HOUSE SESSION - WEDNESDAY, FEB. 13, 2008

Posting or forwarding this material without permission is prohibited. Contact permission@statehousenews.com.

CONVENES: The House convened at 11 am, Rep. Donato presiding. Chaplain Quinn read a prayer and representatives and guests recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

SICK LEAVE BANK: The House attached an emergency preamble to H 4505 establishing a sick leave bank for a trial court employee.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - RATE BILL: The Ways and Means Committee recommended H 4528 as a substitute for H 4374 relative to unemployment insurance rates and the Committee on Scheduling recommended that it be considered for debate. The House suspended rules, adopted the Ways and Means amendment and ordered the substitute bill to third reading.

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION: The Committee on Scheduling recommended that S 1059 relative to employee compensation be considered by the House, with the Committee on Labor and Workforce Development dissenting. The bill, which was ordered to third reading and engrossed by the Senate on Tuesday, was then ordered to third reading by the House.

FALL RIVER - FIREFIGHTER APPOINTMENTS: The House enacted H 4089 authorizing the appointment of certain persons as firefighters in Fall River.

PEABODY DISTRICT COURT: A Costello bill authorizing the appointment of two additional clerks in Peabody District Court was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

RECESSES: The House recessed at 11:21 am, intending to return at 1 pm. Rep. Donato asked court officers to inform members that there is an ongoing informational caucus in Room A-1 and there will be a Democratic caucus at 12:30 pm in Room A-1.

RETURNS: The House returned at 1:53 pm, Rep. Scaccia presiding. Rep. Peterson was also present.

UI BILL: The Committee on Bills in Third Reading released H 4528 relative to unemployment insurance rates. The House suspended rules to take up the bill and it was engrossed with four members in the chamber.

RETURNS: The House returned at 1:53 pm, Rep. Scaccia presiding.

UI BILL: The Committee on Bills in Third Reading released H 4528 relative to unemployment insurance rates. The House suspended rules to take up the bill and it was engrossed with four members in the chamber.

NORTHEAST SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE: The House enacted S 549 abolishing the Northeast Solid Waste Committee.

PHENYLKETONURIA AWARENESS DAY: The House enacted H 3174 to designate May 24 as Phenylketonuria Awareness Day, in recognition of the genetic disorder characterized by an inability of the body to utilize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Rep. Scaccia read the bill's title as designating May 24 as "something awareness day."

BREWSTER: The House enacted H 3955 that the town of Brewster be authorized to incur certain debt in anticipation of water betterment assessments.

WELLFLEET: The House enacted H 4036 that the town of Wellfleet be authorized to issue bonds for the cost of reconstructing a seawall in the harbor of said town.

NORMAN ROCKWELL: The House enacted H 4228 to designate Norman Rockwell as the official artist of the Commonwealth.

HARWICH: The House enacted H 4255 that the town of Harwich be authorized to acquire certain property of the Pine Grove Cemetery Association of said town.

MAYOR OF BRAINTREE SALARY: The House enacted H 4398 relative to the initial salary for the mayor of Braintree.

WORCESTER: The House enacted H 4497 exempting certain positions in the city of Worcester from the civil service law.

BANK FEES: The House enacted H 975 relative to exempting seniors from certain bank fees.

HARWICH: Question came on enacting H 4257 authorizing Harwich to acquire certain real property. Under the constitution, a roll call is required.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 149-0, BILL ENACTED

JONES - LOCAL AID RESOLUTION: At 2:19 pm, Rep. Jones moved to suspend rule 24, paragraph 2 to offer a resolution in the hands of the clerk dealing with minimum local aid amounts in fiscal 2009.

Rep. Scaccia said this will be a ten-minute debate.

Rep. Jones said we hope to move expeditiously on an early local aid resolution. Cities and towns are grappling with where they will go under serious time and financial constraints. The resolution says the agreement we adopted in fiscal 2007 will be fully funded. It says for the Lottery, we will deliver the exact amount we did last year. We would not buy into the governor's conditional cut of $124 million relative to not going casinos. The resolution also provides $150 million on a one-time basis through the Lottery formula. The money is there. It is reasonable e and responsible. We know how important early local aid numbers are. If the speaker blueprint is to be believed, there is one difference between what we propose and what he believes. We can say under no circumstances will cities and towns get less. We had an event today with support from 150 municipal officials. This is a reasonable thing to do.

Rep. Peterson said I hope the rule is suspended. They want an early number to move forward with budget deliberations. The proposal is similar to what the governor has in his budget, with the additional $150 million distributed under the Lottery formula. It's the balance of the $450 million withheld in 04, 05 and 06. It's affordable. I am sure your selectmen and school committees are saying, when is the budget going to be done? When will we have a firm number we can rely on? I hear it over and over and over again. I urge the members to support this resolution.

Rep. Frost said this does not tie the hands of this body or the Senate from adding to the numbers. It also makes sure they know that they will be held harmless when it comes to the state Lottery. We will not follow the governor's proposal of saying they will get the funds if the casino proposal passes. God knows when that may or may not happen.

