March 14, 2013
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (42)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1930
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1930”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1035
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1035”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1874
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1874”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2033
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2033”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2049
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2049”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1701
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “House Bill 1701. House Bill 1701 by Representative Barnett to amend the Reg…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1039
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…taxation, beg lead report, or to whom rather was referred, House Bill 1039, 1654, 1692, and Senate Bill 5, beg lead report that we had…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1056
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1056”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1063
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1063”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1119
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1119”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1120
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1120”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1131
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ures from the regular session of the 89th General Assembly. House Bill 1131 is Act 401. House Bill 1197 is Act 402. House Bill 1363 is…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1282
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1282”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1354
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1354”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1468
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…r, we, your Committee on Public Health, to whom is referred House Bill 1468 and Senate Bill 533, beg to lead the report, we've had the…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1492
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…r, we your Committee on Public Health, to whom was referred House Bill 1492, beg to lead to report. We had the same under consideration…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1525
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1525”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1528
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1528”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1559
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “to whom was for House Bill 1559, 1330, 1617, 1623, 1628, 1637, 1639, 1656, 1657, 1678, and…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1629
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…aker, we, your Committee on Education, to whom is referred, House Bill 1629, 1690, 1945, 2032, Senate Bill 140, 332, 456, 457, and 583,…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1686
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1686”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1702
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1702”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1751
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1751”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1758
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1758”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1759
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1759”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1760
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1760”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1770
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1770”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1948
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1948”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB140
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…on, to whom is referred, House Bill 1629, 1690, 1945, 2032, Senate Bill 140, 332, 456, 457, and 583, beg lead report, we've had the sam…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB171
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB171”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB236
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB236”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB30
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB30”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB482
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB482”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB487
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB487”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB5
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…whom rather was referred, House Bill 1039, 1654, 1692, and Senate Bill 5, beg lead report that we had the same under consideration h…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB501
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB501”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB533
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…e on Public Health, to whom is referred House Bill 1468 and Senate Bill 533, beg to lead the report, we've had the same under considera…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB536
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB536”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB605
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB605”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB654
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB654”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB790
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB790”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB90
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB90”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Speaker 2
0:00
Caps of the balance, 97 members present, chair sees a quorum, are
Chair
Unverified
0:17
there any requests for leave? Representative Word, you're recognized. I'll leave for, I'll represent the love. Leave granted for representative love. Leave is granted. Any other requests for leave?
Rep. McGill, you're recognized. Leave granted for Representative Hawthorne. Leave is granted. Any other requests for leave? Rep. Any other requests for leave?
Speaker 2
0:46
Rep. James L. Word needs to be dispensed for the reading of the previous day's journal. No objection, so order to the reports of select committees. committees. Read the reports, Mr. Clerk.
Chair
Unverified
1:01
Mr. Speaker, will your committee on joint budget
to whom was for House Bill 1559, 1330, 1617, 1623, 1628, 1637, 1639, 1656, 1657, 1678, and 1679 beg to lead report. We had the same under consideration here. We have to return the same with the recommendation that they do pass. Respectfully submitted. Representative Duncan Baird, Chair.
Speaker 8
1:34
The reports of standing committees, read the reports, Mr. Clerk.
Chair
Unverified
1:38
Mr. Speaker, we your Committee on Public Health, to whom was referred House Bill 1492, beg to lead to report. We had the same under consideration here. We have to return the same with the recommendation that it do pass as amended, respectfully submitted. Representative John Burris, Chair. Mr. Speaker, we, your Committee on Public Health, to whom is referred House Bill 1468 and Senate Bill 533, beg to lead the report, we've had the same under consideration here with return the same to the recommendation that they do pass respectfully submitted Representative John Burris, Chair.
Mr. Speaker, we, your Committee on Education, to whom is referred, House Bill 1629, 1690, 1945, 2032, Senate Bill 140, 332, 456, 457, and 583, beg lead report, we've had the same under consideration, herewith return the same with the recommendation that they do pass, respectfully submitted, Representative James McLean, Chair. Mr. Speaker, we are committee on revenue and taxation, beg lead report, or to whom rather was referred, House Bill 1039, 1654, 1692, and Senate Bill 5, beg lead report that we had the same under consideration herewith, return the same with the recommendation that they do pass, respectfully submitted, Representative Charlie Collins, Chair.
