Amid the worst inflation in 40 years, New Yorkers are forced to tighten their belts to manage persistent, skyrocketing prices. The cost of living is rising, and household budgets are feeling the pinch. The price of gasoline continues to increase, with the U.S. average expected to reach $4 per gallon. Home-heating costs have soared with utility bills doubling or even tripling over the last month. 

To be sure, the factors driving national inflation and oil prices are based on world events, global markets, and other outside factors. But the future of New York’s energy costs must be tracked closely. What New York consumers are forced to change and how much they’ll pay will be determined in large part by recent legislative action in Albany. 

In 2019, Democrats in the state legislature passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The legislation set a lofty (some might say unrealistic) goal for New York state to reach zero-emission power generation by 2050. The CLCPA established the Climate Action Council, a panel tasked with developing a plan on how to get there. That plan was released in December and is now in the public-comment period through April 30, 2022. You can view and comment on the plan at: https://climate.ny.gov/Our-Climate-Act/Draft-Scoping-Plan.

This endeavor will require hundreds of billions of dollars and will completely overhaul the state’s energy sector. Gas-powered vehicles would be gone. Homes and buildings heated by natural gas would be required to convert to electricity. Our entire energy system would be dependent on green technologies whose reliability is still uncertain, while proven options like natural gas would cease to exist in New York. The final price tag and exact cost increases on consumers are still unknown. But we do know the actual impact any of these measures will  at best have is a minimal impact on global climate change. 

Assembly Republicans have insisted that the CLCPA necessitates a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Legislation — specifically A.7524A, sponsored by Assemblyman Phil Palmesano (R,C,I-Corning) — has been introduced that would require the state to undertake an independent review by a third-party in order to assess the costs and effectiveness of implementing the CLCPA’s initiatives. 

We all want clean air, water, and a healthy planet. Environmental goals are worth pursuing. But as usual, progressive Democrats expect that their green agenda comes with blank check and no questions asked. It is irresponsible to start an initiative of this size and magnitude without considering the real-world impacts and costs on the people of this state. 

With so much happening in today’s world, it’s easy to overlook state regulations with long-term benchmarks. But the harsh realities we’re seeing in today’s energy sector should provide a cautionary tale. Now is the time for New Yorkers to take a long look at what the future holds and what the Climate Action Council recommends. I encourage everyone to make their voices heard.        

William (Will) A. Barclay, Republican, is the New York Assembly minority leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. 

Reforming the rules by which the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate operate isn’t usually the stuff of breathless headlines. But the high-stakes maneuvering over the Senate’s filibuster rules — part of Democrats’ efforts to enact voting-rights changes — has captured a lot of attention recently. The reason is plain: The filibuster rules may be arcane, but they have real-world consequences for what voting will look like in the future.

How Congress operates always has an impact on Americans’ lives. Which laws get passed, which get blocked, how they get shaped and amended — it often comes down to the rules governing Capitol Hill. This is why reforms that would make Congress work better are worth Americans’ attention.

There is often a problem with what commentators say or write about the subject, though. They tend to jump into the middle by talking about which specific reforms they’d like to see. Yet there’s a basic question to start with: What do you want Congress as an institution to do? In other words, which democratic values should it embody?

This is not easy to answer. You’ll often hear that Congress should allow members to express their will on public policy that solves problems in American society. But what does this mean? Surely, the majority should be able to enact its priorities — but should it be at the expense of riding roughshod over the concerns of the minority? And Congress needs to search for, address, and decide the problems that Americans want solved.

There are plenty of people who these days call Congress a legislative wasteland. I think that’s a bit strong, though it’s fair to say it’s not working very well right now. There’s no doubt the U.S. is stronger when Capitol Hill functions effectively.

To some extent, members have recognized this. Back in 2019, the House created the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, with an equal number of members of both parties. In the time since then, it has made recommendations on everything from making Congress more accessible to people with disabilities to finding better ways to retain staff to reforming the budget process. But the committee will fold at the end of this year.

Instead, I favor a permanent committee on reform in Congress, one that is able, year after year, to work to improve the operations of Congress. It should tackle problems incrementally, rather than trying to create a big reform package that generates a lot of heat and conflict and — if the past is any guide — doesn’t get very far. Congress needs to take how it operates seriously, but also recognize the political reality that small changes are easier to swallow than dramatic ones.

There are any number of issues a committee like this could address. One key focus would be the budget process. In the end, congressional power lies in its imprint on the federal budget, and at the moment rank-and-file members have fewer opportunities than they once did to affect the budget.

In part, that’s because they have fewer opportunities than in the past to impact legislation in general. A standing reform committee could certainly improve Congress’s democratic functioning by finding ways to restore elements of what’s known as the “regular order” — the hearings, investigations, vigorous amendment process, debate, and room for compromise that used to mark its process.

Similarly, I would argue that it’s important for members of Congress to meet regularly with the president. Communications between the two branches are often strained, but the truth is, it should not be a big deal for legislators to go meet with the president or members of the White House staff. There is no reason meetings can’t become a regular, normal part of the governing process.

I don’t mean to suggest by any of this that congressional reform is the be-all and end-all of improving Capitol Hill’s effectiveness. The truth is, when a country is deeply divided — as we are now — those divisions will show up in Congress and make it more difficult to legislate. But a Congress functioning at the top of its game is better equipped to deal with division and disagreement, and to find ways to address the real needs of the country.                 

Lee Hamilton, 90, is a senior advisor ​for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.