Session DetailsFormal House Session 41

[MUSIC PLAYING] Have all members voted who wish to do so? Time for voting is expired. The clerk will display the tally. 157 in the affirmative. Zero in the negative. The Consolidated Amendment on Energy and Environmental Affairs is adopted. House will be in a brief recess.

So now we have to wait for my--

Miss Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield asks unanimous consent to be recorded on that last roll call. Does the chair hear any objection? Chair hears none.

On roll call number 40, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, yes.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to the right of the rostrum, Brian Barthelmes, a selectmen from Andover. He is guest of Representative Walsh and [? DeCost. ?] Welcome.

[APPLAUSE]

Chair would like to inform the members for their own edification that the Consolidated Amendment for Social Services and Veterans are available to the right of the rostrum.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Miss O'Connell of Taunton offers an amendment in the hand of the clerk. Clerk will read the amendment.

Amendment number 971. Miss O'Connell of Taunton and other members of the House vote to amend the bill by adding the following section, chapter 23B, of the general laws hereby amended by adding the following section, section 31. All applicants and household members over the age of the 80--

Chair hears no objection. The clerk dispense with the further reading of the amendment. Chair hears none.

For what purpose does this gentlemen rise? Mr. Rushing of Boston offers a further amendment in the hands of the clerk.

Thank you, sir.

The clerk will read the further amendment.

Mr. Rushing of Boston moves to amend the amendment number 971 by striking out the text of said amendment, and inserting in place the following section. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the provisions of a section shall not take effect until completion of the following. There shall be established pursuant to section 2A of chapter 4 in the bylaws.

If there be no objection, the clerk will dispense with a further reading of the further amendment. Chair hears none. Question comes on the further amendment. The chair recognizes Mr. Rushing of Boston.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to submit this further amendment because the main amendment calls us to do a major unusual set-- adopt an unusual set of rules for housing in state-owned public housing. It would essentially endanger people. It seems it may endanger people who are already tenants in that housing. And it certainly changes the process by which we would have additional people be able to qualify for state public housing.

We in the state understand that there are two forms of public housing-- federal public housing, which is controlled by federal laws and regulations, and state public housing, which is controlled by state laws and state regulations. This main amendment that is proposed for us this afternoon would significantly change all of the rules pertaining to that housing. And what this amendment says is let us understand the implications of those changes and what effect it will have, not only on the tenants in that public housing, but on anyone who might be thinking about qualifying for that housing, anyone who is on waiting lists for that housing. So let us understand the implications of this before we make a judgment on changing completely the rules of admittance and residence at public housing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address the concerns of the gentleman who was just at the rostrum and who offered the further amendments. The underlying amendment does not give us an unusual set of rules by which to follow. It more closely aligns with federal guidelines, and it simply states that we can ask for a social security number for people who are applying for public housing.

And the reason that I have filed this amendment, and the reason we know there are people in public housing without social security numbers, is because housing authorities came to me. And they said that this is a problem. And I'm going to quote you some information from an article by a housing authority director. She said, unlike the federal Section 8 program, the Mass Rental Voucher Program does not ask an applicant to provide a social security card. Stateside, they don't ask for anything at all. The current law all too often puts legitimate applicants at a disadvantage.

We can move in an illegal alien even before someone who is here legally because we cannot ask that question. That is wrong. That needs to be changed, and we should be asking that question.

In addition, this underlying amendment provides exceptions for certain people that are applying.

Chair apologizes to the lady at the microphone. For what purpose does the lady rise? Does the lady yield?

I'm sorry-- just a minute, please.

The lady does not yield. Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.

The underlying amendment provides exceptions for people with special status. And it actually protects people in housing, because right now, there are people in housing that we don't know who they are because we don't have their social security number or we don't have their alien ID number. We cannot verify that they belong there, we cannot verify that they qualify, and we cannot do a CORI check on someone if we don't have that information. So not having that information, it puts our senior citizens, our veterans, women and children in danger.