Is there any unfinished business? Are there any executive communications? Read the letter
from the Governor, Mr. Clerk. March 14, 2013, to the Speaker of the House. Dear Mr. Speaker, this is to inform you that on March 14, 2013, I approve the following measures from the regular session of the 89th General Assembly. House Bill 1131 is Act 401. House Bill 1197 is Act 402. House Bill 1363 is Act 403, House Bill 1369 is Act 404, House Bill 1393 is Act 405, House Bill 1397 is Act 406, House Bill 1511 is Act 407, House Bill 1513 is Act 408, House Bill 1526 is Act 409, House Bill 1544 is Act 410.
Speaker 2
3:54
Sincerely, Mike B.B. Governor. Members, at this time, I would like to welcome our doctor of the day, also a former member of this house, Dr. Gene Shelby of Hot Springs. Members, we also have other special guests with us today.
We have Grant Smith and Trent Smith, who is an ancestor of John Wilson, who
Chair
Unverified
4:34
was the very first Speaker of the House and the first General Assembly in Arkansas in 1837.
Speaker 2
4:56
also standing in the back of the house floor is former speaker of the house
mr. Lloyd McHuston who served as speaker of 1981 and 1982 The former speaker is Representative Ferguson's father-in-law, and standing with him is Representative Ferguson's husband, who is also a former member of this body, Mr. Scott Ferguson. Mr. Clerk, read House Resolution 1035.
Chair
Unverified
5:45
House Resolution 1035 by Representative Carnine, supporting the growth of quality, affordable online education in the University of Arkansas system.
Representative Carnine, you're recognized to explain the
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
6:00
resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen and representatives, as we look at this particular resolution, I want to call to your attention that I think Dr. Bobbitt is in the gallery. There he is, President of the University of Arkansas System.
As many of you know, as he joined us again, he had previously been in the state with the University of Arkansas. One of the key areas that he wanted to address was increasing dramatically the access on online courses for higher education. It is one of the key components of our ability as a state to increase dramatically the number of our citizens who have college degrees.
I want to just pause a minute and remind everybody that we're not the only one that has made this a major emphasis in their states. In fact, our sister states on a number of issues are there running the race with us to dramatically increase the skills of our citizenry so that, in fact, not only will we be able to impact the efficiency of our companies that exist here now,
but also allow us to be very competitive in attracting new companies and new organizations and new jobs to our state. This particular initiative is very critical to the success of our economy in our future. The cost of higher education is going to obviously increase. All of us recognize that. This is one way, however, that we can provide top-level skills and programs to our citizens at a much lower cost,
thereby controlling the cost of higher education for the people of our state. Now, I would be remiss if I didn't also say that as our Department of Education for K-12 is going to actually roll out a new initiative, an increased initiative, to offer high-quality programming for all of our elementary and secondary schools. So we're trying to work from the top down and the bottom up at the same time to increase the level of education for all of our citizens in a positive way.
I will also want to take this moment to congratulate our representative, our fellow representative. I know that this is a little bit unusual, but it ties together because Representative Brand presented a bill yesterday that we voted for and got out of the House, and that was to increase the amount of broadband available across our state. We emphasize that not only is it a health issue because of the 9-1-1, but also for K-12.
The K-12 piece, for us to do this, to bring all this forward, it was critical that we pass that bill. So again, my hats off to Representative Wren and Senators Mang to bring that to us yesterday. And Mr. Clerk, if you would, if you would read the full resolution, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, read the resolution. Whereas public
Chair
Unverified
9:47
policy such as the Moral Act of 1862 and the GI Bill of 1944 set a precedent in the United States
that broadened the access to higher education in order to allow for upward economic, social, and intellectual mobility for all Americans, which made the United States the envy of the world. And whereas we live in a time when access to and completion of a post-secondary education is increasingly important to the economic viability of our state and the quality of life of its citizens. and whereas Arkansas ranks near the bottom of the United States in percentage of adults with college degrees.
