03/31/2014 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB47 | |
| HB284 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 47 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2014
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Donald Olson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 47(JUD)
"An Act requiring a party seeking a restraining order,
preliminary injunction, or order vacating or staying the
operation of certain permits affecting an industrial operation
to give security in the amount the court considers proper for
costs incurred and damages suffered if the industrial operation
is wrongfully enjoined or restrained."
- MOVED CSHB 47(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 284
"An Act relating to an interstate compact on a balanced federal
budget."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE: INJUNCTION SECURITY: INDUSTRIAL OPERATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FEIGE, CHENAULT
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) JUD
01/30/13 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/30/13 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/13 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/10/14 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/10/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/14 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/14/14 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/14/14 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/19/14 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/19/14 (H) Moved CSHB 47(JUD) Out of Committee
02/19/14 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/21/14 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 4DP 2NR
02/21/14 (H) DP: MILLETT, LEDOUX, LYNN, KELLER
02/21/14 (H) NR: FOSTER, GRUENBERG
03/12/14 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/12/14 (H) VERSION: CSHB 47(JUD)
03/14/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/14 (S) JUD
03/24/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/24/14 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/14 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/14 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: HB 284
SHORT TITLE: COMPACT FOR A BALANCED BUDGET
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
01/29/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/14 (H) STA, JUD
02/13/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/13/14 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/13/14 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/14 (H) STA RPT 6DP 1NR
02/14/14 (H) DP: MILLETT, GATTIS, KELLER, ISAACSON,
HUGHES, LYNN
02/14/14 (H) NR: KREISS-TOMKINS
02/21/14 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/21/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/14 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/14 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/14 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/03/14 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/03/14 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/03/14 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/05/14 (H) JUD RPT 3DP 1DNP 3NR
03/05/14 (H) DP: MILLETT, LYNN, KELLER
03/05/14 (H) DNP: GRUENBERG
03/05/14 (H) NR: LEDOUX, PRUITT, FOSTER
03/19/14 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/19/14 (H) VERSION: HB 284
03/21/14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/14 (S) JUD
03/27/14 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/27/14 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/31/14 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA HAY, Staff
Representative Eric Feige
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information related to HB 47 on
behalf of the sponsor.
RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Environmental Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the reasons for the exemptions to
the primacy program extended in HB 47.
JOHN HUTCHINS, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Oil, Gas, and Mining Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 47.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
Legislative and Governmental Affairs
Teamsters Local 959
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 47.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 284.
NICK DRANIAS, Constitutional Policy Director
Goldwater Institute
Phoenix, Arizona
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 284.
CHIP DEMOSS, President
Compact for America
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 284.
DAVID BOYLE
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 284.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:57 PM
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Olson, McGuire, Dyson, and Chair Coghill.
Senator Wielechowski arrived soon thereafter.
HB 47-INJUNCTION SECURITY: INDUSTRIAL OPERATION
1:35:51 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of HB 47. "An Act
requiring a party seeking a restraining order, preliminary
injunction, or order vacating or staying the operation of
certain permits affecting an industrial operation to give
security in the amount the court considers proper for costs
incurred and damages suffered if the industrial operation is
wrongfully enjoined or restrained." [This was the third hearing
and [CSHB 47(JUD) was before the committee.]
LINDA HAY, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature Juneau, Alaska, introduced herself.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ruth Hamilton Heese to again provide
testimony on HB 47 because the previous teleconference
connection was very garbled.
1:37:11 PM
RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Environmental Section, Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska,
restated the reasons for the exemptions for the primacy programs
that were approved by EPA or the Department of Interior for the
Clean Water Act regulation, Clean Air Act regulation and the
coal program that the state administers under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act. State agencies were concerned that
the injunction provisions anticipated in the original language
of HB 47 may be viewed by federal agencies as chilling third
parties' access to the courts in order to challenge a primacy
permit that the state issues. This opened the possibility that
the federal agencies would withdraw approval of the federal
permitting programs over which the state has primacy. The new
language set out in subsection (d) of CSHB 47 address the
initial concerns by exempting the state's primacy programs from
application in the bill.
