Session DetailsSenate Session (Full Formal with Calendar)

--to which the Senate having adjourned has come. The Senate will come to order. The chair asks all members, and guests, and staff to please rise and recite the pledge allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Several matters come before the Senate today for the final passage. An act establishing a town manager in the town of West Newberry, an act authorizing the town of Whately to continue the employment of John Lasalle as a call firefighter, an act authorizing the town of Milford to grant one additional license for the sale of all alcoholic beverages to be drunk on premises, an act authorizing the city of Peabody to grant 20 additional licenses for the sale of all alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the premises. The question comes on passing the bills to be enacted.

All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bills are passed to be enacted. And the Bills will be signed by President and laid before the governor for his approbation. Senate will be in a brief recess.

--to order. Is there any objections with proceeding with the orders of the day? The chair hears none. On page 1, the first item is calendar item number 66, House number 2243. The question comes on ordering the bill to a third reading. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.

The next item is calendar item number 67, House number 3862. The question comes on ordering the bill to a third reading. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.

The next item is calendar item number 68, House number 3876. The question comes on ordering the bill to a third reading. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.

On page 2, the next item is calendar item number 69, House number 3930. The question comes on ordering the bill to a third reading. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading.

The next item is calendar item number 65, Senate number 2099. The Chair hears pass. Senate will be in a brief recess.

The Senate will be in recess until the hour of 1:00 PM.

--in order on page 2. The first item passed over is calendar item number 65, Senate bill number 2099. And the question will come on ordering the bill to a third reading. Coming first on an amendment it is recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means. Several amendments have been filed, which will be considered at this time. The chair recognizes the senator from Norfolk, Bristol, Middlesex, Mr. Ross.

Under the rules, the request has to be made by the leader himself. So that cannot be granted at this time. But the Senate will be in a very brief recess.

The Senate will be in order. The chair recognizes the senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex, Mr. Ross. Gentleman rise. The chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue, for the purposes of explaining the matter that is pending before the body at this time-- Senate bill 2099. The Senator from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President and through you to the body. Mr. President, parking placards allow persons with disabilities accessible places to park their vehicles. An inspector general's report issued last year revealed unfortunately rampant abuse of parking placards.

Some people unjustly claim reserved spaces for themselves or for people to whom they improperly transfer the placards. The Inspector General and the state police identified more than 300 cars that parked in downtown Boston using special parking identification placards that were issued to other people. Many of these had expired, and many had gone to individuals who had since died.

I filed this legislation to correct some of the abuses identified in the Inspector General report and to reform the efforts to preserve accessibility to those who depend on it. I want to thank the Joint Committee on Transportation and the Committee on Ways and Means for strengthening the bill that I originally filed to cover more of the flaws that were highlighted by the Inspector General. Specifically, the bill would make the obstruction of a placard or expiration date of a citable offense under state law.

It would empower the Registry of Motor Vehicles to require proper documentation before issuing a handicap placard. It would strengthen license suspension for misusing a handicapped placard. It would expand the Registry of Motor Vehicles ability to detect and to punish handicapped placard abuse.

It imposes fines of $500 for a first offense and then $1,000 for subsequent offenses for those who lie to obtain or to replace a handicapped placard, create a $100 fine for those who do not return a revoked placard or a canceled handicap placard. And it allows for fines or imprisonment for those acting with an intent to distribute the placards that are obtained illegally.

The misuse of handicap parking placards robs the municipalities of much needed revenues, and it prevents people with disabilities from finding accessible parking. This bill will have important benefits for both the disabled individuals and local governments that we all represent to strengthen the laws of the Commonwealth and to protect those who truly need accessibility in their day to day lives. Mr. President, I urge the passage of this bill, and I ask that when it comes to be voted that it be done so by a call of the yeas and nays.

The lady asked when a vote on the matter be taken to be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. Those joining with a rise and be counted? A sufficient number has arisen, and when the bill is engrossed it will be done so by a call of the yeas and nays. Several amendments are pending, the first of which is a redrafted amendment, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number one but Mr. Barrett-- operating with accessible parking placard.

