Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Process Placeholder Bills topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate use of placeholder 'aircraft carrier' bills for veterans and military measures
Summary
Committee chairs defended plans for two broad placeholder bills intended to bundle agreed-upon veterans and military items; several members objected, calling the practice a circumvention of the public hearing process. Both placeholder bills were nevertheless advanced to the floor.
Members of the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee engaged in a prolonged debate over the committee’s use of broad “placeholder” or “aircraft carrier” bills to carry multiple veterans- and military-related measures.
Representative Jamie Foster, chair, said the placeholder vehicles were intended to capture “low-hanging fruit” — bipartisan, noncontroversial items that previously had passed in committee but sometimes died on the floor because of time — and to prevent well-supported measures from being lost. Foster emphasized she would not use the vehicle to insert items that had not gone through proper public hearings.
Representative Vail and Representative Buckby opposed the placeholder approach. “This is not part of the process. It's never been something I support,” Vail said, adding that the legislature already has a process for bills to receive public hearings. Representative Buckby said he had “a really tough time” with placeholder bills that bypass the usual scrutiny and public testimony.
Senator Paul Honig, co-chair, pledged publicly to use any placeholder vehicles only for measures “that have been through a public hearing and have bipartisan support.” Several other members said they would reserve the right to oppose any items later placed in a placeholder bill if those items had not previously received a hearing.
The committee advanced two placeholder vehicles discussed during the session: House Bill 6,438 (titled in the agenda “concerning veterans affairs in Connecticut”) was referred with a change of reference to the Appropriations Committee for certain provisions, and House Bill 6,442 (“concerning military affairs in Connecticut”) was advanced to the floor. Both motions carried following debate; some members who opposed the placeholder approach nonetheless supported the chairs' assurances and voted to move the bills forward.
Committee members said their support was conditional on the chairs’ pledge not to “abuse” the vehicle and on the expectation that substantive additions would be limited to measures that had already been through public hearings.
