
Because my concern, Mr. President,
is how we've been trending throughout the current fiscal
year relative to that benchmark.
And Mr. President, it's my understanding
that the month of September is consistently in the top four
in terms of months that produce revenue.
And so while I understand that we have mid-month projections
that seem extremely rosy, Mr. President,
I would ask that or pose the question as to why we would
consider taking up any matters of this much impact
on the fiscal year 2018 budget when we are days away from
final numbers for the fiscal year 2018 for the month
of September, rather--
I'm sorry, Mr. President.
We are days away from having the actual numbers for revenue
for September.
Now, I know that, obviously, there
is some exuberance relative to those mid-month numbers.
But as we've often seen, the mid-month numbers
are not always an accurate predictor
of what the month will actually generate.
So as we are here in the chamber today
and as September is drawing to a close
and we are days away from actually knowing
what one of the top four months in producing revenue
will yield, why, Mr. President, is the recommendation
of the gentlelady from the Committee on Ways
and Means that we act now?
Particularly, given the fact, Mr. President,
that there is no suggestion, nor do I
think the possibility, of any of these items actually becoming
deficient if we fail to override the veto.
We're still very early on in the fiscal year.
And so I'm wondering, Mr. President, what the urgency
is when, particularly, we have spent
so much time in this chamber talking
about how we'd like to do things based
on evidence and facts and verifiable information.
And all of those things will be available in just a few days.
And yet, we are here in a very volatile revenue situation,
which necessitated the downward reduction in the budget
by a substantial amount of money,
which the gentlelady did a tremendous job with of trying
to respond to that change in circumstances.
In that volatile revenue situation,
days away from having information
on one of the most important revenue months in the year, why
we would consider these overrides
at this particular point in time?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I would believe that the best answer to that gentleman's
questions are the House and Senate still
believe that we are within our balanced budget
that we submitted to the Governor.
And this shouldn't be a method of accounting
of cutting in anticipation of shortfalls or whatever
that don't actually appear to be reality yet.
So that when we submitted the budget to the administration,
it was a balanced budget.
And that budget should stand.
Those are the priorities of the House
and the Senate that pretty much all of the members
voted to support.
And that's what our budget should be--
that we are balanced, we have the funding as of now.
And that many of these programs, if they are not restored
and weeks go by, it takes longer and longer,
it's harder and harder, for the programs to either gear
up or gain momentum.
Or they're turning people away, or they end up
just not happening once more, because of being vetoed.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the gentlelady's response.
I would point out that we are not
talking about weeks of delay before we
have September revenue numbers for the final accounting
for that month, that we are talking about days,
not weeks and not months.
I would further point out to Mr. President
that in a letter written on September 20 of 2017
to the Chairs of the Ways and Means Committees
and the ranking minority members,
Commissioner Harding indicated that revenue collections are
uneven and weighted toward month end.
And the brief period covered in the mid-month
does not provide sufficient data for comparison to prior years.
And this is bolded, Mr. President, in the letter.
"Therefore, the department strongly
urges that mid-month figures should not
be used to assess trends or project future revenues."
And I'll repeat that statement from the letter
of the Commissioner of Revenue.
"Therefore, the department strongly
urges that mid-month figures should not
be used to assess trends or project future revenues."
Now, Mr. President, that's why the suggestion that I make
is that we should wait just a few days until we
have actual information that can be verified
and upon which judgments can be made about September revenue.
I would also further point out, Mr. President,
that in the last two fiscal years,
we have seen a similar scenario, a scenario where folks suggest
that vetoes are wholly appropriate-- or overrides,
rather, are wholly appropriate, that the budget
can sustain them.
And that in those years, we have seen subsequent reductions
which are far more devastating, because
of the time in the fiscal year in which they come than not
overriding a veto at this particular time which
is relatively early in the fiscal year.
So as we wait to the harms here of action and inaction, Mr.
President, it seems like we might
be well-advised to learn from the last two fiscal years
the danger of acting prematurely with regard to veto overrides,
because of the subsequent damage that is done as a result of 9C
cuts that must be undertaken to keep the budget in balance,
but that almost necessarily occur later in the fiscal year
than would the postponement of considering
veto overrides at a time such as the time period we're in now.
