MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

With former Senator Jim Boyle

Legislative Blog Post # 8, February 26

Those new to this Blog may wish to scroll down and read up 

Update on LD 1063, An Act To Protect Substance-exposed Infants: I have not yet been able to find an amendment draft of the bill which the Health and Human Services Committee was referring to at the Work Session I attended February 20. So I'm not sure I understood all that was said at this session. Most of the discussion centered on clarifying the meaning of coercion in Section 1. I assume this is in relation to assuring an addicted woman's reproductive choices.  The concern of some committee members didn't seem to be about limiting or restricting the choice, but about how the banning of coercion could be monitored and about how it could inhibit a provider's interaction with the woman. Senator Brakey expressed a concern that section 2 might somehow lead a woman to choose abortion. There was no discussion about the intention of the bill to reduce the number of substance addicted infants being born. After a five-minute recess in which the Democratic members appeared to be caucusing, a motion was made by Republican Senator Hamper  and seconded that the bill Ought not to Pass. This failed with a 5 to 4 vote. Then a motion was made by Democratic Representative Hymanson that the bill Ought to Pass. This motion passed 7 to 4 in what seemed like a party line vote. Senator Brakey recommended another Public Hearing on the bill which was moved and passed.

Update on LD 1781, An Act To Encourage New Major Investments in Shipbuilding Facilities and the Preservation of Jobs, the request from Bath Iron Works for a tax credit.  I didn't attend the most recent work session on this bill Thursday February 22, so what I say here is a summary of information that came at me via e-mail and some research.   Representative DeChant introduced an amendment that would reduce the request for a tax credit of $60 million to $30 million over 10 years with further credits if and when BIW increased employment and met other requirements. Her amendment also included  requirements that Bath Iron Works increase reporting of what they are doing with the money. Jon Fitzgerald, BIW vice president and general counsel, said the increased reporting would give competitors the  advantage of knowing BIW's costs and plans. Fitzgerald did not have an answer to Representative Tipping's question about the possibility that BIW received more tax credits in the past than it was entitled to based on a misunderstanding of qualified employment levels. There will likely be another work session on this bill next week.

Update on LD 1711, Resolve, To Save lives by Establishing a Homelss Opiod Users Service Engagement Pilot Project within the Department of Health and Human Services. I attended the Work Session Thursday, February 22. Representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services reported that few questions remained for them after the detailed amendments, but they could not fully support the project without seeing tested results. 

Earlier I attended the public hearing and reported on this bill in Legislative Blog # 3 below. The Public Hearing was emotional on the part of people testifying. This Work Session was emotional on the part of committee members. Representative Hymanson gave an impassioned plea to support the Task Force's endorsement of the detailed bill. She said the Committee has had lead feet about the opiod epidemic, and it would be irresponsible not to pass the bill. 

Senator Brakey responded that the task force did not endorse the bill; it just endorsed consideration of the bill. 

Representive MaCreight said we must act now. She had never seen a bill with this much detail, and, she said, the task force did endorse the bill.

Representative Madigan, responding to criticism that we need measurable results, said "418 drug overdose deaths in 2017." That measurable result was repeated frequently through out the session.  

Representative Sanderson questioned the housing model and was told the project's housing would be integrated with existing programs and would not require new building. She also expressed doubts about the project's workability. Other committee members echoed that criticism. 

Representive Denno said he thought a cost-benefit analysis would show early intervention saves money, and we ought to match words with action. He didn't mention the Governor, but I thought of him at Denno's remark: "LePage has done little to expand access to treatment. Not only is he not taking action to help addicted Mainers receive adequate treatment, but he also wants to limit access to something that could save lives." 

Sponsor of the bill, Senator Gattine, suggested a comprehensive bill package to include other opiod bills with this one could be considered . 

The Work Session ended with a unanimous vote to table the bill for further consideration. 

Friday, February 23, for the first time, I attended a Work Session of the Marijuana Implementation Committee which has been meeting since early 2017, so I came into this session very late in terms of what the committee has already accomplished. LD 1719,  An Act to Implement a Regulatory Structure for Adult Use of Marijuana is already a detailed and complicated bill of 73 pages. The Summary itself takes up 5 pages. Today's meeting focused on the tax structure for the bill written by the Maine Revenue Service (MRS) and presented to the Committee.  