CHAIR COGHILL asked what process the law would follow if a
public interest litigant filed suit under this provision.
MS. HAMILTON HESSE deferred to John Hutchison.
1:41:03 PM
JOHN HUTCHINS, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Oil,
Gas, and Mining Section, Department of Law, advised that it
would be identical to the current process under [Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65].
CHAIR COGHILL asked how the bond would be apportioned for a
third party who is largely backed by somebody versus somebody
who has a neighborhood problem.
MR. HUTCHINS explained that a hearing would be held to determine
whether a preliminary injunction should issue. Once the judge
has determined that the injunction should issue and that the
injury is irreparable, the judge would consider the usual
factors under Rule 65. With passage of HB 47, the judge would
also consider the wages and benefits for employees or payments
that contractors and subcontractors may have suffered and set
the appropriate bond.
1:42:56 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized his understanding.
MR. HUTCHISON clarified that it would have to be an injury that
can't be compensated by a monetary award if the party prevails.
It would have to be an injury that is irreparable.
CHAIR COGHILL opened public testimony.
1:44:22 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Legislative and Governmental
Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, Anchorage, Alaska, stated support
for HB 47. She disagreed with the allegation that the bill does
nothing but stop the permitting process. She cited an instance
when a union member working on a federal project was laid off
for 2-3 weeks when an injunction was filed after the permitting
process was complete and the project was ready to go forward.
She said she found no similar examples under the state law but
the concern is that if there is a wrongful enjoinment, the
entity who files the lawsuit needs to have some "skin in the
game" because workers are impacted. She stressed that once a
contractor has been awarded a contract and has walked through
all the appropriate steps, it is only fair to allow the
construction to move forward without undue interference.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Hay if she wanted to supplement the
record.
MS. HAY said she didn't have anything to add.
CHAIR COGHILL found no further questions and solicited a motion.
1:48:34 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to report CS for HB 47 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
1:49:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected voicing concern that people whose
property is threatened will be financially foreclosed from
exercising their constitutional rights to go to the courts to
challenge a project. He questioned the need for the legislation
when there was already a law on the books that requires
security. This legislation is likely to increase the security
amounts which will close the door to the courts for the middle
class and working families. "I can't support that," he said.
SENATOR OLSON said he too objects because it places his
constituents at a financial disadvantage. It imposes another
hurdle and makes it prohibitively expensive to try to object to
development in the rural areas where they live.
CO-CHAIR COGHILL stated his support for the legislation based on
the testimony from the Department of Law and his belief that
this was well within a judge's ability to give proper
discretion.
He asked for a roll call vote.
1:50:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators McGuire, Dyson, and Coghill
voted in favor of reporting HB 47 from committee; Senators
Wielechowski and Olson voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 47(JUD)
was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee by a
vote of 3:2.
1:51:17 PM
At Ease
HB 284-COMPACT FOR A BALANCED BUDGET
1:55:12 PM
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of HB 284. "An Act relating to an interstate
compact on a balanced federal budget." This was the first
hearing.
1:56:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 284, introduced the bill. He delivered a
short PowerPoint to illustrate how the bill uses Article V of
the U.S. Constitution to propose an interstate compact to amend
the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget. Article
provides two ways to amend the constitution: whenever two-thirds
of both houses deem it necessary, or when the legislatures of
two thirds of the states call a convention to propose
amendments. The amendments are ratified by the legislatures of
three fourths of the states, or by conventions in three fourths
of the sates.
He noted the organizations working on a compact include:
ConventionofStates.com, Mr. Vernon Assembly,
citizensinitiative.com, reaganproject.com, and bba4usa.org. He
highlighted that HB 284 includes the amendment in the
legislation, describing it as a belts and suspenders approach to
the Convention of States.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER discussed the following sectional analysis
for HB 284:
Section 1, Article I: Declaration of Policy, Purpose,
and Intent of Compact for a Balanced Budget Amendment.
All states adopting the compact agree to be bound by
its provisions.
Article II, Sections 1-6: Definition of terms.
