Joint Budget Committee

Alright members if you get your state will start in one minute. For. We. So. Amend would you were. Okay and then some of them are. Good. We will call the joint budget committee to order. First item on the agenda is item C. one. Traders you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. One item C. one in your packets on page one. This is an amendment by senator Ballenger to house bill 1016 department of energy and environment division of environmental quality this act amends special language to eliminate cost recovery to the division of environmental quality associated with landfill repayments. Okay members what we're going to do is if you have a amendment we are going to let you if you have a like in front of it speak it your position if not of unity come down the table Mister Balaji will come down to the. They will. We'll try to keep as much moving around possible. In place. Senate about your field. Recognize yourself and explain your amendment. Thank you Sir Ballenger so this is an issue that if you have not been living at like those of us and the 6 counties have been living it it can be extremely complicated and I think that there is there is there is some confusion apparently is going around it's all me do this let me let me start by saying what this bill does not do and I think that anybody who's who is really paying attention to this they would agree that this bill does not do this one thing that does not affect the bondholders so if you heard some people who were concerned about the bondholders this does not affect the ability for the bond holders to get paid back it doesn't do that this this doesn't affect any other waste management district except for the one that is actually filed for bankruptcy I am less in the future another one file for bankruptcy which at this point there are not very many waste management districts that are owned or the own landfill but but this very narrow so let me start by kind of give you a little bit of history. Way back in the 19 nineties the legislature passed a of a law Senate code the loud for the creation of waste management districts they're essentially work utilized in order for for counties to come together to and you guys most of us have dealt with waste management this to see got it I did what they are well this one waste management district decided to buy land fill the landfill at the time was had actually problems with it they probably pay too much for the landfill they may even been some illegal activity with with the whole thing but we're talking about something that happened way back you know 20 years ago or so the people who were involved in that are all gone none of them aren't in elected office anymore none of them are are around the Lamar operating this well what happened is this land fill this place manager district went on with this landfill for a long time trying to make it work trying to do things and and it just basically went under it you know they could make a work they filed for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy judge said there's no mechanism for you to file for bankruptcy in the law you don't have a right to file for bankruptcy kicked it out then the bondholders filed a lawsuit AT you queue and came in on the lawsuit that eventually they worked out a settlement agreement but by that time that appointed a receiver over the waste management district so the constituents want recognize weren't represented at all in the process and it worked out worked out an agreement well that agreement requires essentially every person in the 6 county area to be taxed at $18 a year now you know real due process no representation by the body of the judge that that rule that not from the you know sometimes bad facts made by law and and I feel like this sort of the case in this situation your bond holders who invested in this you know they did it just like they do with cities and other things all that you know I you know whether or not they're culpable because they should have never invested in this or not all that is the role of in that part of essentially we're not addressing we don't have any control over that but what we do have some control over right here is whether or not AT Q. continues to seek the reimbursement now the way the agreement is worked out is that it's actually agreement set out over 20 years in the bond holders get paid back first then AT queue gets paid back under the agreement. 80 years working on trying to find other ways to shore up the the the post closure fund and dealing with that AT cues okay with with with not collecting their their portion of this the $80 fee in order to help these constituents in this area but they want to make sure that they have approval from the legislature to do that so essentially that's what we're doing here right so what all we're doing you see the amendment it's a super short amendment and to me that this is probably the way that the special language look it is cutting out special language so let let me say this that. Senator key by the secretary key who was at that time Senator Ricky introduce special language to try to help his constituents to try to deal with closing out this plan fund for this landfill years ago and that special language was was put into the 80 he's budget and it included this section here that now we're taking out so essentially through the special language all we're doing is winding through what was special language way back in 2014 I've talked to everybody on this at 1.this was there was a concerted effort working together with with AT queue at this point 80 cues like look all we want is we just want to know what the legislature once on it and so they're neutral on on this piece of legislation but I can tell you that they are okay with for given their portion of this that to try to help my constituents who frankly had nothing to do with with you get a benefit out of this and nothing do with making these bad choices way back when and having said that I'm happy to answer any questions all right Sir Ballenger you have couple questions Sir. Representative house you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman thank you senator for bringing this to our attention of. 80 E. Q. has to answer to the United States department of environmental protection agency all cleaning up the sites is that not correct yes well EPA would have something to say if we weren't handling our business correct correct okay so if the residents of this district do not pay for the clean up through this $18 assessment that money has to come. From somewhere where is it going to come from well the money is already came from the post closure trust fund so the bill is a fund set up to deal with the environment has like this and so it it it has it has already paid for getting this clean up done and you want me say this that 1 thing that's important to remember is it you know what we're talking about here in the citizens of the state of Arkansas who some of them got 0 benefit out of this that their trash didn't never went into the landfill and actually our people get didn't really know gain out to be a part of this they were they were by legislation they were forced into a a closet governmental state agency which it is a state agency they come up here with the rules all that stuff but without really any representation other than the legislators who back in 1990 voted to make that happen 1 more question Mister go ahead. But all of this is being driven by the United States department of environmental you do not States environmental protection agency puts these requirements on a D. E. Q. and that's why all of these things happen in this sequence is that not correct at. Rep said house you're you're really sharp guy but I I would say in this case I think you're probably. If it I mean it would be so if we didn't do anything of our 82 we did nothing then then the EPA would come in and say you know what are you doing we're gonna take over and they'll they would clean up this landfill but I really think AT queue is doing this because they have our best with responsibility to handle the environment and in Arkansas so I think their motivation is probably not because they're what they're afraid of the hammer from EPA but because of the of the fact that somewhere and and Baxter county is a landfill that was leaching into the into the streams and creeks and they didn't want that to happen and so that's why they stepped in to clean it up thank you Mr chairman. Thank you represent house senator Ingram you're recognized. Thank you of Mister chairman in of. I have a about 5 proxies here and I'm getting questions from people so I've got to pull questions to ask their support man to me right now Senator Ingram. It is that a real. Much of. Blazing when you need to get something passed. I'm very with me a life exactly of first did you say that a ET Q. has no rules that that 82 is so in support of this well let me say this 80 he was in support of it and now their official position is they have no position of no position yeah and Sir you know we wanted to bring them and then they'd be happy to to say that but yeah they have no official position on their neutral and of I guess the the $17000000 that's already been expended the way the bond payments are set up the bond holders are paid off first through the fee and then a ET Q. would be reimbursed the the money that is owed for the on that the state has already paid out approximately 10 years correct well I I guess of I have a question to why should the state give it up it's right to be reimbursed for what it's already been spent yeah and and it's this is this is part of when you kind of put together something with convoluted it it gets convoluted. They are the waste management district is a state agency so essentially it's the state you know in the post closure trust fund which was set up for that essentially collecting from the state you know in this case through citizens or be in taxes this $118 a year but it's there taxing essentially the the the state agency which is the waste management district and so the answer is it really is kind of coming from 1 hand to the other these are just taxpayers just like taxpayers anywhere else the difference is the questions of of culpability work or even benefit like what we all the time charge fees for services well this is not a fee for service because of many of these constituents gotten 0 out of it's got no benefit you know it if there is any culpability he could rest in this body even though none of us were around in the mid nineties but it could rest in this body for setting up a really bad scheme that of that enable them to purchase of a bad landfill that should never happen back then I mean I wish we go back and collect from those people who made those bad decisions but most of them aren't even alive anymore. The the the well I'm a Representative Andy Davis taught me a good lesson one time I came in front of his special language and I was trying to get just a little bit of money out of this post closure landfill to do something with in it that time it was dean so important it couldn't afford $150000 and but yet now we're willing to now we're willing to give up our lean rights over $17000000 you mention all right let me see what I got here of. Didn't eat any of me years you're sort of putting the blame on somebody else but county leadership the solid waste district you the county the elected body approve the group that's operating this correct admit one done without it did just one set up I mean it was set up following procedures yes there was there the board there was county elected leadership there was on the board so those people also are all gone you know the one to elected to actually take on this landfill they're not part of that board anymore in fact the board now is under receivership so the board that even have any control but when all these things were happening most of that some people were around when these the when the landfill still existed some of them are still in office but at that point they were just trying to clean up a mess right so so but as the people who made the decision to buy this landfill none of them are still there. Now you mention that there is of still a number of. Of these they're operating that OWN their landfill and operate the landfill we have to ask 82 but I think there's 2 that that my information scissors 3 but may be adding this okay. I mean what keeps them I mean if what keeps them from just walking away from their responsibility of as well if we are not going to hold anybody you know we're gonna hold everybody harmless that just bankruptcy operation of. What keeps those up from just walking away from it well this mass right so this is been a terrible experience FOR 6 counties in the state of Arkansas this is not something that anybody who is a citizen of those counties expression elected official in those counties ever want to experience so there's no way that this would then make it where that's a it's an easier flip that thing I would say is I don't think the you have to have a code section to enable a lawsuit right so you can file a lawsuit you know with or without having the code section now the question is whether or not there would be some sovereign immunity for these waste management districts because of the fact that they are of a state agency and in short and so and and it does get kind of weird when the state is filing suit against the state but in the end I I mean I would say that I don't think that really changes anything I think what will end up happening and and I know look I know these are most of your constituents the my constituents right but at some point you're going to be in the same boat where you're gonna have your constituents are gonna be unjustly taxed on something that's going to be a huge deal to them and that's what this is about is you know it isn't fair it's not proper it's not appropriate that we should put the burden on the citizens of got no no benefit out of it in the end and we can't do anything about the fact they're gonna have to pay the bondholders back. Not in this setting anyway but we can't do is we can give some forbearance from 80. F. it but you and I think you started to allude to this wall ago but this language then the others 2 or 3 the operating they would be able to walk away and not have any liability don't from post closure for because it's B. if if they took bankruptcy then they they could walk away they can file bankruptcy that's part one the reason so they can't file bankruptcy so if they if they walk away then the question is you know what it but I'm telling you whatever this this will part of it. Compared to the overall mess that we're dealing with here this is nothing compared to what the people in my district have have went through expression of elected officials in my district county people they're they're not going to look not going to walk away from this if they can make this work at all and it so far you know they want to who do have a waste management do have a 8 landfill they are making it work it's functioning this one is the one that had and and I'm so sorry to so many of these last question I mean there are a lot of services the people pay for that they don't they pay for fire department I might not ever use the fire department either I mean that's just sort of part of the the what way to deal works but again of the we're giving up lien writes on $17000000 that the state is already expend. At that's correct now the the only caveat I would say is none of this money will be collected for 10 years he even if it is collected and the reason why it may not be collected there's currently a lawsuit that's going on that actually was you know one of the circuit court level this being appealed and effective that if they win then this may it'll become a moot point I don't know how they're going to you know what what will happen in that lawsuit but I know one thing as a legislator I have the ability to come and give some relief to my people and my districts by asking AT queue for bear and they've agreed to do it the question now is as this legislative body are they going to be on board to allow that to happen or not thank you and thank you committee for indulging these questions. Thank you senator Irvin serving center Ingram's senator Irvin the next one up. You're recognized thank you I just wanted to chime in because I have areas that are affected by this and I really appreciate US senator Ballenger you bring in this Ford I mean everything that he says is correct it's a horrible situation yes there are people that should be held responsible for this but unfortunately there's so many citizens that were really the ones that got left paying the bill that really had not much to do with this situation and so I just wanted to advocate for this and I really appreciate that you brought this Ford thank you senator Irvin and and this is this is just what were the part that we're seeing now you've done a whole lot of work to get us to where where we are in and this this process is taken literally almost 2 years to get to the point where we are right now and I appreciate your your work on it. Represent of house for back to you. Thank you Mr chairman of senator Ballenger there's probably 3 or 4 of us in the room that I understand what a receivership is correct receivership is essentially a state bankruptcy isn't it at. That in a lot of ways I guess I can see it similar similar what I would what I would characterize it is when people aren't aren't able to to manage in the and and control their business then they appoint somebody over it who can then manage and control their business so in this case it's you know the the the waste management district in the court's opinion one get it done so appointed one person that they can work with the negotiate with a follow up and and into receivership a receiver usually is given the power to do something that we see often times in a bankruptcy is to collect all the assets pay the creditors as far as it goes and then dismiss the debts in the state courts the to the extent that the assets aren't available yes like bankruptcy court not the not the business entity is going away is winding down and that's exactly what happens unless it's something that intends to be an ongoing concern which in this case it does which even adds another dynamic and and confusion to the just like a chapter 11 bankruptcy similar yeah okay thank you. Representative Lundstrum you're recognized. Thank you did this board have insurance of any kind. Nothing that that would come as no errors and omissions thank you. Senator Flippo you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman one reader 8 my colleague senator Irvin on that this encompasses all the counties in my Senate district and I could sit here and go on for the entirety of this state members about this issue in the bottle that is been since the beginning however I'm strongly hoping that you're gonna go along with this and so whatever's too you know hope that that will come to fruition I will be brief just to say senator Ballenger that this this you know this language is not going to allow for immediate you know cancellation of 17 or $18000000 that the the 80 Cubans they will start to go to the courts to ask for them to allow that you know you know for allow this to take place now likely that that you know to do that the P. would you know go ahead and allow that to happen but there are no position now to have to go into this immediately back I in firmly not expecting the you know any time you know this month or next month reading this year maybe next year that is going to you know that that's going to happen as far as the media I don't I'm I I'm I'm all over my want to get it get it I do too but I. With that is that I was or will likely like that's going to happen immediately I want members know that there's nothing in this language says if you vote for this bill today that that's going to that's going to happen there's leave their process that has to take place right is so I mean essentially what we're doing here because this code section 1 is the there's already an agreed upon order or judgment right so they did even utilize this this code section in order to to get the ability to collect $18 fee what we're doing here is we're saying to ADD queue it's okay a we're not gonna hold you guys we're giving them some cover to forgive the 7 to the 7080 $0 that's basically what what we're doing there okay with it but they want to make sure that they're not sitting out there on their own and that they got the legislature agreeing to it and so it isn't going to I mean it doesn't directly affect the the order out there save for the fact that 80 Q. is willing at that this point if we're willing to do this to say okay we will we will for bear we will not collect this because they get it they understand that in order to do this they are you know taking in trying to get money for the citizens and in order to get the money for the citizens there are essentially part of a judgment against the citizens and it's an awkward weird place to be that they they don't want to be a special when you're talking about citizens the frankly didn't do anything to deserve it they're not culpable for. Polish German. It's just that the to to close with this and just so members understand that this not a possibility if there were some deception and deceit and you know illegalities involved in this they're absolutely was in this is that users a great example of good Ole boy politics in which some members of the salt waster board we're strong arming and intimidating other members to go along with this and reason other other things as leverage and I don't know that that's a good excuse but that's the reality of what was going on and what was taking place in these member when he ran for judging and there's a Class A cities wasn't like he had a depth of knowledge of solid waste district trash collections now that comes with the territory of running for those positions but what happens you have a handful of people that got together and decided that this was going to be a boondoggle for so certain individuals. At the end and inherently yellow misled coerced and manipulated other members of the sport into going along with it and the citizens of all the people were the least responsible for this the buckle and I would appreciate a good vote your consideration on this. Thank you your your more point and then I'm. Which would have a question. Got another question hold on. Senator Clark you're recognized. Yes Senator Belcher. Would you explain to me the difference and I think there probably is a