House Convenes
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (50)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1417
Act 1012
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1417 Watson 1 TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF CERTAIN … | Watson | Notification that HB1417 is now Act 1012 |
|
HB1460
Act 1013
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1460 Speaks 1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES; AND TO REQUIRE UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES TO APPEAR ON … | Speaks | Notification that HB1460 is now Act 1013 |
|
HB1854
Act 1056
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1854 Hillman 1 TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD. | Hillman | Notification that HB1854 is now Act 1056 |
|
HB1385
Act 983
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…r, we are in committee on House Rules, to whom was referred House Bill 1385, beg me for the report that we have had the same under cons…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCHOOLHOUSE" WITH REGARD TO BUSINESSES REGULATED … | J. Mayberry | Notification that HB1385 is now Act 983 |
|
HR1077
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1077 Holcomb TO CONGRATULATE THE WOODLAWN HIGH SCHOOL BEARS BASE…”
|
TO CONGRATULATE THE WOODLAWN HIGH SCHOOL BEARS BASEBALL TEAM. | Holcomb | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
SCR3
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SCR3 G. Leding(Scott) TO RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY NOL…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY NOLAN RICHARDSON JR. TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AND … | G. Leding | Reviewed by the Governor |
|
SCR6
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SCR6 J. English(Perry) TO BRING AWARENESS TO PRE-DISASTER MITIGA…”
|
TO BRING AWARENESS TO PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAMS AND TO DECLARE THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER … | J. English | Reviewed by the Governor |
|
SB627
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “to the Senate of Senate Bill 627. Sincerely, Ann Cornwell. Is leave”
|
TO AMEND THE SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTION FOR DENTAL APPLIANCES. | Hester | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1018
Act 824
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…he 92nd General Assembly. House Concurrent Resolution 1010. House Bill 1018 is Act 824.”
|
TO AMEND THE POPULATION REQUIREMENTS THAT CONTROL THE NUMBER OF DIRECTORS WHO SERVE ON A … | Sorvillo | Notification that HB1018 is now Act 824 |
|
HB1075
Act 825
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1075 is Act 825. House Bill 1346 is Act 826. House Bill 1400 is…”
|
TO AMEND THE ACHIEVING A BETTER LIFE EXPERIENCE PROGRAM ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN … | J. Mayberry | Notification that HB1075 is now Act 825 |
|
HB1094
Act 778
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1094 is act 778, House Bill 1134 is act 779, House Bill 1221 is…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS WATERWAYS COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2019-2020 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that HB1094 is now Act 778 |
|
HB1217
Act 1010
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1217 Tosh1 CONCERNING THE SUBMISSION OF AND FORENSIC TESTING OF…”
|
CONCERNING THE SUBMISSION OF AND FORENSIC TESTING OF FIREARMS BY THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY. | Tosh | Notification that HB1217 is now Act 1010 |
|
HB1255
Act 1011
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1255 Dotson1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSING, REGISTRATION…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSING, REGISTRATION, AND CERTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN PROFESSIONS; AND TO ESTABLISH … | Dotson | Notification that HB1255 is now Act 1011 |
|
HB1609
Act 1014
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1609 Gazaway1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1609 is now Act 1014 |
|
HB1626
Act 1016
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1626 Cloud1 CONCERNING THE OFFERING OF AN ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE…”
|
CONCERNING THE OFFERING OF AN ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE BIBLE COURSE IF STUDENTS REQUEST THAT … | Cloud | Notification that HB1626 is now Act 1016 |
|
HB1633
Act 1017
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1633 Tosh1 TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WITNESS INTIMIDATION, RETA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WITNESS INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, JURY TAMPERING, AND BRIBERY. | Tosh | Notification that HB1633 is now Act 1017 |
|
HB1648
Act 1018
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1648 F. Allen1 TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS…”
|
TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS AND HEROES IN THE TEACHING MATERIALS REGARDING AFRICAN-AMERICAN … | F. Allen | Notification that HB1648 is now Act 1018 |
|
HB1693
Act 1019
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1693 Wing1 TO AMEND THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-GENERAL CONTRACT OR…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-GENERAL CONTRACTOR METHOD OF PROCUREMENT PILOT PROGRAM. | Wing | Notification that HB1693 is now Act 1019 |
|
HB1695
Act 1020
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1695 Scott1 TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING TRAFFICKED FROM BE…”
|
TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING TRAFFICKED FROM BEING PROSECUTED FOR PROSTITUTION. | Scott | Notification that HB1695 is now Act 1020 |
|
HB1763
Act 910
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1763 A. Davis 1 TO CREATE THE TRANSFORMATION AND EFFICIENCIES AC…”
|
TO CREATE THE TRANSFORMATION AND EFFICIENCIES ACT OF 2019; TO ESTABLISH CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENTS; TO TRANSFER … | A. Davis | Notification that HB1763 is now Act 910 |
|
HB1765
Act 1021
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1765 Maddox1 TO ESTABLISH THE UNIFORM DIRECTED TRUST ACT.”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE UNIFORM DIRECTED TRUST ACT. | Maddox | Notification that HB1765 is now Act 1021 |
|
HB1789
Act 1022
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1789 Penzo1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF TRAFFICKI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF TRAFFICKING; AND TO CREATE AN OFFENSE FOR … | Penzo | Notification that HB1789 is now Act 1022 |
|
HB1826
Act 792
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1826 is Act 792, House Bill 1829 is Act 793, House Bill 1833 is…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE BROADBAND MANAGER. | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1826 is now Act 792 |
|
HB1866
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “return to the Senate of House Bill 1866, respectfully submitted, Ann Cornwell. Mr. Clerk please rea…”
|
CONCERNING EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, PARDON, AND COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE. | Petty | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1896
Act 1025
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1896 Gates1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. | Gates | Notification that HB1896 is now Act 1025 |
|
HB1901
Act 1026
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1901 F. Allen1 TO CREATE THE ACADEMIC SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIP.”
|
TO CREATE THE ACADEMIC SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIP. | F. Allen | Notification that HB1901 is now Act 1026 |
|
HB1911
Act 1027
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1911 M. Gray1 TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1929 CONCERNING WHO…”
|
TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1929 CONCERNING WHO SHALL BE TREATED AS THE … | M. Gray | Notification that HB1911 is now Act 1027 |
|
HB1943
Act 1030
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1943 Cavenaugh1 TO AMEND THE PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT; AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PERSONAL INFORMATION" … | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1943 is now Act 1030 |
|
HB1947
Act 1031
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Senate respectfully requests the return to the Senate of House Bill 1947. Sincerely, respectfully submitted, Ann Cornwell.”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EYESIGHT TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE. | Fortner | Notification that HB1947 is now Act 1031 |
|
HCR1010
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ures from the regular session of the 92nd General Assembly. House Concurrent Resolution 1010. House Bill 1018 is Act 824.”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THAT ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF CHILDREN IS A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM; TO … | Vaught | Approved by the Governor |
|
HR1023
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1023 A. Davis TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES…”
|
TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | A. Davis | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
HR1036
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1036 Dotson TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES O…”
|
TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY. | Dotson | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
SB122
Act 986
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB122 AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2019-2020 FISCAL … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB122 is now Act 986 |
|
SB179
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB179 M. Johnson(Love) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFFICE AND THE REORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. | M. Johnson | DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR. |
|
SB409
Act 1075
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB409 Flippo(Richmond) TO ALLOW FOR THE ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION O…”
|
TO ALLOW FOR THE ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION OF AN INVITATION FOR BIDS AND ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF … | Flippo | Notification that SB409 is now Act 1075 |
|
SB411
Act 1076
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB411 G. Stubblefield(B. Smith) TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY P…”
|
TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES. | G. Stubblefield | Notification that SB411 is now Act 1076 |
|
SB461
Act 1077
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB461 K. Hammer(L. Fite) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CREATION…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CREATION OF AND TIMING OF TAX COLLECTION IN CERTAIN … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB461 is now Act 1077 |
|
SB481
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB481 A. Clark(Love) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RETAIL WATER PRO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RETAIL WATER PROVIDERS AND RELATED SERVICE. | A. Clark | Recommended for study in the Interim Committee on … |
|
SB490
Act 1078
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB490 K. Hammer(Lowery) TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FO…”
|
TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUCCEED SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB490 is now Act 1078 |
|
SB595
Act 997
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB595 AN ACT TO DEFINE THE MONIES TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE RAINY DA…”
|
AN ACT TO DEFINE THE MONIES TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE RAINY DAY FUND; AND … | Teague | Notification that SB595 is now Act 997 |
|
SB597
Act 998
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB597”
|
TO AMEND THE REVENUE STABILIZATION LAW; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB597 is now Act 998 |
|
SB605
Act 1083
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB605 A. Clark(Della Rosa) TO AMEND THE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL L…”
|
TO AMEND THE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDING. | A. Clark | Notification that SB605 is now Act 1083 |
|
SB619
Act 1084
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB619 L. Eads(Vaught) TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD. | L. Eads | Notification that SB619 is now Act 1084 |
|
SB623
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB623 A. Clark(Gazaway) TO REMOVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION O…”
|
TO REMOVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION AS AN AVAILABLE PENALTY FOR AN OFFENSE … | A. Clark | Recommended for study in the Interim Committee on … |
|
SB652
Act 1086
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB652 M. Johnson(Tosh) TO NAME THE OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 501…”
|
TO NAME THE OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 501 WOODLANE, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND TO HONOR … | M. Johnson | Notification that SB652 is now Act 1086 |
|
SB657
Act 1087
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB657 B. Sample(Wing) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE METHOD BY W…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE METHOD BY WHICH THE OFFICE OF DRIVER SERVICES MAY … | B. Sample | Notification that SB657 is now Act 1087 |
|
SB664
Act 1088
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB664 Elliott(Scott) TO REQUIRE THAT NEW INMATES RECEIVE READING…”
|
TO REQUIRE THAT NEW INMATES RECEIVE READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND … | Elliott | Notification that SB664 is now Act 1088 |
|
SB677
Act 1089
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB677 Elliott(Scott) TO REQUIRE THAT YOUTHS UNDERGO READING ASSES…”
|
TO REQUIRE THAT YOUTHS UNDERGO READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND DYSLEXIA … | Elliott | Notification that SB677 is now Act 1089 |
|
SB679
Act 1090
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB679 K. Ingram(Beck) TO AMEND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPRO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BOND ACT OF 1985. | K. Ingram | Notification that SB679 is now Act 1090 |
|
SB683
Act 1091
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB683 Hester(Gray) TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS BROADBAND COUNCIL, THE…”
|
TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS BROADBAND COUNCIL, THE ARKANSAS YOUTH SUICIDE PREVENTION TASK FORCE, THE GRADE … | Hester | Notification that SB683 is now Act 1091 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I invite the members, staff, press, and guests in the galleries to stand and be led in prayer by Bishop Chester Thompson,
pastor of Zion Hill Baptist Church of Camden, a guest of Representative David Fielding, and to remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to
Speaker 6
11:17
be led by Representative Lane Jean. Good morning. I think it is exciting this morning that you all are expecting to close out this session. And as you're on your way back to your places of residence. We want to pray God's blessings upon you as you go. Let's go before the Lord
in prayer. Father, we thank you for this day that you've given to us. We thank you for the blessings of life you've afforded to us. We thank you for this body of legislators who have come from the north, south, east, and the west to be able to take care of the deliberations as it relates to the people of the state of Arkansas. We thank you for their love, their labor of love, their work of faith, and their patience of hope. And this morning, God, we pray your blessings upon all constitutional officers of government. We ask for your guidance as they continue to
carry out the mission and the mandate that you have placed upon their lives. Lord, we pray that you will lead us to work for the common good, to understand the needs of all of our citizens, to come alongside of the most vulnerable and the marginalized. We ask, oh God, for your guidance and your direction and your blessings as they journey back to their places of residence. This we ask in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen.
Members, please indicate your presence by pushing the yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. With 98 members present, the chair sees a quorum. Are there any requests for leave?
Representative Dalby, for what purpose? Leave. You're recognized. Representative Charlene
Fite. Is leave granted for Representative Charlene Fite? Leave. Representative Meeks, for what purpose? Leave for Representative Ladyman. Is leave
granted for Representative Ladyman? Representative Frederick Love moves that we
dispense with the reading of the previous day's journal. Without objection, so ordered. Are there reports from select committees? Are there reports from standing committees? Read the report, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Speaker, we are in committee on House Rules, to whom was referred House Bill 1385, beg me for the report that we have had the same under consideration here with
Speaker 29
14:53
the term, the same with the recommendation to do pass in concurrence with Senate Amendments No. 1 and 2, respectfully submitted, Sarah Capp, Chair. Is there any
Speaker 22
15:01
unfinished business? Are there any executive communications? Yes, we have two letters from the governor. Read
the letters. Yeah, we got letters from the Senate. Read the letters from the governor, Mr. Clerk. April 8, 2019, to the Speaker of the House, dear
Speaker 33
15:16
Mr. Speaker, this is to inform you that on April 8, 2019, I approve the following measures from the regular session of the 92nd General Assembly.
