Dear Neighbors,
I'll write soon about some of our successful priorities in the Senate budget. Today I want to draw your attention to a few times in the four days of the budget process when debate was particularly interesting. I feel very fortunate to serve with such smart and passionate colleagues, and thought you might like to hear some of our conversation.
IN-STATE TUITION FOR STUDENTS WITHOUT DOCUMENTS
The budget proposed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee contained few policy items. I was excited that it did contain a provision extending in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrant students who graduate from high schools here. All students, regardless of immigration status, would be eligible for in-state tuition as long as they attend a Massachusetts high school for at least three years and graduate or earn a GED here.
Our most spirited debate was on a Republican amendment to strike that plan.
Many of us, including former state representative Denise Provost, have pushed for in-state tuition bills for many years, but it's faced significant opposition. It's never gotten to the floor since 2006 when the House in 2006 rejected an in-state tuition bill on a 57-97 vote. In 2004 Gov. Romney vetoed budget language with the plan. Now 23 states offer in-state tuition to undocumented students.
The debate is worth watching, because so many senators gave passionate speeches in opposition, including two senators who had previously opposed in-state tuition. The debate starts 35 minutes into this video.
[For these videos of Senate debate, scroll down to the webcast with an arrow instead of a camera; click on it and scroll down again]
Senator Fattman starts by arguing against in-state tuition; Senators Crighton, Payano, Miranda, Comerford, Edwards, Keenan and Pacheco speak in favor of it and against the amendment. Senators Keenan and Pacheco opposed in-state tuition in previous years.
The debate continues here with Senators DiDomenico and Lewis. Then Sen. Pat O'Connor, one of three Republican senators, explains he why he supports in-state tuition but wants a complete process.
Here's a press report on the debate.
WHAT MAKES MASSACHUSETTS COMPETITIVE?
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr withdrew his amendment proposing a study of what makes Massachusetts competitive, but presented a series of visual aids about population and budget trends, which seemed to be setting the stage for our debate on taxes in two weeks. I decided to challenge some of his points, and fortunately had a few graphs on hand, thanks to the work I'd done for previous newsletters. (I really like researching and writing the newsletters: it helps me think, and this time particularly to prepare for debate.) Senators Nick Collins, Becca Rausch, Julian Cyr and Ryan Fattman then joined in what was an unexpected debate. You can watch it at minute 28 here. The Senate will debate tax reductions on June 15, and this was a preview.
Here's a press report on the discussion.
FARE FREE MBTA BUS PILOTS
I continue to believe we need to explore the possibility of fare free bus routes. As I wrote in a newsletter last year, pilots in Boston and in several Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) have found that making a route fare-free increases ridership, thereby reducing traffic. It makes bus service faster and more reliable by reducing "dwell time" while fares are collected. The net loss of revenue is small because most of the revenue from fares is spent collecting them. And bus riders are disproportionately low income and people of color.
The budget included funds for continued fare-free pilots in RTAs. I offered an amendment to offer them on the T. This would be important because, while Boston can create fare free routes in the city, most bus routes cross city boundaries and are more complex to institute. Cambridge and Somerville are exploring the possibilities. Some cities, like Everett and Chelsea, don't have any subway or commuter rail, rely on bus service, and can't afford to contribute to pilots.
Knowing that my amendment wouldn't be successful, I withdrew it but wanted to use the opportunity to build support for the future. I was very happy to have Senators Lydia Edwards, Jamie Eldridge, John Keenan, Jason Lewis, Liz Miranda, and Becca Rausch as cosponsors. My speech is at 1:49:00 here; I was very happy that Senators Edwards and Miranda both spoke in favor of this policy. (Sen. Edwards followed me; Sen. Miranda is at 2:16:00.)
Here's a report on the debate.
WHAT'S NEXT?
Both House and Senate budget are based on revenue projections that assume $575 million in tax reductions for this year. Both contain important large expenditures, and not all can survive the conference committee, where three members from each house reconcile the two budgets. Big and controversial policy changes include the House plan for an online lottery, and the Senate's in-state tuition plan. Will both, one, or neither survive? What will happen when the Senate votes on our tax reduction plan? And what will happen when the two tax plans are reconciled? Stay tuned!
And stay in touch,
Pat Jehlen