Is somebody going to offer any explanation? The question comes on adoption of the redrafted amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and it redrafted amendment is adopted.

Number 2 it was offered by Senator Barrett, which has been withdrawn, as has number 3. The next is a redrafted amendment offered by the Senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex, Mr. Ross, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 4 by Mr. Ross-- state vehicles.

The question comes on the adoption of the amendment. The chair recognizes the Senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex, Mr. Ross.

Thank you very much Mr. President. And I want to thank the gentle lady from Lowell for offering this bill in its entirety. A lot of things going on with the handicapped placards are things that we've seen people either abuse or not have access to for those that need them. And I think many of us have tried to address some of those issues, which I'm trying to do with this particular amendment.

I ask for your support in this amendment, which was filed in response to an issue that was brought to my attention by a constituent-- his son, a resident of DDS Group Home. And they have run into problems obtaining parking placards for the drivers to use and to be able to safely deliver these students to locations where they can use their placard. Current law and RMV regulations require that in order for a state agency vehicle to use a parking placard, the agency's name must be prominently displayed on the vehicle.

However, as a policy, DDS refrains from displaying its name on any houses of vehicles to protect the safety of its clients and to avoid stigmatization. So it isn't able to equip its vehicles with placards. Divers are also prohibited from using the valid parking placard of a client who is riding in the vehicle. The driver would be held liable for wrongful use subject to penalty of at least $500 and a loss of license for at least 30 days.

I proposed this amendment to resolve this issue. It would require the law to allow RMV to waive the requirement that the agency prominently display the agency's name on the vehicle to obtain parking placards. This change would better equipped state employees to successfully perform their job and to serve the clients of DDS. I hope this amendment passes.

--in the redrafted amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the redrafted amendment is adopted. The next is offered by the senator from Middlesex, Ms. Jehlen a redrafted amendment, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 5 by Ms. Jehlen-- timely decisions for placards.

The The chair recognizes the senator from Middlesex, Ms. Jehlen.

Thank you Mr. President. I wanted to just explain this. This would begin to hold the Registry of Motor Vehicles accountable for issuing placards in a timely manner. It came to my attention this summer when a constituent of mine diagnosed with a disability that would require the use of a placard applied for one and was told that there was a two months delay while there was a backlog in issuing placards.

And then after that, when she could apply after two months, there was another 8 to 10 week wait. And she would get her placard around Thanksgiving. That seemed extreme to us. And so we inquired with the Registry.

They said there's no reason that should have happened, but it did. And they said they could probably get it in six weeks. Instead, they got it in four days after we called them. So we would like to have the Registry do a study about how to do it more efficiently but in the meantime to post information on their web site about how many applications are filed and how quickly they are issued. Thank you, Mr. President.

--comes on adoption of the redrafted amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the redrafted amendment is adopted. The Senate will be in a very brief recess.

The Senate will be in order. One final amendment is pending before us on the matter-- amendment number 6 offered by the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 6 by Mr. Tarr-- due process.

The chair recognizes the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.

Thank you Mr. President and through you to the members. Mr. President, I want to compliment you on what it appears to be somewhat of a muted purple tie today. But of course, reflecting on that thought for a moment, I realize that it is intended to be autumnal. And so just as the leaves darken in the fall, so does the tie that the presiding officer wears today. And as usual, your choice of haberdashery is completely consistent with seasonality, and I, for one, appreciate that.

Mr. President, the pending amendment that is before the Senate is one that sought to ensure that there was due process regarding decisions relative to eligibility for handicapped placards such that if someone was experiencing what they consider to be an adverse decision with regard to that eligibility there would be a process of notice and an opportunity to be heard relative to that decision. Well, as it turns out Mr. President, there are some provisions in the existing general laws that actually provide that infrastructure for due process. And so this amendment is no longer necessary, and I would request unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment.

The gentleman asked for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. Is there an objection? The chair hears none, and the amendment is withdrawn. All of the amendments now having been disposed of, the question will come on the adoption of the Ways and Means amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the Ways and Means amendment is adopted.