House Bill 1094 is act 778, House Bill 1134 is act 779, House Bill 1221 is act 780. House Bill 1280 is act 781, House Bill 1448 is act 782, House Bill 1610 is act 783, House Bill 1631 is act 784. House Bill 1661 is act 785, House Bill 1662 is act 786, House Bill 1672 is act 787, House Bill 1737 is Act 788, House Bill 1750 is Act 789, House Bill 1777 is Act 790, House Bill 1780 is Act 791.
House Bill 1826 is Act 792, House Bill 1829 is Act 793, House Bill 1833 is Act 794, House Bill 1846 is Act 795, House Bill 1853 is Act 796, House Bill 1874 is Act 797, House Bill 1885 is Act 798, House Bill 1887 is Act 799. Sincerely, Asa Hutchinson. April 9th, 2019, to the Speaker of the House. Dear Mr. Speaker, this is to inform you that on April 9th, 2019, I approve the following measures from the regular session of the 92nd General Assembly. House Concurrent Resolution 1010. House Bill 1018 is Act 824.
House Bill 1075 is Act 825. House Bill 1346 is Act 826. House Bill 1400 is Act 827. House Bill 1404 is Act 828. House Bill 1440 is Act 829. House Bill 1443 is Act 830. House Bill 1449 is Act 831. House Bill 1498 is Act 832. House Bill 1762 is Act 833. House Bill 1824 is Act 834. House Bill 1892 is Act 835. Sincerely, Asa Hutchinson. Read
the letters from the Senate, Mr. Clark.
Mr. Clark, you're recognized. April 9, 2019 to the Honorable Sherry Stacks. Dear Ms. Stacks, the Senate respectfully requests the return
Speaker 39
17:14
to the Senate of Senate Bill 627. Sincerely, Ann Cornwell. Is leave
granted to return Senate Bill 627 to the Senate? You
recognize me. April 9, 2019 to the Honorable Sherry Stacks. Dear Ms. Stacks, the
Speaker 39
17:33
Senate respectfully requests the return to the Senate of House Bill 1947. Sincerely, respectfully submitted, Ann Cornwell.
April 9th, 2019, to the Honorable Sherry Stacks, Dear Ms. Stacks, the Senate respectfully request the
Speaker 39
17:54
return to the Senate of House Bill 1866, respectfully submitted, Ann Cornwell. Mr. Clerk please read
House Resolution 1077 House Resolution 1077 by Representative
Holcomb to congratulate the Woodlawn High School Bears baseball team
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
18:35
Representative Holcomb you're recognized to explain the resolution. Thank you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. It's my privilege to be here today to congratulate the Woodlawn School District in Cleveland County, Arkansas. It's a school that with all of the challenges that they face have excelled both academically and athletically. Today we are recognizing the accomplishments of
Coach Tommy Richardson and the Woodlawn Bears baseball team for winning the 2018 1A state championship. And they have done something that I don't remember any other high school doing in the state of Arkansas. This is their third consecutive state championship, so that's quite an accomplishment. And if I'm not mistaken, this is the sixth state championship for Coach Richardson. So we're proud this morning that they could not be with us today. Coach Richardson's
working with his baseball team trying to win a fourth state championship. So I know what's going on, but they're watching us live. So Mr. Speaker, if you would, would you have the clerk to read the resolution in his entirety, please? Clerk,
please read the resolution. Whereas the 2018 Woodlawn High School Bears baseball team claimed the Class 1A state championship trophy after the Bears defeated the Southside High School Hornets 4-2 at Baum Stadium in Fayetteville, Arkansas. And whereas the Bears finished the season with a 29-7 record, and whereas the Bears were
led by All-State players Will Richardson and Matthew Aiken and All-State tournament players Reese Mitchells and Nick Ward. And whereas this is the Bears' third straight baseball state championship title, and whereas the Bears were well led and coached by Tommy Richardson, and whereas each player of the bears team committed himself to excellence and was supported by his his school family and community now therefore be it resolved by the house of representatives of the 92nd general assembly of the state of arkansas at the house of representatives congratulate the members of the woodlong high school
bears baseball team on winning the 2018 class 1a state
championship representative holcomb has explained the resolution would anyone like to speak against the resolution? Would anyone like to speak for the resolution? Representative Holcomb is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the adoption of House Resolution 1077. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The resolution is
adopted. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Concurrent Resolution 3. Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 by Representative Scott to recognize
the contributions made by Nolan Richardson, Jr. to the University of Arkansas and to request the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville named the basketball court in Bud Walton Arena in his
honor. Representative McCullough, you're recognized to explain the
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
21:40
resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Representative Scott, for allowing an old basketball coach to present this today. As a former basketball coach and absolutely an Arkansas Razorback fan, it's my honor to present this Senate concurrent resolution to you today to recognize the contributions made by Nolan Richardson, Jr. to the University of Arkansas to request the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville named the basketball court in Bud Walton Arena in his honor.
Even though the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees has already voted to make what this resolution states a reality, many still wanted this resolution to be presented. This is also timely after we've just witnessed another incredible and exciting men's and women's Final Four national championships. And it's certainly not hard to take ourselves back to those 17 years when we witnessed 40 minutes of hell every time the Hogs took the court. Championships of any kind, but especially national championships, take a certain recipe to achieve.
A big helping of talent from coaches and players, the discipline to invent and execute game plans, the determination to outwork everyone else every day, the heart and will to win, and a pinch of good luck. And to consistently be excellent every year over a sustained number of years equals greatness. Greatness leads to this commemoration to memorialize this era by naming the Bud Walton Arena Court after Nolan Richardson, who achieved all these things. Mr. Speaker, will you please
have the clerk read the resolution in its entirety and after that I would appreciate a woo pig suey and a
good vote. Mr. Clerk, please read the resolution. Whereas Nolan Richardson Jr. was the men's head basketball coach for the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville Razorbacks from 1985 until 2002 and whereas Coach Richardson became the first Razorback basketball coach to lead the team to win an NCAA Division I men's basketball game when the Razorbacks beat the Duke University Blue Devils 76-72
on April 4, 1994 in Charlotte, North Carolina, and whereas Coach Richardson remains the only head basketball coach in American basketball history to win a Division I national championship, an NIT championship, and a national junior college championship, and whereas during his tenure at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Coach Richardson's teams made three trips to the NCAA Final Four and won three Southwest Conference regular season championships three Southwest Conference Tournament Championships, two Southeastern Conference Regular Season Championships, and four SEC Western Division Championships
and an SEC Tournament Championship. And whereas Coach Richardson is a three-time Southwest Conference Coach of the Year, the Naismith College Coach of the Year in 1994, and the SEC Coach of the Year in 1998. And whereas Coach Richardson was inducted into the Arkansas Sports Hall of Fame in 1998, the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame in 2008, and the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2014. And whereas Coach Richardson has the highest all-time winning percentage in the history of University of Arkansas at Fayetteville basketball team with 389 wins and only 169 losses in 17 seasons with the Razorbacks.
And whereas in an effort to recognize and honor the significant impact of Coach Richardson on Arkansas athletics, it is appropriate that the basketball floor of Bud Walton Arena be named in his honor. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the 92nd General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Senate recognizes and appreciates the dedication and hard work of Coach Nolan Richardson, Jr., showed in his time as the head coach and requests the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville named the basketball court and Bud Walton Arena in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in his honor.
Representative McCullough has explained the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution? Would anyone like to speak before the
resolution? Representative McCullough, it's closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 3. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? The resolution is adopted.
Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Concurrent Resolution 6.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 by Representative Perry to bring awareness to the pre-disaster mitigation programs and to declare the first week of
September Resiliency Week. Representative Perry, you're recognized
to explain the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I figured we'd call the hogs after that, but in the essence of time. Members, the Senate Concurrent Resolution is brought by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies to bring people's awareness for the first week of September
for resiliency week and to be prepared for natural disasters i'd appreciate a good vote representative perry has explained
the resolution would anyone like to speak against the resolution would anyone like to speak for the resolution representative perry is
closed for the resolution the question before the house is the adoption of senate concurrent resolution six all in favor say aye any opposed
resolution is adopted morning hour is ended members the doctor
of the day is dr. Jennifer Doyle of Little Rock and the nurse of the day is Sherry Bernard and Brenda Hewitt.
Representative Hillman recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1854. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment
No. 1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to House
Bill 1854. Representative Hillman, you're recognized to
Chair
Unverified
28:15
explain Amendment 1. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's always good to be first on something. As all of you know, the Senate is superior to the House, and they took a good bill and modified it to their specifications. However, it still does the intent of the bill originally was to clean up some of the problems
over in the State Plant Board. Thank you. Representative Hillman has explained the amendment. Would anyone like
to speak against the amendment? Would anyone like to speak for the amendment? Representative Hillman is closed for the amendment. The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1854. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Is everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk.
By a vote of 93 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1854. Representative Speaks recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1460. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate
Amendment No. 1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to
House Bill 1460. Representative Speaks, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could almost say ditto with mine. They really didn't change any of the meaning. They quirked a few words here and there, and nobody's against it now, and I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative Speaks has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? Would anyone like to speak for the amendment?
Representative Speaks is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrent with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1460. Prepare the machine, Mr.
Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By a vote
of 87 yeas, 3 nays, and 1 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1460.
members in the west gallery we have the pine bluff mayor's youth council the guest of representatives flowers kenneth bergersen and holcomb Representative Watson recommends
we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1417.
Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1.
Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1417. Representative Watson,
Representative Danny Watson
Unverified
30:54
you're recognized to explain Amendment 1. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. This is just a concur of the Senate Amendment. I promised the House when I presented House Bill 1417. The language has been worked out between the FOIA Task Force and the Attorney General's Office. Any questions?
The question is, I appreciate a good vote. Representative Watson has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? Would anyone like
to speak for the amendment? Representative Watson is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1417. Prepare
Speaker 68
31:34
the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast a ballot, Mr. Clerk.
By a vote of 94 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, You have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1417.
Representative Andy Davis recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1763. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate
Amendment 1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to
House Bill 1763. Representative Davis, you're recognized to
present the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members,
this is not a clean-up bill.
First off, apologies first, right? So I want to apologize to Representatives Lowry, Rushing, Cervillo, and Penzo, it turns out you guys were right. Session is going to end when we pass this bill, so you were right. In all seriousness, the Senate amendment removed the Public Service Commission from the transformation bill. It also narrowed the language on the authority of the secretaries over banking, insurance, securities, and the plant board. There are a couple other changes I wanted to bring to your attention, though.
I know a lot of times we come down here and claim we've got a technical correction. I just wanted you to know that page 227, line 7, we've deleted the word technical, and that was a technical correction. We've also represented a volume. Don't run off. Hang on. Page 1511, line 13, the word bore was in existing language, it was a misspelling, we've corrected
that to boat, that's one less wild hog you've got to worry about. Finally, sometimes we come down and we say the Senate made a good bill a little bit better, I just wanted to give you a couple of examples.
Page 157, line 25, we've removed a comma. Page 1,709, line 10, we added a
missing semicolon. So Senate made a good bill a little bit better.
In all seriousness, I appreciate the Senate State Agency's Committee. They put a lot of time into this bill and made several good corrections. I also mainly want to thank our BLR House and Senate staff who put a tremendous amount of work into ushering this piece of legislation through. With that, I appreciate a good vote. It might take me
a minute. Representative Davis has explained the amendment.
Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? Would anyone like
to speak for the amendment? The question for the House is concurrent, so it's Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1763. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk.
With 96 yeas, 0 nays, 0 present, You have concurred in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1763. Representative Maddox recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1765. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment 1. Senate
Chair
Unverified
35:30
Amendment 1 to House Bill 1765. Representative Maddox,
you're recognized to present the amendment.
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
35:38
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, that was kind of a hard act to follow. I mean, this isn't transformation, but it is important because it's my bill. So the Directed Trust Act, this is a Senate
concurrence in the Directed Trust Act. It just adds Senator Malick, and it also clarifies that a directed trustee has the duty to comply with the wishes of a trust director acting within the scope of his powers. So that's all it does. This bill is supported by the Arkansas Bar Association, Arkansas Bankers Association, and the Uniform Law Commission.
I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Maddox has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? Anyone
like to speak for the amendment? The question for the
House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1765. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
set the ballot by a vote of 95 yeas 1 nay 0 present you've concurred and sent an amendment 1 to house bill 1765
members we have some more visitors today the pine bluff mayor's youth council Guests of Representative
Flowers, Ferguson, and Holcomb, they're in the West Gallery.
Representative Scott recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1695. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment 1. Senate Amendment No. 1
to House Bill 1695. Representative Scott, you're recognized to
present the amendment. Good morning, colleagues. I
promise to be before you brief. This is just an amendment that was agreed upon. We made
Speaker 106
37:45
the amendment on the Senate end, and I ask for a good vote.
Representative Scott has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment, for the amendment?