And the Arkansas Governor, Mike Beebe, has charged lawmakers, business leaders, and higher education institutions to promote policies that will dramatically increase the number of Arkansans with post-secondary degrees by the year 2025 and whereas the cost of students for a quality post-secondary education continues to rise in enrollment growth has far outpaced increases in state funding for Arkansas's institutions of higher education, and whereas Governor Mike Beebe and the General Assembly have remained
supportive of funding higher education during difficult economic times in which other states have dramatically reduced funding, and whereas because of job and family obligations, thousands of Arkansas are unable to access or complete the educational programs provided on the state's existing two-year and four-year college and university campuses, and whereas advancements in modern technology make it possible to deliver high-quality, affordable post-secondary courses
and degree programs to anyone with access to a computer or even a mobile device, and whereas these technological advances are being utilized across the world to help lower the cost of higher education and improve the retention and completion rates of students, and whereas the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas has passed a resolution charging its president and campus leadership to explore the coordination and expansion of quality, affordable, accessible online courses and degree programs, now therefore be it resolved
by the House of Representatives of the 89th General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the House of Representatives applauds the efforts of the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas and the leadership of the University of Arkansas system and its campuses to further develop strategies and methods of delivery that will utilize innovative technologies to allow Arkansas students to graduate on time and provide greater access to those unserved and underserved Arkansans who require flexible, convenient educational
options in order to reach their full potential.
Representative Kornine has explained the resolution. Does anyone wish to speak against the resolution? For the resolution. Representative Collins, you recognize to speak for the resolution. I wanted to
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
12:56
speak in favor of this resolution as just one example of some of the wonderful innovation that Dr. Bobbitt is bringing to the U of A system in our state. I'm excited to see
what happens with online education at the University of Arkansas and the other great things he's helping to bring to life here in our state. So thank you very
Chair
Unverified
13:16
much, Dr. Bobbitt. Representative Collins has spoken for the resolution. Does anyone wish to speak against the resolution for the resolution? If not, the question before the House is the passage of
Speaker 2
13:27
House resolution 1035. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed nay. The ayes have it. The resolution passes. Mr. Clerk, let the record show it was a unanimous vote.
Members, I'd also like to take this time to welcome another special guest on the House floor today, Dr. Tom Little, who is the Director of Curriculum Development and Research with the State Legislative Leaders Foundation. Tom. The morning hours ended. Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 1930.
Chair
Unverified
14:13
House Bill 1930 by Representative Balz to amend the fireworks laws and to clarify and make technical corrections to the fireworks laws.
Representative Balch, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Scott Baltz
Unverified
14:27
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this House Bill 1930 was brought to me by the Arkansas State Police. The first part of it just basically clarifies what jobbers and dealers and shippers are with their permits. The second part of it bans the unmanned lanterns.
and those things in my previous life I was a fire chief and we had issues with these folks would light them and even on the it has a declaration on the on the box itself where it says sky lanterns are operated with open flame the user shall be solely responsible for any and all accidents. They have several different areas here where they say not to light them it doesn't leave a whole lot of places to light them and send them off. and send them off they are a hazard uh they will come down on houses and and set fields and houses
on fire so uh we just would like to keep someone from getting hurt with these i appreciate a
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
15:23
good vote thank you represent hutchinson for what purpose question uh
Chair
Unverified
15:28
represent baltz left the well representative baltz has explained the bill does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill. If not, the question before the
Speaker 43
15:37
House is the passage of House Bill 1930. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballots
Speaker 2
15:57
with 54 yeas, 26 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Representative Balch, Boltz moves for the clincher. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. The clincher is adopted.
Chair
Unverified
16:16
Read House Bill 1874. House Bill 1874 by Representative Gillum concerning insurance fraud by certain persons and concerning chiropractic physician practices in the Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
Representative Gillum, you're recognized to explain your bill.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
16:34
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, before you, you have a bill that I believe is an important one for multiple reasons. One, my good friend and seatmate last session, Mark Perry, has fought this for four years to try to bring this to the state's attention, and I'm very honored to be able to do this for you today. What we're doing here is basically doing away or trying to curtail the practice of fraudulently representing yourself when you are in the services of another individual, whether it be an attorney or chiropractor, doctor, anything like that at all.