And the question will come on ordering the below a third reading as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered to a third reading of the bill.

An act relative to handicap parking, Senate number 2168 amended.

The bill has been read a third time, and the question now comes on passing the bill to be engrossed. The ayes and nays having previously been ordered, the chair will ask the clerk to call the roll.

--Barrett?

Yes!

Yes. Joseph A. Boncore?

Yes!

Yes. Michael D. Brady?

Yes!

Yes. William N. Brownsberger?

Definitely!

Yes.

Yes. Harriette L. Chandler?

Yes.

Yes. Sonia Chang-Diaz? 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? Linda Dorcena Forry?

Yes!

Yes. Cindy F. Friedman?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Anne M. Gobi?

Yes!

Yes. Adam G. Hinds?

Yeah.

Senator Hinds?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Donald F. Humason, Jr? Patricia D. Jehlen?

Senator Jehlen? [INAUDIBLE]

[LAUGHTER]

Yes.

Yes. John F. Kennan?

Yes.

Yes. Eric P. Lesser? 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.

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.

--deMacdo.

[INAUDIBLE] Have I been recorded?

In the affirmative.

Is it pertinent?

The Senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Humason.

I thank you Mr. President. Have I been recorded?

You have not.

Permission [INAUDIBLE] vote and be recorded.

Donald F. Humason Jr.

The Senator from Worcester and Norfolk, Mr. Fattman. [INAUDIBLE]

Ryan C. Fattman votes yes.

[INAUDIBLE] have I been recorded?

You have not.

Permission to record in the affirmative.

Eric P. Lesser votes yes. Sonia Chan-Diaz votes yes.

Hold on.

I can't bang. That's it.

Mr. Viriato M. DeMacedo.

Mr. President, have I been recorded?

You have not sir.

I'd Mr. DeMacedo to be recorded in the affirmative.

Viriato M. deMacdo votes yes.

On this matter, 37 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The bill is passed to be engrossed. The Senate will be in a very brief recess.

The Senate will be in order. Paper from the House.

The engrossed bill relative to community benefit District C House number 3823-- being the text contained in Section 30 of the general appropriation bill-- see House number 3,800-- and having been returned by His Excellency, The Governor with recommendation of amendment for his message-- see attachment G of House number 3828-- comes from the House with the endorsement that the House has rejected the governor's amendment.

The Senator from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue, moves that the Governor's amendment be rejected, and the question will come on the rejection of that amendment. The chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue. And as I do, the chair would respectfully ask the members to subdue their conversation so that the important explanation that the Senator is about to give may be heard and appreciated by all as we prepare to take a vote. The Senator from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue.

Thank you, Mr. President and through you to the members. I would urge that the Senate reject the amendment of the Governor. This has to do with Community Benefits District, which we had previously passed. The Community Benefits District is a very important tool for communities all across this commonwealth. In fact, dozens of communities have signed on in support of this.

And what it does is it gives a very important tool to communities to determine through grassroots their future in a particular district. It is less odious or difficult shall I say as a bid, which has been on the books for over 20 years. But we have very few bid districts. Community Benefits District is one that could benefit so many communities. I ask that the Senate reject the amendment. Of the Governor

--Essex, Mr. Tarr.

Thank you, Mr. President and through you to the members, and particularly to the gentle lady who was just recently in the news reaffirmed her commitment to the Senate. I'm very appreciative of that. Mr. President, I'm hoping that the gentle lady from Lowell could explain a little bit more about what the nature of the veto was. She did an outstanding job of explaining the program and its utility to cities, and towns, and regions, but I'm hoping we can understand sort of the divide here between what was sent to the Governor and what the Governor sent back so that we can better understand the impact of the veto or the amendment and rejecting that amendment as she has requested us to do. Thank you, Mr. President.

--brief recess?

The Senator asked for a brief recess.

The chair recognizes the senator from Middlesex, Ms. Donoghue.