difference. Of but I have a municipality that. Host tens of millions of dollars to Lotfi and they're not the only one there's I know there's a couple northwest Arkansas. Of for not paying in. For their part apartments for decades. Of and I know but over the years they've talked about that they wanted. To be forgiven for that the rest of the state to take on that bill how is that different from what you all are talking about it in the the biggest difference is the fact that this is a is a agency of the state right the was created do you know as a waste management district and that doesn't have the same representation as a city with elected officials elected leaders and so forth have you know that that issue may be something that we need to take in consideration to figure out how to handle that but but in the end you the the cities themselves are well represented in making that decision about whether or not they're the ones to decide whether they have a fire department what they do with fire department who they hire the fire department and and so forth so the question really is is you know in this case it really was a few people who were who were part of a corrupt system they got my citizens into this the really never never received any benefit from it and it is different than a fire department because you do have a blanket benefit from the fire department this waste management district they really are not gaining anything from expression of the landfill portion of it that you know that we're not even delivery haven't delivered our trash to for a decade. So who was who was the board had to help who how were they selected who so the board at that time was made up of county judges I think it were there doesn't it and they were were and this is years ago and most of them either warning gaze weren't paying attention to this issue or if they were it looks like they have a vested interest in making this landfill happen but they were elected. They were elected and that it but you know absolutely so if you want to hold the the the citizens who elected them back in 2 decades ago if the if you want to hold my citizens today accountable for the fact that they elected county judges then then that's that may be a reason to vote against this amendment but the way I see it is we have citizens who are not culpable not responsible aren't receiving any benefit from this we're still going to be paid for by the way it's not you know they don't let's not get out of jail free card for my citizens it just is the state 3 through 80 you queue is willing to forgive a little bit if we're willing to do this not I'm not against too but I mean is is that the is that the argument that our grand kids are gonna make about our national debt. Yes they are that's a bill but they'll be seeking something called that repudiation at that point thank you. Della Rosa you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair and I was late getting in so if you've already answered this I apologize but it's. I I notice it this is changing language on page 24 removing that section 2. But the committees of language that actually references that is permissive already it just as they may so if they already have the ability to not institute a civil action. Why would we need to take away their ability to institute a civil action should they want to to recover those monies why does this need to be struck if it's permissive already it it I'm not answer that question but I did come hit on the point. And the reason is by us voting for this we're telling 80 E. Q. basically that we are okay a with them for giving it because the truth is they didn't even use this code section when they it was part of a settlement agreement so they didn't they never instituted a civil action against the waste management district so they didn't even need this code section in order to get the judgment that they have against basically my citizens. What this does is this says okay we're willing to to do this Bob Missy Scott all the representatives who who are represent from this we're willing to do this but only if the legislature says okay we're okay with doing that and so that's basically what we're doing by by taking this special language is we are giving the stamp of approval to the 80 Q. to grant hello grace to the to our constituents. So take your questions we don't have to like thank you they have the right to go in and say now we're not going to collect the speedy they could do that but the problem is they don't want to do that without the legislature giving their approval to. All in a a follow up question. If we remove this language do they not. Do we not then remove their right to a civil action in the answer there is an option well not necessarily and the reason is there there is no code section out there the gives us a right to sue for most things that we have a right to sue for and so it the state of this state as wrong in theory the state could file a lawsuit and the state does that occasionally against individuals it would be a little bit weird in this situation because it's a state agency because I state agency OR state agency I mean they they change the rules they come to rules in order to get the rules change right so they are a state agency that that is is acting so I don't know that they would ever file a lawsuit against the the state agency. In west maybe it's this kind of situation so I don't think that we're really taking away but to some extent maybe we all are because they're legislative intent is pretty clear that we're taking this language out maybe we're taking their ability to file a lawsuit away and and I if I record I'd make that argument that yeah there there may not be any cause section prohibiting you from file lawsuit but you know that makes it pretty clear legislative intent would be that you wouldn't but if I was representing the waste management district also claim that their state agency and have sovereign immunity which we kind of interesting question when you talk about the state on the other side of the issue senator Elliott. One US senator Elliott. Okay Senator Ballenger just want to get a clarification I thank based on that made of a senator Flippo that said this that this is not going to go into effect immediately. One what will it what does that mean that it won't go into effect immediately when will it and if it's of for enough time office is something we could deal with and the regular session so the answer to to that is it is it could base with ties and great to to Senate bill a representable Russell's question and the fact that it they are not being forced to do anything by this this could be held off for another year in means that the citizens in those counties are stock for another year to do it it also by which you clarifies stuck as in fort Wayne that will be made the payment for the tech okay another year it's so if we can get it done sooner it also makes it where AT Q. can wash their hands of the whole issue once they decide that they're going to to forgive and I don't know when that will happen but my my assumption my hope is I'm way more optimistic than Senator Flippo I'm I'm hoping that they will start working on the go stating this out you know right away so the the instant really if you're talking about is the the of not having to pay the fees correct that will happen immediately well so let me say this the. They will continue to pay a fee to the bondholders the question is whether or not the fee is going to be the same thing we will be less be and that'll be something that the receiver will negotiate with the bondholders and so it may be that they're able and the court this still have to get court approval for to get out of it I'm I'm assuming that they will put myself to get court approval but basically it's going to be something that work out we're essentially almost half the amount total amount owed will be gone so will they pay the bondholders half the amount over the same 20 years or whether bond holders be paid off the same amount and then be paid off in 10 years okay thank you. All rights see no other questions. What's the pleasure of the committee. Motion to passers second second those in favor say aye all right and opposed I. I think I'd have it thank you call the roll me 3 hands. Of the one of the 2. I say 3. Over here. I say 3 as all 3 please call the roll. Madam chair if I may I've been asked to read a reminder to the days of the of we want to remind the Disney's to turn. To the bill being considered on the proxy sheet to prepare to read the members proxy votes when absent member's name is called. Senator flowers. Representative shepherd. Senator Clark. Represent oqam. Senator Malick. Or use a letter. Yes Sir. Representative Eubanks. Senator Stubblefield. Representative Kenneth Ferguson. Hey. Senator Cheatham. Not seeing senator Cheatham first alternate senator rice. Representative Richmond. Center. Your chair. Representative Monte Hodges. Yeah. Senator Caldwell. Representative Ladyman. Hey. Senator Ingram thank. Representative Tosh. Right. Senator Cooper. Okay. Representative Jett. Senator Flippo yes. Representative gray. Senator Blake Johnson. 8. Representative in our. Senator Elliott. Representative Meeks by. Senator Chesterfield. Not hearing senator Chesterfield Senator hammer. Representative Beck. Senator DISMANG. Representative house. The thing with a yes. Senator English. Representative Mickey. Not here representing many McGee first alternate represent Wooten. Second all represented and it. Senator bond. Representative Andy Davis. Senator mark Johnson. Representative eaves. Senator Hendren. Not hearing center Hendren first alternate Senator Pitsch. Absent a column. Senator Hester yea. Representative Lundstrum. Senator eads. Representative L. Rosa. Senator Breanne Davis. Representative grant Hodges. Senator Ballenger all right. Representative Boyd. Senator leading. First alternate Senator Pitsch. I did I'm so pardon represent Coleman. Senator Bledsoe. Represent Wardlaw. Senator sample. Represent Dotson. Senator Rapert if. Represent Womack. Senator Hickey. Representative capp. Senator Teague. Absent here. Okay. I'm yes. Okay. Madam chair of have a change in a proxy that okay yes okay Representative Ladyman is a yes. On an answer. I'm yes. Senator Ingram yeah just. Question so the process voting. Both. Yes Sir just. Senator Chesterfield. Thank you I didn't have that will add that. It passed 3040. It passes. 34 votes thank you committee thank you. Yes 34 yes Sir thank you. You're making. Alright members we will now at Mister Anderson. Thank you madam chair so the C. 1 amendment is adopted that makes house bill 1016 if the committee so chooses ready for do pass as amended is there a motion to pass. House bill 1016 do pass as amended motion is there a second second those in favor say aye and opposed ayes have it. The bill passes. The next amendments Senator Sturch if you'll come to the table. The go ahead. Chairperson go ahead yes ma'am item C. 2 was on page 5 this is amended by Senator Sturch 2 spy house bill 1048. This is to change the amendment the amendment has a change to the code when dates of revenues are distributed this is in regard to motor fuel tax collections reported by the city's. Senator Sturch you're recognized thank you ma'am chair thank you colleagues hopefully this one 's a little more simple sent date change if you recall the last when this budget was originally passed be added a reporting requirement at the end of the fiscal year the problem with that is cities and counties don't operate on a fiscal year like we do they operate on a calendar year so the way this that's right now they would be basically be reporting in the middle of their budget years so all I'm asking is that we put it towards to March 15 that way we get a full report of their full calendar year expenditures. All rights I have. He was in the seats that number 61. Is there a question. Senator does mine did you have a question. Okay alright are there any questions. I is the ninth. What is the pleasure of the committee. Motion do pass the amendment doesn't favor say aye. And opposed eyes habits motion passes amendment passes that bills ready to go. So madam chair that are not in C. to with the amendment adopted house bill 1048 state turned back for counties and municipalities is ready for do pass as amended if it's committee there a motion do pass as amended motion second as a favor say aye and it has ayes have it bill passes as amendments an amendment see 3 Senator Sturch is presenting this for Senator Teague you're recognized. Go ahead okay thank you ma'am chair thank you colleagues this is a request for the treasurer of state in order that they have sufficient appropriation FOR turned back to cities they were aware that they would and so this is why the $20000000 increase this is simply turned back for cities amount. For senator Teague. Any questions. You will make a motion. Okay are you on the committee you're not okay all right have a motion to pass a second. All right any discussion all in favor say aye. Ready. All right we'll pass the amendment out do pass as amended and emotion. And a second any discussion all in favor say aye. The opposed. Amendment is adopted in of and also the bill. All right we're going to Representative Jett you're going. Mister Anderson you're recognized thank you Mr chairman one item C. for that's on page 9. This is amended by Representative Jett to house bill 1083 part of finance administration this is to exempt income tax received for disaster relief payments and rebates. Review Jett you're recognized thank you Mr chairman of colleges bills pretty simple what it does is. On 1 more research payments made to taxpayers by United States Parma agriculture a little distance off the USDA says 15 U. S. code 714 is a trade medication program for producers of commodities that have been significantly impacted by trade actions of foreign governments resulting in the loss of exports last year the the federal government come out and they issued checks based on 4 beings 1 from select $13 a bushel to $6 a bushel the government come out and initiative to kind of offset that no guarantees any chance going to be written that that that from action might go away but we don't know. Was we found it surrounding states were exempting that tax from the producers in Arkansas was not so as brought to our attention so if any more payments are made under this program what this bill would this amendment will do to the bill will it will make that income the not a taxable event on the producers and the second part of the bill is basically the the simplest money that the federal the federal to give when put out what this is is is going to be held harmless as well the state will not tax the Sims moneys one of the worst by guess $1200 check it will be not taxed on the state level I know would be if I need to tell me that are to put on a website that they were not plan on doing that in discussions with the director Larry Walter would decide this would put that in codes will. In the last but not least is somehow we've got put emergency clause on this so Mr chairman what I like to do when it comes to have proper motion I like to fix that emergency clause on this amendment with that all the honest any questions you have any questions. A I thank your motion be in order right now for a minute who's in C. 31. Our server server feel you're recognized for a question. What to do and. Would you go about airplanes does not have anything to a better plan great but. The anything this anything some of that program basically Senator Stubblefield how this played out was the USDA made a program called called the trade mitigation program in in that they use the market facilitation program marked siltation problems always been in place as far as I know that was the program that pushed direct payments a disaster payments all that farmers based on the use that program to to help facilitate. The amount of money if you will so it goes back to like county averages on yields and stuff like that where they might forma so any agriculture that they deem under this under this language of this bill this amendment any agriculture they deem that was harmed by the trade the the terrorists with China would be in money was put back to the producers would be benefited so depends on the federal government I can answer the question is gone go to poultry your cattle or or you know fruits vegetables whatever I do know of a row crop farmers did receive some benefit from this last year. Thank you. Who's in seat 80. Senator bond you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman probably all Ford here but is there a cost associated that when you said there 9 of the states the stimulus funds will be taxes are you saying just to agriculture to everybody and and is there a cost associated with this well in the thank you senator they've been some confusion as towards the cost of this but but. I would say. You know the state the state never was one realizes money anyway so I mean as you know I would look at it as you know as will be revenue neutral because the state would never receive this this income anyway had we not had the disaster or had the trade the terror of you know problem place. In order to defer to the affinity on as far as you know they're gonna put social costs associated with this. Well I do I just bring it up from from the perspective of those I know we've transitioned into some of the RSA discussion and I'm very concerned about UAMS particularly in the department of health being fully funded so. Everything that comes through with the cost is of some concern to me and like I said I'm probably all for it but I just want folks to keep in mind as we get to this RSA to keep you a and the S. and the department of health. Don't let their funding gets spread out to that D. category. Any other question well 651 senator Irvin. You're recognized yet Representative Jett back when we had the drought and many years ago several years ago governor B. B. actually issued some funds and some payments to those farmers for forage and because of the lack of Hey and then I believe we passed legislation to add eliminate the tax burden from those payments I received this is is this a little similar to what the body is already done in respect to not taxing relief payments yes ma'am I presented bring to the body's tension yes summing at the end of the day I mean into to your point and to Senator bonds point you know we're all respectful of the budget but also we got a respect for the taxpayers of Arkansas you know they're they're under do pressure here as well just like our budget you know they're making budget back home on a farm in their kitchen table were ever in the you know I I certainly don't wanna be wanna be tax and our hard work in our Kansans based because of of of a disaster that we're going through right now. Thank you. Alright members any other questions. He will make a motion for verbal also if you if you make a yes No thank you for Mister chairman in college FOR indulgence in our haste collected but emergency clause on this and and just brought to my attention this morning so based on that I recommend amendment be adopted and that emergency clause makes this section effective upon passage and approval of this act. Are we have a motion center you got a second. Second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Graduation you pass amendment this bill is not ready yet so we'll move on to. Amendment number 5 and members what we're going to censor very identical to a different in nature or will move up or vocal 5 and then more will move up 12 and vote on it right after we'll both of dealing with the of the election of fact the ballot so of transitive you'll. Of thank you Mr floor. Here. Okay on C. 5 this is on page 11. For the committee's information see 12 is on page 37. C. 5. Is an amendment by senator Elliott to the secretary of state. It's a code amendment for voter qualification language where an elector can request an absentee ballots ballot temporary language that will expire 312020 this is effective upon passage and approval. Share trailer you're recognized explain your amendment thank you Mr chair I'm gonna try to do this behind the might. Of members I'm bringing this amendment strictly because of the position we find ourselves in regard and call of it 19 it is absolutely temporary. 