Let me clarify, this does not do away with the ability to hire individuals to help solicit your business. What this does is take away their ability to misrepresent themselves in their functions in that duty. An example of which is if you're in a car accident, you get a call pretty quick from individuals that want to represent you and offer their services and stuff and any claims that might occur. What has happened and is becoming very, very prevalent in this state is you're starting to get phone calls from doctors' offices and other places telling you that you have an appointment that has been made for you and show up at 10 o'clock on Friday and you can come to that appointment.
And they're claiming that the insurance company or other individuals actually made this appointment for you. You go to the appointment thinking everything's all fine. What's occurring is insurance fraud and a whole host of other things. And that's what this bill is trying to address. Now, the chiropractors, the Arkansas Chiropractors, Chiropractic Physicians Association, excuse me, I got that right, saw this as becoming so egregious that they got on board with this.
They're wanting to stop this, as well as a lot of other people as well. And at this point, I'll be happy to take any questions if anybody has any.
Speaker 1
18:55
Representative Gilliam has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the
Speaker 43
18:59
bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1874. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
19:09
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots at 87 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Members, in the gallery today, we have four veterans service organizations that I would like to recognize. We
Chair
Unverified
19:32
have the Rolling Thunder, American Legion, the VFW, and the Gold Star Mothers. Please join me in welcoming these organizations.
Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 2049. House
Bill 2049 by Representative Wardlaw to eliminate the requirement that massage therapy school students be tested for tuberculosis. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank you,
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
20:10
Mr. Speaker. Gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, this is another one of those good deregulation bills. Just another one of those good bills. What this bill does, it does away with a TB requirement for students in massage therapy school.
And the only call of concern I got was from the massage therapy board. And I think we worked out everything. And they've got a bill coming behind this one that will fix their concerns. So I appreciate a good
Chair
Unverified
20:36
vote. Representative Wardlaw has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? Representative Farrar, you recognize to speak against the
Representative Joe Farrer
Unverified
20:50
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's a reason why we don't have much tuberculosis anymore.
It's because we screen for it. If we stop screening for tuberculosis, and it's still out there. It's in my hospital every month. I see some in there. If we stop screening for it, even with medical professionals, we will have a – it will be starting
Chair
Unverified
21:08
to come back. So I appreciate it. Bad bug. Representative Farrar, spoken against the bill.
Does anyone wish to speak for the bill? Representative McGee, recognize to speak
Speaker 64
21:46
for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I view this as a physician. I view this as similar to the bill that we eliminated school teachers getting tested for TB. Now, I'm a physician, and I'm exposed to patients that have tuberculosis, and I do get a TB skin test every year. And I think that if you're in that situation where you have a potential, when we're in intensive care units
and surgical intensive care units where there are patients that have that, that we definitely are at risk and possibly could put someone else at risk, and I get to give you TB skin test every year, but to broadly paint a brush and say that every group that's going to be in contact with any other group of patients or any other group of people needs to be skin tested, then we need to TB skin test the guy that's down in our convenience store every year. So I think it's a bit redundant to continue routine skin testing on all groups of individuals,
and I appreciate a good vote on the
Chair
Unverified
22:46
bill. Thank you. Representative Mayberry, for what purpose? Representative McGee, will you
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
22:51
take a question? You recognize Representative Mayberry for a question. Do you have or can you provide us any sort of ballpark information about how much that testing costs and how much of
Speaker 64
23:00
a burden it is? TB skin testing is relatively inexpensive, but it's about $50. It is about a $50 test. If you go to your family practice doctors, they put a subdermal skin test and then you have to go back in three days and have it read again.
And that's that's what we do as physicians. But and health care facilities, actually, most large hospital systems pay for it for all of us. As it's just like I can get my hepatitis vaccines paid by my health care institution. My employees get free hepatitis. They get free TB skin testing. And I do all that as a part of employment. But if you're just an individual out there going to get it, it probably costs you $50.
Chair
Unverified
23:41
Representative McGee has spoken for the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill?
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
23:48
Representative Wardlaw, you recognize the close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason the health department is wanting to take this off, and Mr. Ferrer is right, Like, if you want to test for TB and you want to do it efficiently, you test every year, just like the doc said. I have to take one every year in DME business because we're in contact with these patients in and out all the time. With the massage therapy school, they only tested them one time. So whether they were in contact with somebody with TB or not throughout their career, we never knew it because they didn't test them anymore.