Thank you, Mr. President and through you to the members. The amendment that was proffered by the Governor essentially created a new bill. It was an extensively rewritten bill-- one that was not vetted or heard. It would produce an extreme burden on communities in order to try and create a Community Benefits District.

The bill, itself, had full hearing both this session and the last session. And so I would urge rejection. It essentially creates an entirely new bill, and it does not reflect the bill that was passed.

The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the gentle lady's explanation. And as usual, she never comes to the microphone with the subject matter expertise. That is also the case here, and I appreciate that.

I would only offer the members the thought that if the new benchmark is that anything in the budget that didn't have a public hearing should be rejected, then we should begin going section by section. And I don't think there'd be much left of the budget. Thank you, Mr. President.

The question now comes on rejection of the Governor's amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the Governor's amendment is rejected. The chair recognizes the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.

Thank you, Mr. President.

--gentlemen rise.

Why, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I doubt the vote and ask that when a vote be taken on this matter, be taken by a call of the yeas--

The gentlemen doubts the vote and asks when a vote is taken on the matter be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. So let's joint in with him. Rise and be counted.

[INAUDIBLE]

A sufficient number having arisen when the vote is taken, it will be taken by a call of yeas and nays, which is right now. The clerk will call the roll.

I always [INAUDIBLE]

The question before us for clarification-- the question before us is shall we reject the amendment? If you wish to reject the amendment you vote "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 M. DeMacedo?

No!

No. Sal N. DiDomenico?

Yes!

Yes. Eileen M. Donoghue?

Yes!

Yes. James B. Eldridge?

Yes!

Yes. Ryan C. Fattman?

No!

No. Linda Dorcena Forry?

Yes!

Yes. Cindy F. Friedman?

Yes!

Yes. Anne M. Gobi?

Yes!

Yes. Adam G. Hinds?

Yes!

Yes. Donald F. Humason, Jr?

No!

No. Patricia D. Jehlen?

No. Yes?

Yes or no, Senator.

No.

I don't know what she wants. She voted no.

She voted no.

Patricia D. Jehlen votes no.

Check with her.

John F. Keenan?

Say again?

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?

Senator Moore?

Yes.

Patrick M. O'Connor?

No.

No. Kathleen O'Connor Ives?

Yes!

Yes. Marc R. Pacheco?

Yes!

Yes. Michael J Rodrigues?

Yes!

Yes. Richard J. Ross?

No!

No. That's six. Michael F. Rush?

Yes!

Yes. Karen A. Spilka?

Yes.

Yes. Bruce E. Tarr?

Yes! [INAUDIBLE] Bruce E. Tarr votes no. Walter F. Timilty?

Yes!

Yes. James T. Welch?

Yes!

Yes. 29-7.

Have all the members been recorded? The Senator--

[INAUDIBLE] am I recorded?

You have not, sir. [INAUDIBLE] Michael O. Moore votes yes.

On this matter, 30 having voted in the affirmative 7 in the negative, the Governor's amendment is rejected. The chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr. For what purpose does the gentleman rise?

Under the rules, the minority leader has requested a caucus. It is so granted, and it will be a joint caucus in the office of the Senate President. And we would ask the members to go directly there. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not go to your office. An important matter needs to be discussed immediately.

One matter comes before the Senate for its final passage, and under the Constitution is a requirement of a call of the yeas and nays. An act authorizing the town of Boylston to convey a portion of a certain parcel of land, House Bill number 1120. The clerk will call the roll.

It's 416?

Michael J. Barrett? Joseph A. Boncore? 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? [INAUDIBLE] Viriato M. deMacedo? Sal N. DiDomenico? Eileen M. Donoghue?

Yes!

Yes. James B. Eldridge?

Yes!

Yes. Ryan C. Fattman? Linda Dorcena Forry? [INAUDIBLE] Cindy F. Friedman?

Yes.

Yes. Anne M. Gobi?

Yes!

Yes. Adam G. Hinds?

Yes!

Yes. Donald F Humason Jr? Patricia D. Jehlen? John F. Keenan?

Yes!

Yes. Eric P. Lesser? Jason M. Lewis?

