 Hello, everyone. Welcome to Talk of the Town. I'm James Milan. We are here today with our state representative Dave Rogers who's in for a legislative update, which we always like to get regularly from our various legislators. So wanted to ask you first of all for any things that you would like to highlight a personal interest to you in the budget, things you were happy to see included, things that you're not happy to see funded at a high enough level, just your general reaction to this budget. Well, as you mentioned, it's just concluded. So it was a great budget. One of the best, if not the best, since I joined the legislature seven years ago. And as you and your viewers will know, obviously in 2008-2009, we had the Great Recession, a huge downturn. And really one of the great untold stories of the Great Recession is the immense toll it took on state budgets. So unlike the federal government that can issue debt, Treasury bills, Treasury bonds, and use deficit spending, state governments cannot. They have to have a balanced budget every year. So when the Great Recession hit, state budgets around the country, and certainly here in Massachusetts, took a massive hit. And almost all the key accounts, line items, right down the line, you name the public policy area, took a major cut. And it's really just now in many respects that we're getting back to where we were and making increases from that time. So for instance, this year the Department of Environmental Protection, which is a key line item I always push for, one of my top two or three priorities is environmental spending, got a 10% increase. It's a huge increase. We also got a big increase last year too. And the DCR, the overseas state parks, another big increase. Homelessness funding, which is another one of my top few priorities, got a big increase this year, 10% for individual homelessness. We fund line items for families that are homeless and individuals separately. So they both got a big increase. The MRVP, the Massachusetts rental voucher program, which helps low-income people with housing, got a big increase. Education. State aid to education is the biggest year-over-year increase, percentage increase in two decades. And the biggest absolute increase, I think ever, in terms of the just the absolute number, which is over 200 million. So and there are many other key initiatives that got funded. So right down the line, it's an outstanding budget. And also there was some money diverted to the so-called rainy day fund, the stabilization fund. And we now have the third largest stabilization fund in the country. Turns out I just read the other day, Alaska is one of the top two because they have oil revenue. So they have a large stabilization fund. And that's important because if and when the next downturn comes and one almost always comes sooner or later, it's a cushion against future cuts. And so that's important. It's important also, frankly, for the bond markets. All the bond rating agencies that look at Massachusetts debt. We issue bonds to finance projects. Our borrowing costs are lower because we have such a strong stabilization fund. So it was a great budget. And yeah, let me ask you, you've mentioned in some specific items going up 10 percent, which is a a whopping amount in a year, as you noted. So I'm wondering is it just that there is that much more substantial, a pool of money available to the state from revenues coming in? Yes. Or is it that there are things that have been cut in correspondingly in order to provide more money for some of your priorities and frankly, our priorities when it comes to education and the environment, etc. Right. Well, it's more the former than the latter. That's the good news. That's good news. So every year there's the consensus revenue forecast. And that is the administration, the Baker administration and their budget analysts and revenue people testify. And then, of course, budget analysts in the House and the Senate. There are hearings. Obviously, there's forecasting and financial projections and a look to try to determine how much revenue state revenue is likely to grow and then build a budget based on that consensus revenue forecast. As it turns out this year, revenue came in higher than the consensus revenue forecast. So there was additional funds to spend on key priorities. And so it was great news and you know, I think we really, I say this a lot, what we're doing here at the state level is a welcome antidote to some of the really deep challenges we face of what's going on at the federal level. Yeah, that's the, you know, any little bit of good news at the state level, obviously, as you said, is always welcome, but particularly in the current climate. Yeah, and I think there's more than a little bit of good news. And as we'll talk in our conversation today, I just think, I mean, we can always do more. I'm always pushing to do more. But I also think we need to take note of the many victories we've had in the last two, four, six years at the state level on legislation and in the budget. I do want to make note of the fact that you have described it as a great budget and that, you know, in the years that I have been had the opportunity to speak to folks in positions such as yours. I just don't hear that very often. Well, again, I have to quickly add that there's always more to do and there's always more I wish we could do. So it's not so much, I don't want to characterize it as, gee, everything's perfect and we've satisfied every need and met every priority. Of course we haven't and we need to do more. And we can talk about that. Yes, and we are just about to. Yeah, but I think on balance, given some historical perspective, this particular year's budget was very good. Great. So let us begin, though, the harder part of the conversation to some degree, or at least one topic that was notably absent in your mentioning of a number of things that have, you know, either been budgeted