2025-02-25 00:00:00 - Formal House Session 19
2025-02-25 00:00:00 - Formal House Session 19
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - The auto which shall soon join, having arrived, the host of The United. Members and guests are asked to remain standing and join with me in pledging allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America.
SPEAKER2 - I I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
SPEAKER1 - House of being auto, miss of the era of Falmouth, now moves at the house stand in recess till the hour of 1PM. All those in favor say aye. All those above nay. The ayes have it. House stands in recess till the hour of 1PM. Court officers notified the democratic members of a democratic caucus in Room A 1 at 12 noon.
SPEAKER3 - The chair has been84 informed that house bill 58
has been released by the committee on third reading. Mister Mikowitz of Boston are93
Clark will read the report.
SPEAKER4 - The committee on bills in third reading to who was referred referred the Senate amendment of the house bill, making appropriations for the fiscal year 2025 to provide for supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other activities and projects. See house number 58 published as amendment reports council reports that119 the senate amendment is correctly drawn.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on concurrence pending which mister Michael Woods of Boston offers a further amendment in the hands of the clerk. Clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Michael Woods of Boston moves that the bill be amended by striking out the text contained therein and inserting in place thereof the text contained in house document number 61.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Amendment is adopted.
For what purpose does a gentleman rise?
Mister Jones of North Reading moves that when a vote could be taken by a call of the ayes and nays. Those joining with them will rise. First division. First division. Second division. 16. 16. Sufficient number having risen, vote be taken to be taken by a call of the ayes and nays.
Roll call having been ordered, roll call will be ordered forth with court officers. We'll alert the members that a roll call is in progress. Roll call will be open for 4 minutes.
SPEAKER4 - This is roll call number 12. Roll call number 12. The voting stations of representative Murphy of Weymouth, Sullivan Almeida of Abington, and Garcia of Chelsea are locked.
SPEAKER3 - Have all members voted to wish to do so?
Have all members voted to wish to do so? Time for voting is expired. Clerk will display the tally. A 28 to 23. In this matter, a 28 in the affirmative, 23 in the negative. Amendment is adopted.
Question comes on concurrence with the senate.
SPEAKER5 - As amended.
SPEAKER3 - As amended.
All those in favor784 say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. It. None is
adopted. House concur.
House will be in order. Does the chair hear objection to proceed with the orders of the day? Chair hears none. Mister Moran moves suspension of the rules to take up calendar item number 2.819 Clerk will read the title.
Question comes on suspension of the rules. All those in favor say aye, opposed nay. The ayes have it. Clerk will read the title.
SPEAKER4 - Order for the adoption of permanent joint rules for the hundred and 90 fourth general court governing the 25 20 25 20 26 legislative session. For order, see house number 2026.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on adoption of the order.
Chair recognizes mister Moran of Brighton.859
REP MORAN - HB 2026 - Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of House 2026, an order to adopt permanent joint rules for the current session of this great and General Court. Before I get into my remarks, I would like to thank a few879 people that helped on these rules. First, I wanna start by thanking the speaker and his staff for all the hard work that they've put into these rules. I'd also like to thank the892 gentleman from Canton and his staff. I'd also like to896 thank the many members of this legislature that reached out900 to give me your concerns and your suggestions. And finally, I'd906 like to thank many of our constituents and advocacy groups who also made it clear some of the reforms that they were looking for in these rules. All of you collectively had a hand in drafting this rules package.
Earlier this year, on January 1, we came into this chamber and into this building as elected members of the great and General Court. And on that day, each party separated and caucused, picking their elected leader of their caucus. After that process was done, we came into this great chamber and we elected the speaker of the House for this coming session. The next thing we do in our process is to create, draft, and write rules that govern966 how we move bills through the legislative session for this current session we're in. These rules are designed to help the majority party move an agenda through the process. I think it is important to consider that every amendment today that you will hear has been filed and done so by the minority party. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. In fact, that very same thing is happening in other states all around this country as we speak. The minority party in those states, whether they be Democrat or Republican, are filing amendments to the rules in hopes of putting their party in1019 a stronger position as we move through the legislative process.
So to help us move our agenda forward this session, we have made significant changes in our rules. I would dare say in my 20 years in this House, they're historic changes. I wanna talk about a few of those changes now. All of our hearings that we conduct in our committees will be done jointly with the House and Senate as they always have been. But under these rules, bills that are filed by Senate members will be voted on by Senate members in that committee. Conversely, bills that are filed by House members will be voted on by House members in that committee. So there will not be opportunity for a senator on the committee level to offer their opinion or voice on a House bill and likewise for the Senate.
To further help regulate the flow of the committee process, we are putting a mandatory 601099 day time limit on all bills to be1103 reported out of committee after a hearing. So after you have your hearing and it's scheduled, whether you're on that committee, a vice chair of that committee, or a chair of that committee, the chair in that committee will have 60 days to move that bill out of committee. It is our belief that1124 this one change alone will help move bills through the process at a much faster pace, and help solve the legislative logjam that we have seen in the previous two sessions. In addition, we are sharing the responsibility of doing the work of the committee. So the administrative responsibilities that are involved in running a1154 committee, writing bill summaries, scheduling the hearings, getting court officers to be in attendance, all of the things that we do to schedule these hearings will be shared with our Senate colleagues. Summaries of hearings and attendance and how we vote on the bills at those hearings are all going to be made public and posted online.
There is one piece of business with regard to Joint Rule 10. This new process of a 60 day time limit on the bill come out of committee, we're identifying that as a rolling Joint Rule 10. Traditionally, we'd have a Joint Rule 10 where bills would have to be reported out by a said date. What this does is it's more of a rolling joint rule 10 so that every 30 days after hearing, bills are being reported out. But in the instance where we have late files, or there are bills that are heard in the latter half of the session, we do have a Joint Rule 10 in place for that, and that is going1236 to be late in February. Like in the past, we are asking our colleagues, our chairman, our vice chair, and members of the committee to be in hearings and be in attendance. We think that is an important piece of the legislative process that you are actually hearing the testimony in person, in real time, and making the important decisions that are made on the committee.
As far as testimony given at those committees, it is our belief that as much as possible, every piece of testimony should be made public. We are aware, though, that in some instances, on certain committees that the testimony that is given to us is sometimes sensitive in nature and has things in it that people maybe don't want released to the public. We do not wanna stymie that discussion. We do not wanna prohibit that discussion from happening. So instead, we are allowing the chairs of each committee to decide which testimony should be made public. This is going to come down to just straight out common sense by the chairs. If you think something has testimony, written testimony that's sensitive in nature, we would ask that you use a little common sense, maybe call the person who sent you the testimony, and ask them if they're okay with this being made public.1350 We think that's important to do for the protection of our constituents and for an honest dialogue to move forward.
In the first year of the session we made a change in the joint rules that the first year of the session can you can have full formals up until the third Wednesday in December. So that has moved up almost a month and a half to allow for more discussion and the ability for us to move more legislation sooner. And finally, in the second year of the session, customarily it's been July 31 ends the session. As we saw last session, that didn't really work out that way. So a change we made in these rules are that if a bill is in a conference committee by July 31, that we can be called back anytime between July 31 in the end of session to a full formal where we get to deliberate and talk and vote on that bill. But only if it is in a conference committee report. Only if there's been a conference committee appointed and you're negotiating before the 31st, only those bills can then move forward after the 31st. Taken as a whole, I really do believe that these changes are historic, transformative, and also provide the public with access to where a bill is at any point in time in legislative process and how it got there. After not having agreed on joint rules since 2017, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this session we can do that. I wanna thank you. And when a vote be called on this, I'd be asked that it be called by a vote of the yeas and nays. amendment. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order in proposed joint rule 1 in line 50 by inserting after the word procedure the following. Provided, however, that no matter referred to a joint committee shall be reported to either branch until such time as the joint committee standing committee has adopted these these rules of procedure.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on adoption of the amendment. Mister Jones of North Reading.
