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