After the lengthy presentation by MRS there was a brief discussion about the tax structure. Representative Hickman argued that the excise tax was too high to allow small cultivators of marijauna to compete in the market. Representative Akely pointed out that preventing illicit sales is an important goal of legalizing marijuana, and if the tax is too high it weakens that goal. 

Chair of the committee, Senator Katz, declared a 5-minute recess which lasted 55 minutes. During this time I wondered about how much of the legislature's business happens outside the public view, hearing, or reporting. Not just during recesses from the public meetings but all the intense conversations among legislators and lobbyists taking place in the halls, in the cafeteria, in private meeting rooms--outside the public meeting rooms. 

When the committee returned from recess, there was an immediate motion and second to accept the tax structure presented by MRS. Representative Blume expressed concerns about there being no provision to help towns with the excise tax, and Representative Hickman again expressed concerns about the excise tax being to high for cottage industries. The motion to accept the tax structure passed 12 to 2.

Senator Katz moved to remove the deadline date for implementation. This was seconded and passed 12 to 2. 

It was moved and seconded that the bill LD 1719 Ought to Pass. This motion passed 13 to 1 with the statement that 3 absent members of the committee would also be voting Ought to Pass as soon as they got a chance. Representative Hickman, the lone dissenting vote, stated that he would be writing a Minority Report, and he outlined changes he wants to see in the bill to make it more fair to small businesses. He also wants to remove the felony convictions in the code which unfairly impact people of color and other minorities, and he wants to change the term Marijauna to Cannabis.  He proposed many other changes which I could not keep up with in my notes. When he finished, Senator Katz declared another recess which this time did not last longer than 5 minutes. When he returned, he asked the Committee staff how much time they would need to prepare the report which now would need to include the lengthy minority report. They replied that they believed they could get it done by early next week.

I have e-mailed the Committee Clerk to ask if I could get a copy of the minority report when it is finished, and I hope to be able to summarize that in my next blog post.

People have been asking me often how or why I came to do this. I wanted a change of pace. I was curious about how the legislature works day by day. And I have been identifying myself as a volunteer lobbyist for issues I care about for a few years, so I expected to do a good bit of lobbying while here. But direct experience makes me very aware of  my limitations as a lobbyist. So far this session, my one-to-one, face-to-face lobbying has only happened with a few brief conversations and some emails. My major time is spent in research and committee meetings to learn enough to try to lobby more. Most of my actual lobbying takes place on Facebook and in this blog which I doubt ever reaches legislators except, I hope, that it might move some people to at least vote based on some knowledge of the issues and, better, to also contact their legislators directly. One of the SAGE students in my classes on political issues often expressed the need for more and better civics classes in school. In this political climate, don't we all need it, no matter our age?

Voter with Representative Drew Gattine

MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 7, February 18

For people new to these Observations:

You might want to scroll down to previous Blogs, and read up.

Health Care Rally beginning to gather outside the State house

before the Governor's State of the State.

Jan 31, I attended the final hour or so of the work session on LD 1757, An Act To Protect Maine's Economy by Slowing the Rate at Which the State's Minimum Wage Will Increase and Establishing a Training and Youth Wage. The SUMMARY explains

This bill affects the minimum wage by:

1. Reducing the minimum wage from $10 per hour to $9.50 per hour beginning June 1, 2018;

2. Reducing the amount by which the minimum hourly wage rates are scheduled to increase annually on January 1st from 2019 to 2021 from $1 per year to 50 cents per year, and decreasing from $12 to $11 the minimum hourly wage rate required to be paid in 2021;

3. Eliminating the cost-of-living adjustment to the minimum wage; and

4. Establishing a training minimum wage for employees 18 years of age or older and under 20 years of age for the first 90 days of employment and a youth minimum wage for employees under 18 years of age.