Another quote from this housing authority director is she said, "We have no idea who is living in public housing because we cannot do background checks." There are 53,973 state housing units. If there was just even 1% of people living there that did not qualify, that would mean 539 available units. If it was just even a 1/2%, that would be 270 available units.

Think about how many constituents call your office desperate for housing. And they cannot get in because there are waiting lists of two, three, and five years long. This is the right thing to do. The housing authorities want it done. I hope that the further amendment is not adopted.

Chair recognizes Miss Decker of Cambridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to the gentlelady from Taunton, we actually really know what this is about. This is not about actually ensuring the safety of public housing tenants, both those who are documented and undocumented. This is not about creating more affordable housing. There's a lot of paths to do that, and given the gentlelady from Taunton and I are both privileged to have been housed in public housing, I'm happy to work on those paths.

There are many people in this country who are documented but who do not have access to social security. But we already know that, because that's not what this debate is about. We're talking about families, who under federal law and state law, who live in state publicly funded housing, are allowed to be there. To suggest that we move them out is also to suggest that we are talking about displacing citizens who happen to also be children, many women who also happen to be victims of domestic violence.

And we've heard from testimony over the years at a number of housing committee meetings-- I have not heard any cry from the housing authorities, and I work closely with the housing authority associations here in Massachusetts and around the country. I've been asked many times to come and speak before them. Not once have I been told there's a problem here to be solved.

It's still unclear to me what the problem here is to be solved, unless it's to pile on the vulnerability, the hardship that many immigrants come to this country and already face. And let's be clear, this has not been a great year for many of them. Their lives have not been made safer. They have not been made stronger or healthier.

We here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we are a welcoming place. And under the current laws, they are entitled to be in the housing that they are entitled to. To suggest that somehow we should create a vacuum of units and create homelessness amongst children, and to suggest that that doesn't cost us anything, we push people out right now who are legally entitled to be there onto the streets with their children, many again, who I will remind you are citizens-- that does not mean that there is more money for the Commonwealth to house other people.

We don't ignore people who are homeless. We don't ignore people who are in need. We are a place that helps people. We problem solve. We do not create hardships and problems on the backs of people.

So if we together want to join forces and create more affordable housing, because it's certainly needed here in Massachusetts, let's do that. We both have benefited from living in public housing. We stand here today on the backs of people who believed that everybody should have a safe place to live.

By trying to step on the backs of those who are living in public housing now and put them into the streets, that's not who we are as a commonwealth. That is not kind. It's not compassionate. It's not fiscally sound. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When this is adopted, I hope the further amendment is passed.

[APPLAUSE]

The chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the passion of the gentlelady from Cambridge. Just for the record, nobody wants to throw anybody out on the street. Nobody wants to put children out on the street. Nobody wants to create homelessness.

We're just a simple thing. When you apply for public housing, you need a social security number. Why do we have to study it? If you don't want that to be the case, just vote against it. Just say, we don't care. We don't have a problem with that.

But this charade that we're going through-- five for five, Mr. Speaker. Andrew Benintendi, five for five, broke Babe Ruth's record the other day. It keeps going and going and going. You don't want to vote on things. If that's what you want, just vote for it.

We think that in order for us to make sure that the citizens of Massachusetts are protected first, then we need social security numbers. It's not that we want to throw anyone out on the street. I appreciate your passion, but to suggest that we do is crazy.

That's not what this amendment is about. It's not what we've been talking about for six years, which is we believe there has to be some form of determinations made. We believe that there has to be some standards put in place. And all we're saying is we believe that you should have social security numbers. If you don't think that, just vote it. It's simple, but don't give us--

Chair apologizes to the gentlemen at the microphone. For what purpose does the lady rise? Does the gentleman yield?

No, sir.

The gentlemen does not yield. The chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So that's our position on it. If you want to take the position that you don't think social security numbers should be required, I don't have a problem with that position, but why continue the charade?