And also, we used to pay for this as a state. And we don't have federal funding anymore that paid for this testing. So now these students were having to pay for this test. So that's another reason for taking the requirement off. And I'd sure appreciate
Speaker 43
24:36
a good vote. Thank you all. Representative Ward-Law has a closed first bill. The question before the House is a passage of House Bill 2049. Prepare the machine, Mr.
Speaker 2
24:48
Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots for the 84 yeas, three nays, and one present.
You'll pass the bill. I'll read
Chair
Unverified
25:03
House Bill 2033. Council Bill 2033 by Representative Ferguson to authorize the Arkansas State Medical Board to issue
Speaker 73
25:10
unrestricted licenses to practice medicine to certain University of Arkansas for medical
Chair
Unverified
25:16
sciences faculty. Representative Ferguson, you're recognized
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
25:25
to explain the bill. I've been asked to create this new form of licensure for medical doctors by UAMS,
and it's been approved by the state Arkansas Medical Board. Right now, this is for foreign medical graduates, And right now, foreign medical graduates, in order to get a license, have to have graduated from a foreign medical school and done three years of postgraduate residency in the United States to get licensed. There's another form to licensure, but they can't practice medicine.
They can only teach, and that's called an educational license. That means they've graduated from a foreign medical school. They've done their three to five years of residency in a foreign country. They've done a year of fellowship in the United States. They've passed all the necessary board exams, and they get what they call an educational medical license. They can't practice on patients, but they can teach at UAMS. The problem is that these doctors never have any avenue to full licensure.
So what UAMS and the board has proposed is that we allow their three years of teaching with an educational license at UAMS to substitute for their residency in the United States. And in addition to that, they have to have done a year of fellowship and passed their board certification. So these doctors would be board certified by their specialty, which is a very – those specialty board certifications are very difficult.
So essentially, they're already licensed. They've done all the vetting and the criminal background checks and passed all their tests to get their educational license. We're just letting their three years of teaching at UAMS substitute for three years of residency so they can become fully licensed. I appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Payton, for what purpose?
Representative Ferguson, will you take a question? You recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 78
27:39
Speaker. Representative Ferguson, I've read the content of your bill, and it seems to be just like you described it,
except for one thing is I don't understand in the title why it says unrestricted. What about this is unrestricted if they have to complete the things you're talking about? Because the educational license
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
27:55
is a restricted license, so this allows them full licensure. So in other words, they can practice
Speaker 78
28:00
any type of medicine is what's unrestricted? Well, no, just what
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
28:03
they're board certified in. It requires a specialty board certification. Okay, thank you. So the restricted part is the educational license. Representative Deffenbaugh.
Speaker 2
28:18
Representative Ferguson has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? We've moved on.
Chair
Unverified
28:24
I'm sorry. For the bill. Representative Ferguson, would you like to close through your bill? No,
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
28:32
thank you. As I said, this is agreed upon and worked out between UAMS and between the medical board, and everybody's good with it. The question
Speaker 43
28:40
before the House is to pass the House Bill 2033. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
28:48
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots to 94 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Read
Chair
Unverified
29:02
House Bill 1701. House Bill 1701 by Representative Barnett to amend the Regional Mobility Authority Act and to make technical corrections. Representative
Barnett, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank
Speaker 81
29:14
you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon to you members this afternoon.
The Regional Mobility Authorities, and the acronym is RMA, that's probably what you've heard it by, were authorized in 2007 to provide a mechanism for regions to work jointly on infrastructure projects that were likely too large or extended past the boundaries of a single entity. RMAs may design, build, own, and operate infrastructure projects within their jurisdiction. RMAs have the authority to ask quorum courts to seek voter approval for a sales tax or tows to finance infrastructure projects.
There's only one RMA established in Arkansas at the present time, and that's the Northwest Arkansas Regional Mobility Authority. There are other communities that have looked at this and I think that are making plans as we speak to form those authorities. The proposed modifications address three primary functions, primary issues. They clarify an RMA may be limited to a single county. Right now, I think it's mostly two counties, but it clarifies that. And it specifies how members of the RMA board are selected.