Rep. Perry said we had local officials talking to the media earlier about what this means to them. They are starting their budgets and are well into it and are making educated guesses. With all the uncertainty, whether you believe we have a one billion dollar deficit or will have casinos or whether you believe the figures on corporate taxes or believe we should use the stabilization funds, those are all unanswered questions. In my town, we have town meetings in April and May. We are going to recess for school vacation next week. We need to make a commitment today or they may have to guess. We have uncertainty regarding snow and ice budgets. Sandwich says they are $900,000 in the red. Let's send them a clear message today and suspend this rule and get this resolution done. We have $2.2 billion in our rainy day fund. This is a responsible approach. It's the right thing to do. The gentleman mentioned the $450 million that was improperly withheld after 9-11. People are told to play the lottery and support hometown education. Most did not know we are capping the lottery. We did it for three years and held back $450 million that we didn't need to. We put it into our rainy day account that has grown and grown to this record . . .

Rep. Perry's time expired.

Rep. deMacedo said many of you understand what has happened here. We remember 2003 when communities took a 20 percent cut in local aid. We had to tighten our budgets. Things turned around and we rebuilt the rainy day fund. In many of our communities, they are still not back to the 2003 levels. In my town, we went from 20 to 16 million and are now above 18 million dollars. This would put my community back in the position to deal with challenges they are facing with fire and police departments and teachers. Our communities have been hit hard since 2003. We can send a clear message that we prioritize local aid as our number one priority. I ask that the resolution passes.

Rep. Webster said he supports suspending the rules. I received a phone call from a selectman. It's one of many I receive. They are putting budgets together. We were good last year about passing a local aid resolution. But we do not do it in a timely manner. They are trying to put their budgets together right now. One of the most important things we do is advocate for cities and towns we represent. Residents get the most benefit for the tax dollar at the local level. We should make this commitment. We balanced the budget in the House to a certain extent on the backs of cities and towns. Their stabilization funds have become depleted. Let's all stand up and do the right thing.

There was objection to suspending the rules, and the matter was referred to the Committee on Rules. Republicans laughed out loud at the referral. Rep. Jones asked if there would be a hearing. Rep. Scaccia said I may add that it's not subject to discharge.

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION: Question came on engrossing S 1059 regulating employee compensation.

PAY PERIODS AMENDMENT: Rep. Rodrigues offered an amendment adding the words, weekly, biweekly or semi-monthly.

Rep. Rodrigues said we will be voting on a bill that will clarify what was the original intent of a bill passed in 1993 that employers in violation of the wage act are subject to triple or treble damages. This changes a section of the wage act to allow employers to pay employers semi-monthly, or twice a month, or the way we get paid, on the first and the 15th. Employers may now pay weekly or biweekly. I hope the amendment is adopted.

Amendment ADOPTED.

Bill engrossed at 2:43 pm.

GUESTS: Rep. Scaccia introduced six state basketball officials.

SICK LEAVE: The House enacted H 4505 sick leave bank for a trial court employee.

At 3:05 pm, the House began to consider items on the calendar, holding most of them.

QUINEBAUG AND SHETUCKET RIVERS: The House engrossed S 2310 relative to revising the composition and duties of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley Heritage District and Commission.

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE: The clerk read the title of H 678 agreement among states to elect the president by national popular vote. Before the bill could be brought up for a third reading vote, Rep. Peterson said "pass" and the item was passed over.

FALL RIVER: The House ordered to third reading S 2251 appointment of special police officers in Fall River.

SWAMPSCOTT: The House ordered to third reading S 2324 property tax exemptions in Swampscott.

SPRINGFIELD: The House ordered to third reading H 4082 that the city of Springfield be authorized to enter into a certain lease with the Springfield Library and Museums Association, notwithstanding the provisions of the uniform procurement law.

ATHLETICS - CODE OF CONDUCT: The House ordered to third reading H 553 to authorize codes of conduct for players, coaches, officials and parents in athletic settings.

BRIMFIELD: The House ordered to third reading S 2328 establishing a special fund in the town of Brimfield.

GIFT CERRTIFICATES: The House adopted a Ways and Means amendment and ordered to third reading S 2345 further regulating the sale of gift certificates.

DTE-LICENSED ENTITIES: The House ordered to third reading S 2469 regulating public entities licensed by the department of telecommunications and energy.

AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY: The House ordered to third reading H 432 teaching of African American history in public schools.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS: The House ordered to third reading H 448 relative to school improvement plans.

CONSENT: The House ordered to third reading H 1151 caregiver medical and educational consent.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: The House ordered to third reading H 1873 to improve access to mental health services.

CARVER: The House ordered to third reading H 1938 authorizing Carver to appoint new members to the conservation commission.

TURNERS FALLS - LAKE PLEASANT: The House ordered to third reading H 4417 providing for the merger of the Turners Falls Fire District and the Lake Pleasant Water Supply District.

AMESBURY: The House ordered to third reading H 4426 authorizing Amesbury to grant two additional alcoholic beverage licenses.

HINGHAM: The House ordered to third reading H 4501 certain licenses for the sale of all alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the premises in the town of Hingham.

NORTH ANDOVER: The House ordered to third reading H 4517 authorizing the town of North Andover to grant an additional license for the sale of all alcoholic beverages not to be drunk on the premises.

RECESSES: At 3:18 pm, Rep. Scaccia said the House will be in recess for 15 minutes.

RETURNS: The House returned at 3:34 pm, Rep. Scaccia presiding.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - RATE BILL: By a standing vote of 31-0, at 3:34 pm, the House adopted an emergency preamble to H 4528 relative to unemployment insurance rates.