All those in favor, say aye.
Question comes and adopts the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The nays have it. Amendment is not adopted.
Mister Jones of North Reading, office in the hands of the clerk. Clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 2. Mister Jones of North Reading and other members of the house moved to amend the order and proposed joint rule 12 a in line 6 20 by inserting after the word constitution the following. Provided, however, that all such matters taken up under the provisions of this rule shall be subject to a roll call vote.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on adoption of the amendments. She recognizes mister Jones of no threating.
REP JONES - HB 2026 - AMENDMENT 2 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members. Let me first say I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Boston about the efforts that have gone into the creation of the joint rules. And then it wasn't lost on him that in this year, and I think probably the first year, that we've considered rules since I've been a member that no amendments were filed by anybody on the majority party. And maybe that's a testament to the rules that have been put out, maybe a testament to the fact that so many great ideas that we on the minority side have offered over the years have made their way into the proposal today, which we appreciate. So hopefully, some of the ideas that we're talking about today may not make it this time but maybe in future years will find their way into the proposals put forth by the gentleman from Boston or successive leaders down the road.
One item the gentleman touched on was the idea that after July 31 we'd have some select days that we could come in and consider certain matters, conference committees, reports, gubernatorial vetoes, reenactments that usually arise out of amendments to budgets, and I think there was a fourth category as well. And I think that's a fine idea. It's great. We actually, over time, have actually done that. We did this last session. We've done vetoes in the past when there was late and when there was some federal funding issues and things like that, that's worked out. The only thing that I think we should do and put in the rules is that let everybody know upfront that all those items that we take up, because we're gonna be coming up in the lame duck portion of the session, will be done by a roll call recorded vote. I realize members can ask at the time, but we should plan on it just like we've done during the pandemic rules, certain things were all done by a recorded vote. It's creating transparency because everybody should know what the vote is. It's creating predictability because everybody knows there's gonna be roll calls. And it's creating accountability because everything's gonna be done by roll call. I think for those three reasons, Madam Speaker, it's a reasonable proposal, and I would ask that when the vote is taken up, this matter be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. Thank you, madam speaker. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Mister Jones, that's an vote be taken, be taken by a call of the ayes and nays. Those in support will rise division 1. 0. 0. Division 2. 17. 17 is a fusion number. How many reason will be taken? Taken by a call of the ayes and nays.
SPEAKER7 - The
SPEAKER3 - chair recognizes Mvlipporah Garabedian of Melrose.
REP GARABEDIAN - HB 2026 - AMENDMENT 2 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members. I rise today in opposition to Amendment 2. I also want to thank the speaker and the gentleman from Boston, the North End and Canton for their incredible work on this comprehensive rules package. I do appreciate the desire of the gentleman from North Reading's preference for gathering together as a body. I also very much enjoy all of your company. But a comprehensive mandate to require formal roll call votes for every conference committee report, reenactment, and appropriations bill after July 31 and even1789 years, unnecessarily hamstrings our body from moving legislation efficiently and nimbly as the day demands. I do want to remind1797 us of the incredible work that this legislature accomplished last fall and in any number of important matters that our constituents care so deeply about from maternal health, to climate, to economic development, and long term care.
We were able to do that in a very efficient and effective way coming into this room as needed, but also being able to move legislation more quickly when advisable. Amendment 2 would unadvisably establish a burdensome one size fits all standard that could slow such important progress, particularly in our chamber where we are required to be in person for our roll call votes. Meanwhile, any member of this body would still be able to request, the presence of a quorum in the fall, and so we will be able to move nimbly in that way. So for these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Roll call having been ordered. Court officers will alert the members that a roll call is in progress.
SPEAKER1 - For the
SPEAKER4 - members, this is roll call number 13. Roll call number 13.
SPEAKER3 - Have all members voted who wish to do so? Have all members voted who wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. Clerk will display the tally.
In this matter, 23 in the affirmative, 128 in the negative. The amendment is not adopted.
Mister Jones of North Reading, office and member in the hands of Clerk Clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Jones of North Reading and other members of the house move to amend the order and propose joint rule 12 a by inserting after the first sentence the following. Members shall be provided with a minimum of 2 weeks notice before2128 the formal business matters delineated in this rule are scheduled to be taken up for consideration and a vote.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on adoption of the amendment. The chair recognizes mister Jones of North Reading.
JONES - AMENDMENT 3 - Thank you, madam speaker. And I'm sure we'll see that vote total quite a few times today. But the matter before us is simply saying, well, we're not gonna require all calls on those things. We're gonna potentially come in after July 31 all the way up until late in the year, in the second year. Can we at least make a greater effort to give members notice that we're actually gonna come in for formal session to take up matters? So the proposal before us requires that for those matters taken up out of the new provisions of Joint Rule 12A that members be given two weeks notice so that they can make their schedule accordingly to make sure they're here to be able to participate in the process and to vote. It's not designed to thwart the world of majority at all. It's designed to protect the rights of every single member here.
I think it's eminently reasonable. Should be readily able to be done by the speaker's office and the majority party, two weeks notice that we have a formal session coming up to take up matters. So I think that's a very reasonable idea, something we should be working to about a legislative calendar that's predictable, made aware to members earlier than historically it has been, but particularly with the idea that we're coming in at a time of year when historically members have made, whether it's travel plans for business or pleasure, or family, or whatever the case may be just to be able to get a little more notice to make the plans they may need to make to participate in the process. I would ask for a call of the yeas and nays, madam speaker. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Mister Jones, Aslan will be taken to be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. Those in those joining with him will rise. Division 1. 0. Division 2. 20 5 sufficient number having arisen will be taken taken by a call of the yay's and nay's.
Chair recognizes Smith Viola of Fall River.
REP FIOLA - AMENDMENT 3 - Madam Speaker, through you to the members, I wanna thank first of all the speaker, a gentleman from Boston and leader from Brighton for their great work on these rules. They're comprehensive, promote extreme transparency, and I think the Commonwealth, our constituents, and all of us will be very happy when they are implemented. I'd like to take exception to the gentleman from North Reading's, amendment number 3 asking for a two week notice of any of the votes after July 31. I do know we are a full time legislature. We need to be ready. I think the words nimble were used before by one of my colleagues. To be responsive, nimble, and ready to vote on important matters before us. So very simply, I ask you to join me in voting no on amendment number 3 because we are a full time legislature and we need to be ready and responsive to the bills before us for our constituents. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER6 - Roll call.
SPEAKER3 - Roll call having been ordered. Court officers will alert the amendment that a roll call is in progress.
SPEAKER4 - For the members, this is roll call number 14. Roll call number 14.
SPEAKER3 - Have all members voted who wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. Clerk will just play the tally. In this matter, 23 in the affirmative, 128 in the negative, the amendment is not adopted.