94 after 0 drawn up 8 sent copies to the governor to the secretary of state the Speaker of the Speaker of the house and the pro tem of the Senate. And to get everybody's thoughts on for the not this was something they could live with. A I have not done any negative feedback from anybody and I'm not suggesting that. They are saying to me they are in complete support the mask is not working so I'll have to take it off. But I just think these the we keep saying these are different times and they are and it's something that is just a common sense thing to do. So I would like you to just listen to this presentation knowing you have another one coming and if it's fitting I don't know Mr chair we're going to be able to make clarifications later on at the the other one is presented. I I'm kind of confused about people making a decision not have and hurt them both but I'm fine with that because that's that's your prerogative. But nevertheless here's where we are. I'm glad to note that this is a a bipartisan idea. And I did work to try to make sure that it was bipartisan are on 21 amendment that just did not work out because I just don't think there should be something that is partisan. And this is needed for these 3 reasons which I have shared with you. Instead of requiring an excuse to request an absentee ballot. Any qualified elector may request and I want to emphasize qualified any call qualified elector may request a ballot without an excuse. Otherwise they follow the exact same procedure we follow now. And I think there is something like I don't of I don't know 35 or so states that allow I don't remember the number but a huge number of states that already allow absentee ballot in. For no reason. We one of the few that does that does not. The other thing the amendment will to. Is it it will give an opportunity for an hour. Voters to be able to go to the poll and votes safely in the general election without encountering the dangers of covert 19. I'm sure all of you must of seen what happened in Wisconsin a couple of days ago. There's no need for that to happen here. And one of the reason it's reasons it happened as we can have a plan and they didn't have a plan in place for enough to even give voters. The opportunity to decide that they want to vote absentee. And the third thing contrary to what some people have said this legislation is temporary. The legislature will be saying to the public. As of December thirty first twenty twenty this legislation goes away. It also will be saying to the public that this is the legislators prerogative that we have decided this is what we want to see done. I know when the other bill that's coming up this is a part that is different. Basically we had a big discussion a few days ago about whether or not the legislation should decide legislator should decide for ourselves in cases such as these do we want to be the one to make the policy of the we want the government to be the one to make the policy we had a huge discussion about that Senate. So it is my thought that this is something that's important enough that we ought to put this into legislation. So that there is no equivocation about it that is absolutely clear to the voters what will happen. Without guessing plan when both somebody decide we should decide that to day. I want to suggest to you as well. That. When we decide that we want to make these kinds of decisions. And we are not absolutely clear to the voters. We put them in the same kind of position we saw that a woman in Wisconsin if we saw the news on this who was a nurse one of the frontline responders. Went to vote and was 3 minutes late and did not get to vote and what she said was basically. The 3 minutes maybe okay what was not okay was all of the months coming up to that vote where nobody gave her a plan about what she could do to be prepared because she could not be both prepared to do her job and get to vote when something had changed in an immediate fashion we don't need to see that. And lastly I would ask of you to please vote for this amendment to give county officials. Time to plan. For absentee balloting time to plan you don't just up and decide we're going to have absentee ballot to everybody wants it. They need lots of time. And one of the major reasons they need lots of time Mr hiring people to work at the polls. This is not should not be something best left up to up to question. Now if we decide to do this. And there is no problem come November 3 that's a good thing. Because what will happen as well. Is people will simply go to the polls and vote most of them will just get an absentee ballot because it takes effort to get an absentee ballot. So Mister chair and members of the budget committee. These are the reasons I think we ought to pass this legislation. And one of the reasons I think we ought to pass this legislation I am I hate that I'm in this position now but in the one that's coming up there is actually a provision that says. But if you choose to get a better an absentee ballot. That you will have to sign something saying you must use that absentee ballot because that is the only way you will get to vote. That's just patently against the law. I don't know why you send the amendment. But there is no such thing as a person who gets an absentee ballot does not to do not get to vote provisionally at the polling site. I know when that's the case there is no reason to have in the amendment itself. This language. Where we say a statement by the voter indicating that by submission of the form of the forms described in this subsection the voter is request and of an absentee ballot and shall not cast a ballot in any other manner. We can't do that to voters. So I ask you let's be fair this give people time to prepare let's give voters to of the certainty that they know that they're going to vote with out being subject subjected to the dangers of corporate 19 I'll take questions Mister G. all right Senator Stubblefield you at 31. Yes Mister recognized. Senator Elliot I certainly don't have any objection to the attendant your amendment what I do have a problem with these the date of expiration. Yes one December 130 first we're 77 months away from the general election and god for bid if this were the same situation 7 months from now that we're in now with this cover 19 virus. Should should this virus to decide in the next 3 too much. One would you have an expiration date of December 31. Well because we don't know that's it's this the uncertainty the reason we've got the date out that far because there are there are predictions by many researchers and and doctors that there's a very good chance we might have a re flaring of this virus in the fall so we don't know basically speculation would you agree I would not say a speculation often say it's I would say is based on scientific knowledge and research. Then why would you not put an expiration date of November 15. Well when the when the the writers drafted the bill I think that's just a common thing when it's something that's at the and that's that closely in the year it is going to expire it expires at the end of the year but I don't have any reason beyond that by having the member that on thirty December 60 first because this is is affecting the general election in November. It's it's it's I don't see that as an as an issue. That I'm hi Mister I thank thank you. Representative Lundstrum you're recognized yes just a point of clarification this is a policy question and we're setting legislation during budget session this is something we should be doing right now. But this is address the chairman I'm sorry senator Elliott well as you know this amendment yes to appropriation but but this happens more often than not. So it's it's up that we have done before. Okay just a follow up then of and this would be Senator Elliott we already have 2 weeks prior to. Voting for anybody can go that you have we already have absentee balloting. This isn't the. What why would we need to do this. This is more a policy then. This there's no need for this what we have absentee balloting right now with an excuse yes I would say a pandemic is a pretty good excuse well what it what it is but just it's not provided for in the law. Sounds like it already is I mean if someone is unable to attend because of a disease and they're uncomfortable they're unable to attend well if they are not that they may not be unable to attend your just going to force them to say something that is not not the case and is this is not an unusual thing for somebody who maybe wants to follow the law to follow the law but. Sap and put on gloves just as you and I have and go vote and it's not that difficult well they can mail in well consider they can mask up and put on gloves and go vote same as we have if they have the ability to have that mask on those gloves because consider today you can add an provided us with a mask which we appreciate we don't know that that's going to happen for the average voter out there and we don't know that the average voter can just simply do what you and I did. Mount ida I think it's not asking too much to mail in they have that opportunity and to mask up and glove up or or do the alcohol it's it's a privilege to vote and it's an honor no it's a right to vote is not a that's to do the right to vote I will stand corrected on that but we have 2 weeks and you can mail in a ballot so I I just think this is kind of an interesting thing to bring this up now. Well I I I I have heard that with the connotation and I just want to address this is well if it's an interesting thing to bring up now because another been lots of controversy after talking about that I'm even heard the the remember that somehow even I'm bringing this bill because I'm on the ballot in November speaking of interesting. Can any single one of you sit there and look me in the face and say. You don't think I would have brought this bill more I'm not on the ballot. Does anybody in this room believes that. And yet that's been repeated by at least 2 people in this room. You know me you know I would've profis no matter what. It is not interesting that's just a fact. I don't doubt that one bit but I do think mail in ballots in masses like that too because a lot of fraud sections and cheating I'm or the state of Arkansas one thing but you would never do that I'm confident that that surplus remove that from the issue. But mail in ballots are extremely fraught with fraud and I think this is a policy question that should not be discussed right now well I would respond to that by suggesting to you that for years and years and years as we should we have allowed our men and women in uniform vote by mail for years and years and it's not been an issue there's not been fraud and the fraud that's even been talked about not withstanding men and women in uniform has not been anything other than something somebody has set forth as the truth is not proven to be the case. We just don't have that evidence separates and of one trip we just don't have that evidence I would I would respectfully disagree we do have the amount of evidence military just has a much more controlled atmosphere Oregon state is rife with fraud but I will yield back my time I think there other people I. Thank you so much but I just want to correct Oregon state is not a price with fraud where the state is been voting by mail for many years and it has not proved to be an issue. I haven't research that there is just not the it there's just not the research to back it up and. Okay we do we've got questions all right thanks all right of senator DISMANG that you over 33. You're recognized her thank you Mr chairman and in one quick questions make sure because I don't know at this is applied to all elections or just a general election or if the city wanted to vote to have a sales tax election then they would be you know absentee balloting the you know voting available for those types of entities to now it is that this this for is about the November election that's my intention for the by the November election does that. Is that so. The reading in. Where where is it where where does it say that because we're changing are you able to vote absentee ballot for sales tax collections in. Property tax increases. I because I think building which I I assume so I I just so that so it would be for all actions is that right I mean that's on. When reading it would be for all actions not just the November election correct well it it might be but that was certain that's certainly not my concerning my intention I guess that would be up to a county to decide with or not they're going to do that but this for me as it says that this is about the November election and well it doesn't it doesn't say that and I appreciate your being here I mean I would have concerns that this would be utilized in. I mean you could very well easily organized to be able to pass a tax including without having a significant number of people involved through the absentee process and I would also it's such a question so sure it does it's not the intention for to apply but it appears it applies to all elections and that'll be out others care that question of verses the next presenters that I'd ask that again and then also if you can help just remind me what we've done to prevent fraud on absentee voting because we have had that history in the state of Arkansas's reason I mean I've I was in office months occurring so it did occur where you had individuals gathering up absentee ballots and making those on behalf of the peoples in lieu of. Whatever was back in time and only want to try to to get back to that. Do have problems and have had problems I'm just not sure what's in place to prevent what happened at that time that yes what we did up to that center Dismang to prevent the gathering up we passed that we put in the law that of a Kerry or some some person who collects the votes can help only Carrie 2 votes for elections so that I can't to squatting gather up a whole bunch of folks we change that. 30 third. Yes okay. Revenue have you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman thank you senator. Senator you wear that the governor issued a proclamation suspending the requirements for requesting an absentee ballot in early March that would have covered the March 31 election are you aware of that yes I am is there any reason why the governor could not extend that proclamation all the way to the end of the year if we're still faced with the call that the plague. I suppose but for me it's a matter of timing and making sure that voters and county officials know exactly what what they are facing and as far as I'm concerned this is something the legislature can and should do because the fact is right now nothing is in place yes ma'am thank you since I have the floor let me just ask my questions and you can talk some of the time of are you aware that the 2 reasons that a person may select a ballot is being on one being unavoidably absent or number 2 cannot be present due to illness but the statute does not specify illness of whom he could be your mom could be your kids you can be the poll workers it can be those in line you know this just says if a kid Ellis keeps you from the polls you may request an absentee and receive an absentee ballot were you not aware that. Yes I am aware of that but I am I'm fairly certain that's been interpreted as being not a pandemic but having to do with an illness a your family somebody close to you or your own illness and if we were to just leave it as it is and not give this option suddenly we're going to have to have some interpretation are we talking about family ill this close family illness or your illness or pandemic I do think we need to lose at least leave the strict interpretation. Chair McEntee. Yes you're absolutely correct but there is no record that I could find that it's ever been so interpreted could it be interpreted somebody bring a case I suppose they could but it just says illness it doesn't specify to whom and. Matter fact the case that I have looked at my husband gets home late from work I can't get there I have to take care of my kids I don't have anything to where have all been legitimized by the US Arkansas Supreme Court as legitimate reasons so they're very liberal about their interpretation according to the case 2 streets in the books are you aware of those cases I am not I'm aware of some of the the reasons you brought up I'm not aware of that being in case law thank you ma'am thank you Mr madam chairman thank you thank you senator thank you Mr. Thank riveted house of senator when you're recognized just quick question do you know is. The ability to extend early voting to sat wrist wrist side and the election commission or is that something by statute I'm not sure if you know the answer that question and I didn't know if you had looked at that as being an option as to extending the early voting.. period I I'm not understanding the question so we have 2 weeks right now if early voting and so I was just curious if you had looked at extending the early voting time period as an option. To allow more people more time and more flexibility to maintain social distancing and votes now I find that yeah is at this my understanding this up to either the governor or the legislature because the governor might do it by executive order perhaps or we can just put it in law okay thank you Sir. Senator sample you're recognized thank you Mr. One with the person one taking goes the polling site when they have an absentee ballot all day but I might not but sometimes in this even happens now sometimes they believes of a ballot and that is the most common reason and if you've lost your ballot you may go to the polling site and cast a provisional ballot that's the most common reason. And correct me if I'm wrong but I think I read it. In the last election there were several people would that were. I don't know if they're rested rendezvous but they had and they had voted absentee in and went to the polling site and tried to vote again is that would that not be an issue well that but it but the key thing and what you said it was tried because because if they tried then that means the and they were not allowed to vote then the law worked so I can't account for me with the wanted to people that might do that but even in that case then the along work so it's not an issue the because in the general and the general public for people been doing this for a long time and you know we even have A states that are not considered the states that norm you would think would have absentee ballots in it like Georgia and and and the Brzeska places that will you know we think of as being very conservative they've had at the T. balancing forever and they've not had these issues that you know that we we think they might have it's just has not been the case. Thank you Mr. Thank you senator Senator Rapert you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman Senator Elliot how is this fiscal. I'm sorry how is this language in this discussion we've had for allow long now houses get anything to do with the fiscal session. Well I think it's it's not so much a matter that has to do with fiscal session but I think it's something that is enough is an emergency the way we just talked about you know other issues and that we're going to talk about some that are related at that is up to this body to decide if we think this rises to the sense of urgency that we can that we will make sure the voters and the folks who have to prepare for elections have this notice we just had a special session so we know how to take care of urgency and do it in the proper place and I just wondered how it is that this is fiscal this by running it this way you're not having to achieve a greater vote threshold is that the case. Well yes that I either depends because it's to run it the other way if I could get a resolution and you know what that the bill that I have a 2 thirds that of the vote in the house and Senate to even a ticket to present search and the agreement of the governor so when I was thinking of of running it and to get in that manner as I as I talk to folks about it this just became the way that seem to make the most sense but it was not at all about trying to get around the vote because I was prepared to do it the other way. Well I've I've stated many times I lament the fact that we have low voter turn out in the country in general so I courage people to vote I wish that they would vote more regularly and more often and participate what protections do you have in this or I don't see it in here what protections are there to protect the integrity of those ballots that start getting requested an absentee manner was for protection is there for us to know that the identity of the person that is requesting the ballot in that you know just to use an example you know you're in a very Republican state now you're Democrat I think you might be concerned that there might be Republicans potentially getting out there voting more than they should is that ever been a concern to you regarding identification and making sure that voters are who they say they are no it it hasn't been a concern for me and what is a good things I like about this we're going to hear and then the next amendment this offered by Republicans and I as I said I I tried to make sure we didn't end up this way but we did I have no more concerned about Republicans voting or Democrats voting my only concern here is that we are prepared for what we might have to face because of covert 19 and. If this does not change the present to way we submit absentee ballots it doesn't change any of that all it does is allows anybody who wants to get a ballot to get a ballot without excuse otherwise the same the same safeguards in place center. Well I appreciate your answers still don't know about the fiscal issue and I think I'm finding myself agreeing with Representative house on this I think that primarily this is already covered but obviously you can bring anything that you choose thanks for to. Thank you senator. Senator bond is that you Bledsoe see. You're recognized thank you center at as you mention these are sort of. Once in a lifetime type times right now with regard to the legislature or we requiring any state Representative or any senator to provide say their suffering an illness before they can vote by proxy. No we're not. We're just allowing voting by proxy basically by choice of the Representative for the senators if they have some underlying health condition or some concern about coming to the capital isn't that right that's correct and essentially we would be doing the same thing for the electorate we would be offering them the same type of opportunity here if we passed this law that's totally analogous senator and if we don't then we're treating ourselves very differently than we are the voters aren't we. Well I I I would say I would say that we are and but you know what we're doing here we are doing for very good reasons very good reason this call covert 19. And that's all I'm Askin for the public is that we do the same thing for very good reasons people get to decide for themselves whether they want to be in this setting are not be in this setting to exercise their responsibility thanks same thing should be true for voters to exercise their vote thank you senator you're welcome thank you. Senator Ingram you're recognized. I've gotten a number of questions from my proxies in about all the discussions here and so I appreciate the me try to go back to route of one of the questions work regarding absentee ballots of. Is the absentee ballots that have been proven fraudulent. Those were prosecuted people went to jail for correct yes so the system worked yes even in the case where as I respond to simple of Senator sample some by each ride and the system worked and yes people were prosecuted and regarding of why this is brought here I mean we could ask this of any bill that has been rock or any amendment that is been brought before why all of a sudden this this sense of why it should be in a regular session or in a special session certainly the first piece of legislation that was passed today the authors in the emitted that it was something that what what Arjun it could take place in the future what was that your understanding yeah that was an answer to my question and you know I've read these these amendments there are others for which we will have to have this are the same question and apply the same kind of thinking I suppose. And of the all repeatable scientist or they're predicting that of we will have a second wave of coronavirus virus in the of 19 we've already witnessed I think you alluded to of what a disaster and quite honestly of a joke Wisconsin was this is an attempt to allow people just to have the opportunity to vote yep that's correct Sir and no and whether it whether this applies to all votes I mean I whether it's a local election or a sales tax election with your for against. Should you have the opportunity to vote for