Said in CommitteeBeta

Exactly as spoken.

Representative Darrin Williams

Speaker names can be wrong. Names are identified automatically through voice matching and may contain errors. Always verify speaker attribution against the video before citing it.

Committees

Recent Meetings

Date Committee Speaking Time
March 15, 2013 — 71s
March 15, 2013 — 125s
March 13, 2013 — 388s
March 13, 2013 — 290s
March 12, 2013 — 116s
March 12, 2013 — 399s
March 11, 2013 — 95s
March 8, 2013 — 180s
March 8, 2013 — 35s
March 7, 2013 — 355s
March 5, 2013 — 1217s
Feb. 27, 2013 — 58s
Feb. 26, 2013 — 100s
Feb. 22, 2013 — 58s
Feb. 21, 2013 — 33s
Feb. 21, 2013 — 50s
Feb. 20, 2013 — 1129s
Feb. 19, 2013 — 18s
Feb. 19, 2013 — 678s
Feb. 18, 2013 — 219s
Feb. 14, 2013 — 90s
Feb. 13, 2013 — 99s
Feb. 12, 2013 — 369s
Feb. 6, 2013 — 58s
Jan. 31, 2013 — 224s
Jan. 29, 2013 — 239s
Jan. 23, 2013 — 9s
Jan. 17, 2013 — 16s
Jan. 16, 2013 — 30s
Jan. 15, 2013 — 73s
Jan. 14, 2013 — 11s
Nov. 15, 2012 — 577s
June 1, 2012 Boys State 78s
March 9, 2012 — 592s
March 2, 2012 — 638s
March 1, 2012 — 30s
Feb. 22, 2012 — 7s
April 1, 2011 — 67s
March 31, 2011 — 93s
March 31, 2011 — 109s
March 31, 2011 — 240s
March 31, 2011 — 1294s
March 31, 2011 — 8s
March 30, 2011 — 45s
March 30, 2011 — 110s
March 29, 2011 — 343s
March 29, 2011 — 14s
March 29, 2011 — 475s
March 29, 2011 — 60s
March 29, 2011 — 580s

Recent Transcript Excerpts

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (5:41)

Mr. Chairman. Before I make a motion, I want to appreciate and say thanks to Representative Hutchison and Fite for bringing this resolution and being concerned about the federal government and approaching upon the property rights of state landholders. And I would ask this committee to give this resolution a due pass motion. It's a proper

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (5:04)

I am personally concerned. As Representative Hutchison said, Arkansas will derive no benefit from this, and it looks to me that it will cause a great deal of harm to the residents of Arkansas with our property values being devalued. So I would appreciate your support for this resolution. Thank you. Committee, are there any

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (4:31)

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. I have spent a great deal of time this legislative session dealing with this issue of Clean Lines Energy. The people in my area are up in arms over this issue. The Mayor of Cedarville has spent a great deal of time working with this. She has gathered a petition that I think most of the residents of Cedarville have signed. Right now, looking at the map, these lines are scheduled to go right over my house, so

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (42:37)

This is moving the provision that would prevent an appraisal management company from ordering a BPO on property that they don't own. So it's simply removing a nonsensical provision from the law, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. Seeing none, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you.

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (42:06)

It's less intense and less costly, often done by real estate agents. What this bill is doing is simply trying to remove a nonsensical provision in the law. Right now, the law says an appraisal management company cannot order a broker's price opinion unless they own the property. Well, appraisal management companies are not in the business of owning property, so that doesn't make sense. The lender could itself go and order a BPO on the exact property that the appraisal management company is not allowed to order the BPO for the lender on.

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (41:37)

bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, an appraisal management company is basically like a middleman. A lender often hires an appraisal management company. And appraisal management companies can order both broker's price opinions or appraisals, depending on what's needed. Now, a broker's price opinion is really a streamlined version of an appraisal, almost. A broker price opinion is usually done when you're doing a short sale or foreclosure or when the bank's doing a home equity loan line of credit or something of that nature.

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (9:04)

You may be familiar with drug courts. They're very popular in the state of Arkansas. That's a pre-adjudication program. This bill would allow for judicial districts who would like to create a pre-adjudication program. Both the judge as well as the prosecutor would have to sign off on this. It would allow other state agencies to help in doing this. There's no appropriation, no additional money. If a judicial district wanted to do this, they'd have to do with the current resources they already have. It's a good bill. It unanimously came out of the House Judiciary Committee, and I'd appreciate a good vote and be happy to take any questions.

Meeting — March 15, 2013 (8:47)

bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, House Bill 1470 is a pre-adjudication bill, And really what this is, is a bill to allow judges and judicial districts to establish a pre-adjudication program if they want to. It doesn't require. It's simply permissive.

Meeting — Feb. 6, 2013 (1:57:49)

How do we make sure we protect ourselves with the clawbacks? Explain that a little bit. Okay. And my second question with regard to jobs, Any industry or any business this large is going to attract other suppliers and vendors around them. Right. Are you working to try to attract those businesses and industries that you know usually locate around these type of mills? And can you speak to that? Are those figures counted in your economic gain for Arkansas on what those new businesses make? Let me take the

Meeting — Feb. 6, 2013 (1:57:19)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Neal, and you and your team, first let me thank you for your hard work. This has been a long time in coming, and you've been spending some time on this, so I appreciate it. We all know that two things that we need are jobs and education in Arkansas, so I appreciate your effort here with these jobs. But let's talk a little bit about the jobs and the performance. You've talked a little bit about the clawbacks. Right. How do we make sure that we protect Arkansas taxpayers in case this doesn't perform like we think it's going to perform?

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (49:33)

to her question to clear this up. I appreciate that, Senator King. I guess I just would say that I should feel more comfortable

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (49:39)

having the answer before I voted on the bill. But I appreciate you agreeing to

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (49:01)

you saying you're going to fix it and bring it back to us? I'm saying I'm going to ask this committee to pass this

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (47:55)

questions that's outside the... Well, I think it raises just the actual confusion of the bill. And I

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (48:01)

guess in closing, I'd ask if you wouldn't mind responding to Pastor O'Connell's question regarding... I did. I would like to address that. I mean, I

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (47:13)

That's still our church. Can a church member who's authorized by that church to carry, can that church member carry on that church premises since it's also a polling site under your bill? No. No? No. I mean, once it's a

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (47:40)

Well, it seems to be some conflict because the statute clearly says that you can't care in a polling place.

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (46:40)

Does that mean, since my church is designated a polling place always,

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (46:44)

my church couldn't make the decision to carry or not carry? Or is it just when an election is going on and who makes that determination? Just so if my church wanted to, they'd know what to do. How would that

Meeting — Jan. 31, 2013 (47:06)

that they couldn't. No, the church's vestibule is a polling site. That's where people come and vote. or the church's gymnasium sometimes is a polling place.

Bills Discussed

No bills found.

← Back to all legislators