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION: Question came on S 1059 relative to regulating employee compensation, with the Senate having non-concurred. The House adopted Rep. Rodrigues' motion to recede from the House amendment.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - RATE BILL: At 3:47 pm, the House enacted H 4528 relative to unemployment insurance rates, with about two dozen members in the chamber.

NEEDHAM LAND BILL: By a standing vote of 35-0, the House adopted an emergency preamble to H 4367 to exchange certain land in the town of Needham.

DIMASI CHAT: At 3:58 pm, Speaker DiMasi, now in the chamber, chatted by the second division with Reps. O'Flaherty, Smizik, Peterson, and Jones, among others.

OCEAN MANAGEMENT: At 4:01 pm, there was no objection to taking up S 2346 relative to oceans. Question came on a Committee on Ways and Means amendment. Rep. Hynes offered a further amendment on jurisdictional authority.

QUORUM CALL: Rep. Greene of Billerica doubted the presence of a quorum. Court officers were instructed to summon the members.

A ROLL CALL INDICATED 147 MEMBERS PRESENT

HYNES AMENDMENT: Because there wasn't a quorum previously, the chair said he will consider no action taken on the amendment.

WOLF AMENDMENT: Rep. Wolf offered an amendment relative to municipalities and the most up-to-date technology. The amendment was not adopted.

QUINN AMENDMENT: Rep. Quinn offered an amendment striking out section 2.

Rep. Quinn said, What we have before us is the Ocean Management Act, which would put some zoning on the ocean that abuts Massachusetts land masses. The section I would like struck would allow for large-scale development of wind farms in ocean sanctuaries that are protected under law. This is a substantial change in law. File a bill, have a hearing, have it come out of committee and then vote up or down on the merits. I think it's very important I give you a brief history lesson. I want to bring you back to last November, when we were debating the energy bill. It was so important that we had a deadline for amendments to be filed. Eighty amendments were filed by many people, including myself and a whole host of others. I looked at them and sent them to outside parties to look at. The debate then started a few days later, on a 11-page amendment that came out of Ways and Means with five lines that changed the Massachusetts Oceans Sanctuary Law. We only had a little time to review. Several members sent a letter to the House speaker about how it was passed. How an amendment that was not filed properly, slipped in while nobody was looking. There was no response to that letter. We waited a month and sent another letter with the same request: we wanted an explanation of how a massive change in state law occurred. We had that meeting and I think there are varying degrees of what happened there. The speaker said it was his fault and he would allow a separate vote on that language on that debate. Much to my surprise, as a member of the Ways and Means committee, at least presently, I had an opportunity to review the bill the other night and the language was in there. I was thinking that maybe the proponent would offer it as an amendment. My amendment strikes the section and requires the proponents to file it properly, just like the rest of us. A little bit on the section, what it contains: this section is an attempt to circumvent the decision of the environmental secretary in 2006. Part of the project is 400 yards off my district. It would block access to the fishing boats sent out across Buzzards Bay. So that's why I'm here. I'm here to protect my district and the economy of southeastern Massachusetts, and the process - we should all be held accountable. Because it is a sanctuary, it only can be addressed by a change in law by the state legislature. Make no mistake about it, that's why we're here. This developer waits, he waits on this section, this section that is not a function of the legislative process, that is not vetted by interest groups and the community, this section does not consider fishermen and recreational boaters. To paraphrase the gentleman of the North End, this amendment would change the culture and character of the Massachusetts coastline, and we're not even going to have a hearing on it. This is not unique to this project. My district today, yours tomorrow. Is it Beverly next? Is it Quincy? Is it Duxbury? Is it Boston? I'm not asking to oppose wind turbines. I support them myself. But I'm asking you to oppose this proposal. I want to read a speech given from this rostrum on Sept. 29, 2004. The speaker's acceptance speech: "I intend to be a leader where consensus is built. I am open-minded and openhearted. I will bring a spirit and generosity to this job and work in collaboration. I promise you this, all members of the House will be empowered." This promise is totally lacking on this bill and many, many others. I hope you support me and make sure all rules apply to all members and all developers.

There was support for a roll call.

Rep. Dempsey said, I hope the amendment is not adopted. I have enormous respect for my good friend from Dartmouth. And I think all of us in the chamber can appreciate the concerns that each and every one of us has relative to our respective districts. For others, it could be something even more complex and involved than a wind turbine. I think we're all sensitive to that. I think today we had that opportunity, to debate this issue. The issue of siting in the Commonwealth is daunting to say the least. We have a challenge in adequate supply and resources in the Commonwealth, and in diversifying supply as well. We all came together in November on a very significant piece of legislation to help us move to a better place in our energy policy. Part of that is relative to siting. Admittedly, I could've done a better job explaining that in November. The stakes are too high, Mr. Speaker. We want to help ourselves on the diversity of supply. What we seek to do in this section, and I commend the gentleman from Brookline for his work, but what we look to do is to provide clarity as to the existing state law as it pertains to ocean sanctuaries. It has the support of the administration and they support it because they too recognize that they need to have every option available. We go back and we look at the history of this particular statute and we see there are different opinions rendered. There is a need for clarity, there is a need for renewables to be located in the ocean sanctuary. It doesn't mean it's an automatic. There are up to 9 different things that a proponent would have to do. The project talked about is already in its second year of very serious environmental review. There is a very, very lengthy process that would have to occur. It includes perhaps the MEPA process. It may require approval from the Energy Facilities Siting Board, Chapter 91 permits, the army corps of engineers would have to be involved, water quality certification. I have enormous respect for my colleague. I appreciate the issue raised today. But at a time we're looking to diversify our supply, we do so as we clarify this statute, a very cumbersome process still has to occur. So Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in an aggressive way in terms of energy policy, I hope the amendment is not adopted and I hope that members would consider this is one piece of the puzzle we have to consider.