Article II, Section 7: Provisions of Balanced Budget
Amendment (BBA)
Section 1: Total government outlays cannot exceed
total government receipts except for the exclusive
debt financing option allowed in the BBA.
Section 2: Authorized debt of the United States cannot
exceed 105% of the country's outstanding debt the date
the BBA is enacted. Authorized debt cannot exceed
established threshold except as provided in Section 3.
Section 3: Congress may only increase the authorized
debt (Sec. 2) only upon the approval of a simple
majority of the fifty states. If approval is not
achieved within sixty days, the Congressional request
is deemed disapproved and the authorized debt remains
unchanged. Explicitly prohibits raising the debt limit
by a quid pro quo trade of increased federal spending
in the states.
Section 4: When the outstanding debt exceeds 98% of
the limit established in Section 2, the President of
the United States is required to enforce the 105% debt
limit by designating specific expenditures for
impoundment. Such cuts become effective within thirty
days unless Congress designates other cuts of the same
or greater amount. Failure by the President of the
United States to designate the required cuts is an
impeachable misdemeanor. Any incurred or issued debt
exceeding the Sec. 2 105% threshold is void.
Section 5: Congress may not issue new or increased tax
revenue without an affirmative two-thirds votes each
from the House of Representatives and Senate. This
restriction does not apply to enactment of a sales tax
provided that 1) the proposed tax completely replaces
all existing federal income taxes or 2) provides for
the reduction or elimination of an exemption,
deduction, or credit under an existing general revenue
tax.
Section 6: Defines "debt," "outstanding debt,"
"authorized debt," "total outlays of the government of
the United States," total receipts of the government
of the United States," "impoundment," and "general
revenue tax."
Section 7: The Balance Budget Amendment takes effect
immediately upon ratification. Congress may enact
legislation needed to enforce the BBA.
Article III: Compact Membership and Withdrawal
Section 1: Member states are bound to the Compact's
provisions to the fullest extent of the law.
Section 2: Member states agree to perform and strictly
comply with the Compact's terms and conditions.
Compact is contractually binding on each member state
when at least two states pass substantively similar
legislation adopting the Compact for America.
Section 3: Outlines four caveats to the "substantively
identical" legislation requirement.
Section 4: States may withdraw from Compact so long as
the three-fourths membership threshold is not reached.
States cannot withdraw from the Compact once three-
fourths of the states are members.
Article IV: Compact Commission and Compact
Administrator
Section 1: Outlines the powers and duties of the
Compact Commission.
Section 2: Outlines the Compact Commission membership.
Section 3: Each commission member is entitled to one
vote, majority membership is required in order to take
action, and number of meetings to be held.
Section 4: First actions the Commission is to take.
Section 5: How the Commission is to be funded.
Section 6: Powers and duties of the Compact
Administrator.
Section 7: Specific events the Compact Administrator
is required to send notice to all Compact Notice
Recipients (Article II, Sec. 5).
Section 8: The Commission, member states, and Compact
Administrator will work together to enforce the
Balanced Budget Amendment Interstate Compact.
Section 9: Article IV requires at least to member
states in order to take effect.
Article V: Resolution Applying for Convention
Section 1: The legislature of each Compact member
state applies (via the Compact) to Congress for an
Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing for
ratification the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Section 2: Requests Congress to refer the BBA to the
States for ratification.
Section 3: Article V requires three-quarters of the
state to join the Compact before taking effect.
Article VI: Delegate Appointment, Limitations and
Instructions
Section 1: Each state is entitled to one delegate at
the Convention.
Section 2: The governor of each state is that state's
sole convention delegate.
Section 3: Outlines when a state's convention delegate
may be recalled.
Section 4: The power and authority of each delegate is
exercisable only after affirming the oath and Congress
calling for the Convention.
Section 5: Convention delegate term limits.
Sections 6-8: Power and authority of convention
delegates.
Section 9: The Convention's first order of business is
to adopt the convention rules outlined in the Compact.
Failure to do so requires an immediate vacation of the
convention.
Section 10: Member states or delegates who violate the
Compact's provisions forfeit participate in the
Convention.
Section 11: Delegates are entitled to reimbursement
for reasonable expenses incurred while attending the
Convention.