well I I would think in this time and this this time of covet 19 you should but in these if if somebody has a really small election there is a much better chance for the folks who are planning for that election and facilitating that to make sure they accommodate people as opposed to the general election when we have so many more people who show up. And if there is a second wave in the fall we think about not only the voter's but we also have to think about our poll workers and the load that will be placed on the a many of them are elderly as we know when we go to the polls to find come this with the mail in would have the opportunity to lesson that burden with the poll workers that are going to be needed to work it would Senator Ingram and the other thing it would do to is we're all asked to wear these mask not to protect ourselves but to protect everybody else. That would be also an application to have and absent T. voting without the excuse because it protects everybody else including FOR A one 's own family because if you go to the polls and you stand in line and somehow you know unfortunately you end up being a carrier back to your home we just exacerbated the problem. And finally I know there's a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle about whether the governor should have extended of shelter in place and that seems to cross it crosses the Isle I think and so to put it on the governor to be the one to do expand this whether the the the the voting it should take place by my are not. That's something that there be a lot of discussion about that instead of the legislature making their wishes known about this right yep. Thank you you're welcome. Thank you senator represented Boyd. You're recognized thank you Mr chair I'm still trying to understand what exactly failed with the governor's proclamation or executive order in the primary runoff elections that we had in this state and why that process couldn't carry forward into the general election and we have to make a what I would argue is a substantial policy argument in a fiscal bill when we could have done that with 2 identical resolutions in on the house and the Senate and then taking it up that way so if you could answer that I'd appreciate it thank you first part about the governor. What I think you're asking but I'm not the governor could just to issue an executive order is my interconnector Eckley he did eggs he did issue an executive order and it was carried out yes and the the challenge in it failed in court I'm just curious what we can do the same things as we don't know how long cove in 19 is going to be here we can speculate it all day long and it might be a new part for for 2 years or months months the years but no. I was bored when I see is is the most important thing is just simple preparedness one of the things that AS faces us in this country even now with covert 19 we just had some issues of some states or the federal government whoever just simple preparedness because in this case. We don't know what the culvert 19 is going to do. And if somehow there is say a resurgence of covert 19 in September. October that gives very little time for the county officials to even get prepared for an election. And to me that is the importance of art taken this up and making sure we carry out I think our responsibility here to give some certainty about something that is to set that is a part of our democracy that we shouldn't take chances with. Because that's exactly what happened in Wisconsin that's exactly what we saw with those people standing in line and standing right on top of each other there was no plan. And as far as I'm concerned rather than putting this on the governor to have to decide somewhere on the spur of the moment down the road somewhere or if we're going to ask the governor to maybe make a declaration in October or even make a declaration now when we could do it ourselves that's what I think we have a responsibility to step up and do it so that there is not a question about what we're going to do because we don't know what's going to happen. You through. All right I thank C. 17 represent cap the right. You're recognized. Thank you. Senator Elliot from a cost perspective our county is a responsible for ensuring that the individuals from the county clerk's office to to work these elections they put in a considerable amount of time in the early voting period in or on top of their normal job duties. There's cost also associated with the printing of these absentee ballots when someone request an absentee the county Clerk is responsible for mailing the request the application and then once applications received after turned back around and actually mail that absentee to the individual so with with that in mind do you have any idea is that the cost dissociated that will be born on our our counties and and our state for that matter I could not to talk to you know every county kind of get an idea but what I did as I did ask our Clerk hearing Pulaski County since we're a very large county and it shows he gave me the cost of what it would be if they had to send out ballots to every single person who ask for one because I just ask for what's the most you could would possibly be so if I had to send out to every eligible elector right now be $125000 in this county. So and I suspect that would be you know one of the highest there would be that that's something they try to provide FOR because they never know how many requests are going to get right Alright members we're gonna get back started. Of represent Dotson you got some good force. And thank you Mr chair not sure how good it is necessarily but it'll help speed up the calendar see 12 after multiple discussions with members and and work on trying to fix and fix the language that saw was messed up in it and I'm just gonna pull it down and Kay let the is sos budget go thank you Sir alright members it means the proportion house bill 1085 is ready at this time in your motion do pass got a motion and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye any opposed all right we're going to. See 10 members seating in. This is a senator garment garner's amendment don't Senate bill 84 transitive you a claim the amendment. Thank you Mr chairman item C. 10 on page 31. Amendment sponsor senator garner it's to Senate bill 84 department of commerce office of the secretary. To prohibit department of commerce Arkansas economic development commission from expending funds for contractual services for the operation of an office liaison or Representative in China. Okay Senator garner view edition self explain your member. Stay Senator Trent garner thank you Mr chairman the members of the committee for allowing me to discuss by men with you this amendment is about to simple truce. First we need to hold China accountable for their lies an action that help on the show in the world to Wuhan covert 19 crisis that we all face today secondly we make sure we're not held hostage as we are over reliance on the Chinese market for critical medical supplies so desperately needed today all accountability make no mistake. China lied in people in Arkansas.. dot We give you a quick rundown doctor Lee one young a brave Chinese medical doctor whistle blew about the threat of the will hand virus in December. His government sent secret police to to intimidate and threaten him and call him or longer. In men form of irony. Doctor Lee. With the signed a letter saying there was no danger from the Wuhan virus doctor Lee died from that virus when he was forced to say it didn't exist Chinese laboratories identified a mysterious virus in December that was highly infectious instead of releasing this information the world to get ready for this coming threat. The Chinese government stop testing destroyed the evidence. And ordered them not to speak. If they knowledge is earlier the world could prepped Chinese China fed bogus information to the World Health Organization on January 14 they said there was no evidence of human to human transaction from the wheel on covert 19 virus delay in the World response to this daily illness. Was this matter because studies show that if China had acted 3 weeks earlier. They could of the west at the development of this disease from spreading to roughly 95 percent the cases and kept it at a local health epidemic. During this time of an action by China the first case flew from on to America. In mid January. The Chinese government allowed the lunar Chinese nor are a new year to happen. This is 5000000 people from Wuhan alone traveling all over the world without being tested in fact you can follow the flight patterns to see how the disease spread across the world. I understand this China's actions turn this local epidemic into a global pandemic that we face today they are still one of the date was. How many of you seen the reports to says America is the number one country to have the Wuhan covert virus you know what that is. Because China is lying. One example in Wuhan credible reports say that 46000 people have died from this virus you know me the official number from the Chinese communist government is. 2500. This is important we need to send a message that we're gonna hold China accountable for their actions we need to show that after this is over in this will get over. That we're not going to forget what they are least on the world but ladies and gentleman is that's not the important port wine I brought this amendment as important true their thing I said was this is the point I want you to remember if you don't agree with monument if you don't want to hear me talk if you don't like me if you don't care about what I'm saying I'm not sure member this if you don't remember anything else I say for my speech today please remember this. Be held hostage by China moving for when it comes to helping the people of Arkansas and we are being held hostage because they control our bottles to plot a medicines and other needs. It's that simple let me give you example you have got a penicillin shot before. When I when the military they lied you up in a row. They put you in there like cattle they go down and give you shot the backside you hope for about a week afterwards. That different shopping experience. Penicillin is one the modern miracles the medicine in the world. Make it in America. Senate again we cannot mass produce penicillin in America the last operated in fact we shut down the 2000 41 okay. Gibson who wrote the book John R. X. industry data reveals the Chinese company filling the cartel colluded to sell under market value and to drop all US European in any producers out of the market in fact we were allowing China for 90 percent. Of our antibiotics. Thank you are medicines for HIV and aids to cancer to depression if a drug isn't directly made by China the active pharmaceutical ingredient is typically produce their. For example I will applaud the to the governor Tim Griffin for his efforts to secure hundreds of thousands are 0 doses of eye drops cool queen. This is a anti malaria drug they shown promise in fighting for the worst cases president trump's tell this all over the world. We see some doctors prescribe this. Right. 70 percent of the API the active pharmaceutical ingredient is export from China to India to produce destructive tomorrow China shut down the export of that drug we could not get it in mass. But you know China wouldn't do that right. Long. John John it is for of its leverage it threaten the USA that it would cut off supplies to us and this is the quote from the map Chinese led media the state sponsored media the US will plan Jim into Ahmadi seat of the corona virus. Stop the drug China is the number one exporter PP equipment and they are holding their supplies Leding US manufacturers a medical safety gear toward the White House that China's prohibits them from exporting their product from the country that's why president trump had used defensive protection our production act nor to compel them to do so when they send the equipment doesn't work 600000 mask from Denmark had to be replaced because they were at the 3.5000000 in a body tests that were sent to the United kingdom's yes how many of them work. 0. We know has been deeply affected by this they sent PP equipment to each China when this first started. China sent some of the back. In charge them a pro rate to get their equipment back. We'll wait for quitting from them now we're grateful that we had to the national defense stockpile that we can rely into but now we are begging in line with other places other states over companies trying to get these critical medical supplies. What can we do. We can use this opportunity to bring that back input Arkansas offers. No I deeply respect governor Hutchinson I think you doing a tremendous drop what he's doing. But he said that this policy was isolationism. It isn't isolationism. It's opportunism. It's an opportunity to bring these critical manufacturing jobs back to America to start the seed money that Beals on that American Arkansas ingenuity in ability to grow things look at our cans they are stepping up right now. Never made hand sanitizer 11 550 gallon for free. What tale distillery was just recognized by president trump for their efforts to make hand sanitizer vaping shop in radio that is making hand sanitizer under center entered. Help people stepped up over number go again make mask. Robert thank you for what you did given members a here mob malt once mother in law is on a Facebook group or they make master first responders all across my kids that she may mass for. Later you on must other companies Ford or producing ventilators that my pillow guy is making PP you quit. Now imagine if we took that and we invested here in the state of Arkansas and those kind of companies those kind of people the step up and do the right thing. I'm not anti China's for trade go who have trade with them for as long as I live that's good I'm happy we can so which is to warmer so we beans rice the unit comes to critical infrastructure we have to start sending a small but important message that things are changing. This bill stopped taxpayer dollars and going to keep Arkansas office and John open in bring that money home to be the seed money. Me finish up with this because thank you Mr chairman for indulging me. At this time we're asking so many to cut their budgets we know what the OSA will be it's gonna be hard for a lot of people. A lot of people in Arkansas of laughter job to him or just their own budgets. The hurting right now. How can we justify sin and their money our taxpayer dollars to China. When they need us to step up. That's a question I struggle with thank you for indulging me Mr chairman I'll answer any questions this time alright members part of commerce is going to come up I got a couple lights your questions for senator garner center entered okay you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman and I would like to hear from. Mr president about the impact on commerce. But I also want to ask a couple questions again I you know and I appreciate a shout out on the vaping will will be talking about that in a in a regular session which is where we should probably talk about this. But let me just ask you a couple questions. What's this bill going to save and total dollars to the state by roughly $500000 80 are Arkansas Arkansas economic development was already pulling back on their China office that think they recognize the during this pandemic it wasn't a good thing I asked him to make that permit and some of and negotiation and they wouldn't commit to that so probably price $300000 let's let's assume the high number $300000 in savings to the taxpayers. What's it gonna cost our farmers if China retaliates by saying we're not mine so we beans from Arkansas I did not anticipate that happened at all I think that's because has have you talked to form peer or they in support of this I sent out the people I did not hear from them. But do you know what it could cost them I don't think cost anything I'm not going to knowledge something I don't think will happen. Which so you don't know I don't think it's going to happen so you don't think they'll be any cost if they do that I don't I mean there might be some very small examples of it happening I want knowledge that but I don't think any major way it would happen there billions of dollars and millions of dollars of economic export import I don't anticipate I shut down office which we didn't open till 2018 we did all export import for a United sniffing but you don't know you're willing to risk it for the $300000 savings I don't believe it's a risk I think that was talk about manufacturing second something I'm somewhat familiar with and I compete against Chinese manufacturers every day and I've been saying for years we do share the same goal that the United States needs to take hold of making things and building things and being manufacturers we can't survive on a service economy. So we share the same goal and and as as somebody who has dealt with it internationally for years let's suppose that I think the interest of the American people for the most part agree that we need to do better about producing things particularly critical things like PP. In Arkansas and in the United States. So that means bringing some of those products back to a manufacturing facility like mine or like others all across the state of Arkansas. You think it is more or less likely that will be successful in that endeavor. With or without any communication with trying to. This bill is a stock communication which on so it as a manufacturer of there is a company say in Arkansas based company that has a manufacturing facility in China. And is looking to find a place to manufacture in Arkansas who are they going to talk to we have nobody in the entire country the bill they can call up the unit Arkansas our website is available with a look at the economic development commission like many US based companies do they can hire private firms to do that which most do they can have their own team depending on the size and effort or use you know associations or other things that typically contain this matter as well and okay. I again as a as a as a manufacturer who has tried to secure offshore manufacturing contracts that tells me nothing I have nobody to call. And and and I would I can tell you how frustrating it is in in that situation when I'm trying to compete with offshore K. contractors are manufactures and I have no no source no no no contact with the government who is tasked with that responsibility and then finally again so I I will tell you as a manufacturer competing against these people I'm more concerned of the impact of no communication and retaliatory efforts that they may have because many of my customers do have businesses and intent and ongoing enterprises in China and I will tell you will have a dramatic impact on them which would have an impact on me which would have an impact on all the folks who work at my facility. Have you visited with the folks at Walmart I know they do billions of dollars in in trying to have you can have you talked to them about what impact this could have on their industry I Senate before I release publicly when I first received the draft for the amendment I wrote him and ask for their opinion I reached out to my believe again it was never supposed. So do you have any idea what the response might be if they were to take some measure about and and that could have on Arkansas with regard to the world's largest retailer I I simply don't think it's going to be to punishable often we look at federal education legislation center con has a much much much more expensive bill these Pushin center cruise has a bill as well there's multiple efforts on this front this to me is a small potato one overall thing I don't think it affects $1 of export import I don't think it affects one company is nothing in the legislation that prohibits one green or rice or ones were being from being sent or from Walmart from bein anything they will this is us in a small and minimalist way I did I wanted to be more impactful in this but do the constraint of a fiscal session we can actually hear due to the limitations of my colleagues during this time we're trying to do this Expedia as possible our knowledge of that do anything more would take more time to develop a strategy to do it this was a small step that 0 members discuss both been January to send a message that we're going to move away from this relationship that we have into a more pro active equal footing when it comes to this yeah and I and Arkansas clue this I appreciate I I do agree that it's a it's a small step and that's why I asked the question about the cost it's a potential $300000 savings but yet you sit here today you don't know what impact it might have on Walmart you don't know what effect it might have on the farmers and you don't know what impact it might have on manufacturers so I guess that's a pretty big gamble to pay for $300000 savings on our economy I don't speak to being a gamble I think those are with they will be that impactful thank you senator. Sharing of your question for senator garner the department commerce. I'm sorry I didn't hear your question for senator garner apartment comers garner Senate garden you're recognized Senate are your here earlier I've got 5 proxies in there asking questions you might have heard it earlier so I appreciate hearing your voice center so I'm happy to secure the proxy all right so first question is if of we still want to do business when with China and this administrative office helps why are we wanting to do away with the office if you're still advocating that we want to do business with China I believe those dollars to be spent here in America and I have an idea to create a seed found a our seed fund an order vesting it costly they can do what they want to with the money I don't think it affects their ability for them to interact in deal which on it doesn't affect any international companies I think this message we're sending the people is how taxpayer dollars isn't subsidizing a Chinese office we're not sending our money there that's a critical part of this and I think that's what's important okay of of it we I don't know that I didn't hear the the the end of senator hinderance question trying to trying to look through these emails I'm getting of. It has Tyson is strongly opposed to the issuer you're aware that you will have a they feel I could be a very negative impact is that right or I reached out to Tyson a few days ago text their lobbyists which we all know and ask them for their opinion falls in was more than happy to work with them I don't hear anything from them either