So Mr. President, it seems to me that we
would be well-advised to learn from fiscal year 2016,
to learn from fiscal year 2017, and to say that we are going
to do the prudent thing which is to wait
for some additional information to understand
the context and the trends of this budget
before we make such momentous decisions is
adding tens of millions of dollars back to the budget.
And we say to all of the folks that
are watching us to see what action is going to happen here
that we took the prudent course of not judging prematurely only
to establish the predicate for mid-year 9C budget cuts
that will be much more disruptive to those accounts
and those programs than would be the failure to enact
an override just a few days before we have
sufficient information to possibly avoid
that consequence.
So Mr. President, I appreciate the tremendous work
that the gentlelady from the Committee on Ways and Means
has done.
I appreciate the information that she's
provided us today and the explanation
that she's provided us today.
And I know that, Mr. President, she's
confident in the projections that she puts forward.
But Mr. President, I would point out
that we adopted a budget based on a certain degree
of confidence here just a few months ago
that had to be reduced by hundreds of millions
of dollars, because revenue projections were not
consistent with those levels of spending.
And we all know, Mr. President, the dramatic impact
that that had.
So I'm hoping that we can choose a more prudent, planned,
and deliberate course that's based
on having solid information in hand
before we consider these several gubernatorial vetoes
and potential overrides.
And Mr. President, we would heed the advice
of the Commissioner of Revenue who
suggest that we should wait until the end of September
before making any judgments about where we're
at with regard to revenue.
And as a result of that, Mr. President,
and in order to give us the opportunity
to return to a course of prudence,
I offer an order in the hands of the Clerk
that reads very simply that the Senate shall not
take any action on items disapproved by the Governor
from H 3800--
an act making appropriations for the fiscal year
2018 for the maintenance of the departments, boards,
commissions, institutions, and certain activities
of the Commonwealth for interest, sinking fund,
and serial bond requirements, and
for certain permanent improvements,
that's the budget--
until after the September 2017 tax revenue
collections data provided by the Department of Revenue,
so that we can wait a few days and take the prudent course
of action with regard to the fiscal future
of the Commonwealth.
And Mr. President, I move that the rules be suspended,
so that order can be considered by the Senate forthwith.
The gentleman has ruled that the rules be suspended,
so that the ordinary course of action would not follow,
which would be the order sent to the Rules
Committee for consideration.
15 minutes debate, three minutes per member,
the Chair recognizes the Senator from Plymouth and Barnstable,
Mr. deMacedo.
Thank you, Mr. President and through you to my colleagues.
I urge the suspension of the rules,
so that we can take up this order.
And I, too, share the concerns of the gentleman
from Gloucester for obvious reasons.
And it's because we are so close.
It is September 28.
By October 3 or 4, we will have that information.
So next Thursday, we can actually go in to session
and actually have a debate in regards
to what we should be doing with real factual numbers.
And I'm concerned, because what has happened
in the past over the last two years,
the Governor had to have veto moneys, $163 million.
We overrode $98 million.
That year we ended up being $481 million below benchmark.
In FY '17, the Governor veto $264,
the legislature overrode $256.
That year, we were $431 million below benchmark.
Why is that a concern?
It is a concern, because we are running out of options.
So let's say we override this money, and we expend it.
And we continue to go.
The Governor has two choices.
It is 9C cuts as far as revenue goes.
And as the gentleman shared before me,
those cuts halfway through the year, a 3% cut in the budget,
ends up being the equivalent of a 6% cut in the budget.
And I'll tell you any agency in this legislature would tell you
they would rather know the truth now than find out
in December or January.
Or, even worse is that we keep following out,
and then we have to go after one last fund, which
is our rainy day fund.
We have $1.3 billion in our rainy day fund on a $40 billion
budget.
And in 2007, we had $2.8 billion in that rainy day fund
with a $25 billion budget.
So it just shows you that we do not have the cushion
that we had then.
And let me tell you, I think we all know, because many of us
were there, that that rainy day fund helped
alleviate a lot of pain.