at a higher level or just in which there seems like progress is being made. And what I would like to talk about is the MBTA and transportation more generally. I don't know and I welcome you to let us know if budget funds for the MBTA itself were also increased in this particular budget or not. But nevertheless, regardless of the answer to that, the issue with the MBTA, as everybody knows, is seemingly a crucial and critical one. And it fits into a general transportation challenge in Massachusetts that seems almost perpetual at this point. So what I'd like to ask you is we have spoken to lots of folks who say, yes, who have identified what the problems are. We are particularly interested to know whether there are action, actionable steps that you are aware of, that you may be leading or sponsoring, that you can share with us to address not only the operational problems of the MBTA that we're all familiar with, but this larger question of how are we going to move transportation in Massachusetts away from cars in a more sustainable direction, etc. Yeah. Well, great question. And it's always at the top of mind for me in my role serving in the state legislature and has been ever since I got there. In fact, when I first ran, I made transportation a central focus of my campaign, so much so that some of the folks who worked with me said, gee, you talk about transportation so much, do you think you're overemphasizing it? Overemphasizing it. And I said, no, because it's so central to many different aspects of our life here in the Commonwealth. What I can tell you is in the House, we've gone on record as saying we want to have a conversation, probably this fall, about revenue to fund the T. And as your viewers may know, you may know there was supposed to be last year in 2018 on the ballot, the so-called millionaire's tax, which was a 4 percent surcharge on incomes above a million dollars. It was polling very well. Of course, in the heat of a campaign, you don't know if ultimately it would have prevailed, but all the data tends to indicate that the particular way that question was framed for the voters, it had, I would say, a substantial likelihood of prevailing. Certainly seems like it was a popular proposition. Yeah. And a group formed to litigate the matter, claiming that the way the question was worded because it earmarked the money for transportation and education was inappropriate, because only the legislature has the power of the purse strings to decide exactly how the money would be spent. And they prevailed at our state Supreme Court, the Supreme Judicial Court. So the question was not put in front of the voters. We have advanced the question through the legislature this session, and we need to do it again, two times meeting in constitutional convention in a way that would be impervious to challenge. So I'm not saying that revenue alone solves the T's problems, the MBTA's problems, because there are operational issues, management issues, but there have been so many studies of the T, including one, I think, led by the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I think he was tapped to form a group and study it. There's been several exhaustive studies. I'm talking about 100-page studies complete with appendices and exhibits. And everyone who seriously studied it has said to really solve the problems with the MBTA, you're going to need significant new revenue. And that's because the term of art used in the transportation world is state of good repair. And that means simply taking the switches, the track, the tunnel, the parts that frankly the public doesn't see, the engineering, the infrastructure, to get it to a operational, fully functioning, operational level, fix any defects is about $10 billion. So there's a state of good repair deficit of about $10 billion. And that's not to expand. There's a lot of ideas kicking around in the state to expand our infrastructure and our public transportation. Putting to one side any movement to expand public transportation just to get our current system up to a state of good repairs, a lot of money. And the governor, the big reform we did for the governor was really the governor's plan was to install another layer of management, the fiscal control board, which we did. And I think they've added some value in studying the system and making improvements, recommendations for improvements and improvements. But we're never going to solve this problem without new revenue and outstanding project managers to implement the changes we need to make. And so the house is going to take up that millionaire's tax or millionaire's proposal won't be on the ballot again until I believe 2022. So the house has come out publicly and said we want to act now and have a conversation about revenue, probably this fall. And so I've been talking to my colleagues, including the chair of the Revenue Committee, including to the speaker, the majority leader, the chair of Ways and Means and just all my other colleagues. And I think there's significant appetite to do it. Now exactly what format will take, what revenue, what fees, would it be, you know, the gas tax, would it be the income tax, would it be the sales tax? I have a proposal to increase the long-term capital gains tax, which would raise about a billion dollars. And the reason I favor that is because, frankly, it targets those at the very top of our income. I think the studies show 90% of it would be paid by those at the very top of our economic ladder. But whatever, you know, there's a lot of ideas, whatever we do, I think we can't, whatever other ideas people have for managerial efficiencies, operational improvements, innovations, you cannot have a serious conversation about building a 21st century transportation system if you're unwilling to talk about new revenue, which our governor has been unwilling to do. And so we're not waiting for the governor. We're going to act. So when you say there's an appetite, as