Mister Jones of North Redding, Author of amendment in the hands of the clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order by inserting after proposed rule 35 the following proposed rule. Proposed rule 35 a, a copy of any and all audits of the general court conducted by the state auditor under authority provided by section 11 of chapter 12 of the general laws shall be published on the general quote website in a conspicuous place within 72 hours of receipt from the state auditor.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes in adopting the amendment. The chair recognizes mister Moravian of Grafton.
As a gentleman approaches the microphone, we ask that members are seated and refrain from conversation.
Mister Moravian of Grafton.
REP MURADIAN - AMENDMENT 4 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members. I wanna first say that I appreciate the proposed rules package making moves towards a more transparent and deliberate legislative body. And in that spirit, I rise today in support of amendment 4, which calls for a copy of any and all audits of the General Court conducted by the state auditor to be published on the General Court website. I wanna be clear that this does not address a when, but only a if the state2622 auditor conducts said audit. All of this amendment asked for is a much more transparent process2628 of the audit being posted. 72% of our residents, our families, our friends, and our voters want more accountability and they deserve more accountability. Madam Speaker, I ask when a vote on amendment 4 is taken, it's called by the yeas and nays. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Mister Meridian, I'm asking if we'll be taking if we'll be taken by a call of the ayes. Those joining him will arrive division 1. 0. Division 2. 17, sufficient number having arisen. Vote will be taken by the call of the ayes and nays.
Chair recognizes mister Day of Stonem.
Mister Day of Stonem.
REP DAY - AMENDMENT 4 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Grafton, for bringing this to the floor. And I think I can assuage the proponents of this amendment by directing them to review our website that they seek to change. On our website, the party would be happy to know, all audits are already posted by the clerk. Go to the clerk, House clerk, go under reports, and you'll find every audit that the auditor submits to the great and General Court already posted there. So that should resolve the question. I think, though, underlying from what I heard from my friend there, there's a different question that they seek to debate, which kind of rubs us raw, because they know it's premature and it's begging the question that is currently being contested by the House and the Senate with the auditor who proposes to violate the separation of powers entrenched in our constitution. That is a matter, as I said, that is being disputed. That's our job here in the legislature is to ensure that our system of government is protected. We take an oath every two years to swear to uphold the constitution. And while our friends down in Washington DC may not feel that the separation of powers is important, we do here.
You can see up there the debate under the fireplace about our constitution held in part with the second best representative to come out of Quincy, John Adams. Not sure what the laughter is about. Listen, it'd be easy for us to throw up our hands and say, we submit. We submit to the audit. Go ahead, conduct your audit. Put it up on the shelf and move on. Score your political points. But that's not our job here, right? Our job is not to chase social media clicks, put out ditties. Our job is to uphold the constitution. That's what we're doing. That's what we're gonna continue to do. Maybe an unpopular position to preserve the institutions of our government right now on the national side, but certainly not here in Massachusetts. I urge you to vote against amendment 4. Thank you. you to vote against amendment 4. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Roll call having been ordered. Court officers will alert the members that a roll call is in progress.
SPEAKER4 - For the members, this is roll call number 15. Roll call number 15.
SPEAKER3 - Have all members voted to wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. The clerk will display the tally In this matter 23 to 1 28. 20 3 in the affirmative, 1 28 in the negative. The amendment is not adopted.
Mister Jones of North Redding, office amendment in the hands of the clerk, clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 5. Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house move to amend the order by adding the following proposed rule. Anytime either branch of the general court has a conflicting opinion with a constitutional officer relative to the constitutionality of legislation that presents an important question of law or constitutes a solemn occasion, the branch of the general court shall request an opinion of the justices of the supreme court supreme judicial court.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes at adoption of the amendment. The chair recognizes
mister Vieira of Falmouth.
REP VIEIRA - AMENDMENT 5 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members. We just heard eloquently from the gentleman from Stoneham about the issue of whether or not there should be an audit of this august body by the auditor of the Commonwealth is a question of separation of powers. It couldn't be anything more accurate than that. This is truly a question of the separation of powers doctrine that3235 the three gentlemen above me in that mural were crafting in 1780. And in that amendment, which was later updated in 1960s, it says that each branch of the legislature, as well as the governor or the council shall have the authority to require the opinions of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court upon important questions of law and solemn occasions.
And so the amendment that stands before us is to really get to the root of the question of the issue that the gentleman from Stoneham so aptly raised in the last debate. That in the rules, anytime that either branch of the General Court has a conflicting opinion with a constitutional officer relative to the constitutionality of legislation that presents an important question of law and constitutes a solemn occasion, that branch of the General Court shall request an opinion of the justices of the supreme judicial court. And I ask you, my colleagues, and you madam speaker, what could be, particularly in today's day and age, a more important question of law than the separation of powers. Madam Speaker, I ask that when the vote be taken on this matter, it'll be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Mister Viera asked when a vote be taken to take by a call of the ayes and nays. So joining him will rise, division 1. 0. Division 2. 20 2. 20 2. 20 2. Sufficient number have been risen will be taken taken by a call of the ayes and nays.
Chair recognizes mta Fluka Reid of Boston.
REP FLUKER-REID - AMENDMENT 5 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members. I rise today in opposition to amendment 5. I wanna first thank the speaker, the gentleman from the North End, the gentleman from Brighton, and the gentleman from Canton for this robust rules package. While I appreciate the commentary and the eloquence of the gentleman from Falmouth having served and continues to serve as town moderator, I must admit that this particular amendment poses unnecessary delay on our legislative process and undermines the authority of the General Court. As he already stated, our bodies already have the ability to seek advisory opinions from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and do so when appropriate. This proposal would create an additional and unwarranted procedural hurdle, which is exactly contrary to what this rules package is aimed to do.
As legislators, we are elected to craft laws that serve the people of Massachusetts, and we do so with careful consideration of constitutional principles. And if legal challenges arise, we are fully equipped to address them, and already have the necessary resources and procedures at our disposal. What this amendment would do is require the legislature to halt its work whenever a constitutional officer raises a concern, giving the executive branch undue influence over the legislative process of fragrant disregard of the separation of powers and delays our ability to do the work that we were elected to do. The balance of power between co equal branches of government must be maintained. This amendment is not about ensuring constitutional integrity. It is a mechanism to slow down the progress and obstruct the legislature's ability to act efficiently. And for these reasons, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote no. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Chair recognizes mister Frost of Boston. Auburn. Mister Frost of Auburn.
REP FROST - AMENDMENT 5 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members of the House. I rise in support of amendment number 5 to our joint rules. The gentleman from Falmouth hit the nail right on the head. We have a major constitutional question before us regarding a vote of the people. It makes sense that this would be an occasion for our body and for the Senate to exercise that right to ask the SJC, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, if indeed this or parts of it are constitutional of that law that the people voted for. The attorney general who chose to certify this ballot question, the attorney general, who apparently said that she voted for it, has been prodded to do something about it, about its enforcement, its interpretation of enforcement, what have you, and has refused to do so. Now, the attorney general could challenge this in court and eventually get to the SJC for a ruling. Attorney general has chosen to sit on the sidelines.
Now, we get into also an area of a great debate that we've had for a better part of a year and a half regarding residency requirements for the emergency shelter system. The common issue brought up on why we can't possibly put any sort of residency requirement to stop the influx of folks from coming out of state, overwhelming our emergency shelter system was that it's most likely unconstitutional. But why don't we ask? When we're dealing with huge issues like this, why don't we have a rule that simply says, we're gonna ask. And then we can move forward with a direction. And we're not just guessing or what have you. I think it's important. And we got two major issues before us alone that we could do and get clear, more concise answers on what is considered constitutional and what is not. Madam Speaker, I hope that this vote passes. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
so? Time for voting's expired. The clerk will just play the tally. And this member in this matter, 23 in the affirmative, a 28 in the negative. The amendment is not adopted. adopted.