This session is among the most contentious I have attended with some business owners on the Committee declaring they would have to close their businesses if they didn’t get some relief from the minimum wage law passed by the voters in the 2017 Referendum. Other business owners on the committee said the law helps their businesses. 95 people testified at the public hearing. I scanned and tabulated the first 39 to find 32 testifying in favor of the bill, 7 opposed. Since they were listed in alphabetical order, I’m guessing that is an approximate guesstimate of the entire ratio, and it gives a sense of what the legislators are up against—Do they respond to the will of the voters or to the will of those testifying at the Public Hearing? 

The committee members voted 7-6 along party lines, “Ought not to Pass,” and issued a divided report which leaves the current law passed by referendum in place unless or until the bill sponsors come back to try again, perhaps with amendments, to reduce the effects of the minimum wage referendum. It looks like they are likely to do that at a future Work Session.

Some bills I’m interested in are listed as “concept drafts": When directed by the sponsor, the Revisor of Statutes shall prepare a bill or resolve in concept form. The bill or resolve shall contain only an enacting clause and a summary of the proposed legislation and shall not be fully drafted by the Revisor of Statutes. The bill or resolve prepared in this form shall be printed and referred to a committee in the same manner as other legislation and may be reported in fully drafted form by that committee in the same manner as other legislation. I interpret this as an idea for a bill rather than a fully formed bill, and it will not be fully formed unless or until it is reported out of committee as a complete bill.

One such bill is LD 1063. You can go to the bill tracking site to read the bill, and instead of pages of detail about the bill which I usually scan quickly to find the summary at the end, all you find is this:  

An Act To Protect Substance-exposed Infants

CONCEPT DRAFT SUMMARY

This bill is a concept draft pursuant to Joint Rule 208.

This bill proposes to enact measures designed to enhance the protection of substance-exposed infants, which may include prevention, intervention, identification of risk and treatment of prenatal substance exposure.

I wanted to testify at the Public Hearing of the Health and Human Services Committee on this bill, and somehow in my google searches I stumbled across enough detail to write the following testimony: I support this bill because it puts prevention and intervention with the mother at the heart of the plan with a focus on outreach, education, specific contraception and access and choice. I believe there is abundant evidence that such a plan holds the strongest promise for reducing the incidence of Substance-exposed infants. Please vote “ought to Pass” on this important bill.

The specific contraception is Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC). To find more detail about the bill for the purposes of this blog post, I reviewed the testimony of the bill’s Sponsor, Representative Scott Hamann: 

“An easy, inexpensive, effective Way to reduce the number of babies born with substance exposure is to help women struggling with substance use disorder to avoid unintended pregnancies. Among women struggling with opioid use, nearly 9 out of 10 pregnancies are unplanned. This bill aims to improve access to one of the most effective methods of contraception. Additionally, this bill supports targeted outreach and education, also in the interest of addressing the dire rate of substance-exposed infants.” “[The] revised version also requires that MaineCare rules around post-partum contraceptive services include protections against potential coercion in patients’ decisions around accessing contraceptive care. The anti-coercion protections in the bill are identical to those of the federal Title X family planning program.” “A further amendment to Section 2 of the bill . . . creates an outreach and educational program: Rather than limiting the outreach to women involved with illegal substances, the outreach should be broadened to reach women at risk of giving birth to an infant exposed to any dangerous substance, including alcohol, and those who are not actively in treatment.” “Programming must be targeted to women and adolescents who are: l. Experiencing substance use disorder; 2. Housed in a correctional setting; 3. Experiencing homelessness; and 4. Living in other circumstances that identify a need for family planning services.”

LD 912 An Act To Clarify the Scope of Practice of Certain Licensed Professionals Regarding Conversion Therapy [or so-called reparation therapy] is also a Concept Draft. This bill was not on my radar until I had an email from Rev. Carie Johnson, Pastor of the Augusta Unitarian Universalist Church I attend sometimes. She said she was going to testify in support of the bill the next day and invited people on her list to come stand behind her in support while she testified. I looked up the bill on the legislative site and found the CONCEPT DRAFT SUMMARY: This bill proposes to amend the current law to establish that practices or treatments that seek to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity for people under 18 are prohibited for certain professionals licensed under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 32 and to establish penalties for that conduct.