from no major industries I know they called members. Without my without discussing with me first I know the governor's office call members without discussing the first I was trying to go she with the governor's office as of yesterday and it was not reciprocated any major fashion so I would love to hear those complaints and arguments and see numbers and figures I ask for before I went public and I did not get those will trust me on this senator garner no matter whether it's a democratic Republican governor they'll call or your bill that called you first of that you're you're not the first 2 years of experience in that sense of it and and now one of the things that you're you're basing this on is you're saying that there was a was for that lad and that China should be held responsible for this of because the date that this was a they didn't let the world know. Correct there's multiple whistleblowers become one out was the most famous example of that 2 weeks ago another doctor who spoke out is going missing they don't know which is that you spoke out against the government and now she can't be found. Of well we sure hope that was will boards in our country you're not done the same way is they are in China but in fact on January 3 the United States was a made aware of the virus in the out break and even the present United States up until mid March call this a hoax how do you square the president not even recognizing this is a hoax and you're saying that you're you're trying to of of the the say that trying to live our strongly push back on that what president trump said is that the Democrats response to it was a hoax push that out he never once enunciate or said that the China Bowers are dishing the Wuhan covert 19 virus wasn't hoax he never said that that was a misstatement it is not true is been repudiated in fact check multiple times it is incorrect I will strong pushback did he not say that the virus was it 15 and it would go to one and then just disappear is that not true I'm I I can imagine I don't know the exact statement that the severity of it my to be under estimated literally everybody in Washington DC Mr **** up for center cotton nice offers heard about it if you go back and watch center caught was was was blown when as long as he could in January about this and nearly everybody missed it partly because China with the bad information to the World Health Organization skews me multiple times a fat lot they said that mask wouldn't stop this they said do not call a pandemic they did multiple times of the World Health Organization what director general was put in place by China that this wasn't a threat any misled the world based partially because the China Taiwan who was excluded from the world health organisation whistle blew about this in January it was ignored by the World Health Organization because of the political pressure of China on Taiwan and that backstory. Of another question of the was from certain flowers asks that have you conveyed these concerns to president trump. If I president trump number I protocol and way too much but I let center cotton and congressman Westerman and senator Bozeman know about this before and there was all my centers in congressional people in my district so I didn't know about reaching out to call for them I don't have contact with them quite as well but I did reach out to every office that I could the same time a rich up the governor's office incident to members thank you yes Sir. Thank you senator revenue to make sure your first senator garner. You're recognized thank you Mr chairman senator I I agree with a lot of the concerns that you had my concern with what you're trying to do here is are we going too far the weather bills written is not only can we not have an office we can't have a liaison a Representative there for the state of Arkansas and as you know for the phase one trade deal that the administration has done with China they have agreed to by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Arkansas all of America agricultural products and if Arkansas does not have a Representative there who is. Acting on behalf of Arkansas farmers trying to help sell Arkansas goods into this market and other states do. Are you concerned that we are actually by trying to hurt China are actually hurting our own soften our own farmers. More so than any hurt they would have because we don't have somebody from Arkansas there correct I don't think that would prohibit Arkansas from sending people there I don't think I'll stop any private industry can do it or it will stop us from having a voice in that process the language I asked for and I think was the best way they could craft it was what now believe or not and the department crew community development and correct me I believe we have a contractual obligation were lobbying firm or something goes over there and does its force lobbying firms not the right term we have a contract with somebody so one to prohibit kind of that point of rampant but I don't think you that we will be completely out of the game when that have nothing to be multiple examples of that being taken care of but I appreciate your concern. They represent a makes. All right of senator Davis that you over. Got a question for senator garner yes Senator garner and. Have you and has anyone had any problems ever getting a hold of you if they and disagreed with your bill were working against it maybe any lobbyists or add businesses if it was going to say put him out of business or make it almost entirely impossible for them to do business like a Walmart and have they had any problems ever and quickly getting a hold of you and finding ways to reach you to let you know about that no ma'am I give my number out everybody I'll give out now a 708189219 as a personal sale I give it out any time I can't and I'm available to talk to anybody and I was hoping to have discussions and and didn't know how to proceed forward with such a truncated time also if this is a normal fiscal session I did down here spend time to develop this talk with people while we're little rock because of the conditions of how this happened I had a draft I believe last Thursday I put it out on Monday I put out the member probably before the end and then have them to talk to people I did talk to the chamber of commerce misters of me had a good conversation is morning he disagreed involved in the concerned center intern had we had a good discussion but I still felt it was credible to bring it will bring it to this body at this time so you've it's safe to assume then that if it was going to stop the company from almost entirely doing business because they do so much business with China and that they would definitely be able to reach out to you would have known by now if it was going to shut down certain businesses are at prohibit businesses in the state of Arkansas from being able to do business with China because of your amendment that you very clearly now it's safe to assume that right I would hope so yes ma'am and then like I said we don't have this office in China to 2008 so I imagine those companies operated pretty fund for the I thank you. Thank you senator Senator Rapert you're recognized for a question senator garner. Thank you have a couple questions ms chairman. A appreciate your tolerance on that first of All I Want to say thank you for bringing this matter up and bring it to our attention are you aware of the executive summary 2019 country reports on human rights practices that was issued by the US embassy and consulates in China I've actually seen the first page of it on a tweet but I have not read the report and the tie wanna make sure that I understand this correct if this might serve your memory is states here during the year the government continued its campaign of mass detention of members of muscle minority groups in the gene yank you gore autonomous region authorities report you have arbitrarily detain more than 1000000 you go ours ethnic Kate Cossacks in some other names I can't pronounce and other Muslims an extrajudicial interment caps designed to erase religious and ethnic identity so I'm speaking of the Chinese government for bait on that I this is what I want to see if you remember significant human rights issues included arbitrator unlawful killings by the government of China forced disappearance by the government torture by the government arbitrary detention by the government harsh in life threatening prison and detention conditions political prisoners arbitrary interference with privacy substantial problems with the independence of the judiciary physical attacks on a criminal cop prosecution of journalists lawyers. Writers bloggers dissidents petitioners and others. This goes on and on and on is this the kind of people that you think we should be doing business with Senator garner Senate rubber now did you bring it up I did read articles based on that report and there's multiple examples of that kind of vital gross human rights violations there's also one credit reports about some of the things are doing to people move on to arrest the development of our spread this disease. Yeah they're on confirms I wanna bring about my last question to you and and I'll just say. You know there's a point when all of us have to decide what's our price. What's our principles were what we believe in. And I'm all about making money but I've taken issues on other issues here in this this legislature including the P. B. M.'s people said are you really a Republican I said yes I'm a Republican but I don't believe in a license to steal enough I'll take a stand against pharmacy benefit managers of taking advantage of our people I think I can take advantage of somebody that tortures their people skills are people squelch is information and by the way did they not also break their word with the state of Arkansas on over $1000000000 project in Arkadelphia yes Sir that's why was I have to fill in for a long time it and bring about because the the the benefit to my people in south Arkansas so great I felt like it was like Senator said I would be doing bad business but I'm not for all the effort we do in China I see the state of Arkansas's return being very poor frankly senator garner is just too bad that what you're proposing is not nearly a 2 or $3000000 track against somebody would break their word with our state do what they've done to their people I represent freedom and liberty I don't represent communists thank you for bringing a senator garner thank you. All right no other questions senator garner if you'll move off to the side how that you come back and close I'm going to restaurant which are the department commerce they can come for I think they want to make a statement and if we have any questions if they get their statement that will let senator garner close. Welcome Mr president if you identify yourselves in your statement. I thank you Mr chairman Mike prestin A secretary department of commerce an executive director the Arkansas economic development commission I have Jim Hudson here with me whose or EVP of operations and our general counsel. That's a lot to cover we can expect that to a debate to go that far I will point out that I got both sides I but time wearing by president Donald J. trump has made in China. I can't come. Yeah I think some of the points may I I first of all want to say I'd appreciate Senator garner taking time to talk to us yesterday and as I indicated to him we recognize the pandemic or in we certainly don't think this is a Arkansas verses China debate this is about helping businesses in Arkansas we're currently facing this health pandemic which is also an economic crisis in for us to say you know laser focused on economic development what we can do to recover is gonna be just paramount for the next couple months going the next couple of years. Right now is not the time to take away an additional tool in our tool kit to help us recruit companies into Arkansas I agree with senator garner we need more PP manufactures more you know pharmaceutical manufacturers here in the US there's a lot of them in China. He's taking away our opportunity recruit those companies back to the US of we don't have a presence there and don't know who's there that we can recruit on. As I shared with the sender yesterday to we've already looked at our efforts in what we're doing in China so I can give you the the exact number we're spending $285000 there on our contract a split between 2 different entities representing us we decided before this pandemic kit that we wanted to shift our focus and be more on trade will be our just a voice vote this is a voice vote on the amendment right all right. Well that was added into the amendment would it that was already added into the amendment. Your manager where. A it's it's your call Mr chair up my a normal way for the committee to handle this would be to vote on the amendment as as it has changed so what would be voting on both together. But that's up to the chairman and the committee of course okay all right I understand we're also in the paper we handed out this at all this is part of the amendment our. It is that what you want to do now. Yes this is included it is hideous okay I have 3 hands all right let's roll call the amendment. Thank you Mr chairman. Floating on a sea 11 on page 35. The amendment as amended I have been asked Mr chairman to repeat the vote for people watch yes people are watching when you call out the vote of Mister Anderson going to repeat it so people and they're watching you know how the bill to our. With the no this is a Senate bill spent Senate amendment we're gold star on sentence that. And when we do that stuff on the house we'll start in the house in. Should roll call. Senator flowers. Senator Clark. Yes. Senator Malick. Senator Stubblefield. Senator Cheatham. I'm not saying how the voting okay. Senator flowers no Senator Clark yes senator MALOCH no Senator Stubblefield yes senator Cheatham no. Senator Caldwell. Okay not hearing senator Caldwell first alternate Senator Wallace. Okay no vote senator Ingram. No. Senator Cooper. No. Senator Flippo. It is. Senator Blake Johnson. Present. Senator Elliott. But. With a one of a. Senator Flippo is a yes. Senator Elliott. Senator Chesterfield. Senator DISMANG. Senator English. And I'm not saying. Senator English is no. Senator bond. No Senator mark Johnson. Yes senator Hendren. No senator Hester. Yes senator eads. No Senator Breanne Davis. Yes senator Ballenger. Yes. Senator leading. So. No senator Bledsoe. No Senator sample. Not voting Senator Rapert. Yes senator Hickey. Yes. Sorry for at. With 9 votes in the affirmative we needed 15 your members failed. Thank you senator now we are ready to move to vote out Senate bill 84 this the appropriation ponder commerce to we have a do pass do pass and a second. Any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed alright members was get rolled in at some point today of this would be number 1312 has been pulled down this be house bill 1082. Of. Review to fight you come up to tables if you don't have a microphone in front of you. And of this fantasy gives a detailed look of the amendment. Yes Sir I am C. 13 some page 41. This is an amendment by Representative fight to house bill 1082 DFA disbursing officer. Image in modifies the code to cover open public meetings to electronic means. Repeated fight you're recognized explain your moment okay thank you Mr chair members of the amendment here what it does it allow cities and counties to meet through electronic means telephone of video conferencing that echo video broadcast the public may attend by using electronic means of this method will be made the available to the public through published and open meetings of the public meetings will be recorded sound only of video recording with sound and future digital analog broadcast capabilities being recorded of records will be maintained for a year up to a year through the meeting. Of this will end when the governor says that the emergency has X. has a. Indeed or the end of this year December 31 there is an emergency. Clause on this there is a great need at this time for this I'll be glad to answer any questions any questions for represent a fight. Whose seat 84. Thank you Mr chair I just want to clarify Representative this doesn't limit any kind of notifications are open this for the media to be able to attend virtually as well correct right correct. Thank you Mr any other questions. All right no of the questions I have a motion DO pass. And a second any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed regulations reviewed fight you pack your member thank you Mr chair of the joint ever moment this morning. No of alright members. Of we're going to a member number 14. Senator Hickey you can do it right there for me seat. You will pass over thank you Sir. All right that means we get to the constitutional offer letters would be own number one. Or the bills house bill 1044. Mr for you given the description of that. Thank you Mr chairman we are on item D. one in your packet item T. one. This is the agency letter submitted for an amendment it is by the court of appeals house bill 1044 this change is graded the chief staff attorney from a GS 132 GS 14 increasing regular salaries to match of 650 $6000 to increase law Clerk salaries to be more in line with supreme law Clerk salaries this is paid for out of state central administration of justice fund no state central services sorry. Anybody with court of appeals. Yes Jake. Jake we DFA I don't believe anybody from court of appeals is here are here they come here they come. In this. Corona. Environment we and it's hard to recognize people these mask on the face yes. You are recognized yourself yeah the you. Thank you so much my name is and Solomon and I'm the chief staff attorney at the Arkansas court of appeals and I thank the joint budget committee and the cheers for allowing me to appear before you all today that chief judge Reid agree were also sends her regards and. If any of you have any questions for her she's made herself available to answer them I believe you all have a copy of our February 24 letter regarding our appropriation for the 2021 year and I'm happy to answer any questions anyone house on it okay we've got several of who is in C. 35. Okay. Reading cabin off you're recognized yeah and I'm not really sure who needs answer this but. So looking at the budget and we know with our essay written head start making cuts how is this going to affect our essay because you're acting for more money and we're trying to find a way to cut people's budgets as it currently fits we've also got Mr bleed come up and say question to. Good afternoon the RSA is of course general revenue the state central services fund at this would come out of is it off the cut off the top cut from that we take about 3.one percent of RSA and use it to fund state central services fund. State central services fund because it is a percentage of the total general revenue that also is being cut down as the forecast has been cut so we anticipate they'll be significant loss of revenue to use the state central services fund as a result of those loss of forecast in addition we are considering in keeping as an option reducing that percentage off the top cut for state central services we would potentially go from 3.one to say 3 percent doing so would free up 7 or $8000000 to the general revenue pot we would that money would then be available for other agencies so this would come out of I think a shrinking pool of money and the state central services fund if that answers your question so make sure I understand we have less money company and you're going to reduce that money but we're still going to write something is that not what you just said well that's what the proposal would be yes yes okay thank you. You got a thank you letter that I would yes Sir I'm. One thing that I wanted to mention Representative Cavenaugh is that if you'll notice we made this request back in February which was certainly at the very least from arm from my standpoint a very different time financially for the state and for the country so the are court understands that this may not be feasible at this time but it was request we made back when our financial state Arkansas was much different and because of the statute that requires parity among our employees and the Supreme Court employees we thought it was appropriate in February to bring it up. And and I also see they visit with senator Teague and I in February and we have told me of economy was is much different now than it was then put the in offered as they did bring it up then. So certainly we understand that there may be some new consideration Frederick can off you finished. Of senator Hester that use 25. You're recognized. I think we all know we're we're we're this is head of a like if if we agree to fund this it would be before we've all seen the new updated RSA would be before a one it be funded before be before seat before the so we put it at the highest a priority in funding if we agreed to do this thank. All right Representative Dotson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair over your far right thank you I I think we I I and recognize that you submitted this in a far different economic environment in time a month ago then what we face today are you interested in all employing this down this request at this time. If if the committee would like us to table this request the court will not object to that thank you. All right. What's the what's the pleasure of the committee. We will pull it down right hand. I don't believe you have the vote today I understand thank you for your time thank you ma'am. Okay we'll go to amendment to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Okay all right I've been formed in house bill 1044 is ready to go out we need to do pass the bill pass and a second. Any questions any discussion all in favor say aye opposed. Now we'll go to amendment to house bill 1046 Arkansas Supreme Court. Machine for you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. This is the moment submitted by the agency to house bill 1082 DFA disbursing officer this is to provide appropriation the 5 new judgeships adding 1.2000000. To the A. O. J. ministration of justice fund. It also amends. Monster 41. The new. I let me try again as chairman were on duty to. Okay I got it. I apologize for it's an agency letter house bill 1046 by the Supreme Court the purpose of the amendment is to increase by 1 position to the appellate review attorneys and also delete some positions and adds 3 new additional positions for the ethics advisory office. There are no changes in funding requested in this bill