Yes!

Yes. Barbara A. L'Italien?

Yes!

Yes. Joan B. Lovely?

Yes!

Yes. Thomas M. McGee? Mark C. Montigny?

Yes!

Yes. Michael O. Moore? Patrick M. O'Connor? Kathleen O'Connor Ives?

Yes!

Yes. Marc R. Pacheco?

Yes!

Yes. Michael J. Roberts?

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?

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

Have all members been recorded?

You got 23?

The Senator from Middlesex, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. President, I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.

Michael J. Barrett votes yes.

The Senator from Suffolk and Middlesex has been recorded.

Mr. President, Joseph A. Boncore wishes to be recorded in the affirmative.

Joseph A. Boncore votes yes.

The Senator from Worcester, Mr. Moore.

Mr. President, have I been recorded?

You have not. I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.

Michael O. Moore votes yes.

The Senator from Worcester and Norfolk, Mr. Fattman.

Mr. President, have I been recorded?

You have not.

I wish to be recorded yes.

Ryan C. Fattman votes yes.

The Senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Humason.

Thank you Mr. President. Has Mr. Humason been recorded?

You have not, sir.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to be recorded in the affirmative.

Donald F. Humason Jr. votes yes.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

The Senator from Essex, Mr. McGee.

Mr. President, I wish to be recorded.

Thomas M. McGee?

Yes!

Yes.

The Senator from Hampden, Mr. Welch.

Thank you, Mr. President. I desire to be recorded in the affirmative.

James T. Welch votes yes.

And now the Senator from Hampden and Hampshire, Mr. Lesser.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.

Eric P. Lesser votes yes.

The Senator from Plymouth and Barnstable, Mr. deMacedo.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.

Viriato M. deMacedo votes yes.

The Senator from Cape and the Islands, Mr. Cyr.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.

Julian Cyr votes yes.

--O'Connor.

Mr. President, I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.

Patrick M. O'Connor votes yes.

The Senator from Suffolk, Ms. Forry.

Mr. President, I wish to be recorded.

Linda Dorcena Forry?

Yes!

Yes. Who? Who?

Senator Jehlen.

Patricia D. Jehlen?

Yes.

Yes.

--DiDomenico.

Sal N. DiDomenico votes yes.

On this matter 37 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The bill is passed to be enacted. It will be signed by President and laid before the Governor for his approbation. The chair would ask all members to approach the rostrum. Senate will stand in a brief recess.

Report of a committee.

The Committee on Ways and Means will refer the House bill making appropriations for the fiscal year 2017 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects, House number 3951, reports in part a bill with the same title Senate number 2177-- direct appropriation. $85,317,026. Karen E. Spilka for the committee.

The Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka, asks unanimous consent to suspend the rules to allow the matter to be considered forthwith. Is there an objection? The chair hears none, and the rules are suspended. The question now comes on ordering the bill to a third reading. Several amendments have been filed which will be considered at this time.

--is offered by Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr and the Senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex, Mr. Ross, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 1 by Senators Tarr and Ross-- early voting.

The senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate be in a brief recess.

The Senate will be in a brief recess.

The Senate will be in order. The chair would remind the members that we are on amendment number 1 of the final deficiency bill as offered by the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr, and the Senator from Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex, Mr. Ross. And the title of it is early voting. The chair recognizes the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.

Thank you, Mr. President and through you to the members. How wonderful it is to be rejoined back here in our satellite chamber Mr. President. It is a wonderful autumn afternoon. And before us, is an amendment to the deficiency budget that now pends before the Senate which, Mr. President, would allow us to fulfill our commitment to cities and towns with regard to early voting.

Mr. President, we have from this building issued forth a requirement that we conduct early voting in this Commonwealth. It is something that has been embraced certainly by the citizens of the Commonwealth and is a worthy enterprise. But, Mr. President, absent the adoption of an amendment such as this one, it continues to be an unfunded mandate.