The bill has a bipartisan panel of cosponsors including my own Representative Trey Stewart. On the basis of what I could find at the time, I emailed Rev. Carie back and said I would be honored to stand behind her at the hearing the next day, Wednesday, February 14.

A Medical Dictionary defines Conversion Therapy as Psychiatric therapy aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation,based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder requiring therapy, (a position condemned by the American Psychiatric Association as unethical). 

We arrived at 10:00 when the hearing started to an already packed room. We first heard from the bill’s Presenter of the bill, Rep. Ryan Fecteau who said in his testimony there is indeed a difference between talk therapy that is neutral, helping someone sort out the complexities of sexual orientation and gender identity, versus talk therapy intended to change someone based on the assertion that something is wrong with them. The latter [conversion therapy] is not therapy; it’s abuse

I couldn’t find an official definition of Reparative Therapy separate from Conversion Therapy. The terms are used interchangeably in the professional literature. However Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D who testified as an expert witness in opposition to the bill said: Conversion Therapy is broad, ill-defined, there's no ethics code, no governing body, and it's practiced predominantly by unlicensed individuals. Conversion therapy in some forms may be harmful to some people. The American Psychological Association has expressed legitimate concern about some of these approaches. In reparative therapy, the client is in the driver's seat. He sets his own goals, which the therapist helps him achieve. We use established, evidence-based treatments, the same treatments found in other clinics throughout the world, to treat trauma and sexual addiction. And as those underlying issues are resolved, the sexuality begins to change on its own.

According to his testimony, Joseph Nicolosi is the son of the creator of Reparative Therapy, and his family owns the trademark rights to the term. According to another person who testified, the rights have been applied for but not yet granted. An article in the New Republic says it was Nicolosi who brought gay conversion therapy into the mainstream, popularizing it among religious communities and the American right, and turning what was once a scattered practice of abuse into a multi-million-dollar worldwide industry.

I had to leave at 3:00 PM so I didn’t hear all of the 53 testimonies. Of what I heard, virtually all of the professionals representing professional associations spoke in favor of the bill. All of the LGBTQ people I heard testified in support of the bill. One of these had been exposed to Reparation Therapy for 3 years. During this time he was traumatized by not being allowed to speak to his mother or 2 sisters because, he was told, there was too much feminine influence in his life and it needed to be reduced; his father paid a total of $30,000 to the Reparation Agency, and he is still gay.

In addition to Rev. Carie, there were other pastors who spoke in favor of the bill based on Christian values of faith in “social justice, equity, and compassion through words and actions.”

Virtually all of the testimony opposed to the bill had a Christian or family-values rationale also. Headmaster of Bangor Christian Schools stated this position clearly: The mission of Bangor Christian Schools is to assist families in educating the whole child by encouraging spiritual maturity and academic excellence in a supportive environment. Our final authority in all matters is the Word of God. Every facet of our program seeks to understand God, His creation, His purpose for humanity and to have our students accept their responsibility for each of those things. We have a school counselor on staff and we refer students as necessary to several licensed counselors that hold to a Biblical worldview consistent with our mission, vision and statement of faith.  

For treatment of minors, the bill has an exception for pastoral counselors who are not licensed to practice therapy, but the ban would apply to licensed practitioners they may refer students to.

From listening to the testimony, it is not clear how much of this therapy is practiced in Maine, but judging by testimony of some social workers and by my experience with some social workers, there are Christian therapists who are likely practicing a form of it.

 

Homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical 

Manual as a disease.  It is no longer listed as a mental health disease.  Many testimonies in favor of LD912 repeated that LGBTQ people are not suffering from a disease or disorder to be fixed or treated, though the person may need to be treated for the effects of stigma and discrimination. LGBTQ people adjust to their lives better when they accept themselves and when we accept them for who they are and how they identify themselves. They don’t need to be converted or repaired.

Perhaps that is a standard that should be applied to other diagnoses of mental illness listed in the DSM? But that idea is too big to adequately develop in this post, so I will just leave it there to think about. 