Just get up and say, we're going to vote on it. Our position is clear. We don't think social security numbers are even relevant. And I think that would be being more forthright with the people of Massachusetts. Of course it would be.

We're saying you need them. You are saying you don't want them. Take the vote. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Chair recognizes Miss Decker of Cambridge.

Thank you. I want to be clear that this will absolutely displace people and make them homeless. Let's not pretend that that won't happen. It will.

And again, I want to reiterate many people are not eligible for social security numbers, people who are here who are also here and who are documented. And that's a well known fact.

So if we want to stop the charade, you've lost this. It's not what it's about. It's about making people homeless. It's a mean spirited thing, allowing people who are legally living in housing, including citizens who are children, and putting them in the streets. So let's stop the charade and actually talk what it's really about.

Mr. Speaker, speaker.

Chair recognizes Mr. Frost of Auburn.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I would just like to say that this is a great debate. But yet what we're really supposed to be debating, and we're reminded time after time when folks get up to-- when members get up to talk, is we're supposed to be debating the need for further amendment.

Though the gentlelady from Cambridge is making an eloquent argument on why we shouldn't do the underlying amendment, as the lady from Taunton is making an argument on why we should do her underlying amendment, let's do away with the further amendment. Let's get to the crux of the matter, and let's actually debate this, whether you're for or against it, because that's what we're debating right now.

So why do we need this further amendment to try to kill it? Get rid of the further amendment. Let's debate the main issue no matter where you fall. Let's have an up or down vote on it no matter what.

Chair apologizes to the gentleman at the microphone. For what purpose does the lady rise?

Chair recognizes Mr. Frost of Auburn.

Therefore I just ask the membership to please vote down the further amendment. It's not necessary. I think people know where they are on this one way or the other. Let's continue this great debate, this great discussion on this important issue, and let's put it to the floor for a vote and let the membership decide which way it should go. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Chair recognizes Miss Provost of Somerville.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members. The gentleman from Auburn has asked why it is that we should support the further amendment rather than the underlying amendment in this case. And there is an answer for that, which is that the further amendment would have us look at a lot of the nuance of the law of state assisted housing, which is not clear at first blush. It has been suggested that the laws governing access to state assisted public housing are unfair because they are different from the federal laws. The fact is--

Chair apologizes to the lady at the microphone. For what purpose does the gentleman rise?

Suggest the lady yield for a question.

Will the lady yield for a question?

Later on, but not at this point, thank you. The lady does not yield. The chair recognizes Miss Provost of Somerville.

Thank you very much. We are told that the state law of access to state-funded public housing is unfair because it's different from the federal law. Certainly, it is different, but let me emphasize some of these points of unfairness. Under state law, veterans get preference across every category of public housing. They don't get that preference under federal law. Federal law leaves it up to the local housing authorities, some of which do not prefer veterans. Some people might think the veterans preference is unfair. We might be inclined to keep that preference.

Another interesting fact-- we have undocumented veterans because, in fact, serving in the armed forces is a way that individuals who are not in the country lawfully can regularize their status. Military service is a way of acquiring status. And it's very popular, especially with young people who are brought to this country as minors. So we've got that complication.

Another complication I think is the fact that what may be characterized as unfair is a point of view, which is at variance with the interpretation of our US Constitution, which says that we do not discriminate against individuals on the basis of alienage, of not being born in this country. And back in the '70s, there was a lawsuit brought in a federal district court against a housing authority that was determined to discriminate in favor of individuals, applicants on the basis of alienage.

Now, that lawsuit was settled. And it was settled by a consent agreement. And by the terms of that consent agreement, individuals are allowed to access state-funded public housing regardless of their alienage. And as the gentlelady from Cambridge has pointed out, many families these days are what you would call mixed status families. Not everybody in the family has the same status as citizen or non-citizen or even as category of immigrant.