Article VII: Convention Rules
Section 1: Convention is organized to exclusively
represent interests of the member states.
Section 2: The Convention's sole agenda is to
introduce, debate, and vote to either accept or reject
the Balanced Budget Amendment. Consideration of other
matters is not permitted.
Section 3: Provides the rules for how many delegates
member and non-member states may have and the
credentials they are required to provide while
attending the Convention.
Section 4: Outlines the voting powers of states
attending the Convention.
Section 5: Quorum requirements for the Convention.
Section 6: The Convention is chaired by the delegate
of the first State to become a member of the Compact.
Any business conducted by the Convention requires a
quorum and a majority vote of those states
constituting the quorum.
Section 7: Provides the guidelines for relocating or
rescheduling the Convention should the need arise.
Section 8: Convention shall be conducted according to
Robert's Rules of Order and the American Institute of
Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary
Procedure.
Section 9: Rules for transmitting the Convention's
approval of the Balanced Budget Amendment and
requesting Congress to refer the BBA to the 50 states
for ratification.
Section 10: Public record requirements for the
Convention.
Section 11: Convention has twenty-hours to complete
its business and is required to adjourn thereafter.
Article VIII: Prohibition on Ultra Vires Convention
Section 1: Member states are prohibited from
participating in the Convention unless 1) Congress
passes the omnibus resolution calling for the
Convention and 2) the Convention completes Article VI,
Sec. 9.
Section 2: Any proposal or action by the Convention
that violates the Compact's rules, proposes a mode of
ratification not permitted in Article V of the
Constitution of the United States, or tries to form a
new government is void ab initio (from the beginning).
Section 3: Member states are not permitted to approve
any revision to the Constitution of the United States
other than the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Article IX: Resolution Prospectively Ratifying the
Balanced Budget Amendment
Sections 1-2: Provision in Compact whereby each member
state automatically adopts and ratifies the Balanced
Budget Amendment following its Article V referral to
the States by the Congressional resolution--thus
meeting the three-fourths ratification requirement.
Article X: Construction, Enforcement, Venue, and
Severability
Section 1: Member states agree to be bound to the
Compact to the fullest extend allowed by their
respective constitutions.
Section 2: Date and time of the Convention.
Section 3: The Attorney General of Alaska is required
to defend the Compact against any legal challenge.
Section 4: The exclusive venue for all legal actions
relating to the Compact shall be in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas or
the courts of the State of Texas within the District
Court's boundaries. However, the Attorney General of
Alaska may petition the Compact Commission to waive
Article X, Sec. 4 if a different court venue allows
for the better enforcement or defense of the Compact.
Section 5: Effective date of Compact.
Section 6: Article VIII of this Compact is non-
severable prior to the Compact's termination. If a
phrase, clause, sentence or provision of the Compact
is ruled invalid by the courts, it may be severed
without affecting the applicability of the remaining
Compact. If a court rules the Compact to be contrary
to a member state's constitution or otherwise held
invalid, that state shall withdraw from the Compact.
If a court rules the Compact to be in violation of
Article, 1 Section 10, of the Constitution of the
United States, it is to be construed and enforced
solely as reciprocal legislation. This language
ensures that the Compact will not be stopped by a
meritless adverse legal determination that it violates
the Compact Clause. It is intended to authorize a
court to sever from the Compact all of the language
that makes the bill a "compact," leaving behind only
the legislative elements, which would then be regarded
as reciprocal legislation-i.e. simply identical
legislation passed in the respective member state,
like a sort of "Uniform Commercial Code" for an
Article V convention devoted to a Balanced Budget
Amendment. Mechanically, it would mean that the Court
would strike from the Compact all contractual language
("offer," "accept," "agree," etc.) and all elements of
the Compact that cannot exist outside of a contractual
relationship, such as the Compact Commission (Article
IV in its entirety), much of Article X, leaving behind
the balance as purely legislative enactments which are
reciprocal to the Compact enactments of other states.