Beyond that, the biggest concern is what kind of a message
does that send to the bondholders in regards
to the fiscal health of the Commonwealth
if we have to cut into that rainy day fund?
I want to sit here with all of my colleagues
and join you in overriding these very important items.
I get it.
I understand they're all very important.
But we have a responsibility as legislators
to live within our fiscal means.
And the reality is we do not yet know what our fiscal means are.
I am hopeful.
I believe that when we find out that information on October 3,
it will be a great opportunity for all of us.
Yes, the revenues are better.
And we can do these things.
We all want to do these things.
But I'd like to do it with a clear vision of where
we are financially.
So it is my hope that we do not take up and allow
for the suspension of rules.
So we can allow this order to go into effect,
and then come back here next week, hopefully,
with the news that the revenues are, in fact, $180 billion
above benchmark, and we were right.
I hope that's the case.
But if we're not, then we wouldn't
have made what I believe is a large fiscal mistake that
could cost the Commonwealth and certainly
hurt agencies down the road.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk,
Ms. Spilka.
I'd just like to reiterate one of the major points, two
major points.
When we submitted the budget, it was a balanced budget.
I think almost everybody voted in favor of the budget.
It was a balanced budget.
Second point-- we are, as of now, I
recognize it was the middle of September, $170 million
above benchmark.
I would suggest that there is no reason
to be cutting when we are $170 million above benchmark.
We will see what happens.
But I believe that we still have a balanced budget.
And I ask that when a vote be taken on this,
it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.
Vote on the suspension of the rules
be taken by a call on the ayes and nays.
Those joining [INAUDIBLE] rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen when the vote is taken,
it'll be taken by a call of the ayes and nay.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Bristol and Plymouth,
Mr. Montigny.
Mr. President, I would just recommend as Chairman of Rules
that we have rules for good reason.
In fact, I think we crafted a very responsible list of rules
and rules reform this year in a real cooperative effort
with the minority party.
So I hope in this case there will
be a no vote on the motion, because I think the rules are
there for a reason.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
The time remaining for debate is--
10 minutes.
--10 minutes.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, you know, I have tremendous amount
of respect for the gentleman who Chairs the Committee on Rules.
But the gentleman knows that if we
were to observe the rule that is currently in place,
it would prevent the body from considering
this order in a timely manner.
And Mr. President, if the gentleman
thought that we should never suspend the rules,
then I would suggest he should attend
every informal session of the body
when we suspend rules regularly.
In fact, Mr. President, I could prepare for him
a spreadsheet of all the rules that are regularly suspended,
so that matters can be taken up in a wide variety of ways.
And Mr. President, we collaborate
on some of those suspensions of the rules.
Because we understand that something is timely
and that the rules would otherwise
serve to be a barrier to timely consideration of a matter
that would render its effect null or moot or void.
The gentleman knows that, Mr. President,
because we watch time and again as he either
recommends or certainly is in tacit approval
of the suspension of a particular rule.
And how interesting is it, Mr. President,
that one of the rules that's most often suspended
is the requirement of a fiscal note
with a particular piece of legislation,
routinely suspended?
So we close our eyes and say, well, we're not
going to pay attention to this.
Let's just admit it and refer it to Committee.
I wonder where we are with those particular enforcement
of the rules.
Perhaps, we should, Mr. President,
more often have a debate about moves suspension of that.
I believe it's Rule 12.
Maybe we should debate that more often.
as we seek to move legislation through the process
without consideration of its fiscal impact at the outset
as the rules dictate.
No, Mr. President, this is not a suggestion
of arbitrarily suspending a rule.
This is a situation of suspending a rule when it's
in the best interest of this body
and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to operate,
has been so often proclaimed at this microphone
and that microphone and that microphone,
that we should always operate with the best
available information, a hard proposition to disagree with.
And the Senate President certainly
has created an environment in this chamber
where we honor that proposition.
And we support him in that and appreciate his leadership
in that regard.