The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1695. prepare the machine mr clerk as everyone
voted and cast up the ballot by a
vote of 94 yay zero nay zero present you have concurred in senate amendment one to house bill 1695 representative tosh recommends that we concur in senate amendment one to house
bill 1217 mr clerk please read the senate amendment one senate amendment number one
to house bill 1217 representative tasha recognized to
present the amendment thank you mr speaker colleagues this is an amendment that was made on the senate end referenced house bill 1217 returning uh requiring forensic testing on farms they just changed the word shell to me and said that after adjudication the farm would be returned to the owner that was the only uh amendments made on the senate end appreciate a good vote thank you representative
tosh has explained the amendment would anyone like to speak against the amendment for the amendment the question before the house is
concern concurrence with senate amendment one to house bill 1217 prepare the machine mr clerk has everyone
voted cast up the ballot i voted
94 yay zero nays they were present you've concurred in senate amendment one to house bill
1217 representative tasha recommends that we concur in senate amendment one to house bill 1633 mr clerk please read amend senate amendment one senate amendment number one to house bill
1633 representative tasha recognized to explain the amendment
thank you again mr speaker colleagues this
is a bill that we ran enhancement penalties for certain crimes that involved our judicial system the only change they made on the senate end was in the area where it come to tampering with an investigation they uh they left that part of it as a class d felony if it involved
testifying or giving false information in testifying and uh other than that the rest of it will be a class a misdemeanor the only change is made i appreciate a good vote representative Tosh
has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment? Representative Tosh is
closed for the amendment. The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1633. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk.
By a vote of 92 yeas, 0 nays, 0 present, you have concurred in Amendment 1 to House Bill 1633. Representative Gassaway recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1609. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment 1.
Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1609.
Representative Gassaway, you recognize to explain Amendment 1.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
41:08
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dear colleagues, this simply changes in the bill where we had Schedule 1 or 2 drugs to specifically heroin and fentanyl, the drugs that we've really been having a problem with. This was a friendly amendment approved by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Would appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Representative Gassaway has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment for the amendment? Representative Gassaway
is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1609
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. By a vote of 94 yeas, 0 nays, 1 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1609. Representative Penzo recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1789. Mr. Clerk, please read the Senate
Amendment 1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1789.
Representative Penzo, you're recognized to
Representative Clint Penzo
Unverified
42:16
explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 1789 went down to the Senate, got a nice haircut, came back 11 pages lighter. They left intact Section 1 and Section 2, which were non-controversial. They removed Section 3. Like I said before, there were five adoption attorneys that were opposed.
Bar Association was in opposition, now they're in full support. They didn't just go neutral, they actually support the bill now. So what this bill does is it allows, defines what human trafficking is and creates a criminal defense between a Class A felony down to a Class A misdemeanor depending on the severity whether there was coercion or anything involved all groups to my knowledge now are on board with this it's a good bill if this goes into law will be the 13th
state to divide to define and punish the selling of a human child by its true name human trafficking and unfortunately though 37 states have still not done this so hopefully this will bring some awareness to that as well appreciate a good vote representative penzo has explained the
amendment would anyone like to speak against the amendment for the amendment representative penzo is closed for the amendment
the question before the house is concurrence with senate amendment one to house bill 1789
prepare the machine mr clerk has everyone voted cast up the ballot by a vote of 95 yeas zero nays they were present you've concurred in senate amendment one to house bill 1789 representative wing recommends that we concur in senate amendment one to house bill 1693 mr clerk please read a senate amendment
one Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1693.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
44:16
Representative Wayne, you're recognized to explain Amendment 1. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this is the construction manager bill that we passed. What we did on the Senate side was we made the RFP process a little bit more transparent. We also brought the sunset date back from 2025 to 2024. That way, the legislators that come in 2025 will have a completed pilot project from which we can determine what to do next. I'd appreciate a good vote. thank you representative wing
has explained the amendment would anyone like to speak against the
amendment for the amendment representative wing is closed for the amendment the question before the house is concurrence with senate amendment one to house bill 1693 prepare the machine mr clerk has everyone voted cast up the ballot by a vote of 97 yea, 0 nays, 0 present you've concurred in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1693 Representative Dotson recommends
that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1255 Mr. Clerk, please read
Senate Amendment 1 Senate Amendment 1 to
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
45:30
House Bill 1255 Watson, you're recognized to present the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, earlier in the session we
passed House Bill 1301 by Representative Cozart, and it is now Act 426. This bill, HB 1255, and that bill reflected each other largely similarly. So in the Senate, we amended the language in this bill so as not to overwrite the current act,
aligned the bills together, and now it's primarily just moving the legislative intent from Section 1 to Section 2 and making sure that the bills coordinate with one another. We appreciate a good vote. Representative Dotson has explained the amendment. Would anyone
like to speak against the amendment for the amendment? Representative Dotson is closed for the amendment. Question
for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1255. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
has everyone voted cast out the ballot by a vote of 95 yeas zero nays and one present you've concurred in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1255 Representative Cloud recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1626 Mr. Clerk please read Senate Amendment
1 Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1626.
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
46:56
Loud, you're recognized to present the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. House Bill 1626 was an original amendment to the academic study of the Bible, which was signed into law in 2013. We had in there a provision that if 15 or more students ask that that be done, then the school districts or schools go ahead and furnish that. The Senate took that out. so now it's just up to the schools as to whether or not they will offer that course. So I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Cloud has
explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment and for the amendment? Representative
Cloud is closed for the amendment. The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1626. Prepare
the machine, Mr. Clerk. As everyone voted, cast
out the ballot. By a vote of 82 yeas, 3 nays, 2 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1626.
Representative Allen recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1648. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment 1. Senate
Amendment 1 to House Bill 1648. Representative Allen, you're
recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
48:20
and members. This amendment just deleted the names of some Arkansans off the bill. I appreciate a good vote. Representative Allen has
explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment.
Representative Allen, you close for the amendment. The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to
House Bill 1648. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. has everyone voted
cast up the ballot by a vote of 94 yeas 0 nays 1 present you have concurred in senate amendment 1 to house bill 1648 representative allen recommends that we
concur in senate amendment 1 to house bill 1901 mr clerk please read senate amendment 1. senate amendment 1 to house bill 1901
representative allen you're recognized to explain the amendment Thank you,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
49:18
Mr. Speaker. The amendment on this bill here was to add a Senate sponsor and to add some language to make the bill better. I appreciate a good vote. Representative Allen has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against
the amendment for the amendment? Representative Allen is closed for the amendment. The question for the House is
concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1901. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. has everyone voted cast
up the ballot by a vote of 94 a zero nays they were present you've concurred and sent an amendment one to House Bill 1901 representative Warren recommends that we concur and sent an amendment one to House Bill 1911 mr. clerk please read Senate amendment one Senate amendment
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
50:11
number one to House Bill 1911 representative Warren you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the bill that I brought to you before that adopts the federal grantor trust laws. The Senate took out a provision that dealt with the usage of it before. It still makes it where it's law now, and that's what we needed to accomplish, so I'm happy with that. I would appreciate a good vote. Representative
Warren has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment?
Would anyone like to speak for the amendment? Representative Warren is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment
1 to House Bill 1911. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. By a vote of 96 yeas, 0 nays, 0 present, you have concurred and Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1911.
Representative Kavanaugh recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1943. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment 1. Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill
1943. Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized to explain the amendment.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
51:26
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment that was placed on in the Senate by the request of the AG. It does some clarification on biometric data and the reporting and retaining of information. I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Kavanaugh has explained the amendment. Would
Chair
Unverified
51:40
anyone like to speak against the amendment, for the amendment?
Representative Kavanaugh is closed for the amendment. The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1943. Prepare
the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast up
the ballot. By a vote of 94 yeas, 0 nays, 0 or present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1943. Representative Gates recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1896.
Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment
1. Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1896. Representative
Gates, you're recognized to explain the Amendment 1.
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
52:27
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this is a House bill, and the Senate made it different. Basically,
Speaker 134
52:33
this just changes a couple of words in there instead of or on, changes to and if available on. Entertaining your questions, not appreciated, good vote. Representative Gates has
explained the amendment, wouldn't anyone like to speak against the
amendment? For the amendment? Representative Gates is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is
concurrence with Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1896. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. has everyone voted cast
up the ballot by a vote of 92 yeas 0 nays you were present you've concurred and send an amendment 1 to house bill 1896 okay we're going to go to the supplemental calendar
Representative Mayberry recommends that we concur and Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1385. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment 1.
Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1385.
Representative Mayberry, you're recognized to read Amendment 1. Thank you.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
53:50
Amendment 1 takes out in a certain section of code a structure at which children gather on a regular schedule for educational purposes, including without limitation it strikes out that wording and I appreciate a good
vote representative Mayberry has explained the amendment would anyone like speak against the amendment for the amendment representative Mayberry
is closed for the amendment the question for the house is concurrence with Senate amendment 1 to House bill 1385 prepare the machine mr. clerk As everyone
voted, cast up the ballot by a vote of 82 yeas, 3 nays, 5 present, you have
concurred in Senate Amendment 1 to House Bill 1385. Representative Mayberry recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 2 to House Bill 1385. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Amendment 2. Senate Amendment 2
to House Bill 1385. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized
to explain Amendment 2. Thank you, members. This actually
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
54:55
removes that same wording, but in another section of code, so that the definition is the same in both sections. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Representative Mayberry has explained Amendment 2.
Would anyone like to speak against it? Would anyone like to speak for? Representative Mayberry is
closed for the amendment. The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment 2 to House Bill 1385. Prepare the machine,
Mr. Clerk. has everyone voted cast up the ballot
by a vote of 87 yeas one nays three present you have concurred and sent an amendment to the house bill 1385
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
55:37
representative jane you're recognized thank mr. speaker colleagues we're going to take up senate bill 595 that's the rainy day fund that's It's the exact same bill that we passed out here yesterday.
It's just the Senate version. Any questions? Appreciate a good vote. Your one bill is for the bill in the emergency clause. Mr. Speaker, the clerk, read the bill a third time. Representative
Jean has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to
speak for the bill? Representative Jean is closed for the bill. the question before the house is the passage of senate bill 595 prepare the machine mr clerk
has everyone voted voting on the bill and
the emergency clause cast up the ballot mr clerk by vote of 84 yeas eight nays and one present the bill and emergency clause are
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
57:07
passed representative jean you're recognized Thank you Mr. Speaker. The last appropriation we have for the session is Senate Bill 122, this is UAMS. This does have $1.5 million additional funding in the governor's balanced budget in the RSA. Any questions?
Seeing none, I appreciate a good vote. Your one vote is for the emergency clause and the bill. Mr. Speaker, have the clerk read the bill for the third time. Mr. Clerk, please read
the bill for the third time. bill 122. representative gene has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill would anyone
like to speak for the bill representative gene is closed for the bill the question for the house is the passage of senate bill 122 prepare the machine mr clerk
has everyone voted Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By a vote of 88 yeas, 6 nays, and 0 present, the bill and emergency clause are passed. Representative Gene, you're recognized.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
58:12
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. This is the revenue stabilization on the Senate version, Senate Bill 597. We discussed it the last couple of days, the same version we had just passed out yesterday. Any questions? Appreciate a good vote on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, your vote is for the emergency clause and the bill. Mr. Speaker, let the clerk read the bill a third time. Mr. Clerk, please
Speaker 129
58:33
read the bill for the third time. Senate Bill 597. Representative Gene has explained the
bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative
Gene is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 597. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
As everyone voted, you're voting on the bill and the emergency clause. Cast up the ballot,
Mr. Clerk. By a vote of 87 yeas, 5 nays, and 0 present, the bill and emergency
clause are passed. Mr. Clerk, please
read Senate Bill 623. Bill 623 by Representative Gassaway to remove a driver's license suspension or revocation
Speaker 29
59:31
as an unavailable penalty for an offense not related to driving a motor vehicle. Representative
Mayberry, you're recognized to explain
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
59:55
the bill. Oh, it's ready? Okay. Thank you, Speaker. We have
passed or have attempted to pass many laws that require people
to work. Good laws, laws that I agree with, laws that require
you to work in order to get your insurance, SNAP benefits, lots of things like that. But how do you get to work if you don't have a driver's license to get there? And also some jobs require you to have a driver's license because your job is that you are actually delivering things, working for people. And if you don't have a driver's license, you can't do your job, which means you don't have money and
you can't do anything. Public transportation in this state we know is lacking. So people need driver's license. Judges, I'm sorry, if a defendant is on probation or parole, a driver's license can be revoked if they willfully fail to pay fines or fees. Courts can help poor defendants pay down their debts by allowing time pay plans, community service, or by reducing the amounts owed based on the defendant's ability to pay. Suspending driver's license for failure to pay
forces people to drive illegally to get to work or even to court. Otherwise, they may choose to abide by the law by not driving there and therefore will be unable to satisfy their obligations even to the court. Driving on a suspended license results in separate criminal charges, including at least two days jail time. This bill would still allow judges to suspend licenses if defendants don't come to court to work out their non-payment. It would end license suspension for the sole
offense of failure to pay, thus ensuring that people can keep driving safely to work and to court to help pay down their debts. This bill would not go into effect until funding is secured to replace what the state police would lose to a driver's license reinstatement fee. We have heard that some counties may object to this because it takes away a tool that judges have to compel payments. However, it's important to note that this bill still requires defendants to show up in court to address their non-payment.