Section 7: The Compact terminates when the
Constitution of the United States is amended by the
Balanced Budget Amendment. However, if the BBA is not
adopted within seven years of the first state adopting
the Compact, the Compact Commission and Compact shall
be deemed terminated and void ab initio.
Revisor's Instruction
the use of personal pronouns in HB 284 due to the
requirement that substantively similar legislation be
passed by states adopting the Compact.
2:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said this bill is very clear that any
state may leave the convention up until the 3/4 threshold is
met. He noted that Alaska was among the first three states to
consider taking this step.
CHAIR COGHILL named the people online to answer questions and
supplement the record.
2:10:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI directed attention to page 3, lines 13-17,
and asked how much the federal government would have to cut the
first year. He also asked if there was a stopgap provision in
the event of a national emergency or war.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that the debt cap is 105 percent
of the debt that exists when this becomes a constitutional
amendment; when the debt reaches 98 percent of the cap, the
president has line item veto power. With regard to the second
question, he advised that the cap can be raised by a simple
majority vote of the states. He maintained that it wouldn't take
any longer to get 26 states to agree to raise the cap than it
would to go through the conventional bonding process.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned how much the federal government
would have to be cut if this were enacted today.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the individuals listening online to take
note of the questions. He asked Senator Wielechowski if he had
additional questions.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI directed attention to page 14, lines 20-21,
and asked if state governments would also have to have a
balanced budget amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered no, just the federal government.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI directed attention to page 15, lines 14-18,
and asked if there was a reason for selecting the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas as the
exclusive venue of all actions that arise under the Compact.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER deferred the question.
2:16:15 PM
NICK DRANIAS, Constitutional Policy Director, Goldwater
Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, advised that a venue selection
clause is a common feature of compacts in order to minimize the
locations where a member state can be taken to court. Texas was
selected as a central and easily accessed location for the
anticipated thirty eight states that will join the compact. The
venue provision can be waived at the request of one of the
attorneys general of the three founding member states.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI again asked how much the federal government
would have to cut this year to keep from exceeding the 105
percent cap outlined on page 3, lines 13-17.
MR. DRANIAS calculated that under current borrowing rates there
was a year to a year and one-half cushion to reach the cap. He
stressed that the makeup of the cuts wasn't the focus; the idea
was to strike at the root cause of the unlimited concentration
of borrowing authority by bringing in the states as an outside
board of directors. Whatever shakes out at the end of three
years has to be better than spending the debt limit whenever it
seems inconvenient, he said.
2:21:28 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned whether he would support
amendments to protect cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and
national defense.
MR. DRANIAS urged the committee to avoid implanting policy
choices and instead treat it as a means of throttling back on
debt. He noted that every component of the Balanced Budget
Amendment (BBA) had been polled and had received between 61
percent and 85 percent support.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he had polling data to show that
Americans support cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and
national defense, because his constituents wouldn't support
that.
MR. DRANIAS said he agrees that most Americans wouldn't favor
cutting Social Security first, but nothing in the BBA compels a
policy result where any particular program must be cut. He
offered to share the polling data and highlighted that nearly
equal numbers of democrats and republicans favor spending cuts
before tax increases. He reiterated that the amendment has
flexibility to allow for revenue increases if deemed necessary.
2:26:09 PM
CHIP DEMOSS, President, Compact for America, Houston, Texas,
noted that he submitted written testimony from a large number of
parties, polling data, and reports. [These may be found in the
bill file.] He offered to answer questions regarding any of
these submissions.
2:28:35 PM
DAVID BOYLE, Alaska Policy Forum, Anchorage, Alaska, described
the federal debt as a threat to the future and a burden on
children and grandchildren. He said that each child born today
is born with a huge mortgage and the mortgage currently amounts
to $58,600 per person. This gives the U.S. the rank of third in
the world in debt per person, behind only Ireland and Japan.
Polling shows that super majorities of Americans want Congress
to reduce the federal debt, but nobody wants their ox gored. The
common sense solution is to pass the Compact for a Balanced
Budget, which will require Congress to get approval from the
states before it can increase the federal debt.
2:33:10 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced he would hold HB 284 for further
consideration.
2:34:17 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Coghill adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:34 p.m.