So Mr. President, this is rather a situation where
we have a choice, when we have a choice, Mr. President,
between choosing conscious ignorance of saying that we
know that information is right around the corner,
but we're going to choose to ignore it,
or whether we say let's receive that information.
Mr. President, put it through and subject it
to the various analyses that we all
do when we receive that kind of information
and make the best decisions we can.
But to suggest somehow, Mr. President,
that by postponing consideration of an order that really has one
moving part to say that we'll postpone consideration
of vetoes until, effectively, next week
makes me wonder, Mr. President.
Perhaps, if the gentleman feels as strongly about that,
we could pass a second order, Mr. President,
that the Rules Committee will report immediately
and forthwith on an order that says we won't consider vetoes
until we get revenue data.
Now, Mr. President, I am always amazed
at the ability of the gentleman from New Bedford.
It never ceases to amaze me.
He is a compendium of information.
Mr. President, his level and degree of analysis
is absolutely astonishing for all of us.
And so I suspect that to analyze the four
lines in this order, Mr. President,
for him should be just about as easy as waking up
in the morning.
And so if we want to stand on the rules,
then we'll just amend the order and set a deadline.
And Mr. President, we'll even be fair about it.
We'll say that we should postpone consideration
of the vetoes until the gentleman has had
a chance to weigh on the order.
And then we can vote on the order.
And then if the order doesn't prevail,
we can take up the vetoes.
We are seeking here to be collaborative, not
obstructionist.
And Mr. President, again, if the gentleman
wants to observe the rules, then the rules
provide for a way to expedite this.
Mr. President, I know that he is checking his watch
at the moment.
I'm not sure, Mr. President, if that's
because he's timing the length of my remarks,
or he's giving us an assessment of how long it would take
the Rules Committee to analyze an order that says we won't
take up vetoes until next week.
I'm not sure which one it is.
I suspect, Mr. President, that I have
more time left in the debate than it
would take the gentleman who was of sultan the Rules
Committee from being able to come up
with a report on this matter.
And what would be really interesting, Mr. President,
is if there was any kind of a recommendation from the Rules
Committee that in effect says that we should
choose conscious ignorance and ignore the information that
is days away from one of the most important revenue
months in the year before we consider budget vetoes that
total tens of millions of dollars.
So Mr. President, I'm happy to engage the gentlemen
if he would like to have a Rules Committee report.
And we can set a time limit on it.
I'd be happy to accept that as a friendly amendment.
Barring that, Mr. President, I suspect
that the gentleman has already analyzed this several times.
And knowing him as I do and knowing his passionate embrace
of the facts and careful analysis,
I would suspect that he would say
if he would have to make a report on this matter
that, of course, it's prudent to understand what September
brings before taking action.
on things that will affect us for the rest of the month.
Mr. President, I hope the rules are suspended.
The yeas and nays having been ordered,
it is a 2/3 vote is required to approve the suspension.
And the Clerk will call the roll beginning with the Chair.
Stanley C. Rosenberg.
No.
Michael J. Barrett.
No.
Joseph A. Boncore.
No.
Michael D. Brady.
No.
William N. Brownsberger.
No.
Harriette L. Chandler.
No.
Sonia Chang-Diaz.
No.
Cynthia Stone Creem.
No.
Julian Cyr.
No.
Viriato M. deMacedo.
Yes.
Sal N. DiDomenico.
No.
Eileen M. Donoghue.
You
No.
James B. Eldridge.
No.
Ryan C. Fattman.
Yes.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Cindy F. Friedman.
No.
Anne M Gobi.
No.
Adam G. Hinds.
No.
Donald F. Humason Jr.
Yes.
Patricia D. Jehlen.
Senator Jehlen?
No.
John F. Keenan.
No.
Eric P. Lesser.
No.
Jason M. Lewis.
No.
Barbara A. L'Italien.
No.
Joan B. Lovely.
No.
Thomas M. McGee.
No.
Mark C. Montigny.
No.
Michael L. Moore.
No.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
Yes.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
No.
Marc R. Pacheco.
No.
No Michael J. Rodrigues.
No.
Richard J. Ross.
[INAUDIBLE] yes.
Yes.
Michael F. Rush.