So the case for this amendment Mr. President is very straightforward and very simple, and that is to require that we fulfill our commitment if we believe in early voting. And I believe many of us do. And we want to honor the will of our constituents, and I believe all of us do, then we should provide the funding to be able to conduct early voting in the Commonwealth. So Mr. President, I hope the amendment is adopted. And I hope that when a vote is taken in this matter be taken by a call of the yeas and nays.

The gentlemen asks that when a 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 a call of the yeas and nays. Chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Spilka.

Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment provides $86,000 for early voting in the fiscal year '18, 2018 budget. We were really proud of the smooth rollout of early voting in the November 2016 elections with over 1 million individuals participating in this inaugural initiative. We also appreciate and strongly support, we strongly support the importance of adequately supporting our cities and towns in this endeavor.

However, as I have said in the past, this is a deficiency budget. This is closing out fiscal year 2017. We are not adding 2018 funding to this. We are looking at our funds. We are making sure that what we include here, we can afford.

And we are not going overboard. We are just closing out fiscal year 2017. This is not a supplemental 2018 budget, just a deficiency budget. So I'm asking folks to please vote no. If this is something that we need, there will be a supplemental to the 2018 budget, and we can take it up timely then. Thank you.

--Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I agree with the gentle lady that just took her seat on most of what she said. I do think we need to have fiscal discipline, and I commend the Committee on Ways and Means for trying to narrowly focus this particularly spending document, particularly as contrasted with what we received. And I think she's right.

I would point out, however, that this particular item would require funds to be made available until December 31st of 2017. So we are trying to wrap up some of the loose ends in this matter. And again, I respect the desire for fiscal discipline. And while this may cause a problem in the minds of some, it certainly will cause a deficiency for the cities and towns that are having to fund these activities. And I hope we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and that we will support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

The roll call having been ordered, the clerk will call the roll.

Ready?

Michael J. Barrett?

No!

No. Joseph A. Boncore?

No!

No. Michael D. Brady?

No!

No. William N. Brownsberger?

No!

No. Harriette L. Chandler?

No!

No. Sonia Chang-Diaz?

No!

No. Cynthia Stone Creem?

No!

No. Juliann Cyr?

No!

No. Viriato M. deMacedo?

Yes!

Yes. Sal N. DiDomenico?

No!

No. Eileen M. Donoghue?

No!

No. James B. Eldridge?

Yes!

Yes. Ryan C. Fattman?

Yes!

Yes. Linda Dorcena Forry?

No!

No. Cindy F. Friedman?

No!

No. Anne M. Gobi?

Yes!

Yes. Adam G. Hinds?

No!

No. Donald F. Humason Jr?

Yes!

Yes. Patricia D. Jehlen?

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

Senator Jehlen?

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

No!

No.

No. John F. Keenan?

No!

No. Eric P. Lesser?

No!

No. Jason M. Lewis?

No!

No. Barbara A. L'Italien?

No!

No. Joan B. Lovely?

No!

No. Thomas M. McGee?

No!

No. Mark C. Montigny?

No!

No. Michael O. Moore?

Senator Moore?

Senator Moore [INAUDIBLE]

Patrick M. O'Connor?

Yes!

Yes. Kathleen O'Connor Ives?

No!

No. Marc R. Pacheco?

No!

No. Michael J. Rodrigues?

No!

No. Richard J. Ross?

Yes!

Yes. Michael F. Rush?

No!

No. Karen E. Spilka?

No!

No. Bruce E. Tarr?

Yes!

Yes. Walter F. Timilty?

No!

No. James T. Welch?

No!

No.

Have all members been recorded? The Senator from Worcester, Mr. Moore.

Mr. President, have I been recorded?

You have not. I vote in the affirmative.

Michael O. Moore votes yes. On

This matter nine having voted in the affirmative, 28 in the negative. The amendment does not prevail. Amendment number 2 is on hold. Amendment number 3 offered by the Senator from Essex and Middlesex, Ms. L'Italien, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 3 by Ms. L'Italien-- And insurance coverage for dependents over age 26 with disabilities technical fix.

Chair recognizes the Senator from Essex and Middlesex, Ms. L'Italien.