Otherwise, their license can be suspended. If they show up and refuse to pay, then they can be put in jail. This simply prohibits a common practice in Arkansas courts where judges automatically suspend licenses for missing a payment without even holding a hearing to determine what has happened. I'd appreciate a good vote. It's a good bill. Representative Richmond, for what purpose? Representative Mayberry has explained the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the
Speaker 154
1:02:44
bill? Representative Dalby, you're recognized to speak against the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is unusual that I would come down and speak against a bill, but this is very critical. Judges have that opportunity to suspend or not to suspend. What this bill says is that you're not going to suspend if they have not paid their fines. What this bill does not tell you, in Arkansas Code Annotated 16-13-701, of which the suspension of driver's license is found within this code section, fine includes, this is the definition
of fine, it includes fines, court costs, restitution, probation fees, and public service work supervisory fees. So if we pass this bill, an individual would not have to pay the restitution. They could keep their driver's license and not pay the restitution. It has always been my philosophy, and I think probably the philosophy of this body, that crime victims
should be made whole first. They should receive their restitution. And I understand the argument that they have to have a driver's license in which to go to work to pay these things. I understand that argument. But you also must understand they can get a hardship license during this time to go to work to pay their fines, their restitution, their court cost, their probationary fees. I think by passing this bill, we will tell the crime victims of our state
that you are not important. You don't have to get that restitution. And I would urge you to vote against this. Our courts are very good about looking at the circumstances of individuals. They just don't willy-nilly suspend a driver's license. They're very good about it. Having served on a bench that has this responsibility, you don't just do away with someone's driver's
license. You must understand that that is a good incentive for an individual to take care of those obligations the court has ordered them to do. I would urge you to vote no. Thank Representative Dalby has spoken against the bill. Would
anyone like to speak for the bill?
Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Bentley, you're recognized to speak against the bill.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:05:40
Colleagues, my first session that I was here worked very hard on a bill to help drug courts and specialty judges to be able to get a hardship license for folks that need a license. need a license. I'm very, very concerned about this bill. I've heard from my sheriffs, my judges across my district that this is going to remove a good incentive for folks that need to get to court. Sometimes we have to have a good tool. Why in the world would we take this good tool away from our judge in order to do good things for folks to help them get on the right path? So I would urge you to vote no on this bill.
Thank you. Representative Bentley has spoken against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill?
Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Mayberry is recognized
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:06:25
to close for the bill. Member, I just come back to the fact, how are you going
to pay these fines if you can't work? Because you can't get to work. And that's what this boils down to me. Look for other options, other ways that someone could be penalized. don't take away their only way that they can get money and support themselves.
Thank you. Representative Mayberry is closed for the bill. Question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 623. Prepare the machine Mr. Clerk.
has everyone voted cast up the ballot mr. clerk with 19 a 69 days and three present the bill has failed mr. Clark read Senate bill 179
Senate bill 179 by representative love to amend the law concerning certain terms of office and the reorganization of
municipal government representative love you're recognized
Speaker 166
1:07:32
to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I bring to you Senate Bill 179 on behalf of Senator Johnson. What this act would do is amend the law concerning certain terms of office and the reorganization of government. So what we're trying to do here is at this present
time, if Little Rock, and this bill only impacts Little Rock, but if Little Rock was to hold an election to actually take their government from the city manager form to the strong mayor form then that would trigger an election what this bill strives to do is to actually make that a trans a gradual transition period so that therefore we wouldn't have to immediately have an election after the change of the change of the form of government basically that's what this bill does I'll take any questions
Speaker 167
1:08:20
seeing no questions I would appreciate a good
vote representative love has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill for the bill representative love is closed for the bill question before the house is the passage of Senate bill 179 prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. With 86 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 present, the bill is passed. Mr. Clerk, read Senate Bill 481.
Speaker 169
1:08:59
We're passing over that bill. Mr. Clerk, read
Speaker 81
1:09:14
Senate Bill 409. Senate Bill 409 by Representative Richmond
to allow for the electronic notification of an invitation for bids and electronic submission of bids and to create the Fair Notice and Efficiency and Public Works Act.
Chair
Unverified
1:09:25
Representative Richmond, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:09:34
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Bill 409 is going to establish a statewide methodology for advertisement bids for your schools, for your counties, and for your municipalities out there. What it's going to allow is for them to be able to seek bids electronically that will allow them to be more efficient in the expenditure of their tax dollars. The way they're going to do this is going to establish a Public Works Committee which will consist of the following people or their designees.
The State Procurement Director, the Executive Director of the Arkansas Press Association, the Executive Director of the Association of Arkansas Counties, the President of the Arkansas Municipal League, and the Executive Director of the Arkansas Association of Education Administration. Those people, their requirements are going to be, and what they're going to provide, is
that they're going to look at the different vendors who provide the e-bid services. and they will select three. They will provide oversight of those services and they will ensure that it remains a competitive
as well as reporting on the performance of those different vendors as they provide these services to the state. I've been told there's about 75 different vendors that can provide these services. They're going to look for the three best and that's the ones that are going to do it. Your counties, your cities, and your schools support this bill. They want this opportunity to be more effective and more efficient. This bill has been amended numerous times down on the Senate end to
ensure that it was completely inclusive and that there was
full support and as of right now, as I understand, everybody is in support of this bill. Apparently they absolutely contacted everybody. The only person that they missed was Vladimir Putin who refused to answer the Senate's phone call but other than that everybody's on board with this bill and I would appreciate a good vote question
representative Richmond has explained the bill would anyone like to
representative Walker you're recognized to speak against the Mr. Speaker,
colleagues, Representative Richmond, my questions really were, in our effort to get the best bids from all concerned, are we required to have the bid process transcend
state lines? And the other was when you get these three bids, is there a requirement that the bidder who has the best bid is the one provided, or does this committee have the option of taking the third best bid when there are two better bids ahead? But since you didn't answer that, I will have no course other than to vote against it. It won't matter, though, but I think that those things in terms of fairness should be the questions that we raise. Thank you.
Representative Walker has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for
the bill? Against the bill? Representative Richmond, you recognize the close for
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:13:11
the bill. Representative Walker, I always listen to you. You know, I very seldom agree with you
on anything for the most part, but you're a man that should always be listened to because you bring up good points that we all should consider each and every time,
and I respect that and I appreciate that. You can understand, though, my reluctance to stay down here and start getting grilled by your questioning because you do such a great job of questioning. Concerning those questions that, yes, as I understand it, bids from across state lines can be considered through this system. The other on that, would you ask that again right quick so I can remember? Mr. Representative Walker, for what purpose?
Speaker 185
1:13:56
The question was asked. You're recognized for a question.
Thank you. The second question was whether when the three bid choices are announced or are made, Is the committee required to take the number one person with the best bid, or may that person take the second or third, may that committee take the second or third best bid? As this committee, it will take, it is supposed to
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:14:25
take the best bid, the best bid that is
provided to them. Now a bid that is made to the schools or the counties or the cities, they also are supposed to take the absolute best bid that provides the services that they're looking for at the most reasonable cost to the taxpayer. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Richmond, it's
closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 409. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Clerk, by a vote of 95 yeas, 0 nay, and 1 present, the bill is passed. Mr.
Clerk, please read Senate Bill 683. Senate
Bill 683 by Representative Gray to abolish the Arkansas Broadband Council, the Arkansas Youth Suicide Prevention Task Force, the Great A Milk Program Advisory Committee, and the Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park Advisory Commission.
Representative Gray, you're recognized to explain
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
1:15:37
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had to wait to run this bill until all of transformation was done just to make sure that everything jived properly. So what we're doing with the governor's approval and approval by the agency, if applicable, is we're striking all language for the Arkansas Broadband Council, Arkansas Youth Suicide Prevention Task Force, Grade A Milk Program Advisory Committee, and Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park Advisory Committee. I'm told that these committees are no longer active they don't meet so we're
just essentially taking them out of the statute so I'd appreciate a good vote thank you representative Gray
has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill would anyone like speak for the bill
representative Gray is closed for the bill the question before the house is the passage of Senate bill 683 prepare of the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By vote of 95 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present. The bill is passed. Members, we're going to go back
and recognize the doctor of the day, Dr. Jennifer Doyle of Little Rock, and the nurses of the day, Sherry Bernard and Brenda Hewitt. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Bill 605.
Senate Bill 605 by Representative De La Rosa to amend the name of National School Lunch State Categorical Funding.
Representative De La Rosa, you're recognized to
Speaker 194
1:17:26
explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All this bill does is it changes the name of the categorical funds that are used that we put out to try and help close the achievement gap. It changes the name, and that's it. It changes the name of those funds from the National School Lunch State Categorical Fund to the Enhanced Student Achievement Fund, which is a more accurate name.
It has nothing to do with school lunches, and there was a whole lot of confusion over that this session. So Senator Clark thought it was a good idea to change the name to be more reflective of what that funding actually does. And I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative De La Rosa has
explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill?
Representative De La Rosa is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 605. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
As everyone voted, cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By vote of 95 yeas, 0
nay and 0 present, the bill is passed. Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Bill 490. Senate Bill 490
by Representative Lowry to expand on the eligibility requirements for students participating in the Succeed Scholarship Program. Representative Lauer, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Speaker 199
1:18:53
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me just clarify that when it says expand, we're not expanding the Succeed Scholarship program. There is a cap, two years ago, then Representative Hammer, now Senator Hammer, expanded succeed scholarship carved out that some of the scholarships would go to 20 a cap of 20 foster children what this program does is or what this bill does is just say that if they are a foster child and they have received a
succeed scholarship which is for developmentally disabled children that they would not lose that scholarship if they if their foster care ends through adoption reunification or permanent guardianship and I think it's just appropriate that we would let them maintain that because there have they're already undergoing so much upheaval in their life we certainly would not want to also remove that opportunity that's been given to them so that's really the only the only expansion is just expanding that eligibility so that it
would continue until they either make a choice to no longer attend that school, or they reach age 21, or that they attend an open enrollment public charter school. They would not then be able to go back and reclaim the succeed scholarship. Mr. Birch, for what purpose? Question. Recognize. Thank you,
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
1:20:25
Mr. Speaker. Just to be clear, is the intent that they stay in that same school, or was this—I had that question asked, and I wasn't sure how to answer it last night.
Do they stay in the same school despite their circumstance changing, or would the scholarship follow them to another school with regard to their change in circumstances? My understanding is that it would be intended for
Speaker 199
1:20:47
them to attend the same school, that it would not follow them to another school. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good vote. Rep. Lowry has explained the bill. Would
anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone
like to speak for the bill? Rep. Mayberry, you're recognized to speak for the bill. I guess
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:21:24
I'm kind of talkative today. I'm sorry, but this is a good bill. A lot of times up here, we hear from adults, from lobbyists, but if we heard from kids, I promise you those kids would be saying, please, if I've come into this school district or to that school, I don't want to move again. I've been in this foster program. I've moved from place to place to place to place.
This is working for me. Please let me stay.
I know that the kids would be saying that. Vote today up on this
one. Thank you. Representative Mayberry has spoken for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would
anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Lowry is recognized
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
1:22:05
to close for the bill. Let me just mention, and thank you for those words of support, just mention one thing.
Speaker 199
1:22:11
We have a cap of 20 that remains in place. Right now, only 13 of those 20
scholarships have been claimed, so it's not anything that's incrementalism. It's not expanding. It just allows those students to be able to receive this scholarship, maintain this scholarship, even if they are blessed through reunification or adoption, that they would not have further upheaval. I appreciate your support for this bill. Representative Lowry has closed for the bill. The question
before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 490. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. has everyone voted
cast up the ballot mr. clerk by a vote of 85 yeas three nays and two present the bill is passed mr. clerk please read senate bill 677. senate
bill 677 by representative scott to require that youths undergo reading assessments and dyslexia screening to require reading and dyslexia services and to require that
Speaker 29
1:23:13
the Division of Youth Services teachers know the best practices of scientific reading instruction. Representative Scott, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Thank you. Good afternoon, colleagues. Good morning. In 2017, Senator Elliott passed the Right to Read Act, which was based on the science of reading and was passed to address reading in K-12. Today's bill is about including children in our juvenile system in efforts to make sure that all children can learn to read. Getting to this point has been a long road, filled with years of hard work, never giving up, and doing the research and working with all groups. In 2011, Senator Elliott introduced legislation to address dyslexia,
a reading issue that if left undressed will impact a person for a lifetime. This bill led to two years of study, resulting in legislation in 2013. Tweaks were made in 2015 so students with dyslexia can get services that they need to learn to read. This bill is a step to closing the loop in K-12 in all public schools and all public institutions. This bill was structured very similarly to what ADE is already doing in our public schools,
Speaker 106
1:24:31
and it has the support of DYS. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Seeing no questions, I ask for a due pass. Representative Scott has explained the
bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Scott is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 677. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By a vote of 86 yays, 4 nays, and 0 present, the bill is passed. Mr. Clerk, please
read Senate Bill 664. Senate Bill 664 by Representative Scott to require that new inmates receive reading assessments and dyslexia screenings, to require reading and
Speaker 29
1:25:19
dyslexia services, and to require corrections teachers know best practices of science-based reading instruction. Representative Scott, you're recognized to explain the
bill. Thank you. I didn't realize I was getting right back up. So this bill is very similar to the one that I just spoke about.
Inmates, there's an estimate of inmates in the Department of Corrections with dyslexia, and the estimate is rather staggering. Those with dyslexia very often can't read or they can't read at a proficient rate. Many of them will be returning to society in our neighborhoods. The ability to read is a well-defined skill that will determine their success once they're released. This bill is structured differently because of the clientele that it seeks to serve.
