Beacon Hill Roll Call

Volume 49 – Report No. 17 • April 22-26, 2024
Copyright © 2024 Beacon Hill Roll Call. All Rights Reserved. By Bob Katzen.
_____________________________________________________________

Our Legislators in the House and Senate for Somerville:

barber_web Rep. Christine Barber
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Thirty-fourth Middlesex. – Consisting of all precincts in wards 4 and 5, precinct 1 of ward 7, and precinct 2 of ward 8, of the city of Medford, precincts 1 and 2 of ward 4, and all precincts of ward 7, of the city of Somerville, both in the county of Middlesex.
*

Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Twenty-seventh Middlesex. – Consisting of precinct 3 of ward 2, all precincts of ward 3, precinct 3 of ward 4, and all precincts of wards 5 and 6, of the city of Somerville, in the county of Middlesex.
*

Rep. Mike Connolly
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Twenty-sixth Middlesex. – Consisting of all precincts of ward 1, precinct 1 of ward 2, precincts 1 and 2 of ward 3, and precinct 1 of ward 6, of the city of Cambridge, and all precincts of ward 1 and precincts 1 and 2 of ward 2, of the city of Somerville, both in the county of Middlesex.
*

Sen. Patricia Jehlen
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Second Middlesex. – Consisting of the cities of Cambridge, wards 9 to 11, inclusive, Medford and Somerville, and the town of Winchester, precincts 4 to 7, inclusive, in the county of Middlesex.
*

THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ and representatives’ votes on roll calls from the week of April 22-28. Some of the House roll calls are on the House version of a $58 billion fiscal 2025 state budget.

A LOOK BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE BUDGET “DEBATE”

Most of the decisions on which representatives’ amendments are included or not included in the budget are made behind closed doors. Of the more than 1,500 budget amendments proposed, most of them were bundled into consolidated “mega” amendments. This year there were seven mega amendments and all were approved unanimously. There is no real “debate” on the House floor. Everyone who spoke on any of the consolidated amendments spoke in favor of them.

The system works as follows: Individual representatives file amendments on various topics. All members then pitch their amendments to Democratic leaders who draft consolidated amendments that include some of the individual representatives’ amendments while excluding others.

The categories of consolidated amendments include many subjects including programs relating to public safety, judiciary energy, environmental affairs, housing, labor and economic development.

Supporters of the system say that any representative who sponsored an excluded amendment can bring it to the floor and ask for an up or down vote on the amendment itself. They say this system has worked well for many years.

Opponents say that rarely, if ever, does a member bring his or her amendment to the floor for an up-or-down vote because that is not the way the game is played. It is an “expected tradition” that you accept the fate of your amendment as determined by Democratic leaders.

$375 MILLION FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (H 4529)

House 157-0, Senate 38-0, approved and sent to Gov. Maura Healey a bill that includes authorizing $200 million in one-time funding for the maintenance and repair of local roads and bridges in cities and towns across the state. The $375 million package, a bond bill under which the funding would be borrowed by the state through the sale of bonds, also includes $175 million for several transportation-related grant programs.

The programs funded by the $175 million include the municipal small bridge program; the complete streets program; a bus transit infrastructure program; and grants for municipalities to purchase electric vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support them.

“This legislation secures critical funding to our municipalities for the roads, bridges and sidewalks that residents utilize each and every day,” said Sen. Brendan Crighton (D-Lynn), Senate Chair of the Committee on Transportation. “Regardless of where you live or how you get around, this funding will address infrastructure needs to improve travel, enhance safety and bolster our economy.”

“The timely passage of this responsive legislation for fiscal year 2025 demonstrates the Legislature’s continued commitment to fund our local transportation projects,” said Rep. Bill Straus (D-Mattapoisett), House Chair of the Transportation Committee. “With the renewed investment in funding rural towns and other infrastructure grant programs, our communities across the commonwealth will be better positioned to meet their unique transportation needs, and I am pleased to support these investments.”