it is amended to house bill 1046. All right. Identify identify yourself you're recognized I'm Marty Sullivan I'm the director of the administrative office of the courts and all entertain any questions no statement. All right any questions we represent Dotson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. Marty this the we we talk about this and is my understanding there is no general revenue tied to this this is fully funded out of administration of justice fund can you walk through for the committee exactly how that works and we anticipated shortfall in those funds based off the current fiscal emergency that's actually the next thing that's up this right here this particular letter as far as the 3 positions this does not come out of general revenue this comes out of the bar appropriation funds which are the attorney licensing fees and so if you'll read the language from the Chief Justice that says potentially so what the court again the court considered this last fall December they voted on this and the office of professional programs had approach the Supreme Court and ask about the possibility of creating this ethics advisory committee so the Supreme Court has not decided whether or not they're going to move forward with this they're studying this right now there are several states that are doing this including Oklahoma and Missouri so this is not anything that it is finalized right now at right now by the court this is something that they're looking at but again back before the pandemic this was something that they were looking at and this is not state central services fund this is part of the the bar revenues. Thank you again confused but that all and so that when it's appropriate yet when that that one comes around I guess on this one is this something you're really needing to get done right now. Since it's not. Urgent necessarily there still considering it can be done later on as we talked last night on the phone I think there's other avenues and you pointed out if we need to add these in the future I think we could do that again these are unusual time so thank you. All right. Yes senator DISMANG that you over. 33 you're recognized thanks Sir in in just on those funds that would come out of house that fund balance I'm sorry I'm I'm way over here but it's fine of it what what what what is it how is that fund operating right now is it sufficient or would pleading a quicker then the money that's going in and and who else with this potentially take away from that also relies on that fund right now I think the bar accounts revenue is is solid but that's something that we're looking at and and the court really want to take that into consideration one thing the court does not want to do and you'll appreciate hearing this is not raise parties so they don't want to do that and other states and looking at this I think Missouri for example they don't have 3 positions doing that they have I think one attorney supervisor that provides these is this and so again when the court was talking about this they wanted to pull lawyers and member of the bar right now I'm timely raisin parties yeah. Search. Speaker shepherd you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair and center dismay ask one of my questions I guess if if and this may be a moot point in light of some of the things you said already with regard to the second part of the request which includes. Upgrades and some positions I mean it seems to me that's very similar to what the court of appeals was just asking for and wouldn't would you agree or is there some compelling reason they should be viewed any differently yeah I I don't disagree with the on that I will point out that the final 2 positions are actually positions that are in the bar account fund so those would not be affected by general revenue the other 6 would and again I think just for clarifications a lot of these are just kind of modifying by one GS grade so if you look at a GS 8 that's 45000 to 65000 if you look at a GS 9 that's 50000 to 72000 so really all it's doing is giving long term employees a potential for growth but you'll notice the letter that the chief then ask for additional appropriation to do that so I I don't think the court was planning on giving out raises right now they're just trying to keep employees that have been around for a long time and upgrade their great but again all this was discussed in December November December last year so thank you. Any other questions. Well me getting thank you wanna bills you want to add I appreciate you what is the pleasure this committee. I have a motion do pass and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. I believe that have it. Thank you remembers been adopted. Is it ready. Okay that makes house bill 1046 ready to go out I need a motion do pass as amended we have that got it second any discussion. All in favor say aye any opposed. All right we're going to D. 3. And you're going to stay right there yes Sir transaction. Okay Mr chairman this is the 1 I tried to do earlier this is ACT to amend to bills that's why it's the 3 in the for it amend Senate bill 46 ministry office of the courts court personnel it adds 5 trial court administrators and 5 court reporters do 2 ACT 103 and 2019 adding 5 new judges. The actual costs will be $719000 payable from the administration of justice fund. The other bill amends is house bill 1082. And this provides appropriation to cover the 5 new judgeships the increase is 1.$2000000 and will raise to a J. allocation in the DFA disbursing bill again that's a J. is administration of justice fund. The server you're recognized. So as you all remember late in the 90 second session and you all voted to approve 5 new judgeships in the northern parts of the state so really this was that a request for me this was just a reminder to the committee that those 5 new judgeships require to employees one being a case manager docket manager and a court reporter so I was really just sending this to the chairs just to let you all know that date of the circuit judge ships have to have staff and I will say I did send a letter that's not in your packet from a of see that said that I after the governor made the announcement on the 20 fourth I was not asking for anything within the US sees budget any increase and actually suspend its spending all unnecessary spending from my managers and also put a self impose hiring pre freeze and paid place so I have that letter if anybody wants to see a copy of that and I didn't make it in your pocket but I sent that on the twenty fourth of March Any questions by which believe you wanna come up and make a statement. Yes I just want to make it clear that these are positions and we don't contest that they're necessary but the funding will come from the administration of justice fund which is many of you are aware has seen a decrease in revenues over the last several years it's currently releasing at about 45 percent of the appropriation which it should provide these positions would be 100 percent funded they would come off the top so the amount remaining for every all the other beneficiaries of the fund is likely to go down as a result we also see collections to the fund drop significantly during times of economic recession so our expectation is that funding to the administration of justice fund will fall which will mean less funding it will be made available for the program supported by the fund including client crime victims reparations the crime lab state police and other justice related programs. Any questions. Senator Irvin you're recognized. So I guess I mean do we have an option here. A I mean it. That's a good question there's a lot of different ways that we could create or find a position in state government but the the proposal that's before you would be to create and support the positions in the same way and under the same funding stream that used to support similar staff and all the other courts around the state I merely making the point that by adding to these positions were to some extent exacerbating the problem that's been out there for awhile now I understand I mean that we are bound by state statute that we passed during the last session are we. We did create those judges yes. Is there anything in the state statute that says that we can delay the implementation of it. I'm not familiar with NO. Okay. Sherri through. Of. Thank you senator bond that you in Sir but so's the. Number 80. You're recognized well that I think Senator Irvin may I ask my questions some of couple these judges been elected already right I mean correct. There's no turning that really yeah. That was my question I think you. To the point. All right senator Ballenger. You're recognized thank you Mr. And I I wish I had a chance to ask you this or I wish I would have asked you this earlier but. How much do we have now in the bar funds. I don't know that right off the top of my head I gave you the numbers last year I can give you an updated report yes so what would be would be your guests with and if you get it within within 5000000000 okay so my question would be is there anything that prohibits you from the law for at least through this fiscal session to fund those judges out of the bar fund. I know it can't be statutory because then would be meddling can the court fund these positions out of the bar fund I don't think. I don't know that answer but I don't believe that they could the money that the bar account has already allocated to fund other positions like the office professional programs sure sure at eminent this bunch differ think the goes to be the question is if you have a fine balance of $5000000 you know if it's if it's some that we can work out to to get it get it budgeted for next year than it could be you can come in as part of our budget I mean honestly we should be and I I say that I wrapped in act I can't we really need to look at reforms administration of justice fund that fund is not appropriately funded for all of the different pieces that come out of it so that's a that's a huge problem that I would say but eventually we need to try to tackle that I need to try some of these try to tackle it doesn't sound fund that we should do it but the the the truth is like if we can get through this session of finding these positions and I know we're asking more of the court I know that's a fund that they have complete control over and it's nice to have that control but is it possible for them to find these positions and to we get past the session. I don't know that yeah I know I know personally think there's enough money there that that they could afford these okay it's personal thank. Speaker shepherd you're recognized thank you Mr chairman. One question I have with regard to court reporters there are programs where judges are don't have a court reporter and they actually use technology to record of the the testimony and then have it I guess it's simply automatically transcribe really Senate office my and I know there's there's one judge in south Arkansas is doing that I don't know if there are others but could you speak to that and whether that is something that the to the. A. O. C. is promoting to try and do it's part to help us solve some of the challenges that were facing with regard to funding issues the previous director I've been director for 3 years did and they approved on a pilot program I think there were 2 judges that we're doing that in the states you know I'm open to that but it's not something I've really had time to study and and look at and and I don't know I know right now there's a shortage of court reporters that's that's one big concern is you've got a large number of court reporters retiring and there's not a lot of people clamoring for this job so I think I think that is an issue that I'm open to studying for sure and that was concurred become the second part of my question is there is a shortage of court reporters of we're. Essentially I guess by statute we were mandating that some of these things the existence so it seems like that this is something for the future we need to be looking at that that might be a potentially a win win situation thank you. Any other questions. Alright members. We'll take this up it D. 3 Indy 4 as 11 motion. Do we have a motion DO pass. Amendment okay and a second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Congratulations you pressure member thank members we do have Senate bill 46 was the administration office of the courts it is ready we need a motion do pass as amended. We have a motion do pass as amended and a second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed alright members we're gonna start on Adam ET real storeroom governor's letter one to believe you need to get on up here and stay here. He won the one did everybody have a copy of the one. Welcome be GL once usually on a on the. Yeah. On the agenda is the but the GL one on your handouts. Transfer you're recognized. Okay Jake. Sure. So those of you who were a part of our budget hearings that we had just one month ago seems like a lot longer than that we had a lengthy discussion of some different options that we wanted to present that we felt would help eliminated that overlap and create some transformational efficiencies in our cabinets. Some of of what we had proposed was not alternately adopted by this committee so we've moved forward with presenting what we had wanted to do in terms of substantive law changes or change in the appropriation acts and this is the first one of them the secretary Walter who's behind me here inherited or took on the responsibility for overseeing tobacco control with transformation tobacco control has certified law enforcement officers are responsible for the regulation of tobacco products in the state they became housed administratively under the same kind of division or district as alcoholic beverage control which of course is also certified law enforcement and they're responsible for the regulatory actions for liquor and wholesalers retailers of alcohol there's a lot of overlap between those 2 responsibilities and jobs so this proposal would bring 40 officers together under one roof so that the retailers and by and large if you sell liquor products you sell tobacco products the retailers are dealing with one not regulatory agencies that have to and we're going to a we think create some operational efficiencies within DFA by combining the 2 programs. Any questions for Mister believe. What is the pleasure of the committee motion to a path okay second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed will go to number 2. So this is a proposal from the department on Odum. 1030 ready to go out need a motion to pass as amended we have a motion and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed. John Smith. I'm sorry legal. Okay total Jake. Senator Ingram got a question for you. Who will the answer to one sets combined who who will be there of. Senior official or be the authority figure well so they'll still the tobacco side will still decisions will still be made by the tobacco control commission and the alcoholic side will still be responsible for alcoholic beverage control the administration side it's still 2 totally separate kind of regulatory rules and bodies but from the standpoint of a regulatory enforcement and and the investigation side we're just bringing them together thank you. Alright members we're going to a governor's letter number 2. Mr bleed. So this is a request from the department of public safety it would be an increase in appropriation in 2 places the first there to generators which are reaching their and the life out of state police this would increase their operations appropriations to replace those generators this would also. Increase some appropriation war or I guess move it between commitment items. To reflect the a change in a project which had previously sought to do some mighty work on servers and said we're gonna move that work out into the cloud. Any questions. I have a motion to adopt a letter in and a second we have a second any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed. All right then go now to. G. 3 so this is another one of those transformation or transfers that we we will propose in this case department public safety at a number of positions which were either in a place where they weren't needed or a place where there once of necessarily sufficient funds to support them elsewhere within the cabinet though there was a need for positions so this is just a request to move those positions where there are no longer needed to where we can you make better use of the. Any questions. I have a motion to adopt the letter and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye. You both. All right we'll go to governor's letter for. So this is another opportunity that we see to create some efficiencies it's very similar to what we just did with tobacco control an alcoholic beverage only this time it is over at the office of inspector general they when we created that office we ended up in a situation where we had a number of agencies that had investigator positions investigator responsibilities this is it bringing together 8 positions 2 within the office of Medicaid inspector general and 6 within for housing commission to create a single investigations unit which with Danny and combine the expertise and the capability those 2 entities to carry out the missions of both agencies. I thank you have a question. Senator Elliot you're recognized. I thank you Mr chair of Mr lead how is this not doing what we were. Attempting to do a during budget hearings with item 8 this is this item 8 this is exactly the sort of transfer we would have done if I to make had been adopted item 8 was not adopted so therefore be item it would have given us the flexibility to bring this sort of transfer before Arkansas Legislative Council because item it was not adopted were now bring it before joint budget committee and asked that these changes to simply be amended into the appropriation acts to reflect the new mission so we're actually doing the same thing we voted down during the hearing. I don't just a different approach well what we're asking for during the hearing was the flexibility to do this during the during the year to bring this request to the Arkansas Legislative Council that got voted down instead what we're doing is asking you to instead of asking for flexibility on any number of a broad range of what if scenarios instead we're presenting to you what I see is a pretty finite and specific request to transfer positions and create a single administrative unit. And it's a different only in that you're saying what you're presenting now is is more pointed and discreet we're not asking yeah we're not asking for administrative flexibility we're not asking for an opportunity to bring something to you at a later date we're not asking for you to consider a what is or ask you to consider is I think a pretty specific request to bring together some positions and we think create a more effective agency that is also available to operate at less cost. I'm sorry but that's not at all condition to me that we're not doing the same thing which is going to do it letter after letter after letter we're doing 3 today yes ma'am yes I did it 3 times. So if we do this is so if you decide to do this again let's just say we are in the regular session we could conduct we could start with what you actually wanted to do and by letter by letter by letter we could actually complete that and almost as if nobody is paying attention to it is just going to happen is what this feels like. But. You say is not the same I am at a loss to see why it's not going to be the same it's just not that I'm not going to sit down and eat the entire cake at one time I'm going to eat it in slices but the cake you still eaten. I understand that and I guess to file your analogy of what I'd like to do and what we're trying to do here is instead of kind of talk about a cake that might be eaten at some point however large to service license very specific and lays out exactly what we're trying to do to present for you to the support ideally so that we can move for was creating what we think is a better agency yeah but what I'm saying is for it but if I don't like chocolate cake it's not any I still don't like it when you give it to a slice by slice I just wanna be sure I understand that we are clear eyed about what we're doing if we are we may proceed in that sense of my question thank you. Thank you and and to be clear we never did vote on item may we just pulled it down. So. Well I know but we did vote on it all right and I know how you like to be correct. All right reserved Lundstrum you're recognized. Thank you chairman and so we are remit or we are. Expected to. I'm here contact okay you're not you're doing good I I like seeing what we're doing so thank you for doing this so we reducing positions no this is not reducing positions I mean what what we have is a situation where we have a lot of experience people and but they may be in one silo they might have a skill set than another silo would like to use okay you know one entity mining town are an investigation that they just don't have that skill set to be able to address right across the hall at their sister agencies somebody who who can do that this is an opportunity for the inspector general to really use of resources she's got to move around and and address what comes down the pike in terms of investigation's without having to add additional positions in the future okay so we're just moving people around we're not adding anybody we're not dating anybody we're just kinda shifting positions on the bus yes. That thank you. Senator Ballenger you're recognized for a question. I got my question answered thank you all right. Senator Hendren you're recognized yeah I I just want to clarify first I think Senator alley it's question about what we're doing here item 8 had it been approved would have been in every appropriation bill and that was not approve because we said we want to see them one at a time specifically what would who and that is exactly what's happening here so I think again when you call a little cake or make cake the fact is if we're gonna have transformation just gonna have to be some changes may but we wanted to see them one at a time which is exactly what's happening here. Represent Dotson you're recognized thank you Mr chair Mr bleeding I just want to say thank you for breaking this out force and knows a lot of work to to get this done but this is exactly what we ask for an and I certainly appreciated and thanks for the plan going forward. Thank you. The inspector general Liz B. Smith are you gonna tell you what I add. No thank you they just asked me to commence so okay happy to answer engrossed all right house and no other questions. A motion to adopt the letter and second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed it is a deducted and also. Of Senate bill 58 is ready with a motion DO pass. AS amended I have a motion to pass as amended and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye any opposed. All right we're going on 2 of the 5 Gunn later 5 which believe you're recognized. So this was this is a request from transformation shared services the building authority they are responsible for maintenance of state buildings it's an increase in appropriation of looks like a couple $0 to reflect some of the new buildings that we've acquired what's happening transformation one of the operational savings that we see out there is an opportunity to move individual agencies out of of facilities where they're paying rent of course when you pay rent you don't always have a lot of the same maintenance these and move them into state owned buildings that are under the oversight of DBA the downside of that is we do need more appropriation to support those buildings. Sandringham you're recognized for a question up Jake is that up on the debt service is up about 1000004 is that one specific building that was purchased or is that multiple locations you know that's a good question let me see if I can get someone from T. S. S. to come and answer the question. Centering with you restate your question. Of I'm just glad to get the someone from Crittenden county in here with me like mislaid log led to see you the question was we're about 1000004 in debt service was that one building purchase it raised all that or is that multiple locations. I'm I'm sorry where are used senator. I'm sorry your right in front of me nice to see you and label division of building authority and the increase in that of appropriations at service appropriation is contemplating additional purchased by the building authority for adding were recent building in the Riverdale area the department of commerce building if the state moves forward with a bond issue to purchase that then I'll need the additional debt service appropriation to cover that that payment is always you've answered my question thank you Sir. Red visas that you'll see 35. 