Mister Jones of North Reading, office amendment in the hands of the clerk, Clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Jones of North Reading and other members of the house moved to amend the order in proposed joint rule 1 d in line 2 41 by inserting after the word vote the following, and said poll shall remain open for at least 2 hours or until such time as all committee members of the branch calling the vote has voted.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on adopt to the amendment. The chair recognizes missus Smoller, Waller.
REP SMOLA - AMENDMENT 6 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members. First, I'd like to echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues that preceded me at the microphone for the reforms package that has been proposed by the majority party today. I think there's a number of good things in there that we can all embrace and get behind as a body in this great commonwealth. Amendment number 6 is very simple, not overly complicated. All it does is gives the opportunity for members to be able to vote on a poll in a two hour window. So you leave the poll open from any committee for two hours. Now, some of you that have been here before that serve on various committees are probably unaccustomed to such a short window coming out of your committees when polls are released. But I'll give you a couple of examples to kind of highlight where some of the challenges are with a few of the committees up here relative to the release of polls.
So if you serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, right, a staff and a team that do a phenomenal job, work extremely hard on a number of bills that move through that committee. However, for the membership, it becomes a little bit more complicated because there is such a short window for the polls that get released in order for members to be able to respond. And I look back in my notes over the course of the last few years. I'm gonna give you a couple of examples of times, and the number of bills, and the length of those bills that were before us that got pulled out. There wasn't a single poll that got released that was open for longer than an hour. As a matter of fact, every poll that was open was less than an hour. Typically, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and in one case, even 12 minutes.
Some of these bills that get pulled out are 230 pages long. Now, for my colleagues that are in the western part of the state, you know the vast expanse of your district and what it takes in order to get here. If you've ever had one of these polls released when you're on the road and you're driving here to formal session, you can't pull over to the side of the road in 45 minutes, read and digest the 230 page bill that gets released from committee, understand it, and be able to knowledgeably respond to that poll. And that's a challenge for committee members. And I can tell you that in the minority caucus there are a number of bills throughout the course of the year that we reserve our rights on. Bills that we like, and that we support, and that we vote on when they eventually come here to the floor.
But for the sake of not having the ability to be able to read the substance of those bills that get released through polls is an extreme challenge. So this is not overly complicated. And I wish this was the exception to the rule. If we had polls that got released under various circumstances coming to the end of the term, we're on the last day, and we needed a shorter window to release these bills, you wouldn't hear a word from the minority party about having a mandatory amount of time to be able to read and respond. However, this is not an exception. This is actually the rule for a number of different committees. So very simply put, all this is going to allow is a two hour window. And if every single member responds in less than two hours' time, that poll will close and we can move on with the business of the day and the bill can go forward.
So this is not overly complicated. Very simple. Two hours of digestion so that members can understand. This is not gonna delay the process for days. It's not gonna slow down the legislative process or a bill in any way, shape, or form. All it's gonna do is give us a little bit more time so that we can digest what is before us. And I would say at a bare minimum, in every single district in this commonwealth, the expectation from the people we represent is that we actually read the legislation that is before us. So, Madam Speaker, I hope that this amendment is adopted. And when a vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by call of the yeas and nays. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Mister Small asks, would a vote be taken or be taken by a call of the ayes and nays? Those joining him will rise. Division 1. 0. 0. Division 2. 20 3. 20 3 sufficient number having risen. Vote be taken, taken by a call of the ayes and nays.
Chair recognizes miss LaNatra of Kingston.
REP LANATRA - AMENDMENT 6 - Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you to the members. I rise in opposition of this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting it. We are elected to respond to the needs of our constituents. These needs may be long standing issues we are not likely to fix in any one term. Others are pressing. Increasingly, this legislature has had to respond to emergencies. A Supreme Court decision rendering our laws ineffective and our public less safe, a global pandemic threatening our public health, a development coming from our colleagues in the Senate. These emergencies call for action and our rules must give4233 us that flexibility. I would respectfully suggest that part of our jobs as legislators isn't merely to sit back and wait for a chair to put a question out into a poll. Our duty is to be prepared, to collect our notes on the matters before us, to proactively reach out and ask questions. It's extremely rare for polls to be conducted in such a brief period. Committees I've been on have provided days to review language. We must, however, always maintain our ability to act for our constituent when the time arises. I'm asking my colleagues to please join me in rejecting this amendment. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - For what purpose does the gentleman rise? Chair recognizes mister Smola. Warren. Ab Warren.
SMOLA - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the4284 members. Madam Speaker, I thank you, the gentlelady,4286 for her comments and really appreciate that4290 analysis. But let me say to this body, there is not a bill that gets filed in this place that doesn't go through changes in this process. And what I would say to being prepared, certainly, we do our homework and we read these bills. But when those bills go through the process of committee, and they get changed and moved around, and sometimes completely replaced, I think that it is reasonable to expect that the membership has a small window of time, I'm not talking about days, I'm not talking about weeks, I'm talking about two hours that gives the membership the opportunity just to look at the substance of it.
And you'll see I'm gonna talk a little bit more about that in the next amendment that I'll be debating because it goes right to the heart of the matter of being able to understand and comprehend the basics. Even in that two hour window, we don't have enough time to fully comprehend all the aspects of the laws and the proposals that are before us. All we are trying to do, simply put, is to understand the dynamics in a very general way of what is coming out of committee. And I will say this, to the gentlelady's comments about responding to emergencies, she is absolutely correct. That is our responsibility when these issues come up. That's why we have a feel safe in this amendment. So when an emergency comes up, we4373 have the ability to reach out to our members quickly and say, you need to respond to this one fast because we got to4379 get4379 it cranking. We got to get it moving out of committee. And that poll can close within minutes, literally, if we get response from all the members. So we have that feel safe in there. So even if we are bound by a small amount of time, we can still accomplish dealing with an emergency. So, I respectfully, suggest that this is a more than reasonable request, and I hope it's adopted by the membership. Thank you, madam speaker. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Roll call having been ordered. Court officers will alert the members. Frost of Boston. Mister Frost of Boston. Auburn.
Mister Frost of Auburn.
SPEAKER2 - Listen. Yep.
FROST - Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just like to point out as a comment was made that this is rare, that something is, a poll is only open for a few minutes. The poll for the rules that we're debating today was only open for 30 minutes and that's if you're lucky if you saw it in that time. Thank you, madam speaker. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Roll call having been ordered. Court offices will alert the members that a roll call is in progress.
SPEAKER4 - For the members, this is roll call number 17. Roll call number 17.
SPEAKER3 - Have all members voted to4607 wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. On clerk will display the tally.
On this matter, 23 in the affirmative, a 28 in the negative. The amendment is not adopted.
Mister Jones, off an amendment in the hands of clerk. Clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order in proposed joint rule 1 d by inserting at the end thereof the following. If a committee uses an electronic poll, the committee must notify all committee members of the branch calling the vote at least 12 hours in advance that they should expect the poll to be released.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes on adoption of the amendment. The chair recognizes mister Smoller of Warren.