This work, this bill was accomplished, and Senator Elliott and I worked with the ADC. We worked with the superintendent of the ADC Correctional School System, Dr. Glover, and Solomon Graves. And yesterday, Dr. Charles Allen, the chief operations officer, testified and supported this bill. I'm happy to answer any questions. Seeing no questions, I ask for a good vote. Representative Scott has explained the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Scott is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 664. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? cast up the ballot mr clerk by a vote of 77 yays 7 nays and when present the bill is passed
Speaker 219
1:27:09
represent blake for what purpose point of order let's hear your point um according to arkansas state code 10-2-114 i would like to request
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
1:27:25
a fiscal impact statement for sb1 sb411 Thank you.
consultation with the parliamentarian the chair finds that the statute with which you referenced is inapplicable to
the current bill additionally you did not reference the rule but there is a house rule on point as well or identical similar to the code and likewise the chair rules that it is inapplicable to the bill at hand similar to the findings of the committee chair yesterday I would like a official statement from the speaker and the parliamentarian for a
Speaker 223
1:28:20
record you just heard one of right of written record please there will be no
further statement the statement of the chair
stands mr. clerk please read Senate bill 619 Senate bill 619
by representative Vaught to amend the membership requirements for the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board Representative Vaught
you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank
You Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 619 just changes it to where anyone who's graduated from a two-year or a four-year school can be appointed or college sorry not school two-year or four-year college can be appointed to the Higher Education
Speaker 227
1:29:06
Coordinating Board and with that I would appreciate a good
vote. Representative Vaught has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill would anyone like to speak for
the bill? Representative Vaught is closed for the the bill the question before the house is the passage of Senate bill 619 prepare the machine mr. clerk has everyone voted cast up the ballot mr. clerk by a vote of
90 a zero nay and two present the bill is passed mr. clerk please read Senate bill
657 Senate bill 657 by a
representative wing to amend the law concerning the method by which the Office of Driver Services may provide required notices to a person
whose driver's license or permit has been suspended,
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:29:59
disqualified, or revoked. Representative Wing, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What we're doing here with this Senate bill is amending the procedure. We're changing two words from certified mail to first class mail. We have discovered that this is a secondary notification.
The primary notifications have already taken place. The driver's license has been pulled at the time of the arrest. They've been given a court date, a temporary license, and if applicable, they've also received notices from a bail bondsman. So what we're doing here is just changing this secondary notification to bring it more into conformity with other types of secondary notification. Happy to take any questions? Seeing none, appreciate a good vote. Representative Wing has explained the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Wing is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 657. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. of 91 yeas, two nays, and when present, the bill is passed. Members, we have with
us former representative Eddie Armstrong. Mr. Clerk, please
read Senate Bill 652. Senate Bill 652 by
Representative Tosh. to name the office building located at 501 Wood Lane, Little Rock, Arkansas, to honor Governor Winthrop Rockefeller. Representative Tosh, you're recognized
to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Colleagues, this bill is to name the office building located at 501 Wood Lane, Little Rock, Arkansas, to honor Governor Winthrop Rockefeller. If you're not familiar with where this building is at, if you walked out of the front of the Capitol, across the street there on Capitol, it's the first building there on the right. And this was presented in state agencies, there's no opposition to it, or there wasn't in state agencies, so I would appreciate a good vote.
Representative Tosh has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to
speak for the bill? Representative Tosh is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 652. Prepare the machine,
Mr. Clerk. has everyone voted cast up the ballot mr. clerk by vote of 92 yeas two nays and zero present the bill is passed mr. clerk please read
senate bill 679 senate bill 679 by representative beck to amend the
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:32:50
local government capital improvement revenue bond act of 1985 representative beck you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speakers. Colleagues, I promise this is the last energy performance contract bill I will bring to you this session. All right, just a quick review. We've done 21 of these projects. They've cost us about $102 million. They have a guaranteed savings of $150 million. This is really a program that's working. So all we've got in front of us today
is changes some of the codes to allow us to be better aligned with the federal programs and also to allow our municipalities to take advantage of these programs. I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Beck has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the
bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Beck is closed for the bill. The
question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 679. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By a vote of 94 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, the bill is passed. Mr. Clerk,
please read Senate Bill 411. Senate Bill 411 by Representative Brant Smith to prohibit municipal sanctuary policies.
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
1:34:27
Representative Smith, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I'm bringing Senate
Bill 411 to you today for your affirmation, your vote of confidence in what we're trying to do.
It's an act to prohibit municipal sanctuary policies within the state of Arkansas. This bill solely addresses sanctuary city, not immigration policy. It is about following federal law. That's what it does. In 2018, Customs Border agents seized 282,000 pounds of cocaine and 2,400 pounds of fentanyl.
That alone is enough to kill the entire population of the United States. In addition, 248,000 pounds of meth and 6,500 pounds of heroin have been seized. That's a total of 1.7 million pounds of narcotics in one year. If death and addiction aren't the causes sufficient enough for us to comprehend the magnitude of this issue, consider also the strain it puts on our economic infrastructure.
The millions spent on health care and rehab treating those whose lives have been impacted by these issues as a result of not securing our borders or establishing in the future sanctuary cities within the state of Arkansas is a problem. Our immigration system is broken, but this bill doesn't address immigration issues. That's a federal issue. This bill addresses sanctuary status in the state of Arkansas.
Our laws are not being enforced, and our citizens, the very people we stand in this chamber to represent, are tired of it. After 30 years of promises by both political parties, promises have not been kept. People are weary. You see, adherence to our laws is the bedrock to a functioning democracy. The primary function of government, whether on the state or local level, is the safety and security of our people.
It was brought up in committee that this bill might get us into trouble with the feds. In fact, every state around us has passed similar legislation. One witness testified that if we support this bill, we're going to be sued. I don't like threats like that. I don't think anyone in this room likes to be threatened like that, and yet that is what we heard. Congress is now considering a bill introduced to strengthen the interior enforcement of our immigration laws
by allowing state and local governments to enforce federal immigration laws. This bill, Senate Bill 411, simply prohibits sanctuary policies. It defines what a municipal sanctuary policy is in subsection B. It also provides a penalty for the law in subsection C. As each of you already know, sanctuary policies defy federal law, which our city, county, and state governmental bodies are bound to comply with.
It prohibits profiling. It prohibits profiling. We don't have to profile individuals that are misbehaving or committing criminal acts. We know when they're taken into custody whether or not they have committed a crime. Yesterday in committee, one of the oppositions to this bill said it was a solution looking for a problem.
If I've heard that once, I've heard it a thousand times during my three terms down here. It blows my mind that people can still not see what's happening around us within our state, the northern border, and the southern border. You may be walking around with cancer and not be able to see it. That doesn't mean you don't have a problem. tell that to the families i've spoken with over the last few weeks and months
whose loved ones have been in accidents all over the state of arkansas some have endured injury some have lost loved ones some someone because someone who was here illegally who had no liability insurance was not arrested and never showed up in court solution looking for a problem I don't think so. Tell the mother and dad of the 13-year-old girl in Florida last week who was riding her bicycle to school when she was run over and killed by an individual who was here in our
country illegally. Solution looking for a problem? I don't think so. Tell the family in Alabama whose 12-year-old daughter was brutally raped a week ago or so by a man who had previously been deported twice. That little girl will never be the same. A solution in search of a problem? I don't think so. Tell the angel moms in Arkansas whose son was killed in a wreck caused by a person who was in the U.S. illegally. Thousands of American citizens are dead as a result of people who came here
illegally. A solution looking for a problem? I don't think so. This doesn't take into account hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans who have died or are currently struggling with addiction as a result of drugs brought across our borders and into this country by individuals whose first crime was to come across the border illegally. A solution looking for a problem? I don't think so. And with
this explanation of Senate Bill 411, I ask for a good vote.
Representative Clowning, for what purpose? Question. Representative Smith has left the well. Representative Smith has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the
bill? Representative Whitaker. Representative Pilkington, for what purpose? Motion. Let's hear your motion. Motion for immediate consideration. Representative Pilkington, I'm not going to take that motion at this time. Representative Whitaker,
you're recognized to speak against the bill. Representative Wardlaw, for what purpose?
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
1:41:17
Let's hear your motion. A motion to limit debate to 10 minutes on each side. I'm
not going to take that motion at this time. Representative Whitaker, you're recognized to speak
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
1:41:39
against the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Friends, colleagues, I come today before you to speak against this bill, not against any person or party. I will speak only to my legal objections as
a licensed attorney in this state. Any social or
moral implications that may be carried with this bill or for anybody else.
Today we'll talk about the law. Thank you, Mr. Sorvilla. This short little bill is in my opinion facially unconstitutional because it's too short. It lacks certain basic constitutional protections that our Constitution requires.
It is facially unconstitutional, and I will briefly explain how I believe it fails to live up to the standards of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendment. One of the first problems we encounter when we read this bill is that out of the blue, this bill, this law, if you choose to vote for it, will make the Attorney General the
the investigative and enforcement official for this law. Any reading of it leaves the firm conclusion that the AG will become judge, jury, and executioner for any municipality accused of violating this law. Our constitutional framework abhors the idea of a single official having such unfettered
discretion, which leads to my second objection. I won't go into the subtleties of what we in the law call substantive due process. The legal teams that will be suing us will have plenty of time to develop those issues. For today's purposes, I'll just outline very quickly the problems I see with procedural due process. The silence of this bill is deafening.
First of all, where is the due process? If a municipality, if someone makes a complaint against a municipality that they
are, quote unquote, violating this law. How do they know? Are they noticed? Are they told, hey, you're in violation? Another part. Is there a hearing? Will an accused city have an opportunity to
appear and be heard? To know the witnesses against them? To be able to question them? to confront them as our Sixth Amendment requires? Nothing. Nothing in here. The
bill also talks about an appeal to
the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Well, the problem here is the appeal has very specific meanings in Arkansas law.
An appeal usually is a review of the legal questions related to a proceeding
that happened before. A true appeal needs a record of a hearing. It needs something for the court to look at and rule on. Now, we do have something in Arkansas called a trial de novo. There's a counterpart in other sections of our law, where because there is no record below, the circuit court opens an entirely
new trial. We start from scratch, everybody gets noticed, everybody gets discovery, we have witnesses, we have pleadings, we in fact have a group, the right to a jury. of that's in here, folks. To quote one of my dearest law professors, and some of you may remember him, Ray Guzman, folks, this is a Jane look at the cat question. This bill
is facially unconstitutional. Finally, on a more private, personal note to each of you into this body as a whole. This is the kind of bill that we all come to understand stirs passions in all of us, both good and bad. But let me share with you my belief that thinking men and women can and often do disagree.
disagree. Let us hope that we can always work to an agreement. But if we can't, let us strive to disagree without acrimony or rancor. And my friends, I wish you all the peace of our Lord. Representative Whitaker has spoken against the bill.
Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Richmond you're recognized to speak for the bill thank you
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:47:30
mr. speaker thank you colleagues this particular bill does not establish a new rule or a new law saying that the cities that decide to become sanctuary are suddenly going to do something illegal. It's already federal law to be a sanctuary city that you cannot do that now. Let's face it, the federal law hasn't done a very good job of enforcing it. But we talked about all the constitutionality of this particular bill, yet why is it that
suddenly anything this bill does is unconstitutional. However, if the federal government comes down and says, we are going to enforce our laws and do something about sanctuary cities, what's unconstitutional about that? Nothing. The law already exists. We're saying, Arkansas, all, we're going to follow the federal law. And we're not breaking any constitutional
laws by following federal law, doing what they say and what is already on the books. So I do not buy into that argument. And you're going to hear other things, too. You're going to hear about local control. Well, this should be a local issue. The state shouldn't be involved. We use local control on both sides to talk about everything. All I can say is, The President Eisenhower, should he had deferred to local control of Governor Faubus back in September 1957, concerning our schools here in Little Rock, nobody in this chamber would
agree with that. But it's not about local control, it's about following the law. You'll hear that it's about racial profiling. And some are going to say, how dare you, Representative Richmond, bring up racial profiling. would you know about racial profiling? And you're absolutely right. I don't know anything about racial profiling here in the United States. And shame on us, all of us, every single one of us for not doing a better job, for not stopping that scourge that continues to divide us and separate
us. But I'll tell you this, I do know about racial profiling overseas. I know about getting up every morning for two solid years and making sure, checking my calendar and making sure that I didn't leave the compound at the same time, that I didn't take the same route, that I didn't leave out of the same gate, that when I looked at the gardener who was looking at me, that his smile could not hide the hate in his eyes and that he intended to do me harm. So I do know about that.
but this is not about racial profiling this is about following the law and of course the other distractors it's about immigration no it's not it's about following the law now somehow or another if we're going to be found unconstitutional for following federal law then we've got a lot of problems and again
I know some of the argument well we violate federal law with our medical marijuana Now, yes, we are.
The people told us to do it, and we followed the people's direction. And we might have to pay for that someday in a bad way. It may be a bad thing that happens to this state eventually. Only time will tell. And all I can say is if you want to make Arkansas a sanctuary city or sanctuary state, use the same process. Go out there and get it on the ballot. Pass it like they did medical marijuana. I encourage you to take that and run on that platform.
Because the people of Arkansas don't want it. And I intend to listen to the voices in my district who are telling me, pass this bill. Thank you. Representative Blake, for what
Speaker 257
1:51:42
purpose? Questions? I see Richmond doesn't intend on answering any
Speaker 118
1:51:47
questions. Representative Walker, for what purpose? I wanted to ask another
question. Representative Richmond has left the well.