No.
Karen E. Spilka.
No.
Bruce E. Tarr.
Yes.
Walter F. Timilty.
No.
James T. Welch.
No.
Have all members been recorded?
[AUDIO OUT]
On this matter 6 having voted in the affirmative, 30
in the negative, 31 in the negative,
the rules are not suspended.
And the order will, in fact, be referred to the very committee
that the gentleman sought consideration from--
paper from the House.
Item number 0321-2100 containing section two
relative to Correctional Legal Services Committee
comes from the House for the endorsement
that the House has passed this bill
notwithstanding the reduction of His Excellency the Governor 117
to 35.
The question before the Senate is shall this item pass
notwithstanding the objections of the Governor
to the contrary-- the Senator from Essex Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry?
The gentleman will State his point of parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. President, has the pending matter
before the Senate been reported upon by either the Committee
on Ways and Means or the Committee on Rules?
It has not.
It has been taken up as a paper from the House.
Mr. President?
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
And I hope everyone has certainly
seen what's happening here, where
we use a clever bit of parliamentary technique
to avoid analysis.
Because we, Mr. President, just moments ago
swore allegiance to the rules even when
it means that we can't take up something in a timely manner.
But now, we have matters before us
that have neither been through the Committee on Rules,
nor have they been reported on by the Committee
on Ways and Means.
So.
Mr. President, I would expect that the gentleman from Rules
will be next making a motion to refer these matters,
so that they can be properly considered
according to the rules.
Further, Mr. President, let me point out that failing that--
and I suspect it may not happen.
I know that there are long odds against that.
But what we're about to engage in, Mr. President,
is really a situation of override roulette,
where a number of matters are presented
to us in a very rapid pace.
And we are to consider them in the context--
Chair apologizes for interrupting
the gentlemen who's speaking.
It's been pointed out that [INAUDIBLE] very difficult
to hear.
I've stated that repeatedly.
But I'm told that it's even more difficult with people
congregating in the aisles that are next to the two places
where the members speak.
And while your conversations are going on in those aisles,
it's very distracting, not only for the folks listening,
but for the two people who are actually
engaged in debate right there.
So again, if you are able to do so,
please conduct your conversations
outside of the chamber.
If you must speak within the chamber,
please do so in a subdued tone.
And please do so somewhere closer to the middle
here, so that it will not distract the people who
are actually trying to speak and focus on their debate,
because it's very distracting.
They can't even sort of focus on their own thoughts,
because they can actually hear the conversations that are
going on in these two aisles.
So I thank you for your forbearance on this.
And the Chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Your action is most welcome.
I want to thank the gentlelady from Ways and Means who
I know was having similar difficulty hearing
and brought the situation to your attention.
I actually was able to hear a little bit of things that
were being said by some of these congregated groups
as they were saying, why would we take vetoes
when we're only days away from having
more information about the fiscal year 2018 budget?
I heard that in at least two or three clusters.
And in fact, I even saw some head scratching going on,
which is sort of a nonverbal indication
that we're in quite a mysterious position here.
But Mr. President, again, failing
any interventionist action here on the part of the Committee
on Rules or its Chairman, I suspect
that what we are about to engage in
is, in fact, override roulette, where
you have to place your bet, spin the wheel,
vote one way or the other, and hope for the best.
And Mr. President, I don't believe
that sound budgeting should incorporate
the practice of override roulette,
particularly when we have just a few days
to have better information.
Now, clearly Mr. President, all of the items
that are going to be considered if we consider
the several vetoes for override represent
a program that is, in many ways, Mr. President, laudable.
They all have a purpose.
They were all included in the budget for a reason.
They were all approved by this body for a reason
as the body expressed its support for the budget that
was engineered by the distinguished Chair
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
But Mr. President, this should not
be a discussion about a particular item
or its particular constituency or its particular purpose,
Mr. President, necessarily at this point.
We should be having a discussion about the prudence of voting
to override all of these items.
and establishing the predicate for a requisite subsequent 9C
if September revenue and the months that follow
do not meet the benchmarks that were set forth in developing
this spending plan.
It's quite that simple.