So this is not the simple black and white, fair or unfair situation that has been characterized. There is a lot to look at. And the consequences of violating the consent agreement from 1977 could be serious, and would certainly put the Commonwealth or some of its housing authorities or both back in court. So that is the reason why we would want to support the amendment today, to look at the full situation and not just the rhetorical surface of the question which is raised by the underlying amendment. And so I would urge everyone to vote in support of the further amendment. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So we keep hearing people talk about documented citizens. If you are a documented citizen, this is not a problem for you. This does not affect you. And we've heard about the hardship that this will put on people. Well, what about people that are in line waiting that are here legally that can not get into housing?

And also, that it will affect many, many, many families and people. Well, you know what, you have no idea how many it will effect because you don't know how many people are in housing without a social security number. I have some idea because some of the Housing Authority directors have told me, and it is a small number. A small number, but housing that we need available for people-- senior citizens, children-- people that are waiting in line right now. We're not ignoring people in need. We're trying to help people in need.

And let me point out a few things that almost all of you in here have voted for that require a social security number-- for a program of short-term housing assistance to help families in addressing obstacles to maintaining or securing housing, provided further that any family in which a member of the family fails to provide a social security number for use in verifying the family's income eligibility--

Chair apologizes to the lady at the microphone. For what purpose does the gentleman rise?

Will the lady yield?

Would the lady yield?

No. The lady does not yield. The chair recognizes Miss O'Connell of Taunton.

Something that you all voted for-- I'm going to have to read it again. For the program of short-term housing assistance to help families in addressing obstacles to maintaining secure housing, provided further that any family in which any member of the family prevails to provide a social security number shall no longer be eligible to receive benefits from this program.

Here's another one. For a program by rental assistance for low income and elderly persons, provided further that any household in which a participant or a member of the participant's household fails to provide a social security number shall no longer be eligible for a voucher or to receive benefits from the voucher program. So you've all voted on it before. There's nothing different going on here right now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Chair recognizes Mr. Markey of Dartmouth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just make one comment that gentlelady Taunton-- I think the gentlelady from Taunton answered the reason why we have the further amendment. She asked the question in a rhetorical fashion-- well, how many people are in line? We don't know. I don't know.

That's why we have a study. Let's study it. Let's figure out how many people are in line. Let's see how many families who have social security numbers are held in line, and people with undocumented individuals who are cutting them for some reason. Maybe we should study that, and then we can make a deliberate, thoughtful decision and not just a political statement to try to get in focus on a constituency that has this as their one political issue.

Chair recognizes Mr. Cabral of New Bedford.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the members. It's actually fascinating that the good lady from Taunton seems to know the numbers of those who are in line because she claims that some housing authorities have provided that information, at least that's what seems to be what she's saying, that some housing authorities have provided that information.

I would like to know which housing authorities those are because that's private information. The housing authority cannot provide information to no one except the person that actually living there or without their permission, so we would like to know-- I would like to request if the lady has that information with her to provide to this House which housing authority has provided that information.

That's private information that cannot be released by housing authorities-- if the person has a social security number or not because a social security number-- there are reasons why they cannot release that without the permission, a petition that has to be signed, a form that has to be signed by that particular individual. So please provide to us the housing authorities because they are violating the rights of those individuals who are presently residing or in line to apply for housing. That's a violation of the privacy of those individuals, and I think they ought to be taken to court. And perhaps the lady probably could be a witness to that since she has that information.

Chair recognizes Mr. Dooley of Norfolk.

I also had a point of clarification. On this, since the entire further amendment was not read in its entirety, is this an actual study or is this gamesmanship yet again? Is there a set date that this study is going to be reported back to this body? Is there a make up of this study? Is this a real legitimate study, or is this once again the majority party being gamesmanship, playing gamesmanship by saying, we don't want to take a vote because we're afraid it's going to be used against us in an election?

Or is this going to be a real study? If this is a real study, I'm all for it, 100%. I think everything-- Mr. Markey, the gentleman from Dartmouth, had a wonderful point. We should find this out. But if this is not a real study-- so my question to the chair, is this a legitimate study? Have we set forth parameters, or is this a quote unquote "study" that's meant just to kill this measure? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.