Representative Richmond has spoken for the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Godfrey, you're recognized to speak against
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
1:52:09
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, it's probably not surprising to you that I've chosen to speak out against this bill today. Many people in my community have been watching it very closely and have reached out to share their fear and heartbreak over this proposal. I've spoken with some of you about this bill, asked you to oppose it, and regardless, as I felt repeatedly throughout this session, I'm grateful for your willingness to dialogue
about this important issue. There are many reasons to oppose this bill. This bill has negative economic consequences for our city and state. Business community is opposed to the bill. There are significant concerns with legal issues and municipality issues. There are mayors all over the state who are worried about it. And it causes unease and hurt in diverse communities like mine and others all across Arkansas. But all of these concerns were raised in committee both days we heard the bill.
And so my final plea to you to oppose this bill is to appeal to our common faith in Jesus Christ. and to the values he taught us to champion as his disciples. Throughout the scriptures, our God of the Old and the New Testament was intentional to tell the stories in his word of welcoming the stranger and the foreigner, of creating sacred spaces of safety and warmth to those who are from elsewhere.
Jesus taught us to love our neighbor and illuminated through his parables that our neighbors are those who look and speak differently, those who are on the margins, and even those who are difficult to love. And he told us that when we welcome the stranger, we welcome him into our cities. I'm not advocating that we shouldn't have policies and rules and laws. Those of you who made the arguments about the rule of law and the fact that we are a nation of laws are right.
I agree with you, but we in this room are lawmakers, and if we are lawmakers who claim Christ, we can and should do the work of making just and fair laws that also embody the compassion of Christ and His command to welcome the stranger into our communities. I have tremendous respect for those of you in this room, and one of the most pleasant surprises of this session has been the very special friendships I've made with
so many of you. And I know that I don't have very much political capital in this room, but I do think that I have your respect. And so the only thing I can ask with sincerity and urgency is that you would
prayerfully consider opposing this bill. Thank you. Representative Godfrey has spoken against the bill. Would
anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Deffenbaugh, you're recognized to
speak for the bill. I forgot what y'all look like from this vantage point, but it'll be, what I've got
to say is real, it'll be real brief. I sat in on this committee meeting and one of the lawyers made the statement that an undocumented illegal alien can be picked up by the police and if they don't like how they're handled or they think they've been misrepresented or whatever according to our laws of the land they can sue the police or sue whomever and so all I'm saying that to say this is I'm just asking you to vote for this because at least it'll
make our laws a little bit stronger. Thanks. Representative Deffenbaugh
has spoken for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Clowney is recognized to speak against the bill. Thank You Mr. Speaker.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:56:22
Colleagues I think we've heard a lot about whether we as a state should be for or against sanctuary cities. And I want to just draw our attention back to one thing, and that is this bill before us right now.
Contrary to what Representative Richmond just said, sanctuary is a political term. It is not legally defined. There is no federal legal definition of the word sanctuary. That's why we need a law that defines it clearly. This law does not. This law defines any policy as sanctuary that is quote-unquote formally or informally adopted by custom or practice. That's the problem with this bill, informal custom. What does that mean? What does it mean for a city to adopt an
informal practice of being a sanctuary? We don't know. This bill doesn't tell us. Does this mean that if police are called to a domestic disturbance and suspect the victim is undocumented, they may feel like they can't help? What if protecting somebody who may be undocumented is considered to sanctuary service. Further, this bill will without a doubt open cities up to civil rights lawsuits, which they know. We've heard it today, and it's why the Municipal League and city attorneys have been adamantly opposed. These are a few small problems with this bill. They're big
problems with this bill. But you can absolutely, and I want to make this clear, you can be in favor of anti-sanctuary city legislation and still oppose this bill before us today. this bill opens our cities up to a huge amount of litigation this bill will create distrust between our cities and our immigrant population undermining our city's ability to control for themselves how to further their own goodwill and public safety this bill will create an unfunded
mandate for our municipalities to examine their practices formal and informal to see if they are in violation, and we're expected to vote on it without seeing a fiscal impact statement about what those liabilities will be. Importantly, this bill's sponsor testified in committee that this bill wouldn't address an existing problem. In committee, this bill's sponsor likened this legislation to a flu shot, purely preventative. But let's consider the process
that this bill went through. This bill sat on the deferred list for months. It was rushed through at the last minute without the information that we need to make a good decision. So to stick with the flu shot analogy, this is like whipping up a shot, placing it on the shelf for a while, pulling it down in a panic, and then using it on a patient without knowing all the ingredients. Whether you are for sanctuary cities or not is irrelevant. Whether you view human beings who live within the boundaries of our state as a cancer is irrelevant actually to
this bill. We are charged with voting on the bill before us. This bill is bad medicine for a problem that the bill's own sponsor has admitted doesn't exist. Please vote no. Representative Godfrey has spoken
against the bill. Representative Miller. let's let's hear your
motion consideration that's a proper motion and it's not debatable the question for the house is the immediate
consideration of Senate bill 411 all in favor say aye aye any opposed will the eyes have it The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 411. We do have two pairs on the desk. Representative Charlene Fite votes yes. Representative Steve McGee votes no. Witnessed by Representative Holcomb. Representative McGee is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair?
Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Representative Ladyman votes yes. Whitaker votes no. Witnessed by Representative Meeks. Representative Whitaker is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Question for the House is the passage of Senate Bill 411. Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By voting
of 69 yes excuse me 71 yays 24 nays and one present the bill is passed mr. clerk please read senate bill 461 bill 461 by
Speaker 81
2:01:05
representative lanny fight to amend the
law concerning the creation of and timing of tax collection in certain department fire departments and improvement districts
Speaker 273
2:01:20
represent fight you're recognized to explain the the bill thank you mr. chair this is Senate bill 461 brought to you by senator hammer this bill is a fire improvement district bill what fire
prison improvement district bill does is that the the fee is collected by the collector in the county at this time some people do pay and some do not pay pay. Under this, it would be mandatory that they all pay. It's a fairness thing. It also restructures how a fire protection district is set up. Under this, 10% of the electors in the fire district would petition the county court for becoming a fire improvement district.
Then they would go to the quorum court. The quorum court would have a public hearing and At that time, during that public hearing, the citizens would be able to say whether they support this or not. Also, these signatures will be confirmed by the county clerk at the time to make sure that they are proper signatures. After the hearing, an ordinance will be created creating a fire improvement district. Right now, the law has no cap on it, but this would have $100 per cap per parcel.
If it went to that or above that, then it would come back before the quorum court for explanation. General Improvement Funds have left our volunteer fire departments, and our volunteer fire departments are in dire need right now, and this would be good for them. Also the tax collectors
Speaker 110
2:03:00
are for this bill right here. I would be
Speaker 134
2:03:06
happy to answer any questions. Representative Gates, for what purpose? You're recognized. So this would allow rural fire departments to put on a tax bill a dues.
Would it prevent somebody from paying their real estate or property tax if they were not willing to pay volunteer fire department dues? It would. Seeing no other questions, I'd appreciate a
good vote. Representative Fiedt has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? would anyone like speak for the bill represent fight is closed for the bill the question for the house is
the passage of Senate bill 461 prepare the machine mr. clerk
has everyone voted you're voting on the bill and the emergency clause cast up about mr. clerk by vote of 73 a's nine nays and four present the bill and emergency clause have passed members we're going
to take about a five minute recess before we take up the resolutions this will allow us a little
bit of time to check and make sure that we have taken care of all the business from the Senate in so with that we'll be in recess for five minutes
Unknown speaker
2:04:59
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The House will come to order. Speaker
Shepard, you're recognized. Members, before we take up these final two resolutions, which appear to be the final two votes of this session. First, I want to thank you for your work and service over
the course of the last several months. I appreciate everybody's hard work. I think it's allowed us to be very efficient in our work and to do the best job that we can for the people of Arkansas. I felt the need to come down today before these resolutions and before in particular the first resolution that is proposed just to kind of circle back on some remarks that I made and some discussion that took place at the outset of the session. As you recall, at the beginning of the session, there were House rules that were proposed
and there was some discussion and debate about whether the committee selection process should change. And those that have been here for more than one term know that the idea of changing the committee selection process process after we made the change two years ago has been discussed and there's been much talk about that. Throughout the past, the better part of the last two years and particularly at the outset of the session, I indicated that I would allow other proposals to be brought forward, particularly with regard to
proposals that might move back towards a process more like was in place previously and I believe that we've done that. We now have a proposal that is before you today and I just want to be very clear that I'm not weighing in on this one way or the other and that I want this vote to be taken by each individual member on what they believe is in the best interest of the House and is in fact the best way to select committees and that has been at the top
of my mind as we have moved through this process and as we consider this, and as a reminder, if this does not, if this proposal does not reach the requisite number of votes for passage, then the rules will remain the same with regard to committee selection. And if it does pass, then there would be a change in the rules. But I wanted to make very clear that I have attempted to allow this process to be handled consistent with what I have said all along and that the each member each
individual member should have the freedom to vote as they see fit on this
particular resolution and with that mr. speaker I'll turn it back over to you mr. clerk read
house resolution 1023 house resolution 1023
by representative andy davis to amend the rules
of the house of representatives of the 92nd general assembly representative
Chair
Unverified
2:18:08
davis be recognized explain the resolution thank
you mr speaker members let me
start out by just uh thanking speaker shepherd and just uh concurring with everything he said he's been very open honest and very good to work with through this process in fact the resolution that i have here although it has my name on it is the result of several proposals that have kind of taken the best ideas from each and mashed them into one. So I just want to thank everybody that's taking the time to offer proposals and ideas and debate this rule of the House. Also, I just want to state, out of caution,
that this is no reflection on the Speaker's selections for the 92nd General Assembly. With that authority also comes tremendous responsibility, and I think the Speaker did a tremendous job at those selections. And this resolution before you today really just comes out of more of a desire of members to their preference to have committee selection back to their own as opposed to being assigned by the speaker. So with that, I'll explain to you what's in the resolution. There's three main
points in this resolution. This resolution only pertains to committee selection. There are no other rule changes here. First of all, we go back to members selecting their committee, their committees. The process, for those of you who are in your first term, we used to do this in four separate rooms, and you would select by seniority. What this resolution provides for is that we would select by seniority one to a hundred in this chamber. Everybody in one room, one to a hundred
for A's, 1 to 100 for B's, and then 1 to 100 for budget, audit, and council. Second provision, oh, and in that, we do maintain the four congressional caucus district limits. So on your A's and B's, we'll still be limited to five people from each congressional caucus. That maintains a geographical distribution on the committees. Second point, actually 3B on my list.
We formalize the trading process. In the past, when we made our own committee selections, kind of in the fury, the last few minutes, members would pair up, say, hey, I got this, you got that. Maybe a member of higher seniority wanted to trade with a member of lower seniority, it's very informal. We formalize that process and allow trading until the end of business on the day the selections are made, until the end of business that day. So you'll have a few hours to try to make any sort of trade
that you may want to have. We also formalize that sort of like pairing a vote. It'll require both member signatures and the signature of their caucus leader and the speaker. The reasoning behind that is just so that it is very open and transparent and nobody in the future could come back and say, well, you shouldn't have been on this or that. You picked this, so this will just document what you're doing if you decide to make a trade. Lastly, this resolution would authorize the speaker to make adjustments to committee selections
only for the purpose of providing a majority party a majority of a committee. I want to stress that they can only make adjustments for the purpose of giving majority and party the majority of a committee. And they can only make enough adjustments to change that majority. So if a minority party were to get 11 seats on a committee and the Speaker decided that they wanted to adjust that so that the minority party didn't have a majority of members on a committee,
he could only make two changes so that the minority party still had nine seats. He can't go beyond that. This is permissive language. It's not required. There are a lot of situations you can imagine, depending on the makeup, if you're 51, 49, 60, 40, what have you, there may be a lot of reasons why a speaker may not want to make that change, but it is so it is just permissive. Other than this, there is no provision for party makeup, ratio, or limit. With
that, I'll be happy to try and address any questions.
Speaker 283
2:22:34
Representative Blake, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized for a question. Representative Davis, let me see if I understand
Speaker 219
2:22:43
this clearly. If there is 11 members from the minority party, would the speaker be able to trade one member so the minority wouldn't have the majority, or would the majority be required to have a majority? So basically asking, could there not be a 10-10 split? There could be
a 10-10 split. There's no requirement.
He could choose to do nothing. He could choose to make one change, so it's 10-10. He could choose to make two, so it's 9-11 the other way, but it
Speaker 170
2:23:15
can't go any further than that. Thank you.
Speaker 131
2:23:20
Representative McKenzie, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
2:23:24
Now, this is only going to affect right now with this real change, if it's passed. the standing committees A and B so what is the thought process and if I understand it correctly what is the thought process as to not continue in
this personal selection with seniority with these other select committees so it's this
this affects a B and the big three budget council budget council and and audit. My answer to you on why aren't we doing something different on the other select committees is because select committees weren't changed in the past. So we're trying to keep this as simple as possible and focus it only on the selections that we voted out
in whatever, two years ago, three years ago, whatever that was. So we're just focused on that. The select committees have not been changed in the past, so we're still not touching those follow-up you
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
2:24:25
recognize for a follow-up just so I can understand and maybe for my fellow freshmen could you what are the the ones that have never been changed just so I know what those are that
are going to be separate I'll try I don't know that I can name them all but so so a select committee is a committee that the speaker or the speaker and the pro tem jointly appoint a
hundred percent select committees include house
rules joint energy house House Management, Technology, I said House Management, we got that one,
Retirement, JPR, somebody's saying, so those are committees that the Speaker or the Pro Tem complete, appoint, nobody selects those, and those have been that way as long as I can remember four terms.