Health-care Rally inside the State House halls awaiting the Governor's arrival.

MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 6, February 9

For people new to these Observations:

You might want to scroll down to previous Blogs, and read up.

With Senator Mike Carpenter at NRCM Citizen Action Day

Legislative Blog # 6, February 9

For people new to these Observations:

You might want to scroll down to previous Blogs, and read up.

These written observations are only a fraction of what I actually observe each week at the legislature. And what I actually observe is a much smaller fraction of what goes on there each week. This gives me a greatly enhanced respect for the hard work each conscientious legislator must do and for why my legislator may not yet know enough about my issue to provide an opinion on where he or she stands. I do my best to educate myself about a bill so that I can address the pertinent questions before I contact my legislator, but I frequently fall short.

Tuesday I participated in a Citizen’s Action Day sponsored by the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) which consisted of a workshop discussing bills of environmental and energy interest followed by a trip to the State House to lobby our legislators about them. I read the summary of each bill and material provided by NRCM ahead of time. The workshop reviewed each bill. And still it was a challenge for me to remember sufficient detail to spontaneously answer legislators’ questions. I was very grateful for the information handouts NRCM provided to give to legislators.  

NRCM supports LD 1444  An act to prohibit Gross Metering, formerly titled “An Act Regarding Large-scale Community Solar Procurement” and still titled that on the main.gov web site. After getting confused in trying to explain this bill to my Representative Trey Stewart, and after further research into the formerly titled bill, into the NRCM position, and into news articles about the issue, I have to confess that I do not entirely understand this bill, so I will provide some summary and quotations that give me (and hopefully you) a sense (perhaps an illusion) that I at least understand the problem and the proposed solution.

First a definition of terms https://www.ecosoch.com/net-metering-vs-gross-metering-basics/: “Gross metering: The total energy generated by the solar rooftop plant is to be injected into the grid without allowing the generated solar energy to be consumed directly by the consumer. Net Metering: The energy generated by the solar rooftop plant is first allowed for self-consumption and the excess energy is injected to the grid.” LD 1444 attempts to ban Gross metering.

The problem started in 2017 when the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) instituted a Gross Metering Rule which required solar consumers to pay to the energy company a 3% tax on the market value of the energy they consume. 

In addition to banning Gross metering, LD 1444 also raises the cap on the number of participants allowed to participate in a community solar array from 9 to 50.  A community solar array is a sort of coop of solar consumers who individually can’t afford to install their own solar system. They pool their resources to create a community array. I don’t know why there is a cap at all on this except that utility companies lose business when they can’t charge customers for their electricity.  

I have heard about, but not yet found in writing, an argument that Transmission and Distribution companies are also threatened by solar energy consumers who don’t use the grid infrastructure the companies must build and maintain. The fear is that they will have to charge all customers higher rates to recoup their losses.

The PUC rule about Gross metering and the 3% tax to solar customers has yet to go into effect but will soon unless the legislature steps in to prohibit it.

Representative Trey Stewart thinks the tax is a bad deal, but wants to see the details of the bill to make sure rates won’t be raised for all customers before he decides how to vote.

Senator Mike Carpenter supports the bill and more solar in general.

NRCM supports LD 1510 An Act to Authorize a Bond to Fund Wastewater Infrastructure Projects ($50 million) and LD 178, An Act to Authorize a Bond to Provide Jobs, Improve Road Infrastructure and Protect Water Resources ($5 Million). LD 1510 is needed to prevent the millions of gallons of untreated storm water and sewage from spilling into and polluting Maine water ways by replacing outmoded systems with modern ones.  

LD 178 addresses the problem of nutrient pollution in Maine’s lakes by providing funds to improve camp roads and reduce the run off from them and other sources of run-off pollution. “Maine lakes generate at least $3.5 billion in economic activity and help sustain 52,000 jobs. . . . Water quality in Maine’s lakes isdeteriorating.”  These bond bills are important to the outdoor sports and recreation economy of Aroostook County.

Representative Stewart said he is strongly considering supporting LD 1510 depending on what other bonding priorities come up for his district and compete with the limited total amount of bonding money.