So Mr. President, I know that it may
be tempting to focus on some of these individual programs.
Again, Mr. President, they're all in the budget for a reason.
They all affect people in the Commonwealth.
And that's why we need to be particularly careful in how
we handle these matters.
Now, Mr. President, I suspect that we are not
going to hear from the Chairman of the Rules Committee
about referring these to Rules or the Chairman of the Ways
and Means Committee on referring these to Ways and Means.
So we're left with having to consider
as best we can the situation that we are going
to face as a Commonwealth in the remaining
months of this fiscal year.
Again, Mr. President, I hope and would
hope that there is a better approach chosen
than override roulette.
But it seems like that's where we're at.
And Mr. President, I hope that we'll consider each of these
carefully.
That being said, I know that an override is before the Senate
presently.
And I'm hoping that the gentlelady from Ways and Means
can explain to us what this particular matter is that now
pends before the Senate and, Mr. President,
how much it adds back to the budget that we hope
will be restored by revenue that will come in
from the next successive months.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
This first veto would reduce the Prisoners' Legal Services
funding by $122,000 for a total funding level of $1.4 million.
Prisoners' Legal Services is the sole organization
responsible for providing legal services to the state's 22,000
inmates creating a ratio of inmates to Prisoners' Legal
Services attorneys that's approximately--
and get this--
2,750 to 1.
That's 2,750 to 1.
Some of these legal services include
advocating for inmates regarding mental health and substance
abuse disorder, treatment in prisons
and houses of correction, as well as other civil rights
litigation, client counseling, and legislative outreach.
Reducing funding to this nonprofit organization
would definitely weaken its ability
to provide crucial legal services
to incarcerated persons across Massachusetts
with such already large case loads any negative impact
on Prisoners' Legal Services ability to fully staff
would weaken access to justice, a very important Senate
initiative.
Therefore, I ask that you vote yes and overturn this veto.
The Clerk will call the roll.
It's 213.
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 M. deMacedo.
No.
Sal N. DiDomenico.
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue.
Yes.
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman.
No.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Cindy F. Friedman.
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi.
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds.
Yes.
Donald F. Humason Jr.
No.
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 L. Moore.
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
No.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
Yes.
Marc R. Pacheco.
Yes.
Michael J. Rodrigues.
Yes.
Richard J. Ross.
No.
Michael F. Rush.
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka.
Yes.
Bruce E. Tarr.
No.
Walter F. Timilty.
Yes.
James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all member been recorded?
[AUDIO OUT]
[INAUDIBLE]
On this matter 31 having voted in the affirmative, 6
in the negative, the matter stands
notwithstanding the objections of His Excellency
the Governor to the contrary.
Paper from the House--
Item 0336-003 containing section two relative to Housing Court
expansion comes from House with the endorsement
that the House has passed this item
notwithstanding the reduction of the Governor 123 to 29.
The question before the Senate is shall the item
pass notwithstanding the objections of His Excellency
the Governor to the contrary.
Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, as we continue with override roulette
here in the Senate, this afternoon,
I'm hoping that we can get an explanation of this next veto.
I know that it reduces the amount for Housing Court
expansion that was included in the final General
Appropriations Act.
But it does not appear to eliminate
that entire amount of funding.
I believe there was $1 million in the Conference Committee
Report and the GAA.
This appears to be a lesser amount.
So I'm hoping, Mr. President, we can
understand what exactly is happening here
with this reduction and if the reduction would prevent
the expansion from taking place that was included in the GAA.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
Thank you, Mr. President.
This veto would reduce the Housing Court expansion line
item by $250,000 resulting in an appropriation of $750,000.
The Housing Court expansion has been a Senate initiative
and priority for the last few years.
We were successful in obtaining this in the Conference
Committee Budget.
Prior to getting Housing Court expansion, 2/3 of the state
had access to Housing Court.
A full one third, I think it's 84 communities, did not.
The Cape and Islands did not.
Areas of the Southeast did not.
The Metro West did not.
Certain pockets, even parts of Boston, did not.