far as you can perceive within the house for this, what you're really talking about when you say revenue, you're saying, let us raise taxes in order to find money in order to be able to begin to address these issues. Right. Taxes are fees. Got it. And so, again, we can expect that this conversation is going to be happening, perhaps starting this fall. And then we'll see, depending on the results of that conversation. Also, I'm wondering, are you distinguishing on purpose between the House and the Senate? As in they may have different takes on this? Well, any revenue bill needs to originate in the House. Okay. That's constitutional. It's the rule. It's the way the system works. So you're not anticipating that necessarily the Senate is in a different place about this. You're just acknowledging that the way that this works, it begins in the House. You know you are in the House, and so you can speak for, again, what the general sense of things is there. Exactly. Okay. Gotcha. Let me move on, because there's a number of different topics we'd like to cover. One of the things you mentioned, you were talking about state of good repair and how the public, that would go to things the public doesn't really see. That reminds me of something else the public doesn't really see a lot of the time is what committees, etc., our legislators are involved with. Sure. People may or may not be aware of whatever committees you have either assumed chairmanship of or are an active participant on. Sure. Why don't you share with us one or two of those and just where things stand with the business of those committees. Yeah. So for the first time ever this term, I'm in my fourth term, I was made chair of a committee. So I'm not on any other committees because I'm the chair of one. And the way it works is when you come in, you're so, you know, you're new, you're so-called back bench legislator, you're learning the ropes, and you can be on three or four different committees. Got it. Eventually, the next step is to be made a vice chair of a committee, which I was. And I was promoted to another vice chair of a more senior committee, and then this session promoted to be a chair. And that enables me to hire more staff. And I'm chair of the Cannabis Policy Committee. So now that we have legal cannabis in the Commonwealth, there are a number of proposals to, now that it's being implemented, there have been proposals to fix perceived problems in the system as it's being implemented. And so I have about 70 bills, 60 to 70 bills, probably all in by the time the session concludes in front of the committee. It's exciting. It's daunting. It's a challenge. Charing a committee is a lot of work. I sort of joke it's like the dog who catches the car. You know, there's the dog running and you finally catch the car. And what do I do with the car? I mean, you know, I think most members want to, over time, get promoted to be a chair of a committee because it is a chance to really dig deep on an issue and study it in more depth. But it's also a tremendous amount of work. I've enjoyed it so far. It's been interesting. I have a great team helping me of staff, two lawyers, research assistant and my chief of staff who I promoted. She's been with me for several years as a legislative aide. That's another great thing about being made a chair. I have a woman, Keir Arnaut, my chief of staff who's fantastic and she was with me as a legislative aide. I could promote her and also give opportunities to other people. And that's one of the things I love about my job is a chance to mentor younger people about government, about policy and law and how to be effective. And so, you know, there are several key issues in front of the cannabis committee. Yeah, I was going to say that's a pretty high-profile committee in a sense. It is. In a way, I leapfrogged some more, what I would say, entry-level committees to get this one right off the bat. I was one of the leading advocates for cannabis legalization in the state. Our governor opposed it. Our attorney general opposed it. The mayor of our largest city, Boston opposed it. The leader of the body in which I serve, the speaker of the house opposed it. Sort of the most of the political establishment opposed it, which is fine. I understand it's a controversial issue. I don't criticize them at all for being opposed. And it's also a delicate issue for people in public office, frankly. So I get the opposition. But I was a leading proponent. In fact, I introduced legislation to legalize it, knowing it wouldn't go anywhere in the legislature. But as a way to kickstart a conversation, to have an open, honest debate about the pros and cons and got some publicity there. And then it didn't advance to then groups put it on the ballot. And I was out front debating. And it was fun. I was on TV and radio, Greater Boston with Jim Browdy and on Herald Radio and debating my colleague, Senator Jason Lewis of Winchester, who was an opponent. And we had a really vigorous debate. And it was fun to be a part of that. And in the end, it passed by a pretty healthy margin. I was going to say, it seems like one of those instances where the legislature is not exact. The attitude within the legislature may not mirror that within the public. And again, to be fair to my colleagues, it's very controversial. It's very hot button. One thing that I've sort of opened my eyes is actually being an office holder, which I never was most of my career. I love politics and followed it. But when you're in the job, you're aware in a way that if you're not in the job, some of the pressures that come to bear. And also how infinitely complex most public policy questions are. People want a simple bumper sticker slogan, a pithy response. Most public policy questions are thorny, nettle, some difficult questions that have pros and cons. Sometimes advocates for one side will come in and I taking notes and listening and sort of nodding my head and