SMOLA - AMENDMENT 7 - Members. Well, so last amendment, epic fail. However, I have hope that you'll be with me on this 1. If we don't have a two hour window to get these polls and to look at at bills that are pulled out of committee, perhaps you would agree with me and with the minority party that giving advance notice that a poll is gonna come out from committee is a reasonable idea. So picture this, folks. Everything I said in the previous amendment, right? You're driving across the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts. You're coming here to the State House. It takes you a couple hours to get here. You have no clue whatsoever what's on the agenda to be polled and you have a limited window to respond to that poll and digest the information. Don't we think reasonably at a bare minimum we can give a 12 hour window from committees to be able to tell the membership, folks, get ready, something's gonna be pulled out?
And perhaps as a result of that early information, we can then be better prepared as members. So if the window was only gonna be 30 minutes, or it's only gonna be 15 minutes, at least we know the poll is coming up. So picture this scenario now. If you haven't dealt with this in one of your committees, and for the newer members that have never dealt with it at all, right? A 200 page bill comes out, but4741 we don't know what's coming out. No clue whatsoever. And then all of a sudden, you get an email that says we are pulling out such and such bill. And you click onto that bill if you're lucky enough to be at your terminal, 240 page bill, and you got to respond in 30 minutes. Perhaps at the very least, if we're not gonna give a window to digest the material, that we can at least inform the members of the body that a poll is going to come out to tee us up and get us ready.
So if you're across the great expanse of the Commonwealth, you can say, I know something's coming in tomorrow within this 12 hour window. I better be ready for it however I do it. Get my staff on their A game. If I'm in my car driving to formal session, they can read the bill to me because they know it's coming in. But so many times members get caught in the middle of this quagmire because they don't have the good information. So a 12 hour window. Again, this is not gonna complicate this process, not gonna slow down legislation, not going to impede the advancement of the good things that this honorable body is doing for the people of the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts. Simply put, 12 hours, polls come in, get ready for war, right? Nice and simple. So, Madam Speaker, I ask that when a vote is taken, it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Mister Smaller answered, vote be taken, be taken by a call of the ayes and nays. So joining him will rise. Division 1. 0. 0. Division 2. 20 3. 20 3. Sufficient number having arisen. A vote be taken by a call of the ayes and nays.
The chair recognizes miss Barbara of Summerville.
Thank you.
REP BARBER - AMENDMENT 7 - Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to the members, I rise in opposition to amendment 7. While I appreciate the gentleman from Warren's concerns for our time, this amendment states that a committee vote that is taken electronically, not in person, must have a 12 hour notice before the committee takes the vote. As full time members of the legislature, participating and voting in committees is one of the major parts of our jobs. Certainly, our constituents expect us to be prepared for these votes and to not need 12 full hours to prepare for a vote that we can also take remotely and not even in person. Rather than improve the workings in the House, this amendment would only serve to slow down our work and our agenda unnecessarily. I hope this amendment is not adopted. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Roll call having been ordered, court officers will alert the members that a roll call is in progress.
Have all members voted who wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. Clerk will display the tally. 23 to 1 28. In this matter, 23 in the affirmative, a 28 in the negative, the amendment is not adopted.
Question comes on adoption of the order. Roll call having been ordered.
Court officers will alert5148 the members that a roll call is in progress.
Have all members voted to wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. Clerk will display the tally. In this matter, a 28 in the affirmative, 23 in the negative. The order is adopted.
House will come to order. Members will please rise in moment of silent tribute.
At the request of speaker Mariano of Quincy, will the members and guests please rise for Maureen Cobb Murphy, mother of our colleague, representative James Murphy of Weymouth. Maureen passed away this morning at home surrounded by her loving family. Please keep representative Murphy's mother in your thoughts and prayers.5535
Thank you.
House will be in a brief recess.
Paper from the senate.
SPEAKER4 - The senate order relative to the proposed joint rules for the senate and house of representatives for the 20 25, 20 26 legislative session. Senate numbers 18 comes from senate with the endorsement that it's been adopted by said branch.
SPEAKER3 - Mister Mariano Brighton, moves suspension of the rules. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Rose is suspended.
Question on adoption pending which mister Moran, a bright moves that the order be amended by striking out the text and inserting in its place the text contained in house order number 20 26.
Question comes on adoption of this motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted.
Question comes on adoption of the order as changed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Motion is adopted. The order is adopted.
Next item on the calendar with calendar number will be item number 1. Clerk will read the item.
SPEAKER4 - Order filed by mister Galvin of Canton for the adoption of permanent house rules for the hundred and 90 fourth general court governing the 20 25, 20 26 legislative session, house number 2024.
SPEAKER3 - Question comes and adopts to the order pending which?
The chair recognizes mister Galvin of Canton.
REP GALVIN - HB 2024- Good afternoon. The first thing I would like to say is5761 that I'd like to thank Speaker Mariano and Leader Moran for all their work on this rules package. We are debating House rules package for the 2025, 2026 legislative session. This proposal is not just technical changes to how we do business, but they represent5784 our commitment to modernizing5786 and improving the legislative process, and bringing state government closer to the people that it serves. The House has always been the body closest to our constituents and today's reforms embody that dynamic. Now, we should be incredibly proud of all the House accomplished last session on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth. However, as the speaker stated on the first day of session this year, because we passed several significant pieces of legislation either on the date of our deadline for the conclusion of formal business or months afterwards, the legislative delays clouded our legislative accomplishments.
The legislative process is a deliberate one with time for constituents to testify and meet their representatives. While this process was designed to be this way and will never move as fast as some may want, it was never intended to create log jams at every stage of the process. The proposed updates to the House rules will streamline legislative work and provide the public with a greater understanding of where bills stand in the process. Our constituents5873 are increasingly engaging5875 in the legislative process online and expect ample access to information on the progress bills in real time. House rules have been modernized significantly over the last few sessions to make information more accessible to the public on the legislative website.
Today, we build on previous rule packages by requiring committees to post summaries of bills online before the House takes them up for a vote. These summaries were provided by the committee's chair of the relevant subject matter. These proposed rules require favorable reports on bills from committee be accompanied by a summary of the changes a committee makes to a bill and how the bill changes existing law. We also are recommending, excuse me, we are also recommitting to the idea that the House operates more effectively when we gather in person, therefore, members will be required to vote in person at hearings and at sessions. We can't replicate what happens on the floor of this5956 chamber when people from all walks of life and from every corner of the Commonwealth come together face to face for conversations.
Exceptions will be permitted for members with active reserve military duty, a serious health condition, or limitations related to a member's pregnancy, including pregnancy loss. These reforms are not just procedural changes, they are about building a legislature that is more responsive, more accountable, and more connected to the people we serve. The committee has also ensured that an outside independent audit be conducted on our financial accounts by an audited firm recommended by the state auditor. And also, we will hire an outside independent equal employment opportunity officer. These rules provide transparency and accountability to the public. And will provide us and the speaker with the framework for an orderly operation of the House to move our agenda. Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I ask that when a vote is taken, it be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Mister Galvin McCann moves and a vote be taken, it'll be taken by a call of the ayes and nays. Those joining will rise. Division 1. 24. Division 2.
0. Division 3. 0, I'm sorry. Sufficient number having arisen when both we're taking and taking by call the ayes and nays. House will be in a brief recess.
SPEAKER1 - How House House of being honored, the no objection in the court the house will take up amendment number 6. Does he hear rejection? Chair is none.
Mister Jones and North Redding, office amendment, hands of the clerk, clerical with the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Jones and North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order by inserting after proposed rule 28 a the following new rule. 28 b, the committee on ways and means shall report every bill it receives to the house with either a recommendation for approval or disapproval. The committee shall have 60 days to report a bill
SPEAKER1 - for president. Objection, the clerk will dispense with reading the paper. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The nays have it. The amendment is not adopted.
If there be no objection, the house will take up amendment number 15. Here, objection, she has none. Mister Jones offers a amendment number 15 in the hands of the clerk.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 15. Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order and proposed rule 1 in line 5 by inserting after the word business the following 2 sentences. If the house has not begun proceedings within 30 minutes of the hour
SPEAKER1 - If there'd be no objection, the clerk will dispense with the reading of the paper. Question is on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it. The amendment is not adopted.
If there'd be no objection, the
If there'd be no objection, house will take up amendment number 16. To hear your objection, I hear just none. Who is mister Jones of North Reading office. Amendment in the hands of the clerk. Clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 16. Mister Jones of North Reading and other members of the house move to amend the order and propose rule 49 by striking out in line 12 40, the word not. Question is on the amendment.
SPEAKER1 - All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. House of Vienna brief recess.
If there'd be no objection, the the chair will take up amendment number 20. Do you hear objection? Chair hears none. Mister Jones and North Redding office in amendment number 20 in the hands of the clerk, clerk agree with the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Jones and North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order and proposed rule 1 a in line 7 by striking out the words midnight unless unanimous consent and inserting a place thereof the words 09:00PM unless 2 thirds of the vote of the members present at the hour of 09:00PM.
SPEAKER1 - Objection, the clerk will dispense with the reading of the paper. The chair is none. Question is on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it. The amendment is not adopted. House has been a brief reset.
House of being ordered.
Where's the game?
House of being ordered. If there'd be an objection, chair will take up amendment number 18. Does this chair objection? Chair has none. Mister Jones of North Redding offers an amendment number 18. The clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 18. Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house move to amend the order in proposed rule 33 a in line 10 25 by striking out the words the day and inserting in place throughout the words 2 days and further by striking out in line 10 34.
SPEAKER1 - Objection, the clerk will dispense with reading the paper. Chair has none. Chair recognizes mister Jones of North Reading.
JONES - AMENDMENT 18 - Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the members. This amendment seeks to give the membership a little more time. We found during the pandemic we got in this habit of bills coming out, trying to get amendments filed. So a bill, if it comes out by noon, you had to have your amendments in by five o'clock. Now, on short bills that maybe haven't undergone a lot of changes, that's pretty easy. But a lot of times we get, since everything we do around here is a comprehensive piece of legislation, usually involving over a hundred pages that members have to make their way through, try to analyze, and then try to craft amendments in a reasonable and coherent fashion, which is oftentimes challenging. This seeks to say instead of it noon on Tuesday, amendments are due at 5 on Tuesday. If amendments are gonna be due at 5 on Tuesday, the bill would have to go up by noon on Monday. That would give you the remainder of the day on Monday to understand the legislation, maybe get input from interested parties, and make thoughtful amendments to the bill by five o'clock the next day.
So essentially, we're trying to give the membership, the entire membership, not just the Republican members, all the members, time to put together strong, well crafted amendments for the membership to consider. So we think this is very, very reasonable. It's not designed to slow down the process because oftentimes, quite frankly, it's frustrating when if amendments are due by 5, and there's plenty of time to analyze them, we're still not ready to go the next day. So this is to give, reserve a little more power, a little more influence, a little more of a prerogative to the membership, which includes all 100 and currently 58, but ideally all 160 members. Regardless of position, regardless of status, regardless of philosophy, regardless of party. So I think it's a very reasonable amendment, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the amendment be adopted and that a vote be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Mister Jones asked when the6476 matter is taken to be taken by a call of the6478 ayes and nays. Those joining with them arise. First division. 0. 0. Second division. Eighteenth. Eighteenth division number have been risen, but the matter is taken to be taken by a call of the ayes and nays. Chair recognizes miss Giordino of Revere.
REP GIANNINO - AMENDMENT 18 - Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you to the members, I rise today in opposition of Amendment 18, which proposes that copies of bills under consideration be made two days prior to a formal session rather than the current 1 day requirement. And I oppose this for several reasons, primarily efficiency, flexibility, and accessibility of the legislative process. First, extending the bill distribution timeline to two days can and will slow down the entire legislative process. Requiring additional time for bill preparation and distribution introduces unnecessary delays and especially in situations that demand swift action such as emergencies or rapidly evolving circumstances that require immediate legislative action, which we've seen in the last session.
Moreover, a two day requirement could delay and limit the ability for this body to adapt to changes or revisions at the last minute. Legislation often undergoes revisions, particularly when new information or feedback emerges late in the process. Imposing a longer wait period could reduce flexibility, preventing necessary updates and hindering the responsiveness of this legislative body. The current one day rule strikes a better balance between ensuring transparency and maintaining efficiency. It allows for sufficient time for this body to review bills without unnecessarily stalling the process. While transparency is crucial, we must ensure that our legislative operations remain agile and responsive to the needs of the people that we represent. And while I understand the intent behind this amendment, I believe that the existing one day requirement is more than sufficient. I urge my colleagues to oppose amendment 18. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Roll call haven't been ordered. The roll call machine is now open. Court officers, notify the members of a roll call in progress.
SPEAKER4 - For the members, this is roll call number 20. Roll call number 20.
SPEAKER18 - The chair would like to announce that the lady in the at the microphone just made her initial speech at the request of the chair, and I thank her very, very much.
SPEAKER1 - Have all members voted wish to do so? Have all members voted? Time for7055 voting's expired. The clerk will display the7057 tally. On this matter, 23 members in the affirmative,7061 a 28 in the negative. The amendment is not adopted.
If there'd be no objection, the chair would like to take up an amendment number 17. Chair here objection, chair here's none. Mister Jones of North Reading offers an amendment in the hands of the clerk. Clerk will read the amendment. Chair will respectfully ask the members to please subdue their conversation and take their seats.
Members will please take their seats and subdue their conversation.
Clerk will read amendment number 17.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 17. Representative Jones of North Redding and other members of the house move to amend the order by striking out proposed rule 85 a and inserting in place thereof the following proposed rule. Rule 85 a, audits of the house shall be conducted by the state auditor under authority grant
SPEAKER1 - there be no objection to the clerk will dispense with the reading of the paper the chair has done. Mister Frost of Auburn. Chair recognizes mister Frost of Auburn.
FROST - AMENDMENT 17 - Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you to the members of the House. I rise in support of amendment number 17 in our House rules. What this will do is it will, if passed, will honor the vote of the people that was taken in our last election and allow the state auditor to conduct the audits of the House. Mr. Speaker, back in November we changed the rules to allow the auditor to pick the auditor that would do our audit. Now, back then, the rules were only good to the end of the session and until we kicked in the new rules like we are doing today. So there was opportunity to change those rules ever so briefly to get more clarity on the constitutionality questions regarding the ballot question. In that time that has not been answered nor has it been requested, if we go back to the debate we had in the joint rules.
Again, I will mention, again, the attorney general certified this ballot question, said that they supported it, and has chosen not to enforce it beyond that, which would eventually kick it to the SJC for their review on the constitutionality as if the whole law or in part. So at this point, if we're not gonna ask the SJC if this now general law of the Commonwealth, which should which should be, excuse me. That this general law7295 should overtake a House rule, should trump it. And yet, we're still delaying and getting around it. And now we can just go back to the voters at this point. If we're not gonna challenge the constitutionality in court, if we're not gonna ask the Supreme Court for their opinion on this, then let's just follow what the voters have asked for and allow the auditor to audit our books.