Rep. Quinn said, Just a few quick points to be made. One, everything he said is correct about complicated siting, DEP and EPA. I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about the process in our House under which this section was put into this bill, inserted into the Green Communities bill and how we're going to dramatically change a longstanding law without the benefit of a hearing. The administration supports the siting of renewable energy projects. I'm sure they don't support the process. Requiring me to take a section out of this bill, this is not a good government process this administration would support. The developer took their best shot and they were told they had to get the legislature to change the law. Let's have a hearing on this bill, let's have the fishermen who would lose their jobs, the boaters who cannot sail their boats, the oil barge operators come in and be heard. This is 120 windmills, blocking access of fishing boats that support the $1 billion fishing industry. Let's have that debate, let's them be heard in this chamber, in these hearing rooms.

Rep. Greene said, I hope this amendment is passed. My friend from Haverhill did a wonderful job in addressing the present process, the complexity and how difficult it is to do this. It should be difficult to forever change the landscape of our ocean sanctuaries. It is slow and cumbersome, but it is a very, very serious idea of adding windmills to our sanctuaries. There was a horrendous oil spill in Buzzards Bay a few years ago. There are oil containment facilities spread throughout the area now. People don't realize how serious the oil spill would have been, if the wind had been blowing and hit Falmouth. Buzzards Bay is an important ecological and economical area of the state. I'd like to read to you all from the amendment that has been presented. I don't understand why we wouldn't want to make that change. We should not wait until someone comes in with a plan and will be permitted. The Commonwealth, if they don't like that plan, will have to fight with the person. The Commonwealth should have a plan and if someone comes in with an idea to put in windmills, they should have to present the plan and defend it themselves and not the opposite. I think this is not in the best interest of the Commonwealth to allow this to continue.

Rep. Casey said I love the windmills. I hope this amendment passes. It's not because of the product. It's not because we need efficiencies and streamlining in processes. It's not because it's a bad idea. But the reason I'm opposed to what we're doing right now, you're not providing a process. This is no process. Everybody else has to go through the process.

Rep. Casey yielded for a question.

Rep. Dempsey said, Was the gentleman aware the amendment was available?

Rep. Casey said, Does the gentleman realize with 48 amendments in the can, not one of them covered this issue? This is inside politics. And I want to ask each and every one of you did you know this was in the November bill? I got a question two days later, Case, good job on passing the windmill bill. I didn't know I had passed it. I want my day in court. I want to be able to debate it. The gentleman from the North End promised them their day in court. We're here for that. I'm in support of windmills. That bill comes up and I will support it. But how with the process taking place can we accept this? They were promised that they were to have their day. I do not want to tarnish the legacy of the good gentleman from the North End. We are losing that legacy by allowing this to slip through. I ask each and every one of you to go back through the bill. Is 20 minutes enough? I ask one member from the east, west, south, north, I don't know it was in there either. I take the gentleman from the North End's word that it was unintentional. But why the urgency now? The same process will take years. So what is the rush? Why do we have to pass that today? Imagine if you were on that harbor. Would you defend this? This issue is not going to go away. We're not running anywhere. I urge you Mr. Speaker to take a step back. A promise was offered, it was accepted and this is not fulfilling that promise. When the time comes, I'll be in support of that. I hearken back to another Greek tragedy with a gentleman named Dionysus, traveling the world with a lantern, looking for an honest soul. Take that lantern into your own soul. Sooner or later this can happen just as easily to you. I urge you to vote down this amendment in support of the gentleman from Dartmouth.

BY A VOTE OF 31-113, AMENDMENT REJECTED.

ANOTHER QUINN AMENDMENT: Question came on another Quinn amendment.

Rep. Quinn said, I anticipated the outcome of that vote and that's fine. I appreciate those that stood with me. I came up with another idea. Now that we're going to gut the Ocean Sanctuary Act and allow the construction of windmills, it shouldn't be in my district, it should be in Boston Harbor. They have adequate wind speed. This amendment would require a feasibility study and at what height. I had long discussions with the Mass Technology Collaborative. They know it can be done. If we're not going to have a hearing on the casino, the local options meals taxes, I think this is an indirect form of local aid to the city of Boston. Before I ask for a vote on this, I would like to make a motion to recommit this section to the Committee on Ways and Means for a hearing.

Question came on the motion to recommit.

Rep. Quinn said, this is a limited debate of 10 minutes. This massive change in state law should go through the normal process that is required of every other change in policy and legislation that we make. There is a multi-year process, but to circumvent the sanctuaries law, I'm not going to be a part of it and you shouldn't be either. These windmills are going to be put up without a public hearing, without the input of your neighbors and constituents. I ask for a call of the yeas and nays.

There was support for a call of the yeas and nays.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 34-111, RECOMMITAL MOTION REJECTED

QUINN BOSTON HARBOR AMENDMENT: Question came on Quinn's Boston Harbor amendment.