Speaker 292
2:25:15
Representative Whitaker, for what purpose? Question, please. You're recognized for a question. Davis, on
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
2:25:23
the adjustment rules, I just want to be clear, is the speaker constrained to basically bump
off the lowest seniority, or can they remove any person? There's no restrainment
on who they can move, and so just, in my opinion, Representative Whitaker with the trading option there it gives members I think after you made
selection you would know if you were potentially in that situation and so you as an individual member or as a caucus would have the ability to make a decision prior to the speaker taking action on whether or not you wanted to move and who to move through a trade process does that make sense yes thank you potentially if you elected not to change anything then you know the The Speaker has that authority, and there's no restraints on who they move, just the number of moves. Representative Lowry, for what purpose?
Question. You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 296
2:26:24
Speaker. This may just be a process question
Speaker 199
2:26:28
in terms of just how we carry out this rule, but you referenced that we would still adhere to the five members from each congressional district in the A and the B committees, but the process is not really spelled out. Looking here it says the seniority rotation procedure shall continue until the member of the least seniority makes his or her selection but in terms of process would we also not laying need
language in there that says or until a committee is capped out at the number of members in the congressional district? Well our
current rule even with speaker making selections still requires that congressional district make up, so that language is already in there that that's required. As far as process goes, you're right, we don't spell it out exactly. What I envision would happen is very similar to the way the Senate selects. This is what they do. Staff will have to track how many members from each caucus have selected a committee
as we go, and, you know, for instance, when you've got five members from the second on a committee they'll just announce to the chamber transportation committee is closed to
Speaker 298
2:27:42
the second district okay follow-up you recognize for follow-up okay and i just
Speaker 199
2:27:47
have one other question about process i i know since this is not statutory language per se we're probably not as tied closely to to language but i see on line 28 of page two there's actually a word missing
Is that something that we can change after the fact if we pass this resolution, or do we need to actually amend it? No, it's a rule.
We can change it any time we want to.
Speaker 302
2:28:24
Is that recognized? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lowry, in preparation for the next regular session, a new set of rules will be drafted and presented to the House, and that adjustments like that are common and can be made.
Speaker 170
2:28:42
that clarification. Representative Booten, for what purpose? Question. Can you
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:28:47
recognize for a question? Mr. Davis, could you share the basis for the need for the change or why this resolution was approved to be presented to this body? What has caused that or what reason for the
change? I'll do my best, Representative.
What I would say is strictly a personal
preference and it probably means more to members who have been here in previous sessions and they were able to select their committees. And then in this session, by our own vote, We were not able to make that selection. I think, for myself personally, there's a preference to go back to kind of making your own pick. Secondly, I would say that there was a little bit
of a logistics issue with the way we did it this time, and that we didn't know what committee we were on until the first day of session. In the past, you would have known your committees the same week you were elected. You would have selected those committees that next Thursday of Friday, and you would have known for the rest of the month of November and December and the first week of January before you got to session what committee you were going to be on, who you're going to be working with, and that can help you in bill preparation and deciding where your emphasis is going to be and so on and so forth.
So I think this process just helps the entire chamber and each member individually better prepare themselves for a session. Follow-up. you recognize for a follow-up um
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
2:30:26
to what degree this will this diminish the role of the speaker uh is it that he will be able to make the adjustments relative to party minority or majority is that is that going to be his involvement that that is the speaker's
sole authority to make that adjustment that we're
Speaker 170
2:30:55
talking about thank you Okay, I hope that, oh, Representative Lowry, for what
Speaker 199
2:31:00
purpose? Question. You're recognized for a question. You just mentioned that the, thank you, Mr. Speaker. You just mentioned that the sole authority the Speaker has to make adjustments is to make the adjustment a majority or minority. But is it true, or maybe I'm misreading it, that the Speaker could also make an adjustment if he or she wanted to name someone as chairman of a certain committee,
and they had not been able to pick that committee, could that adjustment
be made? No. It says it can only make adjustments for the purpose of changing minority and majority
Speaker 170
2:31:35
make-up. All right. Thank you. Representative Love, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized
Speaker 166
2:31:41
for a question. Representative Davis, forgive me because I haven't reviewed this bill, but
Speaker 311
2:31:45
can you reflect on what you said about the minority party so that I can get a clear understanding?
In regards to committee selection, what can happen? Okay, so there's
no requirement on ratio or limit of how many people in a minority party can be on a committee. There's no requirement. The only thing that addresses minority-majority party makeup is it gives the speaker the authority to make adjustments such to ensure the majority party has majority of a committee. It's permissive. He doesn't have to do it.
And he could only make enough adjustments
to flip that majority. So he couldn't take the minority party to fewer than nine seats. Does that
Speaker 20
2:32:33
make sense? Yes, it makes sense. All right. Thank
you. Okay. Seeing nobody else standing up. Appreciate a good vote. More than 67 of them.
Representative Davis has explained the resolution. would anyone like to speak
Chair
Unverified
2:32:55
against the resolution for the resolution representative gates you're
Speaker 134
2:32:59
recognized to speak for the resolution thank you mr speaker as you know i was one of those last year that tried to get a resolution passed and also introduced mine along with three there were four of them in total uh i and i've had several people text me while this was being presented and where I stood on this. I think this is a reasonable, I think everybody had to give up a little bit, and I think we have to do that sometimes. Is it exactly what I want to know? Is it exactly like
anybody that presented? No, but that's what we come together. We govern by consensus, and I think this is a reasonable measure for us, and I'll be supporting. I'd encourage you to consider it also. Thank you. Representative Gates
spoke for the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution? For the resolution?
Chair
Unverified
2:33:54
Representative McKenzie, you recognize speak for the resolution.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
2:34:04
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Here we are full circle. This is how I got my start. It was rocky, wasn't it? I am for this. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. I do want to give a little bit of perspective and address a couple
of things that I hope that we would, with regard to this, the way we can look at down the road. As I mentioned to you all, because the unique situation when I was running for office in that interim period before I was sworn in, everywhere I went
to these groups and spoke with, the constant question was, what committee you're going to be on? So that's how we kept engaging in discussion that you all may not have had with your constituents yet, because it normally doesn't come up. They normally don't ask you about the rules of the House. It came up in that context repeatedly. So I was able to get a lot of good feedback from folks on this. Now, it's common sense, I believe, that the voters, your constituents
are going to approach this the same way. How does this affect me? How does this affect the representation that you give me? And so I think as I talked to those folks, and they looked at me, and I mentioned, are you going to speak up? Because I think they realized If the power drifts away from us and goes into the speaker regardless of who that speaker is, their representation is diluted.
Some of our loyalty can be switched, divided. With regard to the choice, and I realize that we're going back, looks like, similar to what we used to
do before. I think if I understand correctly, the Senate actually, I believe, at least at some point, allowed for folks to actually pick the chairmanships and find the basis of seniority, what was available. I hope that we will begin to,
I want us to pass this today. I hope we get it. I think it's a great first step, and I think an all or nothing wouldn't have worked. I really hope that we do this because I believe this is blood that your constituents would favor, but I want us to look at how we can best represent our people. If there's a lot to be given out, if there are a lot of favors that you can distribute, it can certainly color and change and influence our loyalties.
the folks back home they hired me they can fire me and they pay my bill they pay our salary and it is so important that we have rules in place that remind us and refocus us as to there are the ones that we answer to and those are where our interests should be first and foremost.
So I think this is a great bill that we have, a resolution that we have in front of us, and I really hope that when you go back and talk to your folks, when you give them this and you actually lay it out for them, they can figure out real fast. I work with a lot of kids, and I teach them, and they know at the end, these little five-year-old kids, they know at the end of my class I'm going to give out some prizes. They know it. They're not foolish. As soon as they walk in that door, they say to me, I like your dress, I like your shoes, I like your hair.
My hair never looks good. But I know, I understand at five, they get how the game is played. So
I think the best we can do for our constituents is maintain as much power individually because that's where their power flows from. is the folks they sent here to be their voice. So I'm hoping
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
2:38:16
for a really favorable, high-threshold vote for this. Representative McKenzie has spoke for the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Lynch, you're recognized to speak against the
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
2:38:41
resolution. Colleagues, I too believe that seniority is important. this assembly but I don't think it's the only qualifier for committee assignments. I think education and life experiences ought to be a part of that and I would
hate to know that I had to run a business based on people that work for me picking their own jobs and so I think it's important that that the whole bouquet of experience and qualifications are looked at in committee assignments. So I'd ask for a no vote on this. Representative
resolution. Would anyone like to speak for the resolution?
Representative Wardlaw, you recognize to speak for the resolution. Thank
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
2:39:40
you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, over the last two years when this rule got changed. I was perfectly fine with the way it was when I first got here. Because I, and this rule does this, you have to preserve the fact that on a map we represent our folks equally and this thing ensures that we go to our
caucus districts and pick our committees, five per caucus. This thing allows you to make the selection instead of anyone else. What got us in this mess before was losing the majority of a committee. I like the way Representative Davis put it in there permissively, that way the speaker makes that decision, no one else. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative Waterlaw spoke before the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution?
Speaker 170
2:40:30
Representative Blake, for what purpose? Geographical. For
that clarification. Representative Wardlaw spoke for the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution?
For the resolution, Representative De La Rosa, you recognize to speak for the resolution.
Speaker 194
2:41:01
Thank you. I'm going to keep it super short because I didn't expect to talk. to representative lynch's point earlier against this bill saying that he wouldn't want employees picking their own jobs i just want to make one clarification we don't work for the speaker representative de la
rosa spoke for the resolution would anyone like to speak against the resolution. For the resolution, Representative Davis, would you like to close for your resolution?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I just want to clarify. A few people have said something to me about this. The next resolution on the calendar is a totally different subject. This is the only rule proposal you have before you today. The next resolution, totally different. Appreciate a good vote.
Representative Davis is closed for the resolution. Question before the house is the passage of H.R. 1023. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. With 77 yeas, 6 nays, and 12 present, the resolution is adopted. Mr. Clerk read House resolution 1036. House resolution 1036 by Representative Dotson
Speaker 81
2:42:37
to amend the rules of the House of Representatives of the 92nd General Assembly. Representative Dotson you're recognized. Explain the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:42:50
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this resolution has absolutely nothing to do with committee selection. Get that one off
the table right now. This is a very simple, as you can see, not even a full page. It strikes one sentence in our current rules that eliminates the two-day calendar. So if you remember at the beginning of the session, we had a blue calendar on our desk. Four sessions ago when we instituted that rule, we thought, hey, this is going to be a wonderful thing.
Every single session since we instituted that rule, we've suspended that rule as soon as sessions started to get busy. So this would permanently eliminate that portion of it. The second thing it would do, it adds one sentence to the rules, and that sentence is a bill shall not be placed on a committee agenda until the second calendar day following the initial filing of a bill. What this would mean is that right now on say a Tuesday afternoon you could file a bill and then it would be on the Wednesday morning committee's agenda.
With this rule if adopted it would move that back to where it would have to be filed on a Monday before it could be heard on a Wednesday's committee agenda. It gives the public a full day in between filing of a bill initially and the time when it's heard, so you won't have any surprises when you walk into committee the next morning having printed off your calendar the day before at 3.30 when we get out of session and say, oh, wow, this wasn't on the agenda yesterday. It hadn't been filed. It'll give that full second calendar day time frame.
With that, I'll take any questions. Representative Blake, for what purpose?
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
2:44:36
Question. You're recognized for a question. Representative Dodson, when we go on to suspend the two-day rule for the
Speaker 327
2:44:42
floor, will that rule also be suspended for the committees? Well, we won't need
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:44:50
to suspend the rule because it will be
eliminated. So going forward in the future, if this rule is adopted today, as is, it will eliminate that two-day calendar from when the bill comes out of committee it can come onto
the floor the second day or the day after that as opposed to right now when we suspend the rule the operation will be exactly as it's been for the last three
Speaker 219
2:45:19
or four weeks since we suspended the rule follow up you're recognized for a follow-up so just for my clarity we're suspending the two-day rule from committee to the house but we're instituting a two-day rule from filing to committees so so we're making it giving the committee the proper two days to review the
bill but not the entire body of the house from when it comes from from the committee well
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:45:44
at that point they will have had at least three days the entire body and the public will have had time So we're in essence allowing the public the extra time, and really the committee process is the only time the public has time to come and testify for or against a bill. This kind of moves the two days in front of when you hear
Speaker 219
2:46:06
it in committee the first time. You're recognized for another follow-up. Wouldn't you agree that the entire body with the public would need that additional time
to understand the bills that are flowing from committee to the House since we are the body that's
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:46:21
voting on them? Well, I would say you can make that argument backwards and forwards. However, the fact of the matter is we typically suspend that rule for the last four sessions, I believe without objection any time that it's been since the time I've been here anyway. so since we suspend the rule once things start to get busy it just doesn't make a lot of sense to keep it in our rules to have to suspend it once things get busy
represent Lowry for what purpose question you recognize for a question
Speaker 199
2:46:52
as you know I like the rule about having to wait 24 hours before a bill could be taken up in committee some didn't like it but if we got late in the session and And we've seen some cases where we've had to quickly, you know, someone's had to sponsor a bill because there's been an error maybe found in a previous version. Would we be able to suspend that rule on the committee, on the bill appearing in a committee?