saying, wow, they're making some good points. And then advocates on the other side of the issue come in and sort of nodding my head and taking notes. Because the truth is, if we can come away from the passions of the moments through which we're living and our own biases and try to almost detach and have a calm, neutral, analytical framework to look at these problems. Not all, but most public policy questions have pros and cons on both sides. And you're trying to thread the needle and find sensible outcome for challenging questions. And that's also true of cannabis. And so I don't begrudge the opponents. I get that people were opposed and had concerns about their community and the impact this would have on our society. But I was for it, I think, taking it out of the shadows, out of the criminal syndicates, taxing it, regulating it carefully just makes more sense. And the voters agreed. And so now we have a lot of bills pending to sort of make some changes as it's being evolving and rolling out to the public. Right. You were mentioning perceived problems, but I'm wondering if there are things that you would acknowledge are actual problems that have come to light because as things start to roll out, you realize, hmm, we've got to do something about this or that. Yeah. Well, I filed a bill to do with something called host community agreements. Before you can open a retail cannabis dispensary, you must, before you can even apply to the CCC, which is the state regulatory agency, the Cannabis Control Commission, you must enter into a host community agreement with the local community where you plan to operate. So if someone wants to come into Arlington or any town or city, you must enter into a negotiation and actually sign a contract, an agreement with the town or the city. And the law provides that you can charge or put in the host community agreement up to 3% of gross sales of the business that is a community impact fee to offset costs that are related to having the business in your community. Cities and towns can also impose a 3% local tax. So there's a 17% state tax, the sales tax and excise fee adds up to 17. But communities can charge a 3% local tax so they can get 3% of gross sales in the host community agreement and another 3% essentially of gross sales through a local sales tax. That's 6%. Triple what was in the voter approved initiative at the ballot in 2016. So we in the legislature to incentivize cities and towns and give them revenue that they can use for offsetting the costs and for local projects up to 6%, which is a lot. But that hasn't been enough for some cities and towns who have some would argue seen an opportunity to ask these operators for even more money. And we're seeing these host community agreements that have another 1% or another 2% or can you give to local philanthropic activities, local charities. And some believe that goes beyond the law. And that's, we do live in an entrepreneurial capitalist society where business people, men and women take risks. They want to go into this business, which is now legal. What other business? If you want to open a convenience store, do I have to give you 6% and then more? If I want to open a gas station, if I want to open a bakery or any other business. And so the question becomes how much is enough? And is it fair to these entrepreneurs, some of whom are well financed, but others of whom are not? And the other issue it presents is if for the reason I supported the law was sort of a social equity or social justice. I think people getting locked up, people having their lives disrupted was terrible. That was the reason to legalize it. I really didn't legalize it because I wanted to see for business reasons, for commercial reasons. It's fine that commerce is going to go on. It wasn't where I was coming from. I just thought it from a social justice perspective. But now that it is going to be a substantial business, there's the question of how do we get those disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs by our previous laws into this business so they could create jobs and they could be successful in this new business. And if wealthy, well-capitalized companies can pay these extra fees to cities and towns, does that hurt the smaller entrepreneur who perhaps is a woman-owned or minority-owned from getting into this new business? So we've had a hearing. It was packed. You can imagine, say, the Mass Municipal Association, they don't want any limits. But most of the testimony we heard is from people who said, yes, it's unfair to gouge a cannabis operator. It's not consistent with a free market. It's unfair. It's not consistent with the law. And so that's just one example. I have 70 bills in front of the committee. That's just one example of the kind of legislative ideas that are kicking around. And I do think we're probably going to have to act in some way on this. But I'm one of 160. I have to talk to all the other members, talk to the other members of my committee to convince them of whatever course of action I think is wise. And then, of course, the Senate. My Senate co-chair, Sonia Chang Diaz, she'll be looking at this. And we've had a lot of interesting fruitful conversations. So it's been also important and take incredibly seriously the obligation. It's also interesting for me in terms of being a lawyer, having an economics background to wrestle with some of these questions as chair of a committee. Yeah. That's tremendously interesting, I think, as a challenge moving forward. And the early signs have definitely been that, as you have already mentioned, it does look like people who are disproportionately affected by the harm that has been attendant to this entire issue over the last 20 years are not getting a fair shake right now in terms of beginning these businesses, et cetera. It seems like it is the well-healed who are who are deriving the early advantage here. So we'll have to see how this plays out. Point