Rep. Quinn said, Now back to the wind farm in Boston Harbor. I think it would be a great form of local aid. We're not going to have a hearing on the casino bill, on the local meals tax, we're not going to give communities a chance to stand on their own. I think this feasibility study goes a long way to help the city of Boston with its electricity bill. I also have another amendment to postpone until April 1, 2008. I think a lot has been brought up through this debate. I think it has pulled the curtain back on a lot of things I believe are not acceptable to me and I know through the discussion of many members are not acceptable to many members. It would allow you to think we should have a public hearing on something that will monumentally change the landscape of our coastline. I know the Audubon Society are strongly opposed to large scale windmills being built in ocean sanctuaries. By postponing to the end of the first, I think we'll have a window of opportunity. I ask for a roll call of the yeas and nays.

There was support.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 33-109, THE AMENDMENT WAS REJECTED

QUINN AMENDMENT: Rep. Quinn offered a further amendment.

Rep. Quinn said, I shouldn't be telling another part of the state what they should be doing in their waterways. I shouldn't be doing that in somebody else's district. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

Rep. Casey said, Mr. Speaker I object. Just kidding.

Amendment was withdrawn.

QUINN AMENDMENT: Rep. Quinn offered a further amendment.

Rep. Quinn said, this amendment is kind of a compromise, if such a thing can be brought in this. They're proposing to build these right off the land of about five communities in southeastern Massachusetts. This is right up on the shoreline. Right in people's backyards. They're going to build 120 windmills. All this amendment would do is create a buffer two miles out. They're still going to be right in people's backyards impacting fisherman, barges and others. Today they're 400 yards off of Dartmouth, tomorrow they're 400 yards off of Duxbury or other communities.

The amendment was not adopted.

Rep. Fagan asked for unanimous consent to make a statement. There was support.

FAGAN STATEMENT: Rep. Fagan said, I want to say on behalf of my wife Christine and our five sons how moved and thankful and appreciative we are for the outpouring of support that we've received from everyone here at the State House. It has meant so very very much to my family. The people who came out to the wake, the people who came to the church, many of you who came to the House to share this terrible tragedy, my wife and I are so appreciative. We will never be able to repay you and we want all of you to know that you are truly in all of our prayers and we ask that you continue to keep Christine and I and especially my son Kevin in all of your prayers. All of our friends in the building, we thank you.

SMIZIK AMENDMENT: Rep. Smizik offered a further amendment. There was no objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment.

Rep. Smizik said, thank you for finally being able to talk about the bill that's before you today. I'd like to first begin by thanking the members of the Oceans Working Group. I also want to thank Senator O'Leary who's been the champion of this important bill in the Senate. He successfully created a coalition of environmentalists, as well as commercial and recreational groups. This draft is an improvement of the Senate bill. It reduces bureaucracy and ensures adequate protection of the ocean's resources. This is an important, positive policy goal of the commonwealth as we deal with global warming and our dependence on fossil fuels. There should be no more debate about global warming. CO2 emissions are changing our planet. Massachusetts has an opportunity to become less dependent on these fossil fuels. This bill encourages wind power construction. The blueprint creating this bill helps us better understand where these windmills should be located. This legislation allows us to plan to address the concerns about where we locate these windmills in order to protect our marine sources and habitats. This bill provides for ocean planning. It's not a zoning plan but a blueprint. This plan will include pertinent information about the character of our ocean's resources. With this information in hand, we will be able to make better decisions about where to site windmills. The legislation will also help the secretary of EOEEA coordinate the diverse departments that deal with oceans. There also will be a scientific board. In addition, the language in the legislation also retains the rigorous environmental review afforded by Chapter 91, NEPA and other standards. Chapter 91 requires a hearing in the affected community. Earlier this year we amended the Chapter 91 process to ensure that our public trust resources were protected. This additional review will apply to all ocean development. The legislation will not interfere with existing regulatory mechanisms. As part of this bill, the Legislature will review the plan prior to its taking effect. At least four public hearings will be held. It does all this in a way that is open and accessible to the public.

Rep. Smizik asked that a vote be taken by a call of the yeas and nays on ordering the bill to third reading. There was support.

The further amendment was adopted.

HYNES AMENDMENT: Rep. Hynes offered a further amendment. There was no objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment.

The amendment was adopted.

PATRICK AMENDMENT: Rep. Patrick offered a further amendment. There was no objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment.

Rep. Patrick said, I rise in support of these amendments. I rise in support of this bill. I wanted to talk to you about the importance of renewable energy. We can't put up enough wind turbines fast enough to keep up with the energy crisis on the horizon. Can you imagine what gas prices will do to people when they go up to $3.50 or $4 a gallon? All it takes is a little political turmoil in Africa, the Middle East or Venezuela. We're not finding new natural gas in America. We have to get serious. We have to prepare our homes. We have to prepare our businesses. Siting renewable energy farms or wind farms off our coastline is very important. We have to make sure that it can happen. Right now it's questionable if it can happen or not. Even if a project is proposed, it still will take upwards of six years to get approved. That's how long Cape Wind has taken. It's the longest term review that we've ever had in the history of the Commonwealth. And that includes the nuclear power plants, something that's much more dangerous than a wind turbine or a wind farm. We need to pass this bill to zone the commonwealth's waters. My three amendments are reasonable compromises.