Affirms any unrestricted funds may be pledged for bond repayment and that any sales tax approved by voters is in addition to existing state and local taxes. It also, for any total or sales tax question, the collection and pledging of revenues must be stated in the ballot language. And the modifications provide flexibility in pledging toll revenues. And then, lastly, these changes are basically for technical corrections and also clarifications to RMA law as proposed by bond attorneys.
Chair
Unverified
31:03
And I'll be happy to ask any questions. Representative Burris, for what purpose? Question. Thank you, Representative Barnett. I
Representative John Burris
Unverified
31:09
read the bill this morning, and by my reading, I believe this is correct, but I want to verify. This still doesn't give the RMAs the ability to refer out any sort of tax increase on their own. It still has to be done by the quorum court, I mean.
Speaker 81
31:25
That's correct. It has to be approved by the quorum court. If you look up the body of these RMAs, it's made up of mayors of cities and county judges.
So absolutely, it has to be
approved by the quorum court before anything can
Representative John Burris
Unverified
31:40
go on the ballot. We're really not giving them any more authority here. We're just cleaning up and clarifying what taxes would apply to
Speaker 33
31:51
where? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Representative Meeks, for what purpose? Question. You recognize. Representative
Speaker 89
31:57
Barnett, this is different than a regional, the regional intermodal transportation authority. Is that correct?
Speaker 90
32:04
That is correct. Somebody asked me this morning and said, wait a minute, but
Speaker 33
32:09
this is a different bird. Okay, I just want to make
Speaker 92
32:17
sure. Thank you. Representative Lee, for what purpose? Question. You recognize. My concern with the bill has to do with
Speaker 93
32:22
the line or is proposed to be owned or operated by. Is there a definition in law? I mean, that's a concern to me. If they already own and operate it, that's one thing. But you've added language in several places that say is proposed to be owned
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
32:36
or operated. Could you elaborate on that, please?
Speaker 81
32:39
I'll try. The best way I can answer that, I think, has to do with maybe a toll road project. If there's not a toll road that exists, which there isn't one that exists today, we don't have any toll roads in Arkansas, it would be futuristic. It would be something that would be proposed out into the future, not an existing one. And
I think that's how I answer that. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I think that's correct.
Chair
Unverified
33:09
Representative Barnett has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative
Barnett, you want to close for your bill? Close for the bill. Thank you very much. Hit that green button. The question before the House is passage. House Bill 1701. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
33:39
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 87 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill.
Chair
Unverified
33:53
Read House Bill 1702. House Bill 1702, we represent the Barnett to revise and extend the authority of the State Highway Commission to enter into design-build contracts. Representative Barnett,
you're recognized to explain your bill. thank you
Speaker 81
34:08
members i know a lot of you all familiar with these type of contracts but design build
is a contracting tool that can in the right situation provide cost and time saving on certain projects as a quick explanation the arkansas transportation department uses what's known as design, bid, and build model on virtually all of its projects. In this model, projects are designed in one step, and these could be designed by the highway department or an outside engineering firm. Then they bid out to contract in the second step and
then built by the selected contractor in the third step. Under design, build, the contractor was selected earlier in this process using a qualification space selection method and is responsible for designing and building the facility. Act 460 of 2003, and I believe Senator Bisbee was the senator from the Senate side that sponsored this, allowed the Highway Commission to enter in to design build contracts for highway construction, but it had limits. It was very specific.
If you remember back in 1999, there was a piece of legislation that was on the interstate rehabilitation maintenance program that went out. And it only allowed up to two projects. So over a 10-year period, only two projects could have been done by design and build. Each project had to be at least $50 million or over. And the reason for that, they were, I think the highway department was concerned at the time that when we got into the interstate rehabilitation maintenance program and the contracts, that there would be some jobs that were going to be very, very big jobs over $50 million.
And there wouldn't be anybody in state or out of state that would bid on these jobs because maybe there was too much risk factor. So it was a $50 million minimum cost. They wanted to be sure that we had the ability to get these jobs done. The act was only in effect for 10 years, so it sunsetted, and that time period expires in July of this year. So this bill, 1702, it extends the time period for another 10 years until July 2023.