235 okay. The mass Rev reprieve Kevin are you go actually face now ago you're recognized reviewed Cavenaugh I just have a quick question one make sure I understand so these are going to be buildings that we actually own so we're going to have debt maintenance and we're going to have to have upkeep on them and this because we're getting rid of some of the lease properties we have. I'm yes ma'am apart of transformation we are. A co locating a number of divisions too so they can collect Kate with their departments and doing that we've added another building to our portfolio and when we have done our budgeting previously the additional operating cost and then future debt service for that new building was not in our budget so this is just increasing our budget to allow us to cover those operating costs for buildings that are division is managing an operating for the state what about in the overall budget for the buildings that will no longer be leasing is there a decrease in somebody else's budget since we won't be leasing those properties. I yes ma'am there is and that effective reduction for a number of divisions that have free located some of on because we've been able to do some pretty significant a space are reductions for them their lease their lease costs are reducing so that is gonna be reflected those individual add departmental divisions budgets and not necessarily in my operating budget for us to manage that portfolio buildings. Jack will we be seeing those reductions how will we know when where those reductions are at. A so what we would do we would see those reductions in reduced expenditures for rent for that rent commitment item so what we would do is look at reducing requested appropriation in that in that 8 commitment item in the future probably in the next session okay thank you. Okay members any other questions. The motion to adopt governor 5 got a motion and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed alright members Senate bill 55 is ready we need a motion do pass as amended a motion and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye any opposed and staff just pointed out we need to go back to go to a vendor number 3 the house bill Attensity 8 apartment a public safety is ready we need a motion do pass as amended we have a motion and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed all right we'll go down to governor's letter number 6. Mr believe you're recognized. So this is requested increase appropriation for $5000000 from the public school fund in grants and AID to local school districts specifically this would be to provide educational services through early intervention day treatment centers the students there would previously received their education III D. T. my understanding is that print was provided by DHS at through Medicaid my understanding is now the E. that responsibility has shifted over to the school districts in the local co ops this is to provide funding to help support that educational component of the ADT program. All right we got a question. Representative makes you're recognized thank you Mr chairman so just make sure I understand is this going to be a new hit the general revenue alternately since this was or it sounds like originally was Medicaid or federal funds and now it's going to shift to general revenue funds or is it still going to stay Medicaid we're just reallocating it this will come out of the public school funds who will be a combination of general revenue in the special revenues but it would be a an additional $5000000 hit its there's just we're not just shifting. So so so they're on my alternate question is there is there an additional cost to general revenue because of this potentially so there would be my my assumption is that over on the DHS side that would be less money coming out of the Medicaid program which would of course be $0.25 or so on the dollar FOR the state federal and shifting over here where all this would be state dollars yes Sir okay do we have any idea what that differences between the 2 I don't but I can figure it out okay. Thanks German alright thank you represent me X. repetitive gray you're recognized thank you Mr chair and I guess that just to my question when if these were done through DHS prior we were getting that match so if we moved all those over or we should have T. PT in speech being reimbursed directly through Medicaid. I guess I just need more information about what's going to be actually running through Medicaid with the match and what is not and I'm afraid I can't speak to that as much as I'd like but let me see if I can grab mark what from DHS or Greg from AT and they might be able to speak to the thank you. Roger did you hear the question. A no Sir will. Region great rivers way tomorrow Marcus white it to the table. I'm not take mine office of. Thank you Mr restate your question get my question was essentially this is a $5000000 increase for EID G. what was that previously funded through Medicaid and if it was was there a match so what what are we transferring over and what are we keeping. So the only the only thing that were transferred over just educational purposes for whatever is in that individual pre case I. E. P. so we're before it was handled I was at the I. T. T. center by don't know if it everything was eligible for the backs that time it depends on what was in the the before the plan for that student educational services my understanding is now that there the ATI teas are performing those anymore but the the district or the co op wherever that trial that student is home district is are still response for those educational services from now the co op or the school district going to be handling those services and this increase appropriation is for those only those education services I saw that the P. T. O. T. the speech anything it's needed will still remain under DMS but any educational pieces are going to be moved out okay because those those were matched originally anyhow where they. Perfect thank you. US senator bond. You're recognized had they just answer my question thank you. All right. Representative lunch from your record I'm just still a little confused you said L. T. speech therapy is being performed by. Not by the therapist this. A no those to be formed by therapies is just that the responsibility of those educational services is going to be with the the local district that student that they were signing. Okay. Medical school. Good by the rise from. Any other questions. The motion to adopt the governor's letter have a motion. A minute. Light backup center. Senate is my you're recognized so then in so this is just for public schools right so has a program we carried out for those that are not in public school home schooled that sort of thing. So it depends on it if the kids are private school in the private school and provide services which they have the ability to provide it's only deals with those kids are in the public school or the public school coops that get the services to the co ops but that will not but it so none of those services will be change for the students that are on the outside I'm I'm trying to understand. Okay at I'm a little confused but I think that's you're saying they're gonna be taken care of yes Sir okay. Any other questions. Need a motion to adopt governor's letter 6. A motion and a second. Any discussion all in favor say aye opposed. And we see this from this is ready when you set out Senate bill 57 do pass as amended have a motion and a second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed. It is adopted we will go to governor's letter 7. Mr believe you're recognized. Governor's letter 7 seeks increasing appropriation and number of different ways primarily these increases are being requested to help our agencies respond to and navigate through the Covin corona and we do that a couple different ways the first is an increase of about $500000000 in an hour or miscellaneous federal grant appropriation the MSG appropriation we use entities a lot when federal funds become available to our agencies and we're seeing a lot of federal funding become available to them this is appropriation is just being requested so the DLC committee has additional flexibility to provide that appropriation if they think it's needed as those federal dollars become available. In addition we've asked for about $100000000 in additional appropriation for various agencies this is the kind of do all appropriation which is available through a LC impart we're doing that so that agencies can respond to needs as the corona virus or or the recession that results from it rolls through it's also a reflection of a request from the General Assembly when we prepared for the fiscal session to really pare down the number of governors letters which we presented believe it or not we actually did do that one of the ways we did that is by telling the agencies to instead come back to LC and request appropriation if if they wanted appropriation through governor's letter we're now asking the come back to LC so this is just to accommodate that a little more. And then finally on the back were asking for the creation of A cares appropriation. 1 of the things that the federal cares act did was make available to the state 1.2 $5000000000 in funding to respond to the corona virus to the Covin virus the legislation the the federal law that creates that is still being determined how we're going to use that money so what we wanted to do as long as the fiscal session was up and running that we had appropriation available to make the use that money as it comes through that's what this does is structured in a way just like the additional appropriation where we would need to get a LC approval before we could access. Any questions. Senator Hickey you're recognized almost believe Sir just quick question I think you had it United the discussion is not going to be your all y'all's intention to bring that for a LC is an emergency you're going to wait and try to. Well I I don't know and it's hard to predict what and when we will present to an emergency basis on the LC but certainly will try to communicate as much as possible to membership before we do anything of course the governor with the the cares of funding that 1.25 he's created a steering group help determine how those funds are going to be used and I'm sure that whenever the feds get it is us the the kind of rules the guidance on how that's laid out will be working with the old figure now. Glad that amendment today and I decided not to run it because of money your conversation that wasn't the intent ever bring any of this this type stuff is an emergency before a you'll see and be honest with the older those getting on record with that yes Sir thank you Sir. The other questions. We need a motion to approve the governor's letter number 7 we have a motion and a second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye. He opposed. And it is but opted in house bill 1082 is not ready at this time so we'll move on to governor's letter 8. So this is one of those governors letters that we missed normally I think we would have probably told them not to pursue this instead to bring it to SLC it is an increasing appropriation this time from the military department my understanding is that the military department has been informed that they'll no longer be able to use the federal department of defense IT system the the their computer network so there are some additional costs that need to be paid to bring the military department under the state network. Any questions. Motion to adopt builder letter a motion and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed and members of house bill 1070 to military department is ready to stab me to do pass as amended. Have a motion and a second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed. All right we're moving down to go to their number 9. This is a request to the department of commerce insurance department is in new $250000 procreation to create the fire fighter cancer relief this would be a trust fund which would provide funding 4 release to firefighters who were diagnosed with cancer. Any questions. My understanding is they're gonna see donations but I can grab Cordy trailer from commerce and confirm at I just wanted to see if it was funded yet or not this is just the appropriation and how they were going to fund it I can get back with you for that Sir I apologize that's okay. Any other questions. Motion to adopt the governor's letter I have a motion and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed and members this is be Senate bill 74 ready to do pass as amended I have a motion and a second any discussion all in favor say aye any opposed. Governor's letter 10. This is a request from secretary Walter behind me and this would to add I believe 8 positions to fund to operate the franchise tax administration one of the decisions it was made during the 19 session as part of the tax reform task force recommendations was to transfer franchise tax administration from the secretary of state's office over to DFA when the transfer was complete no positions came with it so this is to operate that program. Members any questions. I have a motion up governor's letter the motion and a second. Any discussion. All in favor will. US 35 a revenue Cavenaugh you're recognized just a quick question so there were no transfers of people to do this from the secretary of state's. People that we just added people we didn't transfer the people that already have the knowledge about the system and how it worked over to the if and I my understanding from talking to secretary of state was that responsibilities for for this were spread among a number of people all of whom had other duties within the office so there wasn't a finite kind of block of people whose only responsibility was a franchise tax administration so they didn't have anybody really that they could send over as I understand they are working very closely with us to make sure that there's no knowledge lost in a transfer and that our folks are adequately trained to take over when when the program's handed off and since they had people doing multiple jobs we don't have that flexibility and day of a native find someone that might be able to take this over without having to add additional personnel it's certainly something we're looking at this is a request for the positions so that we have that flexibility okay thank you. Any other questions we already have a motion the second letter. Ray ready to vote on favor say aye. He opposed. All right members and I think that'll be house bill. 1083 it rate this time we did a motion do pass as amended we have a motion and a second any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed. All right we're down to governor vendor number 11. Mr believe you're recognized. So this is a request for the department of health it is an increase in their grants in aid appropriation this is their main grants in a line appropriation if a a grant comes down for the federal government but it requires a state match we cannot use the MSG appropriations we use the state appropriation lines department health has had an increasing number of federal funds that require matches and grants so this is to in increase the amount of appropriation we would have for the next fiscal year. Any questions for Mister bleed. Most food off the letter and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed and I think Senate bill 72 fury house bill 1088 yes is ready when do pass as amended we have that in a second we got a second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed. All right will then go down to governor's letter number 12 I believe. This is a request from the department of Human Services or number of different sections in it the first is a request for an increase in appropriation for the Medicaid grants line the second is an increase in the I'm sorry the Medicaid appropriation increase to be about 900000000. The second is an appropriation the nursing home closure casa reflects an increase costs that we have from some nursing homes. The third and the fourth sections deal with in effect recognizing some of the reallocation transfers that we've made during the fiscal year so that our appropriation act reflects what the reality of the the the those transfers have done and then the next section deals with Medicaid tobacco settlement programs is would increase the amount of money from the tobacco settlement program which could be used for Medicaid. And then the final section deals with the upgrade of the number of positions a large number of positions related to the human development centers the HTC's. And DHS is here I believe in the back. Any could do any bring DHS in any way back any questions got yes we do. Is amended. Miss class B. glad to have you with us today below. Identify yourself I've got 45 questions for you. Sure sending the less the US secretary apartment of Human Services. Dawn Staley deputy director Medicaid director for DHS. And mark why chief legislative and government affairs and chief of staff for DHS no of opening statement just re take questions all right reject Russians. Senator bond you're recognized. On the nursing home closer calls could someone explain that the increase of what is it 3.5000000. Do we expect to incur those additional costs and and why. We don't expect to incur them but I think based on the recent history over the past couple years we have had to take a few facilities into receivership and we have had to do some it when we've done that we have had to come over and do some emergency appropriation moves within our agency but also here in so just out of an abundance of caution we have asked to go ahead and increase that based on the expenditures to date just to give a sense of that as of as of January we paid 2.7 $5000000 in expenditures for the wrist before the facilities we take into receivership. Do we work to recoup that money into it may just be non that even to have how about how that happens obviously somebody help the licenses stated granted I'm alive yes right and now we're the states having to pay you to take it back over it seems like there ought to be maybe criminal and civil action taken how does that how does that work what are we doing on that issue yes and we we do work very closely both with the the individuals that are planning to then take over ownership for those facilities as well as those individuals who had previously been offering those facilities to recoup any funding that we can we also work with state local authorities to be able to pursue prosecution where appropriate. Do we project recoveries or is it have we had any recoveries from anybody's closed a nursing home usually as part of the transition we're able to work with them to look at situations where there may have been it ends in several these cases where they may have been behind on fees and payments that they make to the state and that has been something we have been able to then recover as part of the process we typically don't project that just because this is that this is usually a pretty significant situation where we're taking facilities into receivership so that's not something we we we planned for but in this case we just want to make sure that if that should happen that we do have the appropriation available to to take care of that thank you. Alright Sir Representative makes you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman secretary the the question I have is on section for this first section here it looks like you're asking for an additional $900000000 an appropriation can you justify that large increase for us because obviously we we look at these budgets less than a month ago so can you go over those with this place sure I'll be happy to and then the 2 if you would like to add on place do obviously 4 weeks ago our world was very different this is notice and and a request for an increase in appropriation not in a request for an increase in SG are for all right that this is not for funding this is for the appropriation Sir as part of what has been going on with the coronavirus pandemic as you have probably heard we have had an increase in our federal F. map the match the federal government pays us that increase it takes is both on the Medicaid side as well on the chip side and that has allowed us to stay within at this point not asking for additional as G. R. right but we do anticipate spending rising in this period and this is simply a set if you look at 21 a set of projections I'm not trying to be a. Some sort of beer they can tell you whatever happened but what we have largely done is try to take what we were planning and adjust on 2 factors we'd adjusted on enrollment factor and we adjusted on a utilization factor because those are the 2 things that could change and that would drive change the largest driver for us in change is enrollment as we have talked about right so the enrollment factor is driving a lot of that number we hope that never appears. And we do not need to use that. That appropriation but if it does then the appropriation is there to give you a sense of what we did we used. The couple things to understand to draw the F. map which we need to draw that additional federal money as the state in order for us to draw that their set of rules that come and part of those rules are that during this emergency. Simplistically stated people don't lose the services the area so the people that are in Medicaid stay in Medicaid unless they die move at a state there certain set of conditions right other that they were made in Medicaid and the new people come in so your enrollment will grow during this emergency period right now the number which we used in order to grow enrollment we went back and looked sense. 