2024 Conference Committee Bills

In Massachusetts, a conference committee is a special type committee formed to reconcile differences between versions of the same bills passed by the House and Senate. A conference committee consists of three members from each chamber, often including the bill’s sponsors and members of the majority and minority leadership.

Once the committee reaches an agreement, it issues a conference committee report, which includes the final version of the bill. This report is then submitted to both the House and the Senate for approval. If either chamber rejects the report, the committee reconvenes to address the concerns or the bill may fail.

If both chambers approve the conference committee report, the bill moves forward to the governor for signature. If the governor signs the bill, it becomes law. If the governor vetoes the bill, the legislature can attempt to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.

As of June 2024, there are five bills in conference committees, including the FY25 budget. They deal with infrastructure investments, joint rules for the 2023–2024 legislative session, gun reform, and salary wage transparency.

The budget is arguably the most important bill in conference that must pass.

• The FY25 Budget is due to be signed by the Governor on June 30, 2024, though budgets have been historically late.

• The Senate budget prioritizes free community college for all, as well as making Regional Transit Authorities free.

• The House budget prioritizes the use of taxes from online lottery sales to fund the Commonwealth Care for Children grants (C3).

Every year lawmakers produce a budget for the upcoming fiscal year which funds everything the state does. The House came up with a $57.97 billion budget and the Senate submitted a $57.93 billion budget. The main differences between the two? Funding for education, MassHealth, road infrastructure, and unrestricted general aid for municipalities. Specifically, Senate leadership is steadfast in their want for free community college and free fares for RTAs, leading them to not pour money into transit like the House proposes. The most pressing difference for House leaders is whether or not the state will allow online lottery playing, which would be taxed to fund early education initiatives.

A bill is in conference with lawmakers debating on how to use excess revenue to receive federal funding.

• The federal government will match funds that the state sends to support Massachusetts infrastructure improvements.

• The Senate wants to change the “normal” formula for how much the state puts up to receive federal funding.

• The House wants to keep the formula as is, where almost all excess revenue is deposited into the rainy day fund

The purpose of An Act to Provide for competitiveness and infrastructure investment in Massachusetts (HB4446/SB2554) is to attract federal dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Both the House bill and Senate bill at their cores propose using interest from the state’s Stabilization Fund (a.k.a. rainy day fund) to compete for federal funding for infrastructure projects.

The debate lies in how much excess capital gains tax will go into the pot. The Senate version calls for this revenue to go towards pensions and other retirement benefits for state employees whereas the House’s version would mandate 90% of excess gains be deposited into the Stabilization Fund. The Senate wants to comprehensively change the formula to how capital gains taxes are used whereas the House does not.

Projects from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law would go towards climate resiliency initiatives, transportation, and public safety.

Lawmakers are still in disagreement on what the official joint rules for the 2023–2024 legislative session will be.

• It’s been 18 months since the 2022–2023 Legislative Session began, but legislators are still in disagreement on how joint committees will operate.

• The Senate wants committee votes by members to be public, however the House is pushing back.

Massachusetts legislators are close on passing a wide-sweeping gun control law.

• Gun rights advocates continue to push back against HB4139/SB2584, a rewrite of firearm laws in the state.

• The bill seeks to crack down on the sale and possession of illegal firearms with a particular emphasis on so-called “ghost-guns.”

• The House bill is much more comprehensive whereas the Senate takes a much narrower approach.

The bill causing the most controversy this session — HB4139/SB2584 which would comprehensively change almost all aspects of owning a firearm in Massachusetts. Both versions of the bills address the current untraceability of ghost-guns, which are unserialized and unregistered with law enforcement and mainly target the banning of gun-kits and the 3D printing of firearms without authorization to do so. The bills are also harmonious when it comes to the banning of glock switches or trigger activators which are attachments to make a gun fire rapidly.

The House bill would prohibit carrying a firearm while intoxicated, in a school, polling place, or government building, while the Senate only requires guns to not be held when in a government building. Additionally, the Senate’s “SAFER” Act would allow municipalities to opt out of this provision.

In terms of what is banned and what’s not, the House proposes there be no more purchases of AR-15s in the Commonwealth as well as mandating a gun owner to be trained before purchasing. The Senate version does not require such a ban, but instead expresses that there be no marketing of guns geared towards minors.

The House bill states that the current Red-Flag Law be updated so school administrators and employers can alert law enforcement along with the already allowed family members, medical providers, and social workers.

Lawmakers have until the end of the session (July 31st) to get it on Governor Healey’s desk.

Legislators are hashing out whether employers should be required to publicize pay ranges for positions.

• The bill would mandate that wage ranges be disclosed proactively in the job advertisement, not further along in the application process.

• Lawmakers intend for the bill to close wage gaps and increase hiring.

• Pushback comes from business owners who argue wage transparency creates an awkward work environment.

The House’s version of the bill, HB4109 requires employers with 25 employees or more to reveal the pay range for a job in postings, advertisements, and upon request by an applicant or current employee. Employers would also be required to disclose the pay range for promotions or transfers when offering new positions to employees. There are specified fee-based penalties for employers who fail to comply with these requirements. Additionally, the Attorney General is tasked with enforcing this mandate and running a public awareness campaign to educate employers about the new policy.

The Senate bill, SB2484, only differs in that it does not exempt governments from disclosing pay ranges while the House does. Finally, the Senate version would require the Attorney General to create a public awareness campaign 6 months after the law’s effective date whereas the House would allow for 1 year to pass.

In a democrat-heavy legislature, bills that make it to conference committees aren’t typically too different in subject matter, but rather deadlines or operational procedures cause sticking points.

In term of schedule, the general practice is to get all controversial bills out of conference before the beginning of August. Therefore, legislators can focus on campaigning and not juggle with serious legislation at the same time. Any of the more “mundane” bills will expire at the end of the 2023–2024 legislative cycle in December.

To stay connected to updates on these bills and more, subscribe to MassTrac, and start your free trial today.