Latest news with #CynthiaCreem
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top Dems still at odds over major rules changes
BOSTON (SHNS) – Four and a half months into the lawmaking term, House and Senate Democrats still do not agree on their most significant proposed transparency and process reforms — a fact that took center stage Thursday when a question-and-answer session with press morphed into a miniature debate between legislative negotiators. The conference committee tasked with ironing out differences between the House and Senate joint rules proposals (S 18 / H 2026) met Thursday for the first time in nearly two months. Members voiced optimism about their progress but said many of the biggest ideas in play, like how to alter the traditional bill-reporting deadline, remain unresolved. They kept the nearly 30-minute meeting open to the press and public for the second straight time, a departure from the all-private deliberations most conference committees have employed in recent years. And when the half-dozen reporters in attendance approached lead negotiators Sen. Cynthia Creem and Rep. Michael Moran afterward, the complexity of the dispute became clearer. Over a 15-minute press availability, the duo — each of whom is majority leader of their chamber — regularly disagreed with what the other said, attributed unusual lawmaking actions to verbal agreements between legislators, or suggested in real time they would 'soften' their position. The exchange revealed ongoing House-Senate tension over lawmaker attendance at committee hearings, and indicated that negotiators remain far apart on some process reforms. Just before diving into his concerns with a senator testifying on a bill remotely, Moran said, 'We may as well rip the Band-Aid off here.' 'To me, what I think is important are the matters of transparency, and we can't agree on them,' Creem told reporters while standing next to Moran. 'How much notice do we give out on a conference committee [report]? How much time do we [allow] for ending the session? When do these things happen? These were important things that I think my constituents wanted.' Beacon Hill has seen a flurry of joint committee hearings recently as panels begin to hear, and in some cases advance legislation with the term more than one-sixth complete already. The panels are supposed to be operating under 2019 guidelines until House and Senate negotiators reach an agreement on a new joint rules reform package. But two committee chairs this week muddied the waters as they operated under rules embraced by their respective branches, yet not finalized by the full Legislature. Rep. Tackey Chan, who chaired a Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure hearing Monday, barred committee member Sen. Jake Oliveira from testifying virtually on his bill. The Quincy Democrat cited a new House rule stating members of a particular committee 'cannot participate remotely and must be physically present in the hearing room' where that committee is meeting. Oliveira, a Ludlow Democrat, said he had spent the morning meeting with early educators in his western Massachusetts district while also attempting to join the hearing remotely. 'Well, the theatrics of that hearing were pretty interesting,' Moran said. 'And I think it does touch on one of the areas that we're having a little challenge with. And I don't think it's any secret that the House has a couple of things that they'd like to see, one of them being no remote participation.' Creem, echoing a talking point from Senate President Karen Spilka, said the temporary rules that are in effect make no mention of preventing lawmakers from testifying remotely. Moran, pressed whether Chan had acted improperly at the hearing, said, 'He had the gavel.' 'He was the one presiding, and he was executing the rules that were given to him by the House,' Moran said. Creem chimed in, 'House rules.' 'Because he had the chairmanship, he was going by the House rules,' Moran continued. 'I do have a little bit of an issue with the idea that he wasn't allowed to testify.' The Boston Democrat insisted Oliveira was permitted to testify, albeit through written comments. Moran acknowledged the differing responsibilities and schedules between senators and representatives. Senators, for example, have larger districts, he said. Moran hinted the House will 'soften' its position on remote participation, and he later clarified the House is willing to allow remote testimony from committee members. But Creem questioned the level and duration of attendance that the House wants to see from lawmakers. 'Obviously, I don't even know what attendance means,' Creem said. 'Does it mean five minutes? Ten minutes? Do you come in the beginning? Do you come in the end?' Beyond Monday's spat, Moran said the larger issue revolves around participation on joint committees. He cited the Joint Revenue Committee hearing Tuesday, in which he said no Senate members showed up in person, including co-chair Sen. Jamie Eldridge. 'I don't know how you can have a deliberative process where people are having dialogue and have no one show up to a hearing to hear anybody speak. That's a problem for us,' Moran said. 'We're trying to be respectful, we're trying to work through that problem, we feel we need some dialogue from that side. Maybe some of the reasons that bills are not going through conference quickly enough is because those discussions are not happening at the hearing level.' Creem dismissed attendance as a major sticking point, though she suggested a better scheduling system to avoid overlapping committee hearings. The Newton Democrat recalled one day when she had four committee hearings on her schedule. She asked whether she satisfied attendance expectations by popping in for five minutes to the hearings. 'If the House wants attendance, then let's get all the dates scheduled when we have the bills for two years. And then, you know, you're on your own,' Creem said. 'There's no reason to this. I don't know whether it's a grudge or what it is. I'm unaware of why that is important.' Another unusual development this week came when senators on the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity voted to advance a quintet of data privacy bills without any participation from the representatives who outnumber them on the panel. Those bills went to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the final stop before they can emerge for a vote in the full Senate. Both branches supported reforms that would bifurcate committee votes, empowering only senators to vote on Senate bills and only representatives to vote on House bills, but the conference committee still has not finished its work on the joint rules package that would put that change in effect. Creem said Thursday that the Cybersecurity Committee's Senate chair, Michael Moore of Millbury, had an 'agreement' with co-chair Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield that senators would act on the bills they wanted to advance. 