Thank you, Mr. President and through you to the members. This amendment would fix a mistake that had been made with regards to allowing families who have a child who is over the age of 26 who has been carried because they are a disabled person carried on their family's plan. It had been discovered that there is a health insurance agency out in Western Massachusetts that has been deciding not to allow families to have this coverage which, by the way, was approved as part of the Affordable Care Act.

There were four sections of the law where this should have been put in place. Massachusetts decided to do this. And one place was inadvertently left out. So one health insurance company is using that loophole to deny coverage to families who have a child, again, over the age of 26 who would not be able to afford health insurance coverage. And so that's the purpose in filing this amendment. Are we doing this one?

OK, so it's my understanding that we're not going to be voting on this today. But I want to bring this to everyone's attention . I would like to see this done as soon as we possibly can, so I will withdraw the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

--asks unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. Is there an objection? The chair hears none. It is withdrawn. The chair would return to amendment number 2 offered by the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr. And the chair is informed that the amendment has been withdrawn if there is no objection. And the chair hears no objection. Amendment number 4 offered by the senator from Norfolk and Plymouth, Mr. Keenan, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 4 by Senators Kennan and O'Connor-- special education circuit breaker.

Question comes on adoption of the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The nos have it. The amendment is not adopted.

Amendment number 6 is offered by the Senator from Worcester, Mr. Moore, the title of which the clerk--

OK, I'm sorry.

--will read. Amendment number 6 by Mr. Moore-- item pricing. 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 Senate will be in a brief recess.

The Senate will be in order. The chair skipped over number 5 unintentionally, but it is now on hold. And we now go to amendment number 7 offered by Ms. Gobi, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 7 by Ms. Gobi-- early voting. Chair recognizes the Senator from Worcester, Hampden, and Hampshire, and Middlesex, Ms. Gobi.

Thank you, Mr. President. And this will sound very familiar because this is also for the reimbursements to the communities for the costs associated with the mandated provisions for early voting for November 8th 2016. And I saw what happened with the last vote, so I don't have a lot of great hope on this.

However, I will obviously want to work with the Ways and Means chair lady to make sure that funding does go in to reimburse our cities and towns for the cost that they incurred. And with that, I will withdraw the amendment.

Withdrawn. So amendment number 7 is withdrawn if there's no objection. The chair hears none, and it is withdrawn. We're no amendment number 8 offered by the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 8 by Mr. Tarr-- public service and commissioned veterans.

Question comes on adoption of the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The nos have it. The amendment is not adopted.

Amendment number 9 is on hold. Amendment number 10 is on hold. And amendment number 11 offered by the Senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr, title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment number 11 by Mr. Tarr-- organizational transformation reserve.

Question comes on adoption of that amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The nos have it. The amendment is not adopted. The Senate will be in a brief recess.

--will be in order. We'll return to amendment number 5 offered by the Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Creem, the title of which the clerk will read.

Amendment 5 by Ms. Creem-- relative to rapid fire firearms.

The chair recognizes the Senator from Essex Mr. Tarr.

Mr. President, I move the Senate be in a brief recess. The Senate will be in a brief recess.

The Senate will be in order. The chair would remind the members we're on amendment number 5 offered by the Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Creem, the title will be re-read by the clerk.

Amendment number 5 by Ms. Creem and others-- relative to rapid fire firearms.

The chair recognizes the Senator from Middlesex and Norfolk, Ms. Creem.

So I'm not going to call it? Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank you Mr. President for your understanding of the urgency of this amendment. All of us and the whole nation were united in horror at the latest mass shooting in Las Vegas. And unfortunately, it is a familiar feeling because we have experienced horror before in Orlando, in Aurora, and in Newtown to name just a few recent incidents.

In this latest mass shooting, we have also had to learn a new term "bump stock," a device that will make semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. Obviously, the bump stock modification makes guns even more deadly, and lives might have been saved had this not have been available to the Las Vegas shooter. Many people who objected to any restrictions on the sale of weapons or weapon enhancement to private individuals are now saying they support bought the bomb stock ban, and that's a good thing. Any movement towards supporting more sensible gun laws is welcome from all of us.