I'm going to answer that question for you. I've been here for seven years. I have yet to see any study done. So the suggestion that we need this study-- with all due respect to the gentleman from Dartmouth, he knows very well that that study is never, ever going to happen.

The question is real simple because we have a different opinion of what kind of regulations ought to be in place. And if the majority party wants to put rules and regulations in place that says you don't need a social security number, then just vote it. This charade that we go through every time we bring up these issues, it really is-- I mean, the public has to be-- if they even knew about it, they would certainly be bored.

We've got five amendments so far, five studies. Every one of us in here-- every one of us in here knows there's no study coming. Forget about it.

I'm going to read to you what the amendment says though, just so people understand. Applicants who you do not provide a social security number shall not be eligible for housing unless under lawfully protected status. We're not trying to throw anybody out in the street. I'm just so sick of that. Every time we come up with an amendment, we're going to throw people out in the street. I grew up in the projects too, all right, so I really don't need that anymore.

We are here-- we believe in the rule of law. We believe we should set standards. And yet every time we come up and make a position like that, it's that we want to throw people out in the street. I would ask Mr. Speaker-- Mr. Speaker, I would ask when this vote was taken, it would be taking my call of yeas or nays. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lyons of Andover asked when a vote of this matter is taken, be taken be call of the yeas and nays. Those joining with them will please rise. Monitors and return the count. First division, one. Second division--

19.

19. Sufficient amount having arisen, a roll call in this matter will be called forthwith and remain open for three minutes. Court officer will notify the membership that a roll call is in progress and will remain open for three minutes.

Chair would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the right of the rostrum, Miss Rebecca Busansky of the Northhampton School Committee and Elena Frogameni a student representative from the Northhampton School Committee. Welcome, ladies.

[APPLAUSE]

Have all members voted who wish to do so? Have all members voted who wish to do so? On the previous roll call, Miss Provost of Somerville asks unanimous consent to be recorded. Does chair hear any objection? Chair hears none.

Roll call number 40, Denise Provost, yes.

Have all members voted who wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. The clerk will display the tally. 124 in the affirmative, 36 in the negative. The further amendment is adopted. Re-occurring question now comes on the adoption of the consolidated--

Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers a consolidated amendment to the hand of the clerk.

Chair is in error.

We didn't read it in yet.

Question now comes on the adoption of the amendment as amended by Miss O'Connell. All those in favor say aye, or those opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted.

Now I can do the consolidated?

Now Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers a consolidated--

Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill offers a consolidated amendment in the hands of the clerk. Clerk will read the amendment.

Does consolidated amendment D in the category of Housing, Mental Health and Disability Services fiscal note, $3,050,611. All the amendments have them accounted for. Mr. Dempsey of Haverhill moves and others move to amend the bill in Section 2 and Item [? 41 ?] 10 1,000 by striking out the figures.

If there be no objection, the clerk will dispense with the further reading of the consolidated amendment. The chair hears none. The question comes on the adoption of the consolidated amendment.

The chair recognizes Mr. Honan of Boston. Members will please take their seats. Chair respectfully requests they subdue their conversations and pay due attention to the gentleman at the microphone. The chair recognizes Mr. Honan of Boston.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members. I rise today as the chair of housing in support of the Consolidated Housing Amendment. I want to thank the speaker for your leadership on housing. It's a critically important issue, and I thank you for your continued support. I also want to thank the gentleman from Haverhill, who is so knowledgeable on all these issues. And I want to thank him for his tireless work and the work of his two assistant chairs, who have been so helpful as we've gone through this process.

This budget will build on our annual commitment to housing. I also want to thank the gentleman from the South End, our Assistant Majority Leader, who has been an extraordinary advocate on behalf of the homeless in Massachusetts. This year's budget is a reflection of our shared efforts to protect and advocate for those in need. The legislature increased the homeless individuals line item by $1 million. We support programs for the chronically homeless, like Home and Healthy For Good at $2.2 million and vouchers for low income individuals with disabilities at $5 million.