We've already, kind of, by voting last November to change the rule and giving the auditor a say in our process, our audit process. I would argue and I would argue it back then in November that we've opened up an opportunity, we've opened up an opportunity to say, hey, the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of this is now in question because we've allowed a person, even a position of the state auditor to have a say in our audit process. So, the constitutional lines have already been shaken. And we've welcomed it. So why not just go the step further and allow this audit to take place by the auditor, by an overwhelming number of voters had cast their votes in favor of doing so. Why not? If we're not gonna ask the SJC for a ruling, then why not give the voters what they've asked for? Let's do it. Let's send a solid message going forward. And I ask when a vote be taken, it'd be taken by a call of the yeas and nays. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Mister process, when the matter is taken, be taken by a call of the a's and a's. Those joining with them will rise. First division. 0. 0. Second division? 19. Sufficient number have been arisen when the matter is taken to be taken by a call of the yays and nays. Chair recognizes mister Day of Stoneman.
DAY - AMENDMENT 17 - Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members. I just heard my friend, the gentleman from Auburn, say, we're gonna honor a vote with this rule. They'd be honoring a vote but certainly not the constitution. We're asking for clarity here. Let's start by looking at what the law says because the power granted under this law, or purported to be granted under this law, is the power to intrude directly on the work of the legislature. The law itself, which the rule instructs us to follow, provides in any audit report issued by the Department of the State Auditor, wherein there appears adverse or critical audit results, the state auditor may require a response in writing to such audit results. Those have to be provided within 15 days. Then if not satisfied, that law allows the auditor subject this institution to another audit and immediately repeat this cycle again and again. And I quote again from the law itself, sentence 3, as often as the state auditor determines it's necessary.
So the auditor can engage in this cycle of audits, require responses, audit again, require another response until the legislature changes its rules and practices to satisfy the auditor. The problem is our constitution for this law. Article 30 provides in the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them. The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them. The judicial shall never exercise a legislative and executive powers or either of them. To the end, it may be a government of laws and not of men. I referenced that painting up there a little earlier. You'll see the discussion occurs in 1779. And I think it's important to get into a discussion on separation of powers because that's what this is about.
Some in this chamber may not know that in 1777 this body offered forward a constitution. It was submitted to and rejected by the voters in 1778. Theophilus Parsons, a young lawyer who would later become chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, led the opposition to that initial constitution. In a pamphlet entitled the Essex Result, Parsons found fault in the proposed constitution for, among other things, failing to clearly provide for the separation of powers among the executive, judicial, and bicameral legislature. Mr. Parsons wrote, should the executive and legislative powers be united, mischiefs the most terrible would follow. The executive would act those laws it pleased to execute and no others. The judicial power would be set aside as inconvenient and tardy. The7623 security and protection of the subject would be a shadow. The executive power would make itself absolute and the government end in a tyranny.
Earlier I spoke and I was asked why I made reference to the nonsense occurring in Washington DC right now, where our congress is actively abdicating their responsibilities to the executive. We're witnessing in real time what happens when a legislature fails to protect the constitution. We're watching the executive branch under the guise of auditing the government and finding efficiency impose a political agenda upon the entire country without a whisper back from the United States Congress. We just saw the president, when confronting a governor who pushed back and dared to push back on an executive order that would harm young people in her state by telling him that she would follow federal law and state law. The president responded unequivocally, I, we are the federal law.
When our auditor appeared before a joint committee of the House and the Senate last March, she said, we could talk about the legalese of this matter. I know there are some attorneys present. We can come up with different interpretations of the law. But at the end of the day, we know what's right and we know what's wrong. We know what's right and we know what's wrong. We are the law. Laws and statutes, we don't need them. We're gonna rule by gut. Our constitution be damned. We're gonna occupy and operate this government through personalities. The gentleman said, allow the auditor to audit our books. That's what we've done. We changed the rule to take the politics out of this ballot question and put it back into professionalism by allowing the auditor to select an independent auditor to audit our books.
But this law and the proposal from this auditor is much, much more than simply looking at our books. How do we know this? I'll quote a March 7 letter to Speaker Mariano from Auditor DiZoglio. Our audit will include but not be limited to the review of access to budgetary, hiring, spending, and procurement information. Sounds innocuous enough, but it goes on to include, as well as information regarding active and pending legislation, the process for appointing7764 committees, the adoption and suspension of House and Senate rules, and the policies and procedures of the House and Senate. So I'll quote Justice Parsons again. Should the executive and legislative powers be united, mischiefs the most terrible would follow. The executive power would make itself absolute and the government end in a tyranny. A former governor of the Commonwealth rightly proclaimed Massachusetts invented America. Great turn of phrase. We should reject this amendment and continue to reject the attempt to undermine our system of government so that it can never be said that Massachusetts was complicit in undermining our systems and our7805 representative democracy. I ask you to reject this amendment. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Mister speaker.
SPEAKER1 - Mister Lombardo of Bill Greco. What purpose, gentleman, rise? Chair recognizes mister Lombardo of Bill Greco.
REP LOMBARDO - AMENDMENT 17 - Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the conversation today, the debate on rules, I've been truly encouraged to hear so much about the importance to listening to residents of the Commonwealth and the need for greater transparency in the House and throughout7852 government. And with so many voices echoing that7856 sentiment, I imagine this amendment should pass easily. Because on 11/05/2024, an overwhelming 72% of voters in the Commonwealth made it clear through their support of Question 1 that they approved of the auditor being able to audit the legislature. Every single city and town in the Commonwealth, 3517889 cities and towns all voted in favor of Question 1. So said another way, no matter what district you all represent, your constituents voted in favor of this underlying amendment that would allow the auditor to audit the legislature.
Now let's remember, getting a question on the ballot is not an easy thing. It requires tens of thousands of signatures, a thorough constitutional review by the attorney general, and only then does it make its way to the ballot. It is surprising to me today to hear questions of constitutionality because the attorney general who approved the language reviewed it for constitutionality. Not a Republican attorney general, I'll have you know that. This is the Democratic attorney general said this language is constitutional, and it can make its way to the voters of the Commonwealth. The question on constitutionality was settled then. Perhaps the issue at hand is that some just don't want the sunlight to shine in. So I ask, why is this vote so difficult today? I mean, the AG said it's okay. Our constituents have all supported it. Should be unanimous vote to codify Question 1 into our House rules today. But let's pause and think. What's really at hands?
Here's the truth, and it's disheartening. Democratic leadership on Beacon Hill have issued a request for legal bids to challenge the implementation of Question 1. Yes. For the media here and for those listening at home, you heard that correct. That the very taxpayers who overwhelmingly supported this measure are now being asked to foot the bill for legal fees aimed at overturning their will. And in the words of President Joe Biden, come on, man. Is this perhaps a preview of wasteful spending we would find if the legislature were to be audited as the voters requested? Are we promoting openness and transparency in government by rejecting the will of the taxpayers and instead funding an intergovernmental political feud? Because that's what this is.