The amendment was withdrawn.

JONES AMENDMENT: Rep. Jones offered a further amendment. There was no objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment.

The further amendment was adopted.

HYNES AMENDMENT: Rep. Hynes offered a further amendment. There was no objection to dispensing with the reading of the further amendment.

The amendment was adopted.

The Ways and Means amendment was adopted.

OCEANS BILL: Question came on ordering to a third reading S 2346 relative to oceans.

Rep. Scaccia said, The chair wants to congratulate members who participated in this debate.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 143-6 BILL ORDERED TO A THIRD READING

Rep. Scaccia said, We still have a way to go today. The next issue is going to be on a tax issue, an abatement for senior citizens.

NEEDHAM LAND: The House reenacted H 4367 authorizing the Division of Capital Asset Management to exchange certain land in the town of Needham.

RECESSES: The House recessed at 5:43 pm, intending to return at 6:15 pm. Rep. Scaccia said the House was awaiting the emergence of the oceans bill from the Committee on Bills in Third Reading and would then take up proposals relative to gift certificates and exempting seniors from Proposition 2 ½.

RETURNS: The House returned at 6:24 pm with Rep. Scaccia presiding.

SWANSEA LAND: Question came on enacting H 4440 relative to an exchange of land in the town of Swansea.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 144-0, BILL ENACTED

OVERRIDE EXEMPTIONS: Question came on H 2840 exempting certain elderly persons from real estate tax increases resulting from proposition two and one-half overrides.

BINIENDA AMENDMENT: Rep. Binienda offered an amendment substituting a new text for the bill. There was no objection to dispensing with the reading of the substitute bill.

Rep. Peterson asked for a point of order, arguing that the substitute bill was beyond the scope of the original bill.

Rep. Scaccia said the bill was within the scope and actually proposes to do less than the original bill.

The amendment was adopted.

The chair asked that the members consider no action taken. There was no objection.

Rep. Balser said, The bill will give an option to our municipalities that will allow for a property tax abatement for low and moderate income seniors. The property tax would have to amount to more than10 percent of their income. Total family income could not be in excess of $60,000. This is a problem in Newton and across the commonwealth. It has led to situations where neighbor was pitted against neighbor. The proponents and the opponents decided to sit down together to heal the wounds. They found common ground on senior tax relief. They asked me to file this legislation. In the years that I've been working on this bill, people across the state have indicated their support. The coalition for senior home care supports this so seniors can stay in place. School activists also support it. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a valuable tool we can give to municipalities.

Rep. Balser yielded for a question from Rep. Jones.

Rep. Jones said, How does a community adopt provisions of this?

Rep. Balser said, This is a local option and a legislative body would have to choose whether to adopt or not adopt this. In a town it would be the town meeting. It is decided by a democratic vote. I would just end by saying that our municipalities are really struggling. Facing the budget deficit that we face, our hands are going to be tied on local aid. Something this House has wanted to do is to give municipal options. This is one more in a series - a way to give municipalities flexibility. I ask that the members support this bill.

Rep. Jones said, I guess the good thing about the amendment versus the original bill is that it's dramatically shorter, and therefore a little less bad. The first issue I would raise is that with an abatement you have to pay the taxes first, apply for the abatement and wait for approval. If you're trying to assist a senior, they would have to apply for an abatement.

Rep. Jones yielded for a clarifying point from Rep. Balser.

Rep. Balser said, Municipalities could do this in a range of different ways. They could reduce property taxes and that would be considered under the policy of an abatement.

Rep. Jones said, Sometimes a senior would have to pay the bill first. That any town would opt to do this, perhaps on the eve of an override to provide some level of relief. Hypothetically a town could have an override vote for, say, $50 million. The way this bill reads, a year later, the town can do away with that abatement. So that senior who was perhaps enticed into either not voting or maybe voting yes has now had the rug pulled out from underneath him. This bill doesn't say that the abatement should be good for the duration of the override. The senior may say, 'we're going to have the high school project,' and a year later, guess what? Too bad. That concerns me, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, and I appreciate the attempt to make concerns and make this less bad. I don't care how you dress it up. It is what is is. A bad idea.

Rep. Binienda said, I hope that we order to a third reading H 2840. The gentleman before me said this bill may be revoked a year later. That is absolutely correct. But it would have to be authorized by the community that voted it in in the first place. This is a local option bill, not a home rule petition. It's local option. In order to qualify, you must be 65 years or older. Your total income must be less than $60,000 or the taxes on your property must exceed 10 percent of your total income. This bill was actually passed several years ago in a budget amendment. It is our attempt at giving seniors an opportunity to remain in their homes. Not to be forced out into elderly housing but to stay into their own homes. This bill already has a precedent to it. Water and sewer bills, if they exceed a certain amount, that senior may apply a tax abatement. We are trying to give a community a new tool to correct something that has to be corrected within that city or town. This bill must be approved by a local governing body. Yes, it can be revoked by a vote of the same manner. I hope the bill before us is passed.