Senator Carpenter is very supportive of these bills and all efforts to reduce water pollution

NRCM opposes LD 1703, An Act to Create Equity for Wine and Spirits Containers.  This bill would reduce all bottle deposits and redemption value to $.05 each. NRCM opposes because the reduction would reduce incentives to redeem the containers; would impose an economic burden on redemption centers; would cause charities to lose income from bottle drives; would cause increased costs in waste management for towns and municipalities; during the label change, some consumers will only get $.05 redemption for containers they paid $.15 for; the state will have to pay $150,000 in implementation costs and will lose its annual $350,000 share of unclaimed bottle deposits.

Representative Stewart said he wants to know the reasons for LD 1703. I reported back to him supporting testimony summarized on the NRCM site:  Beverage industry representatives who testified in support of the legislation said the change would bring about “equal marketplace treatment” for spirits and wine containers. The deposit change would eliminate confusion among consumers and retailers, leave more money in customers’ pockets, and make Maine’s state beverage portfolio more competitive with neighboring New Hampshire’s. There wouldn’t be a risk of increased roadside litter, proponents said, because beverage containers currently make up only a small percentage of litter in Maine, with spirits and wine containers an even smaller subset of that litter.

Senator Carpenter is very opposed to this bottle bill.

While visiting in the State House legislative hall, my NRCM team bumped into Henry Bear, a non-voting Representative of the Maliseet people and got a chance to thank him and his people for continuous support of the environment. The non-voting status of Native American Representatives in the Maine Legislature is reprehensible.  I do not see any good reason why they should not have full voting rights. 

I have other important issues I observed in Legislative meetings this week that I would like to report on, but I suspect I have taxed followers of this blog enough for now with this one. I hope to write a second 6-week post about protecting substance exposed infants and the continuing story about minimum wage this weekend. 

Henry Bear with NRCM Activists for the Environment. 

MORE OBSERVATIONS FROM AUGUSTA

Legislative Blog # 5

For people new to these Observations:

You might want to scroll down to previous Blogs, and read up.

"In November 2016, Maine voters . . . adopted Ranked Choice Voting in the second largest referendum vote of the people in Maine's history. In October 2017, the Maine Legislature repealed Ranked Choice Voting . [. . .] Voters responded immediately by filing a People’s Veto to restore Ranked Choice Voting for primary and federal elections beginning with the June 2018 primary elections." 

[. . . .] Today, Friday, February 2nd the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting meets "for a rally and press conference at the State Capitol building as we submit signatures to Maine's Secretary of State for the second time to insist on more voice and more choice in our democracy."   

Tuesday, January 30, I attended a Public Hearing of the Taxation Committee to testify on  LD 1781 “An Act To Encourage New Major Investments in Shipbuilding Facilities and the Preservation of Jobs.” 

About 7 people spoke in favor of this bill: Legislative sponsor JenniferDeChant of Bath , several legislative cosponsors, Dana Connors from  the Maine State Chamber of Commerce (COC), General Counsel to Bath Iron Works (BIW) Jon Fitzgerald, and a union spokeswoman spoke in favor of the bill. All focused on jobs, benefits to employees and the community, and the need to be competitive with a ship builder in Mississippi. The need to be competitive got the most attention in this testimony with strong suggestions that BIW could or would go out of business if the subsidy is not granted.  

Many questions for Fitzgerald from some committee members focused on the relationship between BIW and its owner and parent multinational corporation General Dynamics (GD). Fitzgerald said he did not know how much the CEO of GD made. He said he did not know how much the CEO of BIW made. He said he didn’t know how much profit GD made. He said he did know that BIW profits are shared with GD investors, but he didn’t know how much. He declined to be specific about what the tax-relief  money would be spent for. The focus on needing to be competitive suggests the money would not be spent for greater financial benefits for workers.

The rest of the testimony was offered by 20 citizens opposed to the bill. Those opposed to the bill included at least 1 former employee of BIW who was the chief tax officer for BIW from1986-1994, and several residents of Bath.