well taken. I mean, it's not opening a lemonade stand. It's a capital intensive. It's very expensive to get into this business. So all right. Well, I am tempted to talk about this for even longer, but we've got a still a full agenda. Let me ask you about a couple of local Arlington issues that obviously the portion of Arlington that you represent includes East Arlington. And one of the changes that is happening in Arlington generally and East Arlington for sure is an increasing influx of population, which of course has affected our budgets and our schools, et cetera, et cetera. There's also been zoning changes. I understand these are very local issues in a lot of ways, but I'm just wondering, just interested in where you are at with this question of affordable housing, density, attracting commercial tax, a greater commercial tax base, all these things that we are wrestling with in this town all the time. Just don't have a chance to ask you often for what your opinion is about that, where you see us going, where you'd like to see us going, et cetera. Great. Well, as you indicated in the question itself, many of these issues are local issues. So zoning law is a local issue. Obviously, town meeting looked at some proposed zoning changes. So they truly are local issues, local elected officials, including an elected town meeting and the board of select, the select board, they look at these issues. There are state level proposals, bills proposed to change zoning, which would override local zoning. And that is complicated legislation. And we do have an affordable housing crisis in the greater Boston area and throughout Massachusetts. I always hear, along with New York City and San Francisco, the greater Boston area is the third most expensive place to live in the country. I don't know if that's precisely correct. Maybe there's some other metro areas that compete with Boston, although I'm not sure that's a distinction you want to compete for. But we live in a very expensive place. And it's a challenge also from a sort of a social justice perspective, if you will, or from having a more inclusive society where everyone has a chance to achieve the American dream and own their own home, but also it has implications for our economy. As we do have a strong regional economy, but every year I read stories of young, educated people who are leaving our state. That trend has changed a little recently, but people who leave, even people with college degrees because the cost of living here is so high. So it creates a tension, if you will, of how do you preserve the character of local communities? You don't want a building boom to go on that's so extensive that it transforms the community in an unhealthy way, but also allow for more development so that it does ease the pressure on affordable housing. And that's sort of the tension in the discussion and in the policy choices in front of us. Obviously, I'm open to changes at the state level that will boost affordable housing, and we've already undertaken a number of them. But when it gets to changes that would override local zoning law, I think that's why some of these bills haven't passed, because state-level officials come under pressure from local officials who want to preserve local control. And we have 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. There's a strong tradition in this state of local control. I've lived in four states, Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland. Maryland has very strong county government. But here in Massachusetts, as much or more than anywhere I've lived, the emphasis is on local control. And so the cities and towns through the Mass Municipal Association and in other ways have a lot of voice and a lot of influence over state government. Many elected officials in the state legislature served first on the select board or city council of their city or town. So they are aware and attuned to the challenges faced by local communities. So that's sort of the state of play now. There are a couple major zoning bills in front of the legislature and they're going to get a hearing. There'll be discussion, debate. I think there's some momentum to do something, but the question becomes what and how far will we go? And are you inclined basically to honor that kind of long-held Massachusetts tradition of local control and therefore wanting to, like you said, honor the municipality's desire to retain most of the zoning power to themselves? It depends. It depends on the specific issue. The specific proposal. I mean, I'm a state-level policymaker. I'm very responsive to my local counterparts when I talk to members of the select board or city council and frankly just folks in the community. I'm very attuned to what is on their minds and that's my job to be a representative of their views. I also need to be mindful that we do have this affordable housing crisis that is a long-term threat to the success of our communities and again, it's balancing local concerns about too much development with the need for more housing. I mean, we're seeing an explosion of housing over near Alewife. I opposed the development that was in the Silver Maple Forest. I just didn't think it was appropriate. But again, there's the tension and there were even people who would be natural allies on almost every other issue. Affordable housing advocates and open space advocates and people worried about the flood plain who were on opposite sides of that issue because they're affordable housing advocates who are progressive on every other issue. We'd probably be in agreement, but wanted that to go forward for the affordable housing piece. That actually takes me right into something else I wanted to ask you about and that's specifically the MuGar property that is right in that area that you're talking about. That has been an ongoing issue here in Arlington for a number of years. Quieter recently because I think all the signs are that this