And I take it it would have to take place here
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:47:26
in the chamber? Yeah, that would still require a suspension by the body, not by the individual committee. But, yes, just like any other rule in here, if we all agree, we can suspend any rule in our rules. All right. Thank you. With that, I'd appreciate a
good vote. Representative Dotson has explained the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against
Chair
Unverified
2:47:51
the resolution? Representative McKenzie, you recognize to speak against the resolution.
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
2:47:54
thank you Mr. Speaker I had ice cream and I thought that would make me sweeter before I came out here I'm really not against it I'm
more like this because I like the first portion of it and with a portion about the committee I like that what I have found in my experience with my constituents is is when we suspend and went to the one day before it hits us the floor I'll be reaching out to people the night beforehand, and I won't see some of the stuff until midnight,
and I'll realize, oh, I need to reach out to so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so about this. And I do the next morning, and they'll respond back and say, yeah, let me think about that. I'll get back with you tomorrow. And I always have to say, actually, no, you have three hours. What I found with every single one of those people, never once did they say, okay, well, never mind. They stopped what they were doing because it mattered to them. They knew this legislation was going to affect them, and they got back to me as quickly as they could. How sad it was, though, when those people didn't see that text or that email, and they
got back to me 6 o'clock that night, and I said, oh, I'm sorry, I voted on that four hours ago. So that's the problem I have with this. Normally I'm a get-up-and-go kind of girl. I like to get things on top of things, but I'm not sure how well I can serve my constituents. And up to this point, I don't know how I can get across and look at all the different committee agendas to let the folks know on things are going on on a committee that I'm not on to give them a heads up in time so that's my only reservation on this I
like a portion of it but I don't know how well I'm gonna be able to function I found it difficult this time to give good representation to folks when
they had such a short turnaround time to give me their feedback when something was coming to the
floor representative McKenzie has spoke against the resolution would anyone like to speak for the
resolution represent Pilkington for what purpose motion let's hear your motion motion for immediate consideration
I'm not going to take that motion right now representative McKinsey has
spoke against the resolution. Would anyone like to speak for the resolution? Against the resolution, Representative Blake, you're
recognized to speak against the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pipson,
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
2:50:25
we're going to get you home to your wife, man. Hold on just a minute. I don't even know if I'm speaking against this, but since it's Dotson, I'm definitely going to speak against it. I actually just have a question for him.
Speaker 219
2:50:39
Once, if a bill is filed on members' own, will that cost two days as well. So that's a question I have. If there's a member's own amendment on the bill, will that process have a two-day wait period as well? Thank you. Representative
Blake has spoken against the resolution. Representative Dodson, would you like to close for the resolution?
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:51:02
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And just for that, I was not going to answer that question and just come up and leave the well
or go back to my seat. But, you know, it's a simple question to answer. It says the second calendar day following the initial filing of the bill. So it wouldn't have anything to do with members' own calendar or amendments or anything like that. And also with that, I had to get the last word in after Representative Blake. So with that,
I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Dotson is closed for the resolution.
The question before the House is the adoption of House Resolution 1036. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has
Speaker 162
2:51:55
everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk.
With 67 yays, 11 nays, and 14 present, the resolution is adopted.
Members, one other item
of business before we leave. I would like to publicly announce the vice chairs and chairs of the subcommittees of audit and ALC, and you'll recall that the committee appointments to those
committees were made at the outset of the session, and so these positions come from those members who were appointed to these committees. Joint Audit, Standing Committee on State Agencies, Jay Richardson, Vice Chair, Nelda Speaks, Chair. Standing Committee on Educational Institutions, Julie Mayberry, Vice Chair, Stan Berry, Chair. Standing Committee on Counties and Municipalities, Johnny Rive, Vice Chair, Danny Watson,
Chair. Medicaid Subcommittee, Vivian Flowers, Vice
Chair, Justin Gonzalez, Chair. Executive Committee consists of Nelda Speaks, Stanberry, Danny Watson, and previously representative Deanne Vaught was appointed vice chair and representative Richard Womack was appointed chair. ALC executive subcommittee, the three positions that were actually all four were previously
announced. The executive subcommittee members consist of representative Wardlaw co-chair, representative Dodson vice co-chair, myself and representative Kenneth Ferguson. Rules and Regs Subcommittee. Representative Lane Jean, Vice Co-Chair. Representative Dan Sullivan, Co-Chair. Charitable Penal and Correctional Institutions. Representative Richard Womack, Vice Co-Chair. Representative David Fielding, Co-Chair. Claims Review Subcommittee. Representative Brant Smith, Vice Co-Chair. Representative Bruce Kozart, Co-Chair. Game
and Fish State Police Subcommittee. Representative John Payton, Vice Co-Chair. Representative Josh Miller, Co-Chair. Higher Education Subcommittee, Representative Mark Lowry, Vice Co-Chair, Representative David Whitaker, Co-Chair. Hospital and Medicaid Studies Subcommittee, Representative Charlene Fite, Vice Co-Chair, Representative Frederick Love, Co-Chair. Litigation Reports Oversight Subcommittee, Representative Leanne Birch, Vice Co-Chair, Representative Lanny Fite, Co-Chair. performance evaluation expenditure review representative gary deffenbaugh vice co-chair
representative deanne baut co-chair policy making subcommittee representative dan douglas vice co-chair representative ken bragg co-chair review subcommittee representative marcus richmond vice co-chair representative andy davis co-chair uniform personnel classification compensation plan subcommittee representative kenneth ferguson vice co-chair representative jim wooten co-chair lottery oversight subcommittee representative laurie rushing vice co-chair representative chris richie co-chair highway commission review and advisory subcommittee representative reginald
murdoch vice co-chair representative ron mcnair co-chair arkansas health insurance marketplace oversight subcommittee representative charles blake vice co-chair representative deborah ferguson co-chair represent meeks you're recognized thank you mr speaker in
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:55:49
accordance with house current current resolution 1006 i move the house of representative adjourn until we are reconvened for certain purposes to further the business of
of the regular session or until the session
is adjourned, signeed aye. The proper motion, it's not debatable. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. The motion carries. One other announcement, members. We anticipate that signeed aye adjournment
will be two weeks from today on April 24th, likely at noon.
April 24th at noon. The House is adjourned.
Agenda
Morning Hour
Call To Order
Prayer
Roll Call
RESOLUTIONS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HR1077 Holcomb TO CONGRATULATE THE WOODLAWN HIGH SCHOOL BEARS BASEBALL TEAM.
SCR3 G. Leding(Scott) TO RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY NOLAN RICHARDSON JR. TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AND TO REQUEST THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT FAYETTEVILLE NAME THE BASKETBALL COURT IN BUD WALTON ARENA IN HIS HONOR.
SCR6 J. English(Perry) TO BRING AWARENESS TO PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAMS AND TO DECLARE THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER "RESILIENCY WEEK".
End of Morning Hour
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1854 Hillman 1 TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD.
HB1460 Speaks 1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES; AND TO REQUIRE UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT.
HB1417 Watson 1 TO AMEND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967 TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF CERTAIN PERSONS ASSISTING IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS; AND TO CREATE AN EXEMPTION TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 1967.
HB1763 A. Davis 1 TO CREATE THE TRANSFORMATION AND EFFICIENCIES ACT OF 2019; TO ESTABLISH CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENTS; TO TRANSFER STATE ENTITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1765 Maddox1 TO ESTABLISH THE UNIFORM DIRECTED TRUST ACT.
HB1695 Scott1 TO PROTECT CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING TRAFFICKED FROM BEING PROSECUTED FOR PROSTITUTION.
HB1217 Tosh1 CONCERNING THE SUBMISSION OF AND FORENSIC TESTING OF FIRE ARMS BY THE STATE CRIME LABORATORY.
HB1633 Tosh1 TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WITNESS INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, JURY TAMPERING, AND BRIBERY.
HB1609 Gazaway1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
HB1789 Penzo1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF TRAFFICKING; AND TO CREATE AN OFFENSE FOR THE UNLAWFUL SOLICITATION FOR THE RELINQUISHMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.
HB1693 Wing1 TO AMEND THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-GENERAL CONTRACT OR METHOD OF PROCUREMENT PILOT PROGRAM.
HB1255 Dotson1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING LICENSING, REGISTRATION, AND CERTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN PROFESSIONS; AND TO ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF ENDORSEMENT, RECOGNITION, AND RECIPROCITY FOR LICENSING.
HB1626 Cloud1 CONCERNING THE OFFERING OF AN ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE BIBLE COURSE IF STUDENTS REQUEST THAT THE COURSE BE OFFERED.
HB1648 F. Allen1 TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ARKANSAS CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS AND HEROES IN THE TEACHING MATERIALS REGARDING AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL.
HB1901 F. Allen1 TO CREATE THE ACADEMIC SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIP.
HB1911 M. Gray1 TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1929 CONCERNING WHO SHALL BE TREATED AS THE OWNER OF A PORTION OF A TRUST.
HB1943 Cavenaugh1 TO AMEND THE PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT; AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PERSONAL INFORMATION" IN THE PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT.
HB1896 Gates1 TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.
HB1385 TO AMEND THE LAW TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF "SCHOOLHOUSE" WITH REGARD TO BUSINESSES REGULATED BY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
HB1385
SB623 A. Clark(Gazaway) TO REMOVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION AS AN AVAILABLE PENALTY FOR AN OFFENSE NOT RELATED TO DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.
SB179 M. Johnson(Love) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN TERMS OF OFFICE AND THEREORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
SB481 A. Clark(Love) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RETAIL WATER PROVIDERS AND RELATED SERVICE.
SB409 Flippo(Richmond) TO ALLOW FOR THE ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION OF AN INVITATION FORBIDS AND ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF BIDS; AND TO CREATE THE FAIR NOTICE AND EFFICIENCY IN PUBLIC WORKS ACT.
SB683 Hester(Gray) TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS BROADBAND COUNCIL, THE ARKANSAS YOUTH SUICIDE PREVENTION TASK FORCE, THE GRADE "A" MILK PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THE PRAIRIE GROVE BATTLEFIELD STATE PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SB605 A. Clark(Della Rosa) TO AMEND THE NAME OF NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH STATE CATEGORICAL FUNDING.
SB490 K. Hammer(Lowery) TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE SUCCEED SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.
SB677 Elliott(Scott) TO REQUIRE THAT YOUTHS UNDERGO READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND DYSLEXIA SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE THAT DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES' TEACHERS KNOW BEST PRACTICES OF SCIENTIFIC READING INSTRUCTION.
SB664 Elliott(Scott) TO REQUIRE THAT NEW INMATES RECEIVE READING ASSESSMENTS AND DYSLEXIA SCREENINGS; TO REQUIRE READING AND DYSLEXIA SERVICES; AND TO REQUIRE CORRECTIONS TEACHERS KNOW BEST PRACTICES OF SCIENCE-BASED READING INSTRUCTION.
SB619 L. Eads(Vaught) TO AMEND THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARKANSAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD.
SB657 B. Sample(Wing) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE METHOD BY WHICH THE OFFICE OF DRIVER SERVICES MAY PROVIDE REQUIRED NOTICES TO A PERSON WHOSE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR PERMIT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED, DISQUALIFIED, OR REVOKED.
SB652 M. Johnson(Tosh) TO NAME THE OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 501 WOODLANE, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND TO HONOR GOVERNOR WINTHROP ROCKEFELLER.
SB679 K. Ingram(Beck) TO AMEND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BOND ACT OF 1985.
SB411 G. Stubblefield(B. Smith) TO PROHIBIT MUNICIPAL SANCTUARY POLICIES.
SB461 K. Hammer(L. Fite) TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CREATION OF AND TIMING OF TAX COLLECTION IN CERTAIN FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Personal Privilege
HR1023 A. Davis TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
HR1036 Dotson TO AMEND THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
SB595 AN ACT TO DEFINE THE MONIES TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE RAINY DAY FUND; AND TO ALLOW THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDS MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR STATE AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS APPROPRIATIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
SB122 AN ACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2019-2020 0FISCAL YEAR.
SB597
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught Chair
Unverified
Speaker 29
Speaker 22
Representative Marsh Davis Chair
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 39
Representative Jamie Scott Chair
Unverified
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry Chair
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Nelda Speaks Chair
Unverified
Representative Danny Watson
Unverified
Speaker 68
Representative Ken Bragg Chair
Unverified
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Speaker 106
Representative Dwight Tosh Chair
Unverified
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Representative Clint Penzo
Unverified
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Representative Joe Cloud
Unverified
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Representative Mickey Gates
Unverified
Speaker 134
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 154
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks Chair
Unverified
Speaker 166
Speaker 167
Speaker 169
Speaker 81
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 185
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Speaker 194
Speaker 199
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
Speaker 219
Representative Charles Blake
Unverified
Speaker 223
Speaker 227
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Representative Stu Smith
Unverified
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
Speaker 257
Speaker 118
Representative Megan Godfrey
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh Chair
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 273
Speaker 110
Speaker 283
Speaker 170
Speaker 131
Representative Gayla H. McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 292
Speaker 296
Speaker 298
Speaker 302
Speaker 87
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 311
Speaker 20
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Speaker 207
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 327
Speaker 162
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified