Beacon Hill Roll Call

If you have any questions about this
week's report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at
(617) 720-1562

Beacon
Hill Roll Call

Volume
49 - Report No. 46

November
11-15, 2024

Copyright
© 2024 Beacon Hill Roll Call. All Rights Reserved.

By
Bob Katzen

GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO
MASSTERLIST – Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers
to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday
morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles
news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill,
in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and influence. The stories
are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized
publications.

MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you
FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up
on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For
more information and to get your free subscription, go to:
https://massterlist.com/subscribe/

THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill
Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators votes on roll
calls from the week of November 11-15.

$3.9
BILLION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (H 5100)

House 137-8 and then 139-4, Senate
39-1, approved and sent to Gov. Maura Healey a $3.9 billion economic
development package that supporters say would make bold investments
in life sciences, climate tech, AI and small businesses, “building
on Massachusetts’ national leadership and creating an environment
where businesses and workers thrive.”

The package increases the annual tax
credit authorization for the life sciences industry from $30 million
to $40 million. Other provisions include $400 million for the
MassWorks Infrastructure Program to support public infrastructure
projects and create jobs; $150 million for library construction
projects; $103 million for AI in systems across the state; $100
million for infrastructure improvements in rural communities; $21
million for resilience in agriculture and fishing; and $40 million
for food science innovations.

“This economic development bill
maximizes assets and opportunities and ensures Massachusetts will
continue to lead the way toward a robust, adaptable and innovative
future,” said Sen. Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Senate Chair of the
Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. “The
bill provides meaningful investments in life sciences, climatetech
and small businesses.”

“This legislation will ensure the
commonwealth can inject millions of dollars into critical sectors,
develop the state’s workforce, grow our economy and make
Massachusetts more competitive,” said Rep. Jerry Parisella
(D-Beverly), House Chair of the Committee on Economic Development and
Emerging Technologies. “Policy provisions include permitting
reforms, educator diversity, consumer protections around ticketing
and home improvement contractors, workforce training and rural
development. These, along with meaningful tax credits and incentives
for life sciences and climatetech will help keep Massachusetts a
leader in vital industries.”

“This well-rounded economic
development package makes significant, targeted investments into
major sectors of the commonwealth’s economy,” said Rep. Aaron
Michlewitz, (D-Boston), chair of the House Committee on Ways and
Means. “By renewing our commitment to the life sciences industry,
and by making significant new investments into climatetech, we will
be elevating the commonwealth’s economy to be able to compete and
thrive for years to come.”

Rep. Nick Boldyga (R-Southwick) said
this “so-called economic development" bill contains major
education and civil service reforms. “That alone is enough for a
‘No’ vote,” said Boldyga, “They should be separate bills. But
regardless of that, this bill will continue to march the commonwealth
down a destructive path of reckless government spending. It's full of
pork, tax breaks for special interest groups and over $400 million in
more subsidies for offshore wind that is destroying our coastline,
killing our whales and decimating our fishing industry.”

Boldyga continued, “[It] also
includes dangerous DEI language that would allow for exemptions of
certain certification tests for public school teachers in order to
meet diversity goals, incorporates ‘culturally responsive
training,’ requires schools to create ‘diversity plans,’ and
creates DEI officers and other mandatory DEI roles within our
schools.”

“While I support many of the
funding initiatives in the bill, I have concerns with outside
sections of the bill that have nothing to do with economic
development which I simply cannot support,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman
(R-Sutton). “For example, the SAPHE act, which is about public
health and dramatically expands the power of state health officials
while diminishing local control and leading to lower levels of
accountability which could cause severe economic impacts on
businesses and individuals.”

Fattman continued, “I do not agree
with the portions of the bill that lower the standards of licensure
for teachers and physicians, especially at a time where we should
expect nothing but excellence from our teachers and doctors. Where
too many of the sections were unrelated to economic development, it
led to my ‘No’ vote, and these sections are troubling and
distracting from the intended purpose of this legislation. Quite
frankly, I believe the public is tired of this approach to
legislating. Instead, we should have included practical ways to
reduce the cost of living for Massachusetts residents struggling to
make ends meet because of affordability issues in the state, such as
tax breaks for childcare and/or middle class families."

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it. The House held two separate roll calls on the same bill so there are two votes listed for each representative.)

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

Rep.
Jeffrey Roy Yes/Yes Sen. Rebecca
Rausch Yes Sen. Karen Spilka Yes

CLEAN
ENERGY AND CLIMATE (S 2967)

House 128-17, approved and sent to
Gov. Maura Healey climate/energy legislation that supporters say will
make systemic changes to the state’s clean energy infrastructure
which will help the state achieve its net zero emissions by 2050
goals. They say it will also expand electric vehicle use and
infrastructure and protect residents and ratepayers.

A House-Senate conference committee
drafted the compromise version to resolve the differences in the
competing versions approved by the House and Senate earlier this
year.

“Today the Legislature once again
took decisive action to address the climate crisis,” said Senate
President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “While achieving the shared
goal of reforming siting and permitting so that we can ensure that
clean energy projects get approved and built at the rate necessary to
meet our state’s ambitious emissions reduction goals, we are also
expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure and incentives,
addressing the high cost and long lifespan of gas infrastructure
projects as we strive to move towards cleaner energy sources, and
protecting rate payers from bearing the costs of this
transformational shift.”

“This legislation represents the
Legislature’s continued commitment to meeting Massachusetts’
long-term emission reduction targets, as it builds on the work that
is being done to modernize the commonwealth’s energy grid, increase
clean energy generation and combat the climate crisis,” said House
Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “The reforms related to siting and
permitting of clean energy infrastructure will be critical in the
process of transitioning the commonwealth’s energy grid away from
fossil fuels over time.”

“I voted against the [bill]
because of the stance it takes on natural gas,” said Rep. Kelly
Pease (R-Westfield), one of only 17 members, all Republicans, who
voted against the measure. “This bill wants to put an end to the
use of natural gas in our state. Natural gas is not only abundant in
the United States, but it is one of the cleanest burning energy
sources. Increasing the use of natural gas would help our planet,
while not having a detrimental impact on our economy. Unfortunately,
this bill is just another nail in the coffin for using natural gas as
an energy source.”

“While I and many others in the
5th Barnstable District support alternative energy, my primary
responsibility as a state representative is to prioritize the health,
safety and best interests of my constituents,” said Rep. Steve
Xiarhos (R-Barnstable). “These interests would be significantly
undermined by [the bill] because it would dramatically reduce state
and local oversight of clean energy projects and the infrastructure
to support them. Communities I represent have been directly and
negatively affected by this infrastructure, and I have been pushing
for more state and local oversight of these projects, not less, to
protect host communities’ interests. This bill is a step in the
wrong direction.”

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

Rep.
Jeffrey Roy Yes

CHANGE
WHO APPOINTS THE FIRM TO AUDIT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (H 5105)

House 135-10, approved a new House
rule that amends the current process by which the House appoints a
private, independent auditing firm to audit the books of the House.
Under the current rule 85A, the House business manager hires the
company that will do the audit. Under the new rule 85A, the state
auditor, currently Diana DiZoglio, would recommend a firm to conduct
the audit and the business manager would hire that firm.

Among the House’s 132 Democrats,
123 voted in favor of the new rule and nine did not vote. No Democrat
voted against the rule. Among the 24 House Republicans, 11 voted for
the new rule, three did not vote and ten voted against it. The one
unenrolled member of the House voted for the rule.

In November, voters approved
Question 1 which created a new state law that would allow the state
auditor to audit the Legislature. The vote was 71.6 percent in favor
to 28.4 percent opposed. The new House rule 85A does not change that
law.

Rep. Danielle Gregoire
(D-Marlborough), part of House Speaker Ron Mariano's leadership team,
said the change would ensure "any audit pursuant to the passage
of Question 1 will be a professional audit, not a political one."
This remark is an apparent reference to DiZoglio's many clashes with
legislative leaders during and after she served in the House and the
Senate.

"We haven't touched the [new]
law,” said Mariano. "Let's make that clear: we have not
touched the law. I have no intent to do anything right now, except
maybe take a few days off. This has got nothing to do with repealing
anything. This is a rules change."

Mariano pitched the change as "an
opportunity to acknowledge the 70 percent to 30 percent vote of the
electorate." He continued, “Obviously, [the voters] weren't
happy with the way we were doing things, and we took a look at the
way we were doing things. We found we could make a few changes that
we think maintains a strong financial audit while still backboning
our argument about the separation of powers.”

“As a longtime supporter of
legislative transparency, I joined with all House Democrats and many
Republicans to strengthen the existing auditing provisions found in
House Rule 85A,” said Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge). “This has
no bearing on the provisions of Question 1, because a House rule and
a state law are two different things. It seems clear that separation
of powers questions may emerge regarding the new law created by
Question 1, and while those questions are being addressed by the
judicial process, this vote to strengthen our internal rules will
help add to transparency.”

Criticism of the new rule was quick.
“The House’s actions to ignore the will of the people, who voted
overwhelmingly for greater transparency and accountability through
Question 1, are profoundly disheartening and absolutely
unacceptable,” responded DiZoglio who led the campaign for passage
of Question 1. “Should the Senate also seek to similarly stymie our
efforts, legislators will possess sole authority to block taxpayers’
access to what any audit examines and show us only what they want us
to see – just as they do now. The public would not have the
opportunity to see how much taxpayer money is being spent on
non-disclosure agreements, nor on state contracts potentially handed
out to elected officials’ friends.”

She continued, “I am pushing the
governor and attorney general to support the people in pushing back
against the Legislature’s attempt to dismantle Question 1’s
power. The law needs to be followed and enforced and we need their
help to ensure that occurs. Our recent audit of the Legislature,
which they refused to participate in, found they did not follow their
own rules, nor submit any financial audits to our office, as required
by their rules. Yet another rule, with no teeth, is what the
Legislature is telling taxpayers they deserve instead of their
compliance with the law. It’s unacceptable. Please call your
legislators, the attorney general and the governor to register your
support for the audit law you just voted for.”

“I believe that that this rule
change would go against what 70 percent plus of the commonwealth
voted for on November 5th,” said Rep. John Marsi (R-Dudley). “While
I understand it allowed the auditor to select an auditor to perform a
financial audit, the scope and control over the process doesn't seem
to be in line with the referendum question and may work against the
intended outcome the public desires.”

“This role change amounts to a
step in opposition to the widespread referendum that was just voted
on by the public a week ago,” said Rep. Joe McKenna (R-Sutton).
“While on its surface ceding some existing audit control to the
auditor would appear to be in the spirit of the referendum, the
reality is that the Legislature would maintain control over the scope
and depth of any contracted work, thereby circumventing the intent of
the referendum. A number of representatives had direct conversations
with the auditor herself which highlighted her own opposition to the
measure as a misguided attempt to undermine the outcome of ballot
Question 1.”

(A “Yes” vote is for the rule
change. A “No” vote is against it.)

Rep.
Jeffrey Roy Yes

ALSO
UP ON BEACON HILL

BREAST CANCER SCREENINGS (H 4918) –
Gov. Healey signed into law legislation that would require health
insurance companies to provide coverage for diagnostic examinations
for breast cancer, digital breast tomosynthesis screening and
medically necessary and appropriate screening with breast magnetic
resonance imaging.

Supporters noted that although
access to routine preventive screening mammograms is currently
covered under the Affordable Care Act, this legislation would go
further and require coverage for certain screenings and exams
currently not uniformly covered by law.

"We know that early detection
of breast cancer saves lives,” said Healey. “This legislation
will help ensure that cost is not a barrier for women to get the
screenings and care they need.”

“Today is the culmination of work
I have done for nearly a decade to ensure that all women have access
to necessary, and possibly lifesaving, breast cancer screenings,”
said sponsor Sen. Joan Lovely (D-Salem). “Early detection of breast
cancer saves lives. This legislation makes those diagnostic exams
used for early detection accessible and affordable, giving women the
vital resources needed to catch breast cancer in its earliest
stages.”

“This legislation signed into law
by Gov. Healey ensures that all women in the commonwealth have access
to the digital breast tomosynthesis and MRI screening they need to
catch cancer early, without facing financial barriers,” said Sen.
Mike Rush (D-Boston). “The increased access to early detection that
this enabled through this legislation will save lives.”

"Cost is a known barrier to
completing follow up cancer screenings," Marc Hymovitz,
Massachusetts director of government relations for American Cancer
Society Action Network. “By eliminating the potential for
unexpected costs, we can increase the likelihood of timely, follow up
screenings for those who need them – and thus the promise of better
health outcomes – for all communities."