'Senator Moore would not have polled that bill out unless his co-chair agreed to it,' Creem said. 'So I want to differentiate between that and what happened [with Oliveira]. There was a meeting of the minds between the two committee chairs, and they were in agreement to do that.' A reporter asked if Moran and Creem think, absent a final joint rules package, individual committee chairs using their own interpretations or reaching verbal agreements to lay out an untraditional process is a good way for lawmaking to unfold. 'I think you know the answer to that,' Moran replied. 'I think it would be better to have predictability,' Creem added. Moran said conference committee members have come to agreement on two dozen provisions that were still unresolved at their first meeting, leaving close to 30 other areas with remaining disagreement. He added there are 'a lot of areas where I think we are very close.' It's not clear when the conference committee will hold its third meeting. Moran said it will likely be open to the public. WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
State ponders role in getting people to drive less
BOSTON (SHNS) – The idea of aligning the state's transportation plans with its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including by making a specific plan to decrease the amount Bay Staters drive, was met Wednesday with skepticism from a key senator who worried it might actually complicate matters and be especially burdensome for rural parts of Massachusetts. 'Its purpose is to ensure that our multi-million dollar transportation plans, broadly speaking, get us where we need to go on climate change and reducing vehicle miles. Colorado and Minnesota have adopted similar requirements, which have successfully reoriented their transportation plans toward a responsible balance of investment in highway, public transit and active transportation projects,' Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem said of her legislation. 'We could do the same thing here together.' The Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee on Wednesday heard the bill (S 2246) Creem filed to require the Department of Transportation to set goals for reducing the number of statewide driving miles, which would then be part of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs' consideration of sector-specific emission limits. The legislation would also stand up an interagency coordinating council to come up with 'a whole-of-government plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase access to transportation options other than personal vehicles,' according to Creem's summary. Transportation is the sector that accounts for the greatest share of Massachusetts' greenhouse gas emissions, and Creem said the state's strategy for reducing those emissions 'has largely, although not exclusively, focused on electric vehicles.' Supporters said the environmental benefits of improved fuel economy and electric vehicle adoptions have largely been offset by a mostly steady rise in vehicle miles traveled; even though cars pollute less per mile, Americans are driving more miles than in previous decades. Creem said electric vehicles 'are certainly a major piece of the puzzle,' but cautioned against over-reliance on any single decarbonization strategy for the transportation sector. 'With the Trump administration rolling back vehicle emission standards and withholding funds from EV charging programs, and with congressional Republicans looking to repeal EV tax credits and derail state-level EV rules, now is the time to pursue new strategies, additional strategies, for reducing transportation emissions,' the Senate majority leader said. Two weeks ago, TUE Committee House Chair Rep. Mark Cusack said policymakers are reevaluating all of Massachusetts' climate and emissions mandates, plans and goals in light of changes in federal energy policy. Massachusetts state government has committed to reducing carbon emissions by at least 50% compared to 1990 baselines by 2030, by at least 75% by 2040 and by at least 85% by 2050, with tag-along policies to get the state to net-zero emissions by the middle of the century. The state also has numerous other mandates on the books, including around things like electric vehicles, and its long-range climate and energy plans acknowledge the need to reduce commuter vehicle miles driven. Sen. Michael Barrett, the Senate co-chair of the TUE Committee, raised with supporters of Creem's bill the question of 'whether we're layering too many slightly disparate initiatives, one on top of another, in a way that is, in fact, going to complicate rather than clarify steps that need to be taken.' Barrett pointed to transportation sector emission sublimits that are supposed to ratchet down over the coming decade and requirements for the MBTA to transition its bus fleet to be zero-emitting as examples that 'we do have a lot of provisions right now, enacted in either 2021-2022 or 2024, that correlate transportation spending and climate goals.' The Lexington Democrat also noted what he called 'an unintended and subtle bias against rural Massachusetts,' where transit options are far more limited and people often live further from their workplaces. 'I understand that one can easily imagine that EVs, over time, will reduce the number of polluting vehicle miles traveled. But why we would want to start to pressure Massachusetts to reduce all miles traveled, polluting and non-polluting alike, does raise the question of what someone is to do in a place where one has to travel a long distance to a construction job or to any other source of employment,' Barrett said. The senator added later, 'One of the questions I'm going to carry with me away from today's hearing is whether we really want to focus on reducing vehicle miles traveled, or whether that's too crude and somewhat off the point, and whether instead we want to reduce internal combustion engine vehicle miles traveled.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