2015 at our highest point of enrollment and that highest point of enrollment was in February of 2017 so we used that was numbers in order to predict enrollment we went a little bit above it that was 340 4000 for example in Arkansas works at that point that was our high we are now down roughly around 250 to 260 okay so we use that as climb to that is a high and then begin to move down from there we went to 350 just slightly above just in terms of doing projections right more than you wanted out we went to 3 450000 there and we. So and then drew it down so this appropriation really drives from predictions around looking back at what our highest points of utilization were the last 4 years and what our highest points of enrollment work and we took those and said if we got into those worst case scenarios this is what we would look like and that's why we were asking for that additional appropriation okay so so this is I am not shall this is all driven by the virus and giving you had room for what you anticipate could be a worst case scenario yes not that it is. Something we hope we never have to yes exactly. All righty. Jeff Lundstrum you're recognized yeah thank you the could you explain to me how I was a little bit muddled and little bit confused how DHS could you explain to me how we transferred funds from Medicaid II IDT to the department of education and why do we do that okay going to let don and mark explain that language will be information part of the I think missing piece that should mission appear earlier did not is the education was giving us some dollars that were being used in those yet ET centers and because the change that Mister Rogers crop that is stopped and so the money there is for those educational services which is not Medicaid function for Medicaid were focused on funding those therapies those other medical specific services which will continue to do is just that education pieces what workers but a switch over to the apartment occasion is going to understand fund that directly out of their special education monies okay and then I had a follow up on another issue on the nursing homes are we loaning money to nursing homes to is to start nursing home start of funds no. Okay just curious if that was the issue of before going back in and doing for closures and covering those expenses if we were the ones that loan the money in the first place. Okay to checking. You 3 rebel.. dot Yes Sir. Representantes you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. I questions on the hospital medical services line item that additional 0.$5000000000 I think I heard you say that you dissipate enrollment growth and any in you talked about Arkansas works but that's not the entire thing for that line item what other areas are in there and are we the the match rate on Arkansas works as an increasing is it it's only the F. map on the traditional Medicaid right and so what what part of that. The of the $7000000000 is increasing that's not Arkansas works I guess okay no very good question and you're pulling it out to walking through it yes because the increase is we went back and we. We used. Thank you increase in the highest point of enrollment for each of the population groups not just Arkansas works I use that as an example okay so we used each of those and we use the highest utilization so as the potential for the worst case scenario around these so if. She can feel one of the best you've got it Sir. So so as an example and we basically looked at each of our population groups or categories of eligibility again going back to that 2015 time frame look to see where we had the highest the month of utilize ation and then applied that factor going forward again hoping that we don't get to that point in terms of reaching that point of utilization but we wanted to make sure that we had built enough into the budget to be able to to build account for that so as an example. Let's see. Like for example nursing homes were just talking about that we actually the highest point within the past several years has been a 2.5 percent increase and so we took that 2.5 percent increase and then we projected that forward throughout the remainder state fiscal year 2021 assuming that if we had the highest rate of utilization that we've ever had going forward then that we build that into the overall budget. Care. So I guess have you seen an increase in utilization last 3 or 4 weeks out of the ordinary it's still you know we have a lot of providers that are submitting claims that they had previously incurred for services that have been provided in so recognizing we've also had a shift in the way services are being provided in terms of a lot of those are now moving towards telemedicine other types of telehealth where appropriate we're looking at that on a daily basis so it's hard to say at this point time what the impact has been over the past couple weeks since like that so many providers are pushing through bills that they had previously to make sure that they have cash available that were able to go ahead and pay out those claims. As you can tell that as we said these are just simply projections right you have to come up with something when you're dealing in a situation haven't been in before so we try to get try to find a data point. As she said we have not seen a massive increase or decrease yet because folks are pushing through their bills but we do know from everyone that elective surgeries a lot of a lot of medical activity is not occurring as people set up to be prepared for the potential influx on the pandemic in S. FY 20 right and what we're in right now which means that a lot of those things that are not happening right now those services. Could easily then push into 21 when everyone is allowed to go back and go see their doctors again and get the services again and get the elective surgeries except us so this will be a way for us whatever happens around enrollment utilization will also be a wave both the coronavirus part and then the post coronavirus part thank you Mr chair. Cavenaugh. You're recognized thank you Mr chair just a quick question on the division of county operations or you're asking for a 5.$5000000 increase and this is talking about for I. T. services. Yes so there's there's 2 pieces there OR 1 you'll see is actually a carry forward of our a resource we allocation that we did this year and basically that was for things such as postage and mailings software licenses equipment particularly you know as we are moving towards I'm doing a lot more things virtually we've had to purchase some additional equipment associated with that and then the second piece where it says the additional $2000000 as we have been like others as we have been examining our cost allocation process or basically how we look at what different funding sources federal state and otherwise can pay for different things we have actually identified that there is additional revenue that can be reallocated to our division of county operations and then uses Medicaid match that's why that's why you see that additional request in there for new appropriation because that $2000000 of state money we can go ahead and then match that and then and then turn that into several more $0 okay so that so that 1.5 and a half and 2 is 3.5000000 that's why you're asking for 5.5 because you're getting the federal match will get the federal match on that you know okay thank you. Reviewed of house you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman thank you madam secretary appreciate shall come and. Yesterday or the day before we are here to 2:00 of. Yesterday or the day before the director of see a mass was on national television was talking about the funding stream. And to paraphrase what I heard her say is that the fans are instead of you sending a bill to CMS is say we spent this much in them green bar seeing you can't going to forward money based on your historical activity and send you money in advance is that what I'm hearing you describe you're going to get it big advance so you won't be able to spend it no Sir I believe I that what she was talking about was the Medicare side of CMS because it's Medicaid and Medicare and one of the things and the cares act is it allows a hospital for example or other provider to ask Medicare to advance to them basically if it's a critical access hospital believe it's 125 percent if it's not critical access it's 100 percent of their usual Billings so CMS would advance it to them so they have the money in hand and then they would bill against that so she was talking about something that's happening on the Medicare side okay thank you very much thank you Mr chairman. And senator bond your record if the if you go down and I thought maybe you were SS and I miss it on the Medicaid tobacco settlement program grants that additional $0 to talk about that and I missed it not not specifically so there is one explain that are certainly and it's it's a little bit missile mislead well thank thankfully this is been renamed to Medicaid tobacco settlement program grants but for for those of you who have been with us for a few years this is something that was previously referred to as the as the Medicaid tobacco expansion program in within that there's really for keep populations that that program is is eligible to find and happy to walk through those but yeah I'm in brief it it allows us to be able to cover pregnant women that whose income maybe higher than what would normally be eligible for coverage there's a hospital benefit coverage in there that basically allows people to have a couple extra days and reduces some copays there is there is some coverage in there for individuals over the age of 65 that have. Medicare coverage but may not qualify for all of the traditional Medicaid and then most recently we actually added the fourth piece which is to assist adults and children with ID and DD to be able to pay for some additional waiver slots on the committee employment services waiver so so that appropriation just accounts for the additional category that we have there and then being able to take advantage of that enhance match as we move into the state fiscal year 2021 so the the explanation for the jump on some of the other items in section 1 also falls here this increase at that thank you. Thank you senator senator Ingram you're recognized. Yes of you all reimburse up claims on a 7 day basis. Your your claims your price 70 so you've got up should have a good feel of me we're maybe 6 weeks into this now and or or you saying that nothing is changed up or down that it's sort of status quo we're seeing a few things starting down where there have been some. And but it's just really been in the last week that we're starting to see some of those areas remember part of our world is in capitated payments so with that would be more showing up later in encounter data verses in a claim we are starting to see some of these areas those shifting down as don said as the director Staley said we think a lot of what is been going on at this stage has been because we did see a couple slight bump up that we were not quite expecting has been people catching up on their billing. All right because right now we know from talking to all the different providers we we talked to them constantly that there ever real concerns about cash flow right so they have been catching up their billing and sending things through so what we're starting to see some shifts down around some of the elective areas with their coming a little later than you might have thought because people are sending and bills in in your thought is that there might be a backlog when this with this comes to an end and and you'll you'll have the the the money to deal with that yes and in addition to a backlog when it comes to an end and in addition to the increased enrollment because our Roman is going to grow. No matter what because to get claim the F. map we have to keep everyone in the program that's in the program. And for any members who don't know course providers have a full year to bills for claims and so as the director alluded to were seen where they're trying to catch up on Wednesday may have been sitting on so they can help their cash flow but by the same token we have some services being provided now we may not see for 36 months depending on how often those products are billing okay up 1 more for my Mr chairman of got 1 of the owner of the enrollment in the exchanges allows for a of is a life change or we are going to allow enrollment in the exchange of an Arkansas works before the open enrollment.. period The so Arkansas works is Medicaid and so you can roll in Medicaid at any time all right the exchange is the federal program and right now and I have not looked at this in a couple of days so I hate to say this but a couple of days ago the federal government was not talking about having an open enrollment for. For the federal exchange program which is not the Medicaid Arkansas works program thank you very much. All righty no other questions. Victor Glaspie reshape shall govern your excused. Thank you. All right. We need a motion to adopt governor letter number 12 have a motion and a second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye aye any opposed. All right. Along with that we'll batch 4 bills we have Senate bill 72. The division of medical services house bill 1066. A division of county operations. House bill 1068 tobacco settlement program in Senate bill 70 the division division of developmental disabilities of we need to pass those for these portions AS amended. DO pass is amended I have a motion. And a second any discussion all in favor say aye opposed. Mr bleeding need come down one more time. We're going to governor's letter number 13. Apartment Veterans Affairs. You're recognized. This is a a request for an increase in positions as well as supporting appropriation 4 to really the 2 main areas vendors affairs Veterans Affairs maintains nursing homes in north little rock and fate will this request would add a number of positions necessary we both feel are necessary to accommodate those it looks like an increase of 15 positions as well supporting appropriation funding for this would come from the fees and billing services that the the homes maintain or operate on that includes Medicaid Medicare that sort of thing. The request is also for some positions and costs associated with maintaining some of the veterans cemeteries there's increasing requests for burials with and military honors as well as some of the. Increase in general operating across for the agency. Any questions for Mister bleed. When a motion to adopt governor number 13 we have a motion and a second. Any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed and Senate bill 82 is ready when you to do pass as amended we have a motion and a second hold on of. To amend. Okay of. Whole favor say aye. Any opposed and we got to regular bills that Mister Anderson is going to tell us about. Thank you Mr chairman in your sent a packet with the S. in the upper right hand corner. Page 14 Senate bill 69 DHS children family. By get trying to get there. So on page 14 in the bottom right hand corner Senate bill 69 DHS children and family services. The bill would 69. Okay a motion vote DO pass and second. Any discussion all in favor say aye. Any opposed Mr Anderson. As chairman the last one in the Senate packet also is on page 21. On page 21 Senate bill 85 department of education division of higher education. Senate bill 85 live do pass. Motion to pass in the second. Any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Well that's all we have a senator Ingram you got announcement. Complete a question okay I'm sorry just when you thought you were gone. I thought it was safe to go back in the water. Of we've talked about this of and I know you're working on it but I just want to of colleagues this affects 11 of our 2 year schools the so called a double whammy regarding the productivity funding formula and the cut and there is language that I think it's being discussed as to this is the way it was originally presented at least to the to your school's war they they wouldn't get a double hit in one year if the productivity formula kicked in then the cut wouldn't kick in we've got 11 schools to your schools that are in jeopardy of the language that they're working on and I I talked to Mr bleed about this previously and I think you you're looking into that right now maybe we can hear about it tomorrow yes Sir we're working with the education of which of course and now includes higher education as well as the schools to figure out exactly what is the law requires there's some some question about how that needs to be applied this is the first time we've had forecast downturn since the productivity funding model was put in place so we're just figuring out exactly what the process needs to be. Thank you mistaken. All right kind of question. Okay alright. Be more specific as far as the language. Well there's the there's a section of code and I I think this is the section that were stuck on it lays out the circumstances under which a downturn or decline in in the revenue forecast may or may not preclude us from having productivity the next year and so the question is will wait a minute we've got the forecast is that mean we're doing productivity and so that's what we're wrestling with now is course when the governor put his balanced budget together a month ago that was another time that the productivity funding was included in that balanced budget as we move forward to put together the are say the question has been raised rules is it still in there given that clause that were we're discussing about how exactly we should go about applying. Okay A is there any I mean at a clearly we're working to with the department occasion and the leadership as well as institutions to find the best path forward here. And I think what everybody has to absolutely. Alright thank you. Thank you Sir. Jake don't don't get away I need to division with for you leave all right of who is 89 all right yeah Senator Davis you're recognized had some 2 years reach out also and I think what you're referring to is it says in any. Fiscal year for which the aggregate general revenue funding forecast to be available for state supported institutions it's not so and specific to 2 years but state supported institutions of higher education is greater than 2 percent less than the amount provided for the immediate previous fiscal year the department shall not further implement the productivitybased funding model the following fiscal year and and I've asked BLR about that and it was my understanding that. Sorry and I never on the and that sense it wasn't and. Since we didn't and make the changes we don't technically amend and fiscal year 20 that they can still implement productivity funding I mean I just hate to see us do something just for 2 years and out for 4 years everybody is making cuts they're making hard decisions people across Arkansas at agencies that are providing care and services to people during this pandemic and the 2 years are calling and trying to lobby members not to have their budgets cut when the 4 years or taking cuts you a mess is taking cuts everybody else across the state it's like outrageous to me that 2 years are reaching out in lobbying members that their budget specifically won't be cut so I have that were mindful of that tomorrow when everybody is digging deep in their pockets across the state and those private citizens and agencies I mean it's just it's radical to me. Thank you senator senator Ingram you back the. Well just in response to that you know there was agreed upon funding formula that everybody agreed on and the language that was there that prevented a double whammy. That was what was agreed upon and it's not that they're not willing to take their cuts but they might not have body into the agreement if that would include so we might not have a funding formula that that we agreed upon that's that's just the point all we're talking about here is following what everybody agreed on and the guidelines thank you all right. You have the last word senator Davey so I guess just to be clear act I mean will need to know I guess tomorrow is 4 years were excluded from that agreement that it's just you years or what I mean. Thank you get that information which yes Sir all right thank you. All rights Speaker shepherd you got a quick announcement yes Sir thank you thank you Mr chairman house members I would just ask you to check your email of we provided some information on our essay and some other information so I'd ask you check your email as soon as possible if you have any questions feel free to reach out to me or represent Jean okay a member's members we got a little house cleaning right here listen up staff is ask is to pick up on our cups and loose papers for health issues and take them out we got trash cans in the back right outside the door so clean up your area for staff they've asked they've done very good job this week very work of the sample may out pick up our trash second thing is we've got claims tomorrow morning in this room at 8:00. Joint budget will be at 9 I appreciate the work we've done today. We'll see you in the morning we are adjourned.