“Local officials across Massachusetts are grateful for the Legislature’s swift passage of the transportation bond bill, with funding for the Chapter 90 program and additional key investments in municipal roads and bridges,” said Adam Chapdelaine, CEO of the Mass Municipal Association (MMA). “Every community in the commonwealth will benefit from this critical funding, particularly with construction season already underway. The MMA again this year is asking the Legislature to supplement these programs through dedicated funding from the new Fair Share surtax. Last year, supplemental Chapter 90 aid via the surtax provided an additional $100 million for the 30,000 miles of municipal roads, which went to great use in communities across the commonwealth.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the $375 million package.)

Rep. Christine Barber Yes
Rep. Mike Connolly Yes
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven Yes
Sen. Patricia Jehlen Yes

SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET INCLUDING $251 MILLION FUNDING FOR SHELTERS (H 4582)

House 123-35, Senate 29-9, approved and sent to Gov. Healey a supplemental budget that includes an additional $251 million in funding for the Emergency Assistance Program that funds the emergency family shelter system which houses migrants. The measure imposes a new nine-month limit on how long families can stay in the state’s emergency shelters, with up to two 90-day extensions available to some and a new hardship waiver process.

Provisions include $10 million for approved workforce training programs; $10 million for a tax credit for companies that provide job training to Emergency Assistance participants; $3 million for family welcome centers; $1 million for supplemental staffing at emergency housing assistance program shelters; and $7 million for resettlement agencies and shelter providers to assist families with rehousing, work authorization and English language learning.

Other provisions keep in place some pandemic-era programs, set to expire, including allowing restaurants to sell beer, wine and cocktails for take-out; expanding outdoor dining; and allowing graduates and students in their last semester of nursing education programs to practice nursing.

“I’m proud that this legislation puts us on a responsible path forward without sacrificing our values of treating families with dignity and respect,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “This legislative action was warranted because of inaction at the federal level on a challenge of their own creation. Massachusetts has once again shown that we can work together to address complicated issues, as we have done today.”

“Ensuring that people exit the shelter system in a timely manner is crucial to the emergency assistance program’s long-term viability,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “This is the current reality due to the status of the migrant crisis, the lack of federal support, the number of people on the waitlist and the revenue challenges facing Massachusetts. It’s also critical that we ensure that folks in the shelter system receive ample support aimed at helping them to successfully enter the workforce, which is exactly what this legislation does.”

“Once again the Massachusetts Senate was given the opportunity to do right by our residents and the majority party failed to do so,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “The supplemental budget did not have a residency requirement nor prioritization criteria for the right to shelter program and therefore earned a ‘No’ vote from me. In a time when the state budget is being trimmed back, adding nearly half a billion dollars to the right to shelter program which has housed thousands of people who are not Massachusetts residents and has only hemorrhaged money is not the answer.”

“I firmly believe that the state of Massachusetts cannot continue to afford to fund this program ourselves without jeopardizing many of the countless critical programs we hold dear,” said Sen. John Velis (D-Westfield). “Our emergency shelter system was simply never meant to handle the number of individuals it is housing

today and unlike the federal government, who has completely abdicated their responsibility to address the immigration crisis, the commonwealth must have a balanced budget and cannot simply run up debt without any consequences.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the supplemental budget. A “No” vote is against it.)

Rep. Christine Barber Yes
Rep. Mike Connolly No
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven No
Sen. Patricia Jehlen Yes

RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS (H 4460)

House 30-125, rejected an amendment that would change the state’s Right to Shelter Law which requires the state to provide shelter and other necessities to homeless parents with young children, pregnant women and recently the many migrant families arriving in the Bay State. Homeless individuals are not covered by the Right to Shelter law.

The amendment would require that people provide proof that they have lived in the state for at least three months to qualify for the program. It also exempts from the requirement a victim of domestic violence or a person whose living situation has been affected by a fire or other natural disaster that occurred in Massachusetts.

