DeLeo said he understand the concerns of gambling opponents, but said he is as concerned when he walks into union halls and sees “30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent of those people unemployed.”
File photo / Associated PressMassachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo is seen during a press conference at the Statehouse in Boston in April.
By MATT MURPHY
BOSTON - As the House launched into its latest expanded gambling debate Wednesday afternoon, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo viewed the creation of casinos in Massachusetts as the best opportunity the state has to create 15,000 new jobs and bring additional revenue to the state.
“The biggest thing on people’s minds right now is employment and I don’t know of any better place, or any other way, we can talk about creating a minimum of 15,000 jobs as we’re doing with this legislation. That’s what this legislation is all about,” DeLeo said, after huddling for over an hour with fellow Democrats behind closed doors to discuss the legislation.
DeLeo, for whom expanded gambling has been a top priority since he ascended to the speakership in 2009, said he understood the concerns of gambling opponents, but said he is as concerned when he walks into union halls and sees “30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent of those people unemployed.”
“This is a House that’s concerned about jobs, and I think of all the issues that are going to be before the House that is the issue that is overriding with this membership, that they feel they have to do something for their constituents and the economy of the state, so I feel pretty good about it,” said DeLeo, who appears to have resolved his dispute with Gov. Deval L. Patrick over racetrack slots that led to the demise of gambling legislation more than a year ago.
Critics of expanded gambling fear casinos will suck business away from other sectors and, noting the state’s falling jobless rate, have instead promoted efforts to grow other parts of the state’s economy.
The House at about 1:30 p.m. began debate on legislation that would license up to three regional, resort-style casinos and one competitively bid slot parlor that advocates estimate could return up to $300 million a year in annual taxes on gross gambling revenues.
Rep. Joseph F. Wagner, a Democrat from Chicopee, the co-chairman of Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committees, said Tuesday that it was possible that the House could wrap up debate within a day, but lawmakers are prepared for the debate to carry over until Thursday.
Neither Wagner nor DeLeo would take a position Tuesday on a Republican-sponsored amendment that would force casino operators to use the federal eVerify system to check the immigration status of prospective employees.
Wagner also said it was a possibility that amendments could be bundled into consolidated amendments on the floor to expedite the process. Consolidating amendments behind closed doors has been criticized as secretive, while supporters of the process say it enables the House to more efficiently deal with large numbers of amendments.
As Democrats held their closed-door caucus Tuesday to discuss the bill and potential amendments, a coalition of gambling opponents gathered outside the State House to voice their distaste for bill, bemoaning the gambling addiction, substance abuse and crime often associated with expanded gaming.
DeLeo also rebutted criticism that the gambling bill has been largely hatched behind closed doors among top Democratic leaders without allowing public input. “Each and every person, I presume out there if they’re from Massachusetts, will have a state representative who will be taking part in the debate tomorrow,” he said.
Opponents have also called for an updated cost-benefit analysis, suggesting that revenue and job estimates have been overstated by gambling proponents. DeLeo, however, said the estimates that were updated last year, in his opinion, are conservative.
“I, for one, have not seen a whole lot of the casinos in Connecticut or wherever they may be closing down right now. I think actually when we talk about a $300 million possibility into the state coffers I think it’s actually on the low side, but time will tell,” DeLeo said.
The Speaker said he also spoke last week with the House speaker in Rhode Island, where lawmakers have approved a 2012 ballot referendum to add table games at Twin River Gambling Casino, and described his counterpart as “very concerned about what we’re about to do here in Massachusetts and his state sort of being a little bit behind in the issue.”
Democrats in the House described the conversation during the caucus as heavily focused on trying to understand the Indian gaming provisions in the bill, as well as how eventual revenues from casinos and slots will be spent.
As drafted, the bill would give Native American tribes in southeastern Massachusetts until July 31, 2012 to purchase land and negotiate a revenue-sharing compact with Gov. Deval Patrick. That compact also would have to be approved by the Legislature.
Should the July 31 deadline pass without a compact, a newly created state Gaming Commission would be authorized to consider proposals for a casino from commercial developers in the southeast region - which includes Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable and Dukes counties - as long as the commission doesn't anticipate the tribe taking land into federal trust by Congress.
Several amendments have been filed by lawmakers related to Native American gaming, including one by Rep. Demetrius Atsalis, a Democrat from Barnstable, that would require a court, and not the Gaming Commission, to rule that a tribe was entitled to land in trust.
Another amendment filed by Rep. Antonio Cabral, a Democrat from New Bedford, would extend the deadline to a tribe to put together an application by three months to Oct. 1.
House leaders described the debate in caucus over Indian gaming as one more of interest rather than opposition as members tried to gain a better understanding of the provisions of the bill.
“We believe it’s in the best interest of the commonwealth given what’s happening in Washington that we be well positioned going forward as we embark on legalizing gaming that we are making certain that we’re putting the Commonwealth in a position, both from a legal perspective and from a financial perspective, that we can work out a compact that is mutually agreeable both to the Commonwealth and a Native American tribe,” House Ways and Means Chairman Brian Dempsey said.
Asked why the House bill – which requires an $85 million upfront casino licensing fee and taxes gaming revenue at 25 percent – fell short of the $200 million application fee and 27 percent tax structure proposed by Gov. Deval L. Patrick four years ago, Wagner credited the struggling economy.
“Market conditions are very different and you can build something for less in a more difficult economy than you can in an economy that’s humming and people sharpen their pencils in a difficult economy,” said Wagner, noting the $85 million license fee is a “floor” that could climb as applicants compete for the three casino licenses.