development is going to, the town has done what it can to oppose the development, but it looks to many of us like it's going to move forward. I'm wondering whether you- Well, we don't know 100% if that's true. Let's assume that it is for the purpose of this question. I'm just wondering whether you see any opportunities. If that does move forward, do you see any opportunities for the town through a negotiation with the developers, et cetera, to have some good come from this? Sure. I think if I'm opposed to it vehemently, almost everyone in the neighborhoods surrounding it are opposed to it. The town is opposed to it. I mean, I think if you did a poll on it, you'd probably have 90% opposition. But if it were to go forward, then I think certainly community groups would have to negotiate with the developer over a series of things. Under 40B, they can bypass local zoning laws, but that doesn't mean through concerted advocacy, whether it's setbacks or height or that the community can't say, look, we are the neighbors, we are the elected representatives in terms of the select board and others, and we want to have a conversation about what this development is going to look like. There's traffic issues, there's flooding issues, there's tons of issues related to that development. Well, I'm very curious. I mean, without getting too far into the weeds, your response would indicate that not only do you maintain that strong opposition that you've always had to the development, but that you feel like that is so widespread that you've mentioned a figure 90%, whatever it is, an overwhelming percentage of folks around would be in opposition. Do you think that then that there really are some options for this not moving forward? Because my sense has been over the last couple of years an increasing inevitability that it will happen. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can enlighten me. Well, there's been litigation, as you know. I think, I mean, any development that goes in any community, I've seen this in Cambridge, Belmont, local community groups can still organize and negotiate with the developer. And many developers while pursuing profit and wanting to do their development will at least engage in some constructive dialogue with the community. So I guess my point is if in the unfortunate event it becomes inevitable, there's no more legal options to stop it, then a conversation has to happen to try to make the impact as least detrimental as possible. Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Another thing that folks are concerned about right here in Arlington and that I know that you've been involved with, along with mothers out front, is the question of gas leaks that are, you know, that there are still any number of such unplugged gas leaks going on. Where does that where does that issue stand as far as you're concerned? Well, we've passed three separate pieces of legislation in the legislature and three consecutive sessions to do with gas leaks. So there's been a lot of activity. One, to give one example, gas companies repair leaks at the highest sense of urgency when it's a threat to public health and safety. So say it's near a building where an explosion or the actual gas itself could cause harm, that becomes the priority. What about gas leaks that aren't near a building wouldn't pose an imminent threat to public safety or human health, but which are hugely detrimental to the environment? So we passed a law that now gas companies need to identify those leaks and create a plan and a prioritization list to fix those. So we're taking a lot of action already. And there are bills pending now to go even further, which I co-sponsor. You know, so there's a lot of activity on the gas leak front. I mean, another one that we just did was to require gas companies, it's called lost and unaccounted for gas, which is the delta or the difference between gas that's supposed to be delivered to customers and the actual gas that's in the system. And we've required now a report to the Department of Public Utilities that identifies that and sets a priority to address those issues. So there's a lot that's happened already. So can I take from what you were just saying that that delta, that difference, means that there has been in the past some amount of gas in that system outside or exceeding that which is apportioned to all the customers that's just floating around or leaking and obviously up to no good in a sense. So this legislation is about identifying that, whatever that volume is, and then I assume creating a report and an action plan. Great. We're close to closing here, but I did want to invite you as you anticipate the upcoming legislative session to pick one or two things that you would like our audience to know, that you will be championing, that we may not have mentioned, or stuff that is particularly of importance to you that may be coming up in this session. Well, thanks for the opportunity. I filed over 40 pieces of legislation myself. I am an activist legislator. If you look at my colleagues, we have a lot of folks working hard on a lot of important issues, but I think you'd see the number of bills I filed and the areas I filed them in. I have my hands in a lot of different issues that I'm trying to push forward. One of the big ones I filed right now is a so-called right to counsel for low-income people facing eviction. So people call it the civil Gideon because the Gideon is the famous Supreme Court decision that said that low-income criminal defendants have a right to a lawyer. That's obviously in the Miranda warning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you. What about low-income individuals in civil court where we know that we do have civil legal aid through the Greater Boston Legal Services and other legal service organizations, but about two-thirds of people who qualify, who are low-income, cannot afford a lawyer and facing very serious life circumstances