Listing myself as from Presque Isle on the sign-up sheet for giving testimony, I got to testify first, being the furthest from away.  I confessed to the committee my sense of being a fraud because I was temporarily living in Augusta, and they allowed me to proceed anyway. There are definite advantages to confession, to being from away, and to being an old lady—listen up old folks.

I was particularly interested in this bill, it being the first I have heard here that is directly relevant to my #1 priority, income inequality and the political and social power of the richest multinational companies. This is #1 for me because I believe this power affects everything else I care about. Here is my testimony, including comments in brackets and cross-outs that I added while listening to testimony in favor.

Senator Dow, Representative Tipping, members of the Committee on Taxation: 

I am Alice Bolstridge from Presque Isle. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

[Let me first say that I greatly respect the Bath Iron Works workers--their skills, their work ethic, and their pride in their work]

[Nevertheless] I speak in opposition to LD 1781. The owner of Bath Iron Works, General Dynamics, is the 5^th largest Defense contractor in the world and within the top 100 Corporations of Forbes Fortune 500. They are already profiting from recent corporate tax cuts. They make their profits from making defense products taxpayers pay for.   A large profit margin is built into their defense contracts. And now they are asking for an additional $60 million in Maine taxpayer subsidies.

This company is among the largest corporations in the “military industrial complex” that President Eisenhower warned us about. I am nearly 80 years old, and I have watched the bitter results of Eisenhower’s warning come to pass. The more profits this complex makes, the more unstable the world becomes and the more the military industrial complex uses fear-mongering about national security and job insecurity to persuade voters and our leaders we have no choice but to help them make more profits so they can be competitive.

General Dynamics does not need this subsidy. Maine needs that $60 million to help improve our education, to help provide health care for all, to help fight the opioid epidemic, to help fix up our crumbling infrastructure, to help clean up our environment and avert a climate-change disaster.  I would gladly pay my tax dollars for these urgent needs. [to create jobs to meet these urgent needs. This bill serves greed, not need.]

Please vote “Ought not to Pass” on this bill.

I stayed until the end of the Public Hearing. Some things I learned listening to others’ testimony in opposition:

• ·        This bill is a request for only one entity in the state to get a tax break. Why should this one multi-national corporation be favored for a tax break over Maine-based business owners who keep their profits in Maine?
• ·        The work force at BIW is reduced from about 12,000 in 1986 to about 5000 now, due primarily to automation. That trend will continue. $60 million will not go to increase the number of workers.
• ·        BIW has contributed to the degradation of the Kennebec River.
• ·        The use of Sonar in construction and deployment of BIW ships causes irreversible neurological damage to any life that comes in contact with it.
• ·        Federal contracts include federal payment (from taxpayer dollars) of all expenses including a hefty profit margin for GD and the items BIW lists as things it needs money for to be competitive: worker training, salaries, and benefits; increasing costs of materials.
• ·        BIW has contracts extending at least 10 years into the future. There is no emergency, no threat of imminent closure of BIW.
• ·        “The annual income of GD in 2016 was roughly four times this state’s total annual budget.”
• ·        GD is so rich they bought $9.6 billion dollars of their own stock to drive up stock prices.
• ·        GD paid its CEO $21 million dollars in 2017
• ·        At least 8 citizens from Bath testified against the bill. Bath citizens are advocating that Bath Iron Works convert to production of products that benefit the economy and the environment: “wind generators instead of warships; solar panels vs stealth destroyers; and high speed trains.”
• ·        The use of Sonar in construction and deployment of BIW ships causes irreversible neurological damage to any life that comes in contact with it.
• ·        “A study by the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that every billion dollars invested in the military creates 2.38 times more jobs when invested in education, 1.54 times more jobs when invested in healthcare, and 1.5 times more jobs when invested in clean energy”

This effort by Bath Iron Works and General Dynamics touches some of my most sensitive concerns: the widening income inequality between the richest and the rest of us; the increasing degradation of the planet and its effects on all life; the willingness of our Maine and US governments to sacrifice basic needs of health care, infrastructure, and education for the sake of more corporate welfare to the richest.