We fund the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program at $100 million. The MRVP program and the Commonwealth provides low income families with an opportunity for safe, permanent, decent, affordable housing. This year's budget will also make a language change that will incentivize work by allowing families to earn additional income while maintaining their voucher. It's an important change that will support working families as they try to make ends meet.

We also fund the Residential Assistance for Families in Transition at $15 million. RAFT helps families in transition out of shelters and stay out of the shelter system altogether. The vast majority of the people who receive RAFT are single mothers with two children. The median income is less than $20,000 a year. It's a tremendous program with profound impact. Past years, it's helped over 4,000 families avoid homelessness. This year's $15 million appropriation will help families remain in stable housing rather than motel, car, or emergency room.

In the issue of public housing, which I know the legislature has a lot of interest in from our debate, we have over a million dollars for the operating subsidy which we recognize as a group here the importance of public housing in our commonwealth. We recognize from a housing committee and advocate for it very strongly, so I thank the legislature for your commitment to public housing in Massachusetts. The cost of housing is so high in our commonwealth that working families are having a very difficult time, so we recognize that here.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Mattapan, who's vice chairman, and the lady from Cambridge, who are working diligently to make sure that the reforms that we passed in public housing over the last few years are implemented. In closing, I just want to acknowledge again there is a tremendous lack of affordable housing in Massachusetts. And the efforts that we put forth today in this budget are good and decent efforts. It's money well spent, so I thank all of you for your help on that.

And I ask when a vote is taken, it be called by the yeas and nays. And I obviously, again, am in support of this consolidated amendment. Thank you very much.

Roll call being required. Roll call will be called forthwith and remain open for two minutes. Court officers will notify the members that a roll call is in progress and will remain open for two minutes.

There's not much to look at. Not much to look at.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

So after all-- oh.

Turn you microphone--

Have all members who wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. The clerk will display the tally. 160 in the affirmative, zero in negative. The Consolidated Amendment in Housing is adopted. House will be in a brief recess.

What was it, 160?

160.

Chairman would ask all members to take their seats.

The chair would respectfully ask all members to take their seats. Chair would also respectfully ask members to clear all items from their desk.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

AT 2: 00 PM will be economic development and labor. Chair would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the right of the rostrum the guest of Representative Ferguson of Holden, Loring of NEADS, the service dog. She's a real service dog, and she is the most friendliest dog who we have in the house. So welcome to Loring.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

This will be an honor.

Gentleman will rise.

Miss O'Connel of the Taunton offers an amendment in the hands of the clerk. Clerk will read the amendment.

Amendment number 347. Representative O'Connell of Taunton and other members of the House move to amend the bill by adding the following section, Section [? 55-IB ?] of Chapter 18 of the general laws, as appearing in the 2014 official [? dismiss, ?] hereby amended by striking out the last sentence-- court should be replaced rather than following court or marijuana or marijuana products not prescribed under the law for medicinal purposes, and by striking out section 5J or on cruise ships in a certain place--

If there be no objection, the clerk will dispense with the reading of paper. Purpose of gentlemen rise? Mr. Cusack offers the further amendment, which he'll hand to the clerk. Clerk will read the further amendment.

Mr. Cusack of Braintree posts to amend the amendment number 347 by inserting the following section, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the provisions of that section shall not take effect until July 1, 2018 or until such time as the Joint Committee on Marijuana Policy has filed a report, the legislation has been filed, and acted pursuant to Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 1, of Article 2 of the Constitution.

House will be in a brief recess.

Clerk will read the further amendment.

Mr. Kinzinger minding a a motion to amend the amendment number 347 by inserting the following section. "Not withstanding the general special order to the contrary, the provisions of the section shall not take effect until July 01, 2018, or until such time as the Joint Committee on Marijuana Policy has filed a report and legislation has been filed and acted pursuant to part two, chapter one, section one, Article II of the Constitution."