are turned away. That's wrong. I often say the Pledge for Allegiance at the end. We all recite it as school children. We still do today sometimes. We say, and justice for all at the end of it. And the truth is in our society and justice for all rings hollow, rings untrue for many of our fellow citizens. So I filed a bill which would give a right to counsel to low-income individuals facing eviction. It turns out we've done some studies that in housing court, we have specialized housing courts in the Commonwealth. About 70% or more of landlords are represented by lawyer. About 7%, one-tenth of that of low-income tenants are represented by counsel. And that's even with the efforts of the pro bono legal community lawyers in Boston who and around the Commonwealth who as part of their mission as being lawyers give up their time freely to show up in housing court and represent these folks. There's still only 7% who have a lawyer. So I have a bill pending that would give a right to counsel. I think it has some momentum. This is the third time I filed it and that's not uncommon to create a new law. It's complex. There's a lot of moving piece parts and it can take years. And some of the bills I filed that are now law, it did take years and it's no different with this. But we had a great hearing which was packed. There's like 30 groups now that have rallied around the bill. It's taken a while to build up that momentum and that sort of coalition of groups that support it. And I'm hopeful to move the legislation. I've had some good conversations about it with my colleagues. Another bill I filed which has gotten some attention recently doing in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union which is a moratorium on biometric surveillance or facial recognition software. You know now in our modern society, almost everywhere we go, there are cameras or people's images and likenesses, the way they walk, the way you move, it's being captured. And the question is how if at all should law enforcement be able to use this software, this surveillance? And my bill says let's press pause, let's put a moratorium on the use of biometric data until we can put some reasonable regulations in place. I'm not saying that law enforcement should never be able to use this information because there may be valid reasons where law enforcement can make its case. But to have it outside of any regulatory structure where there's no warrant required, it's come to light, I believe the state police are using the RMV, the Registry of Motor Vehicles Database, mining it for data in certain circumstances. And that was unbeknownst to anyone. So you have a law enforcement agency in a democracy, in a free country, mining personal data of citizens, many of whom weren't accused of any civil or criminal violation. So what gives? Again, I'm not saying I'm not opposed to law enforcement being able to use this data if there are sensible regulations in place. And I'll tell you, I have a once a month constituent email newsletter I send out where I really get into some of the details of bills that I filed or what's going on in the budget, really everything I'm working on. And I very seldom, if ever, had more feedback, positive feedback about any bill I filed than that one. There's a lot of folks who live in our community who share my concern about this issue. So there's two off the top of my head of the many that I filed. And there are many more. Right. And I would encourage your viewers to sign up for my constituent email newsletter. It can email me at the statehouse dave.rogers at mahouse.gov. And I don't bombard them with a ton of spam and a ton of communications. But once a month, you get an email about everything that I'm working on. Yeah. Well, that sounds very promising for your constituents as a way of finding out even more than what they would be able to find out through this conversation and other outlets. Regarding this conversation, I do want to thank you again for taking the time to be here, but also for the candor, the energy, and the forthrightness with which you answered the questions. And also the fact that you did so in plain English, and we really appreciate it. I think people who take the time to listen into the conversation will really leave understanding a little bit more about the work you're doing, what your priorities are, and what progress has been made, what victories are out there to claim, and then also what challenges remain. So really genuinely want to thank you for that. And we'll let you get on with what's left of vacation and hope that you get all ready for the upcoming legislative session and tackle it. With great energy. Well, thank you. It's great to be here. I love my job, and it's really an honor to do it. And as I often say, to be moving important legislation and budget items at the state level at a time of so much difficulty, we'll say. And I'm being charitable. You're being very diplomatic. I am. I'm not always quite so diplomatic, but for the purpose of our conversation, what we're witnessing at the federal level, I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. I know many of your viewers probably share that view. We're living through a really challenging era. I believe that era will come to an end. I'll be working to make that happen. But for now, to have the honor and the privilege to be improving social justice and advancing economic opportunity and countless other things, the biometric technology to protect civil liberties to the low income right to counsel to give those on sort of the lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder a greater opportunity and protection. It's the honor of a lifetime to be doing this work right now, particularly this particular moment. All right. Well, thank you, and that will wrap up today's conversation on behalf of State Rep Dave Rogers. I'm James Milan. This is Talk of the Town. Thanks for joining us. We'll see you next time.