HOUSE MEMBERS TO VISIT CUBA - House
Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy) and ten other state representatives
are headed to Cuba, where part of their mission is to discuss the
importance of investing in healthcare systems with public officials,
hospital staff, researchers and charitable organizations.

“I applaud the visit of this
important delegation from the Massachusetts House of Representatives
to Cuba,” said U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA). “This trip will
allow state leaders to learn more about the Cuban healthcare system,
climate resiliency strategies and life science innovations. It will
also facilitate critical conversations about how to get much-needed
humanitarian aid to the Cuban people.”

“I am a strong believer in the
power of diplomatic dialogue and engagement, and I've long believed
it's time to rethink America's failed, cold-war approach to dealing
with Cuba,” continued McGovern. “I hope that this visit can serve
as an important step in improving relations between our two
countries."

All expenses incurred by members
traveling on this trip, including expenses related to transportation,
lodging and meals, are being funded by each individual member.

The group includes Reps. Jennifer
Balinsky Armini (D-Marblehead), Michael Day (D-Stoneham), Marjorie
Decker (D-Cambridge), Mindy Domb (D-Amherst), Ken Gordon (D-Bedford),
John Lawn (D-Watertown), Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston), Frank Moran
(D-Lawrence), Mike Moran (D-Brighton) and Jeff Roy (D-Franklin).

TAX CREDIT FOR COMPANIES THAT HIRE
NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS – The Healey administration announced the
launch of a new program that would provide a $2,000 tax credit to
Massachusetts businesses that hire active members of the National
Guard.

Supporters said the program aims to
increase economic opportunities for members of the Guard and
encourage more businesses to hire and retain them.

“We are addressing the employment
roadblocks active service members face and expanding valuable job
opportunities statewide,” said Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll. “The
National Guard Hiring Tax Credit will incentivize businesses to hire
skilled service members, empowering these businesses to grow and
strengthening our local economies.”

“The skills, discipline and
resilience of National Guard members make them invaluable to any
employer,” said Veterans Services Secretary Jon Santiago. “Through
the HERO Act and initiatives like this tax credit, we’re
strengthening our workforce and reaffirming our commitment to those
who serve, ensuring they receive support both in uniform and at
home.”

“This tax credit is a meaningful
investment in our National Guard members, expanding opportunities for
them in the workforce while encouraging more businesses to recognize
and leverage their unique skills and dedication,” said Public
Safety and Security Secretary Terrence Reidy. “By supporting
employers who hire active Guard members, we’re strengthening our
local economies, honoring the service of these individuals and
building a more resilient workforce across Massachusetts.”

YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETS WITH
THE GOVERNOR – Gov. Healey hosted the first-ever Annual Youth
Advisory Council Summit to engage young leaders on key priority
issues.

The council consists of 60 young
people who advise the Healey administration on critical issues
impacting Massachusetts, such as civic engagement, education,
climate, housing, mental health and youth violence. All members are
appointed for a two-year term.

Supporters note that the council,
which in total has members who speak 14 different languages, has
geographic, racial and gender diversity and includes members of the
LGBTQ+ community.

“Since swearing the council in,
these young people have been hard at work,” said Gov. Healey.
“They’ve shown incredible leadership, and they’ve made it a
priority to engage with each other about the issues that matter most
to them. Each of them recognizes that the decisions we make today
will have a significant impact on their futures, and our
administration is committed to working with them to address their
concerns. While we work to ensure Massachusetts remains a state they
can grow and thrive in, we’re excited to welcome these young people
to the Statehouse and open the door to conversations about their
futures.”

OW
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 November 11-15,
the House met for a total of five hours and 22 minutes and the Senate
met for a total of five hours and 43 minutes.

.

Mon
Nov. 11 No House session

No Senate session.

.

Tues.
Nov. 12 House 11:03 a.m. to 11:13 a.m.

Senate 11:21 a.m. to
11:40 a.m.

Wed.
Nov. 13 House 11:00 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.

No Senate session

Thurs.
Nov. 14 House 11:02 a.m. to 4:09 p.m.

Senate 11:25 a.m. to
4:49 p.m.

Fri.
Nov. 15 No House session

No Senate session

Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at
bob@beaconhillrollcall.com

Bob founded Beacon Hill Roll Call in
1975 and was inducted into the New England Newspaper and Press
Association (NENPA) Hall of Fame in 2019.