Housing Court provides the expertise
and a way for landlords and tenants
to not only resolve housing cases faster,
they have a tendency preservation program
attached to keep people in their homes to prevent homelessness,
to save the Commonwealth money.
In addition to that, it is incredibly cost effective.
It is one of the cheapest district court
ways to dispose of cases.
Because of the expertise in Housing Court,
more housing cases can be taken up
and disposed at less cost to the Commonwealth's taxpayers.
So there are an incredible number
of reasons why the Senate fought to have Housing Court fully,
and I stress the word fully, across all areas
of the Commonwealth.
So it didn't matter what zip code
you lived in, you had access to Housing Court.
And it handles residential housing,
including discrimination and the health
and safety of its tenants.
The Housing Court, also, many municipalities rely upon it.
Because it has jurisdiction over code enforcement actions
and appeals of local zoning board decisions with its 10
judges conducting sessions currently
in 18 different locations every week.
So with the crisis that there's been--
and there's no sign of it slowing down--
full expansion with the addition of another five judges
which has been contemplated with the full $1 million
amount, would provide crucial access to all
of the Commonwealth citizens.
Cutting the $250 would weaken the Housing Court's ability
to ensure all of the things that I just talked about.
And again, it would weaken the ability
to provide access to justice to all of our residents
and their right to live in safe living conditions.
I ask that you vote yes and override this veto.
The Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call.
20?
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.
Juliann Cyr.
Yes.
Viriato M. deMacedo.
No.
Sal N. DiDomenico.
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue.
Yes.
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman.
No.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Cindy F. Friedman.
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi.
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds.
Yes.
Donald F. Humason Jr.
No.
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 L. Moore.
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
Yes.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
Yes.
Marc R. Pacheco.
Yes.
Michael J. Rodrigues.
Yes.
Richard J. Ross.
No.
Michael F. Rush.
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka.
Yes.
Bruce E. Tarr.
No.
Walter F. Timilty.
Yes.
James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all members--
[AUDIO OUT]
[INAUDIBLE]
On this matter 31 having voted in the affirmative, 5
in the negative, the matter stands
notwithstanding the objections of His Excellency
the Governor to the contrary.
Paper from the House--
Item 0511-0270 containing section two relative to census
data technical assistance comes from the House
with the endorsement that the House has passed this item
notwithstanding the reduction of His Excellency the Governor 118
to 34.
The question before the body is shall the item
pass notwithstanding the objections of His Excellency
the Governor to the contrary.
The Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call.
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.
yes Julian Cyr.
Yes.
Viritao M. deMacedo.
No.
Sal N. DiDomenico.
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue.
Yes.
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman.
No.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Cindy F. Friedman.
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi.
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds.
Yes.
Donald F. Humason Jr.
No.
Patricia D. Jehlen.
Yes.
yes John F. Keenan.
Yes.
Eric P. Lesser.
Yes.
Jason M. Lewis.
Yes.
Barbara A. L'Italien.
Yes.
Joan B. Lovely.
Yes.
yes Thomas M. McGee.
Yes.
Mark C. Montigny.
Yes.
yes Michael L. Moore.
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
No.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
Yes.
Marc R. Pacheco.
Yes.
Michael J. Rodrigues.
Yes.
Richard J. Ross.
No.
Michael F. Rush.
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka.
Yes.
Bruce E. Tarr.
No.
Walter F. Timilty.
Yes.
And James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all members been--
[AUDIO OUT]
On this matter, 30 having voted in the affirmative, 6
in the negative, the matter stands
notwithstanding the objections of His Excellency
the Governor to the contrary.
Paper from the House--
Item 0610-0050 containing section two
relative to the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
comes from the House with the endorsement
that the House has passed this item not
withstanding the reduction of His Excellency
the Governor 116 to 36.
The Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members.
Mr. President, I'm hoping we can get a brief explanation
of this particular item and the consequences
of not overriding it.
The Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.
[AUDIO OUT]
Just one second.
Did--
[AUDIO OUT]
OK.
This veto would eliminate $50,000 from the Alcohol
Beverages Control Commission.