In a rules package that flies in the face of transparency by allowing the House to shroud itself in late night sessions, hide behind the cover of holiday season, and operate lame duck sessions that were purposely removed in the past, this is our moment to do the right thing. For many of you, this is a8072 vote that's a do over. This is your chance to be unburdened by what has been. Your chance to redeem yourself from your vote this fall not to implement Question 1, and now you can put it in our rules. It's our chance to course correct and show your constituents that when they speak, we listen. So I call on the attorney general to finally step up and defend the auditor's office or refuse to do so and get out of the way. And I call on all of my colleagues today not to allow politics to silence the will of the people. Let's put transparency first. Let's codify Question 1 in our House rules and finally give the taxpayers the accountability that they've demanded and that they deserve. And so I ask you all to join me in voting yes on the underlying amendment. Thank you, mister speaker. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Chair recognizes mister Day of Stoner.
DAY - AMENDMENT 17 - Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. And through the members, I thank the gentleman from Billerica for his words. I just wanted to clarify a few points that were raised there. I would encourage the gentleman to read the language in the actual letter from the attorney general for clarity as to what the attorney general approved and didn't approve. It's an interesting read, well worth it, I think, if you're gonna quote it. Secondly, constitutional reviews occur after a law has passed. That is the process we're underway right now. A law has been passed by initiative petition, we've reviewed it, and I would expect there'd be a challenge if the auditor continues to press forward on that end. I would point to other laws that have been passed by the will of the voters in overwhelming numbers.
Look to segregation of children in our schools, segregation of lunch counters. Those are passed overwhelmingly by voters and yet the courts in their role, in the separation of powers, waited and then opined that those laws were unconstitutional The will of the voters with respect to segregation didn't overcome the constitution. The will of the voters is paramount, which is why we indeed did pass that rule change to get politics out of the audit and to allow the auditor to choose an auditor to audit our books and to report on those findings. I would suggest that our job as legislators is to put the constitution first and I urge you to vote against this amendment. the tally on this matter. 24 in the affirmative of 1 27 in negative. The amendment is not adopted. House will be in a brief recess. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
House to be in order, mister Lombardo of Barrico office in the order in the hands of the clerk. Clerk read the order.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number8508 1. Mister Lombardo Abarrica moves8510 to amend the order by adding the following proposed rule. The House of Representatives8514 shall follow chapter 11, section 12 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
SPEAKER1 - This For purposes, gentlemen, rise.8520
SPEAKER19 - Point of order.
SPEAKER1 - Gentleman of the state is point of order.
SPEAKER19 - The subject matter of the amendment has already been raised, debated, and voted upon.
SPEAKER1 - Chair, would rule that the gentleman's point of order was well taken and the matter the amendment is out of order and will be laid aside.
Amendment number 2. Amendment number 2. Mister Jones of North Redding, office of amendment in the hands of the clerk. Clerk read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 2. Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house move to amend the order by inserting at the end of proposed rule 17 a the8569 following. A list of matters and8571 copies of all bills that are to be voted on at an executive session.
SPEAKER1 - Objection. The clerk will dispense with the reading of the paper. The chair has none. Question is on the amendment.8579 All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The nays have it. The8585 amendment is not adopted. What purpose? Gentleman8587 rise. Gentleman doubts the vote and ask for a call8591 of the yays and nays. Those joining will8595 will rise. First division? 0. Second division?
18. Sufficient number having risen. Roll call?8605 Roll call machine is now open and remain open for 3 minutes.8610 Court office to some of the members.
SPEAKER4 - For the members, this is8618 roll call number 11. Sorry. This is roll call number 22. Roll call number 22.
SPEAKER1 - Moment.
Have all members voted and wish to do so? Have all members voted? The time for voting has expired. The clerk will display the tally on this matter.
23 members haven't voted in the affirmative, a 27 in the negative. The amendment is not adopted.
Mister Jones of North Redding offers an amendment number 3 in the hands of the clerk. Clerk, read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 3. Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order by inserting at the end of proposed rule 17 a the following. A list of8787 matters, copies, and all bills that are voted to be voted on at an executive
SPEAKER1 - no objection. The clerk will dispense with the reading of the paper. The chair has none. Question is on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, nay. The nays have it. The amendment is not adopted.
For purpose of the lady rise.
What did8811 she say?
Gentle lady, doubts the vote and ask for a call of the yays and nays. Those joining will rise of first8821 first division. Sarah. Second division.
20. 20. Sufficient number haven't arisen. Roll call machine is now open,8831 remain open for 3 minutes. Court officers, some of the members indicated roll call is in progress.
SPEAKER4 - For the members, this is roll call number 23. Roll call number 23.
SPEAKER1 - Mister Paulino Methuen asked unanimous consent to8882 be recorded on the last roll call. Chair objection, chair has none.
SPEAKER4 - Mister Paulino of Methuen on roll call number 22 votes no.
8933 SPEAKER18933 -8933 Have8933 all members voted wish to do so? Time for voting has expired. The clerk8937 will display the tally on this matter. 23 members haven't voted the affirmative. A 27 in the negative the 28 in the negative. The amendment8947 is not adopted.
Mister Jones of North Redding, office amendment in the hands of the clerk, amendment number 21. Clerk will read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - Amendment number 21. Mister Jones of North Redding and other members of the house moved to amend the order in8965 proposed rule 33 a in line8967 10 59 by striking out the following 30 minutes and8971 inserting in place thereof the words8973 1 hour.
SPEAKER1 - Question is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The nays have it. The amendment is not adopted.
Mister Galvin of Canton, office of amendment in the hands of the clerk. Clerk read the amendment.
SPEAKER4 - This is a committee on rules technical amendment. Mister Galvin of Canton moves to amend the order and propose rule8997 9 a by striking out in line 18999 60 the word said and inserting in9001 place thereof the following, the committee. And further, amend the order and9005 propose
SPEAKER1 - If deputy and no objection, the clerk will dispense it to reading the paper the9009 chair has none. Question is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. House will be in a brief recess.
Question. I was on adoption of the order. Roll call haven't been ordered. The roll call machine is now open. Remain open for 3 minutes. Court officers, some of the members indicated roll call is in progress.
SPEAKER4 - For the members, this is roll call number 24. Roll call number 24.
SPEAKER1 - Have all members voted wish to do so? Have all members voted? Time for voting has expired. The clerk will display the tally on this matter.
Uh-huh. A 28 members voting the affirmative, 23 in the negative. The order is adopted. House will be in a brief recess.
SPEAKER18 - House will come to water. Ask the members to please take their seats.
I'd like to take a moment to say a few words about pharmacy representative, Carol Doherty, from Taunton. Passed away on February 15 from pancreatic cancer at the age of 82. For decades before her career as a state representative, Carol9226 selflessly dedicated her9229 life to children, first as a teacher, then as a guidance counselor, and later as a9237 school committee member. Carol then served in the House of Representatives
for more than 30 years.
She was a kind, passionate, and a fierce advocate for the residents of Taunton and Easton on Beacon Hill. She served them honorably until her passing.
We are incredibly grateful for her service to the Commonwealth and for the opportunity to have worked alongside.
So behalf of the entire house, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to Carol's family, friends, constituents, and especially staff as we all mourn her loss. May she rest in peace.
Thank you. She'll be in a brief recess.
SPEAKER1 - House of being ordered, mister Mariano Quincy offers an order in the hands of the clerk. Clerk, read the order.
SPEAKER4 - Ordered. That when the house adjourned today, it adjourned to you tomorrow at 11AM.
SPEAKER1 - Question now is on adoption of the order. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The order is adopted. Mister Jones are not threatening. Now moves that the house stands adjourned. House will stand adjourned to meet tomorrow, Wednesday, 11AM in a9348 full formal session with roll calls to be determined.
© InstaTrac 2025