Rep. Peterson said, I'm concerned why we're debating legislation that maybe a town can abate the money before a bill is paid. Maybe they'll vote the exemption in for one or two years. There's an awful lot of questions here. If we get to the basic premise, our communities are taking a segment of the taxpayers and saying, you know that proposition two and a half override, you're not going to have to worry about it. So in essence, you've got a few extra yes votes. I know proposition two and a half overrides are a struggle. I have a community that had to lay off 60 teachers and close down their library because of an override failure. That town made the choice. I don't think it might have been the right choice. But they made that choice. It forces the proponents of that override to make the case. You have to justify going beyond the cap of two and a half percent. I know there are a lot of seniors on fixed incomes and they generally don't support overrides. I also know of families that are working two jobs, two parents with multiple children faced with a limited amount of money as well. They have not made the case to me. Where is there relief? They are going to pay a penalty. That two and a half override, the money that isn't paid by the seniors who get this abatement has to be paid by somebody. So it could be that young family that just bought a home. There could be a disabled individual that is on a fixed income. There are an awful lot of people faced with an increasing burden to take up the slack of the seniors that would be exempted. This is the first day we've seen this amendment. It does not bode well for this House.

Rep. Casey said, There is some confusion here when reading the amendment. I want to ask the good chair of Worcester about it. It says a vote by city or town. Normally it would say a vote by the governing town body. It could be a three-member vote of selectman as opposed to a town meeting. Could the chair correct that?

Rep. Hynes called for a point of order, noting that an MBTA card identifies him as a senior citizen and wondering what the definition is.

Rep. Scaccia said, The gentleman has not stated a point of order.

Rep. Balser said, I wanted to answer the gentleman's question. The statute of the general laws states that a vote would be conducted by the legislative body of the city or town.

Rep. Peisch said, I rise in support of H 2840. I would like to make a couple of points. I represent two communities that have lived under the constraints of proposition two and a half. They have passed upward of 20 each. They're communities known for support of municipal services. In recent years, I have been approached frequently by senior citizens who have lived in the towns for their entire lives. They say they will vote for overrides but they are becoming more and more of a burden. They believe that the services a municipality provides should be available to those who come after them. This has put them in a very very difficult position. Many young people also have those kinds of pressures. I would just ask you to think of the senior citizens in your community and the fact that they have enjoyed services consider that this is a local option. It is incumbent that we give cities and town some relief.

Rep. Humason said, I apologize to my colleagues. I'll be brief, I know the hour is late. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let's be honest. This is a cynical bill. We are trying to divide and conquer the citizens back in our district. My district has 10,000 senior citizens. I'm sure they'd love to be exempted. That vote is going to affect our other constituents. Families with many children, young teachers. I have firefighters and police officers. We haven't seen the governor's property tax relief yet. The Republican caucus has offered ways to further assist voters with property tax relief. Proposition two and a half has been around for 28 years to protect people. This bill seeks only to exclude one small part and then further heap that burden on the shoulders of the rest.

Rep. Rogers said, I know the hour is late. I respectfully disagree with the members on the other side of the aisle. In chapter 59 now, there are more than 55 exemptions on property taxes. There currently is, on the books now, property tax exemptions for certain qualified citizens. Some of them are age-based, some are income-based, some require domicility, like this amendment. These types of property tax relief already exist. The reason why we never took it out is because of the political charge that this was tinkering with proposition two and a half. This is not. This adds another abatement in the long list of abatements. That's devoid of political rhetoric but is designed to help a subset of our citizenry who would otherwise feel the dramatic impact of an override. I think we do have to trust our cities and towns as to whether or not they adopt this. We leave it up to them to decide. I know the distinguished minority leader makes the point that this could be revoked. It could. The cities and towns in their wisdom could pull the rug out from the legs of those seniors, then shame on them. Those elected officials would not return to their offices the following year. It's about trusting the cities and towns. I hope the amendment fails.

Rep. Evangelidis said, we all support senior tax relief. Seniors are having a difficult time. We all agree with that. Is this the right avenue we use? It's pretty obvious it's not. The seniors have been the fiscal watchdogs for our communities on override requests. To me, what this bill really does, and I wasn't cynical when I came in here, but I have become more cynical over the years. This is really about passing prop two and a half overrides and taking out the people who are most likely to vote against them. Let's not pass the burden of taxes on to others we represent and support as well. This doesn't seem like the way to go. If we're going to pass overrides, they should be done by all members of the community.

Rep. Peterson said, I thank the gentleman from Norwood in his comments. Sometimes the title of a bill doesn't always match the text of the legislation. But the legislation in this abatement deals with certain sections of the law. This abatement does deal with proposition two and a half. If we're exempting one group, the rest of the balance of the community has to pick up that additional burden. The seniors are not the only ones that have to deal with difficult tax burdens. I don't think we need to have this to circumvent the intention of proposition two and a half. I urge the members not to support this amendment and this legislation.

Rep. DeMacedo said, I hope this amendment is not adopted. We all understand the importance of helping our seniors. What we're doing here is creating class warfare of sorts, pitting young families against the elderly. If you've got a community of 10,000 seniors in a 20,000 person community, you're doubling the others' override burden. This is an issue of tax equity. We're allowing people to vote on something to say you're not going to have to pay what that increase is. That's fundamentally unfair to me. We have other mechanisms to protect seniors. We could increase the circuit breaker tax benefit. We're taking them out of the mix for the override votes. We have to work as a body together as a community, not say that we should exempt some people and not others. There are 55 different exemptions there already. We all care about them. I'm concerned this is going to create real warfare. I hope this amendment is not adopted.