Amendment supporters said the current interpretation of residency in Massachusetts by the Healey administration is that the person can be in the state for a matter of minutes to qualify to get services. “The emergency housing assistance program is operating under a 7,500-family cap imposed by Gov. Healey, but the demand for services continues to grow and has created a lengthy waitlist,” said House Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “Imposing a minimum residency requirement of three months is reasonable and will help to ensure that people who are already living in the commonwealth will have access to housing assistance when they need it.”

Some amendment opponents said the amendment might be unconstitutional. Others said people from around the world who are the victims of rape, violence and oppression are coming to Massachusetts and the state should not impose residency requirements on these suffering migrants.

“I would also just like to underscore, as I did a moment ago, that no families — whether they are longtime Massachusetts residents or families that are new to the state – are being put out on the street,” said Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley). “We do have these overflow shelters. I don’t want anyone to be operating under the assumption that we have Massachusetts residents who are being left out on the street, so once again, I ask you please … reject the residency requirement.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the 3-month requirement. A “No” vote is against it.)

Rep. Christine Barber No
Rep. Mike Connolly No
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven No

PRIORITIZE HOMELESS VETERANS (H 4600)

House 27-129, rejected an amendment that would prioritize honorably discharged homeless veterans for eligibility for placement in the shelter assistance program.

“Massachusetts is widely recognized as a national leader for the programs and services we provide to our veterans and our shelter system should be reflective of that,” said amendment sponsor GOP Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “No individual who has served their country with valor and dedication should ever be forced to sleep on the street. Ensuring the well-being of homeless veterans, who have sacrificed so much for our country and our commonwealth, is not a policy decision; it’s a moral imperative.”

Opponents of the amendment said it is a political stunt designed to make it appear that Democrats are against helping veterans and noted that nothing could be further from the truth. They noted this shelter assistance funding was designed to protect women, children and families. They noted that the Bay State proudly already has some of the best veterans’ benefits in the nation and pointed to increased veterans benefits in the House budget.

Rep. Gerard Cassidy (D-Brockton), House chair of the Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs, previewed a veterans bill being prepared by his committee for consideration in May and said it will provide even more benefits for veterans. “This is not a veterans’ bill. This is basically a political ploy,” said Cassidy.

(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment giving priority to homeless veterans. A “No” vote is against it.)

Rep. Christine Barber No
Rep. Mike Connolly No
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven No

HOUSE APPROVES $58 BILLION FISCAL 2025 STATE BUDGET (H 460)

House 153-4, approved a $58 billion fiscal 2025 state budget after three days of debate. The House version now goes to the Senate which will approve a different version. A House-Senate conference committee will eventually craft a plan that will be presented to the House and Senate for consideration and then sent to the governor.

“This budget builds off the successes of the last few years by prioritizing our residents,” said Rep. Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston), chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means. “Whether it is greater investments into programs like housing stability, public transportation or early education, these initiatives are a reflection of our shared values. By reinvesting in the people of the commonwealth, we will continue to make our economy more competitive and equitable for years to come.”

“We take pride in our collective efforts to develop a budget that mirrors the needs of our constituents,” said Rep. Pat Haddad (D-Somerset), Assistant Vice Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means. “The fiscal year 2025 budget underscores our dedication to significant investments in healthcare, education, housing, veteran services, energy and environmental services, among other critical areas. Passing this budget will provide vital protection for the cities and towns of the Bay State, particularly amidst fiscal challenges. Our commitment to supporting municipalities has never been more resolute, with local aid emerging as a top priority to sustain essential local services.”

HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK’S SESSION?

Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature’s job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been filed. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session.

During the week of April 22-26, the House met for a total of 26 hours and 57 minutes and the Senate met for a total of five hours and six minutes.

Mon. April 22
House 11:01 a.m. to 11:17 a.m.
Senate 11:19 a.m. to 11:32 a.m.

Tues. April 23
No House session
No Senate session.

Wed. April 24
House 11:01 a.m. to 8:33 p.m.
No Senate session

Thurs. April 25
House 11:02 a.m. to 8:46 p.m.
Senate 12:22 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

Fri. April 26
House 10:00 a.m. to 5:25 p.m.
No Senate session

________________________________________

Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com