Question comes on the amendment. On the further amendment-- I was made to rephrase that. Question now is on the further amendment. Chair recognizes Ms O'Connel of Taunton.

Is it a quorum, Mr. Speaker?

Ms. O'Connel notes the presence of a quorum. As you can ascertain a quorum is not present. Court officers summon the members indicating quorum roll call is now in progress.

Have all members voted who wish to do so? Ms. O'Connel of Taunton asks unanimous consent to withdraw the quorum recall-- request. Chair objection? Chair has none.

Question now is on the further amendment. The chair recognizes Ms. O'Connel of Taunton.

Further amendment, yes. So, the further amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members. The underlying amendment, just so you know, is to prohibit the use of EBT cash assistance in any form to purchase recreational marijuana. The further amendment is just another delay tactic so that we don't have to vote on the underlying amendment. We're supposed to wait and see if it's included in something next year in July, 2018.

Now the Commission on marijuana policy is doing a lot of good work. I know they have a lot of work ahead of them. This is actually something that we can take off their plate right now, and get it done for them. All of the items that are prohibited from being purchased with cash assistance are included in chapter 18, section 5 A and J. There's no special consideration, no special statute, no special section, for any of them-- for alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, tattoos, jewelry. And keep in mind, when we passed gambling, back in 2011, that was immediately included in this list, in chapter 18, that you-- as a prohibited item from using your EBT cash funds.

We didn't wait for the Gaming Commission to set the policy. We didn't wait for the first facility to open. We were proactive and we did something about it right then. This is simply just avoiding the issue. All of these other reforms have been done through the budget process. We have the opportunity to be proactive, to tell the taxpayers that we're paying attention.

We care about this program. We want to make sure people use their assistance for necessities. We want to help people become self-sufficient. And we should be adding this to the statute right now. There's no reason to kick the can down the road any further. I hope the underlying amendment is defeated. I mean-- excuse me, I hope the further amendment is defeated, and the underlying amendment is adopted. Thank you, Mr. speaker.

Chair recognizes Mr. Cusak of Braintree.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members. The underlying amendment speaks about EBT cash assistance, not for medical but for recreational, which will take effect on July 1st, 2018. Reading the further amendment, you would understand that the further amendment simply says that if the committee does not address cash assistance in our legislation, which we had the final hearing yesterday and we're working on a six week process-- that if it is not addressed, this underlying amendment still takes effect July, 2018. So either way this is a win, and it's not kicking the can down the road or delaying it.

Reading the further amendment, understanding what it actually says-- that this will take effect if the legislation addresses it or not. But the committee finished our final hearing yesterday-- five hearings, 30 hours of testimony-- and we are on track to draft legislation over the next six weeks to get something done by July-- July 1st of this year, in order for it to get up and running a year out from the implementation of recreational marijuana sales, which is also what your underlying amendment does do. So I ask that the further amendment is adopted, Mr. Speaker.

[APPLAUSE]

Chair recognizes Ms. O'Connel of Taunton.

Congratulations to the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I did understand. I did say we were expected to wait and see if it's included in any legislation. There's no reason to wait and see. We're all here right now. We can all vote on it right now. It's a bipartisan issue.

There was an op ed where it said the Speaker of the House agrees with it. The governor agrees with it. The folks for Yes on Four agree with it. There's no reason, no good reason, not to pass this right now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Chair recognizes Ms. Balser of Newton.

The lady says there's no good reason. With all due respect, one reason is called public input. The lady is suggesting that in the middle of a process where, of an issue that was of tremendous interest to the public, there were public hearings going on. The lady would have us ignore the public input and just do it today during the budget.

I would just ask the membership to be respectful of the fact that there's a very good reason for not doing this kind of legislation in the budget. And that's out of respect for the constituents who we represent.

Question it comes under the option of further amendment. Chair recognizes Ms. O'Connel of Taunton.