ABCC account provides funds for the manufacturing, importation,
storage, and sale of all alcoholic beverages
in the state.
It verifies and processes more than 32,000 license
transactions a year with a team of just 26 employees.
And this veto would likely force layoffs to even further give
a stronger intense case workload.
ABCC has one of the lowest licensures to licensees ratio
in the country now.
Additional support is imperative for the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Commission in order to help
it to run smoothly and fulfill its mission.
Therefore, I ask that you overturn this veto.
The Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call.
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 M. deMacedo.
No.
Sal N. DiDomenico.
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue.
Yes.
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman.
No.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Cindy F. Friedman.
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi.
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds.
Yes.
Donald F. Humaon Jr.
No.
Patricia D. Jehlen.
Yes.
John F. Keenan.
Yes.
Eric P. Lesser.
Yes.
Jason M. Lewis.
Yes.
Barbara A. L'Italien.
Yes.
yes Joan B. Lovely.
Yes.
yes Thomas M. McGee.
Yes.
Mark C. Montigny.
Yes.
Michael L. Moore.
Yes.
Patrick M. O'Connor.
No.
Kathleen O'Connor Ives.
Yes.
Marc R. Pacheco.
Yes.
Michael J. Rodrigues.
Yes.
yes Richard J. Ross.
No.
Michael F. Rush.
Yes.
Karen E. Spilka.
Yes.
Bruce E. Tarr.
No.
no Walter F. Timilty.
Yes.
yes James T. Welch.
Yes.
Have all--
[AUDIO OUT]
On this matter, 30 having voted in the affirmative, 6
in the negative, the matter stands
notwithstanding the objections of His Excellency
the Governor to the contrary.
Paper from the House--
Item 0640-0300 containing section two
relative to the Massachusetts Cultural Council
comes from the House with the endorsement
that this item has passed notwithstanding the reduction
in objections of His Excellency the Governor 138 to 14.
Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.
Thank you, Mr. President, and through to the members.
Mr. President, I know that this particular item
is one of great interest to many members throughout the Chamber.
And I'm hoping that we can get an explanation of what
exactly is going on with it.
in terms of the amount of the proposed reduction
and the impact if it is not overridden.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms.
Thank you, Mr. President.
This veto would cut $1.9 million for the Massachusetts Cultural
Council, including 25,000 for the Springfield Central
Cultural Council District.
Cutting the Mass Cultural Council by almost $2 million
would severely diminish fundamental grant programs
and close arts education opportunities
for children and schools and youth programs
throughout the Commonwealth.
As the gentleman from Gloucester the Minority Leader
acknowledged, this has been a priority of the Senate.
This is a very important line item for the Senate.
The funding provided for the Springfield Central Cultural
District will support the city's initiative
to bring arts and culture to downtown Springfield.
We are very fortunate to have and live
in a state that is so rich in arts and culture
compared to no other in the country.
And it is our job.
It creates jobs.
The Cultural Council helps support programs
that create arts and cultural programs that
actually help to create jobs across the state.
It's our job to continue to enhance communities
with the arts, sciences, and humanities.
And I ask that you vote to overturn this veto.
Thank you.
The Clerk will call the roll beginning with the Chair.
Stanley C. Rosenberg.
Yes.
Michael J. Barrett.
Yes.
Joseph A. Boncore.
Yes.
Michael D. Brady.
Yes.
William N. Brownsberger.
Yes.
Harriette L. Chandler.
Yes.
Sonya Chang-Diaz.
Yes.
Cynthia Stone Creem.
Yes.
Julian Cyr.
Yes.
Virato M. deMacedo.
Yes.
Sal N. DiDomenico
Yes.
Eileen M. Donoghue.
Yes.
James B. Eldridge.
Yes.
Ryan C. Fattman.
Yes.
Linda Dorcena Forry.
Cindy F. Friedman.
Yes.
Anne M. Gobi
Yes.
Adam G. Hinds.
Yes.
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 L. 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. Timilty.
Yes.
And James T. Welch.
Yes.
[AUDIO OUT]
--been recorded.
[AUDIO OUT]
37 [INAUDIBLE]
On this matter--