This amendment provides clear definition of the terms "bump stock" and "trigger crank," the devices that be added to semi-automatic weapons to increase their rate of fire, essentially making fire like a machine gun. And it treats the use and ownership of them the same way we treat machine guns. That is to say, unless you are a law enforcement, license to train members of law enforcement, or a highly regulated and licensed collector, you may not possess these deadly devices subject to a penalty of up to life.

Defining them in this way and in the statutory structure works to alleviate legitimate concerns raised by the chief of police and others who sought further clarity on this matter. From the time that a bill is enacted, they would be illegal immediately. And these bump stock and trigger shooters would not be available to be sold, and they would need to be disposed of in 90 days.

Does this go far enough? If you're asking me, I don't think so. I filed strong gun control bill, but I believe that will be considered at a later date. And I think what's important is that we act immediately on banning the sale of these kinds of devices, which should have been illegal a long time ago.

This amendment is extremely important because we need to act quickly on the new information we now have about the danger of bump stocks. I urge unanimous support of this item. Thank you, Mr. President.

Sen-- the senator from-- hm. the Senate will be in a brief recess. The Senate will be in order. Having seen the gentleman from Essex rise earlier to address this, the Chair recognizes the senator from Essex, Mr. Tarr.

Thank you, Mr. President, and through you to the members. Mr. President, protecting public safety and protecting the integrity of our laws should never be a partisan issue. And throughout this day, for many hours, we've worked together to try to come up with a reasonable way to address what clearly is an issue that presents the ability for some to circumvent our licensure laws for firearms.

And I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Fall River. I want to thank the gentleman from Western Massachusetts, the gentlelady who just took her seat, the distinguished Chair Lady of the Committee on Ways and Means, and several others, Mr. President, who have been part of a discussion this afternoon on how to take the appropriate action to address a device that-- as the gentlelady who just took her seat explained-- was something that wasn't in the mindset-- and certainly was not in the vocabulary-- of the vast majority of people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before we saw the very tragic events-- the horrific events that unfolded in Las Vegas, Nevada.

And now that we have that knowledge, Mr. President, having come to possess it through a very, very horrendous situation, it's our obligation to act. And Mr. President, I would be the first to suggest-- and I have suggested to many in this chamber-- that we ought not be pursuing this particular issue as an amendment to a spending document. That it needs to have the proper public process. That it needs to have a public hearing so that this material change to the law can be fully considered and vetted, not only through the legislative process, but also with the benefit of information from the public that will be affected by it.

Now, Mr. President, I know that today, that is not going to happen. But I also know this. I filed a piece of legislation relative to this which has many co-sponsors, Mr. President, not only in this chamber from both parties but also from the chamber down the hall as well. And through the good work of the gentleman from New Bedford, that bill is going to be facilitated for admission. And through the work of the gentleman from Worcester, it is going to receive a public hearing.

And Mr. President, were that not the case, I would not be at the microphone about to utter the following words. But it is the case. And there will be a public hearing. And I hope the public hearing is well-noticed and well-attended and inspires a vigorous discussion of the issue that now lies before us because it is critical.

Now, Mr. President, in the wake of that tragedy that many of us still try to understand-- and for many of us, it's beyond all comprehension-- we know that we need to take some action, which is why the members of our caucus filed a bill, which has, again, been widely supported in this building and both parties and in both chambers.

And that bill, in many ways, forms the basis of the amendment that now pends before the Senate. It is very straightforward. It says, Mr. President, in essence, that we have a licensure law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which restricts, if not entirely prohibits, the possession of a fully automatic firearm, also known as a machine gun.

There are two devices that we know about today that are not specifically referenced in that law. One is the so-called bump start. The other is something that is known as a trigger crank. Now, Mr. President, there can be many various marketing terms for this, but the definitions that are included in the amendment that now pends before the Senate is calculated to ensure that, whatever you call it, if it possesses those traits and you do not have a license, then, Mr. President, you are violating the law.