Rep. Rogeness said, I hope this is not adopted. I'm outraged that we're taking this up. It's dark outside. This was not in our inboxes. The clock says it's three o' clock. It's not midnight but it has the aura of a midnight action when nobody knew it was coming. It's a very bad proposal. One of the founding slogans of our country was that we would not stand for taxation without representation. This bill doesn't do that. This bill gives representation without taxation. The abatements and provisions that help seniors that I've been involved with are proposals that provide income tax relief for the property taxes paid, or the senior circuit breaker. I never served as the chairman of taxation has, but I sat as a member. We heard many many bills that came from communities asking for the freedom to tax people moving in or moving out or on different groups of people. The tax burden has gone up because the houses have tremendously inflated values over time. What about the people who have bought those houses after the value has gone up so high and then after they bough the houses, the values have come down. They might get a lower tax assessment. But they haven't got a lower mortgage payment. I don't believe this bill would affect my district because I represent four towns which have open town meetings. I don't believe an open town meeting would vote to support this because it's not fair. In the city, the people don't vote on this. If the city has a 200 million dollar high school project, it's a limited elected board. That makes it a lot less easy to do. Mayors and city councils can all oppose this and I think possibly the highest risk would come from a representative town meeting. They are not a cross section. With proposition two and a half it's the voters who have the final say. It's definitely breaching the contract that many of us have observed to keep proposition two and a half.

Rep. Fallon said, This has been an interesting day. I give you credit because you've been very patient and you have encouraged debate on so many issues. I've heard so many eloquent members approach this microphone. So I apologize by betraying their integrity. One caution if I can. The gentleman from Winchester needs to stop speaking in the third person. I rise in opposition to H 2840. I rise in opposition because the title of the bill is a misnomer. There's nothing about tax relief associated with this legislation. I have great respect for the majority leader. I listen to his every word, his every syllable like I haven't heard him speak in years. But not withstanding that, there is not an exemption to Mass. General Law Chapter 59. There is not an exemption that allows somebody to vote on a tax override but at the same time not have to deal with the consequences of that vote the day after. Issue number one, if we really want to do something for our seniors, let's exempt them from the sales tax, water and sewer tax. If we're that serious, let's do something constructive. My second point is because I do not wish to abdicate my legislative authority. I do not approve of putting the burden on our local elected officials. This bill should never have come in this form in front of the House. This should have been a home rule petition from Newton. Do not abdicate your legislative authority or obligations. Please vote against House bill 2840.

Rep. Jones asked for a vote by the call of the yeas and nays. There was support.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 108-35 AMENDMENT ADOPTED

The substitute bill was ordered to a third reading.

OCEANS BILL: The House engrossed S 2346 relative to oceans.

GIFT CERTIFICATES: Question came on engrossing S 2345 providing updates to the gift certificate law.

Rep. Rodrigues said, I've been asked to briefly explain this bill. It updates the gift card legislation further. This is twice my committee has undertaken this. In 2003, working them with the former treasurer of the commonwealth, we updated the law to extend the validation for two years. We need to update our statutes. It's purely technical. We have prohibited latency fees, dormancy fees. Up front fees, purchase fees and the like are federal. We do require that they be disclosed. We allow consumers to cash in their cards once they expend up to 90 percent of the value on that card. It's really a technical update bringing our general laws on gift certificates up to date with technology.

The bill was engrossed on a voice vote. Rep. Rodrigues requested that a vote be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. There was support.

Rep. Scaccia asked members to stay in the chamber because there would be two more roll calls in succession.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 148-0, BILL ENGROSSED.

PHOSPHOROUS REGULATION: Question came on enacting H 4523 regulating the distribution and sale of household cleaning products containing phosphorous.

There was support for a vote to be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 148-0, BILL ENACTED

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION: The House engrossed S 1059 to clarify the law protecting employee compensation. Reputable employers suffer when competing with companies who do not pay appropriately and avoid workers compensation or unemployment insurance.

COHASSET WATER: The House enacted H 4014 authorizing the town of Cohasset to provide water services to entities outside Cohasset.

WESTFORD LAND: Question came on enacting H 4331 authorizing the town of Westford to convey certain land.

BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 145-0, BILL ENACTED

Rep. Scaccia said, Thank you to everyone for your patience today. You're of the highest caliber.

TEWKSBURY LAND: The House engrossed H 4399 relative to a parcel of land in Tewksbury.

WEST BOYLSTON HIRING: The House engrossed H 4099 administrative oversight of the hiring process in the town of West Boylston

NORTHAMPTON TRUST FUNDS: The House engrossed H authorizing the investment of trust funds for the City of Northampton.

TOWN MEETINGS: The House engrossed H 1943 allowing town meetings to be held in June.

JOHN KELLEHER: The House adopted an order to adjourn in respect to the memory of John G. Kelleher, a former member of the House.

ADJOURNS: The House adjourned at 8:07 pm to return Thursday at 11 am in an informal session.

-END-

DISCLAIMER: Bill texts and histories are available at www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm. All votes are voice votes, unless otherwise noted. Bills ordered to third reading have been given initial approval. To engross a bill is to pass it and send it to the other branch. The last of three votes taken on bills that reach the governor's desk is the vote on enactment. So, it's third reading (initial approval), engrossment (passage) and enactment. The News Service coverage of legislative debate is an accurate summary of remarks, not a verbatim transcript.


Serving the working press since 1910

http://www.statehousenews.com

SHNS Home Page