I would just like to point out that there was already a hearing on the bill that I filed for this, the same exact bill. And no one testified against it at that hearing. So there already was public input on this matter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as for--

Question now on the further amendment. All those in favor say Aye. Ms. O'Connel asks for call of the yeas and nays. Those joining with her will rise and the monitor will return the count. First division zero. Second division-- second division--

[INAUDIBLE]

The division leader will count the second division. Recount the second division. Recount the second division, Ms. division leader. 17. A sufficient number having a resume when the matter is taken, be taken by a count of the yeas and nays. Roll call machine is now open, remain open for three minutes. Court officers, summon the members, indicating roll call is in progress.

Have all members voted who wish to do so? Have all members voted? Time for voting is expired. The clerk will display the tally. On this matter, 121 members voting in the affirmative, 37 in the negative. The further amendment is adopted.

Question now is on the underlying amendment, as amended with the further amendment. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The underlying amendment with the further amendment is adopted. House will be in a recess.

House will be in order. Mr. Lyons of Andover. Officer, the amendment in the hands of the clerk. The clerk will read the amendment.

Amendment number 864, by representatives Lyons of Andover, O'Connel of Tuanton, Lombardo of Billerico move to amend the bill by adding the following section, Chapter one to 18 of the general law is hereby amended by inserting the following new section. "Notwithstanding any general or special order to the contrary, there shall be an independent commission to study the report of the recent--"

If there be no objection, the clerk will dispense with the reading of the paper. The chair has none. Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover. Court officers, close the doors so that the chair can count. Court officers, close the doors. Members please take your seats. Members will take their seats.

Court officers, close the doors. Members will take their seats so we can count the House. First division, the monitor will return the count-- 15. Second division-- second division-- court officer, count the second division. 30-- third division. Third Division-- 24. Fourth division-- fourth division-- 18.

More than-- sufficient number are in the house. Chair recognizes Mr. Lyons of Andover.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a commission to study medical abuse claims. Many of us in the chamber remember Justina Pelletier, who was taken away from her parents because her parents decided to seek another type of medical treatment. And the Commonwealth of Massachusetts engaged in a process that lasted over two years where this young girl was kept away from her family and her parents. She was kept away from her religious services. And she was basically kept in isolation for a long period of time.

And the Commonwealth expended incredible amount of dollars on keeping, basically, her parents away from her. And we've never had an explanation as to where the money went, and why we spent so much money on this. So what this commission basically does, it should be an independent commission to study and report on the case-- recent case before the Department of Children and Families, regarding Justina Pelletier. The commission should consist of an Inspector General, or a designee, the attorney general, or a designee, the state auditor, or a designee, and two members of the House of Representatives-- one who will be appointed by the minority leader, and two members of the Senate.

The commission shall research and assess the cost of the case and the evidence and reasoning that led to the Department of Children and Families to take Justina Pelletier away from her family. The commission shall also conduct an investigation of Massachusetts General law chapter 119, section 51(a), focusing the number of families affected and any changes that can be made to the law and its improper use. Said report shall be filed with the chair, and the ranking minority member of the House Committee on the Ways and Means.

I think this is absolutely imperative to us understanding what goes on with the Department of Children and Families. There are a number of representatives that got involved in this case several years back. The gentleman from Billerica was the one who brought it to my attention. And what we found out was that we had a parent, a father and a mother. Who had children who also had this disease in one of the younger child's, and they had to fight for the kind of medical care that they needed.

However, in Massachusetts-- what happened was, these folks came up from Connecticut. And it was on a snowy Valentine's Day that they went to Tufts medical center, and then were transferred over to the Boston Children's Hospital. And Mr. Pelletier tells the story that he was sitting in a room, and they decided as parents that they wanted to take their child back to Tufts Medical Center. And he tells the story that, as he was sitting in the room making this decision, he saw the doors lock around him. He saw security guards come at him.

And they took his child away. Just picture that. Just picture that, that happens to you. That they take your child away. Just picture that you're out in Montana, or Illinois, or some other part of the country, because that's what happened. He was coming here from Connecticut. And what happened was, they immediately went to have a court hearing.