It doesn't limit the number of or cost of the projects, but it does limit the projects to those in the Connecting Arkansas program or CAP. Those are the projects being funded under amendment 51, which was issue number one on the November ballot and was passed by the voters with a 58% in favor of passage. Design-build is a financing tool that has not been used in Arkansas to date as far as the highway department is concerned, but it is an option that needs to stay in the toolbox.
I'd be glad to answer questions,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
37:13
Mr. Speaker. Representative Nichols, for what purpose you recognize? I know very, very little about highway construction, so I'm asking a basic question. When you have a highway project, do you have different contractors on the job? Like, is somebody responsible for the rebar? Is somebody responsible for pouring the concrete? Is somebody responsible for the guardrails and all that?
And are those all part of that design build? That's a good
Speaker 81
37:44
question. Highway Department, where they operate presently and the way they always have in the past, is when they bid a project out, it goes to the lowest possible bid, the lowest possible bid. Everybody's bidding by the same terms, and they've looked at the same information that's provided in the project.
Highway Department is becoming unique in the sense
Speaker 90
38:12
that they're almost the only people doing business this way
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
38:17
anymore. Well, does this legislation allow them to build without taking bids, say, for the rebar? I think what it
Speaker 81
38:27
would do, again, it's only in the passage of issue number one. It only applies to those projects that were in issue number one, not anything else.
I think what it would do is it would allow the highway department in an emergency situation where there were time deadlines or something that was, you know, beyond their control that needed to be done quickly. I think that it would select a
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
38:53
contractor, and I think that the contractor at that point would probably bid out those projects, yes. Well,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
39:00
probably, and I just hope we're not going down on a slippery slope that we have, because we keep on expanding the number of public buildings that can be built under a construction manager-like design build, I think.
So I'm somewhat concerned that we may be going in that direction. Would you agree that that could
Speaker 81
39:19
be a problem? Well, I actually do agree that it could be a problem, and as you know, Representative Nichols, I have a strong opinion about this, especially ones when it comes to higher education and secondary education
and the process that's being used that they're using now, I totally disagree with. Okay, well, I hope that this
Speaker 99
39:38
bill does not lead to that also. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Altus, for what purpose?
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
39:45
Question. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, you just said that you don't think design-build is good for state buildings, but now how can it be good for state highways if it's not
Speaker 109
39:56
good for state buildings? Well, that's a fair question, very fair. You noticed I said
Speaker 81
40:02
that it's just something to put in the toolbox, okay? And I said a while ago that we asked this to be done 10 years ago for the sunset on 10 years because we were concerned that there could be a project of $50 million or greater
that nobody would bid on because the risks were too high and they wouldn't take a chance. So it was a tool to limit it to $50 million and over for only two projects. If it ever came up, we would use the method if it was needed. Well, the good news is it was never needed because we had plenty of contractors, and we had a few projects, not many, but probably three or four projects that went over $50 million. And we had plenty of bidders on the jobs. We had three, four, five, six bidders on the job, so it was never necessary and never had to be used.
I think the intent here is that the process will, again, never have to be used. But there could be a situation when you're trying to build out $1.2 billion worth of contracts on a 10-year bond program that you're going to build it out in five or six years and you're going to pay it off in 10 years. There could be a situation where you don't have the bidders or everybody's got plenty of work or there's something that's unbearable there that is unexpected.
And I don't think the highway department has any intention of using this, but it is a tool in the toolbox. And, you know, I think one of the reasons why the contractors in this state like the way they do business out at the highway department is because they all play by the same rules and they feel like these rules are fair. Let me repeat that. Fair. And they, you know, the contractors like the way it works because they know every time they bid a project, no matter how big or how small they are, as long as they can bond the project
and as long as they pass the pre-bidding qualifications, they know they got a fair shot. So nobody ever complains when they lose a bid because they know they played by the same rules as everybody else. So I think that's the best way to answer that
Speaker 16
42:10
question. Representative Burris, for what purpose? Question. You recognize. Thank you for taking questions. I
Representative John Burris
Unverified
42:14
might have left a little bit ago. My concern is kind of what was said. Did you say that you were to the left? Is that what you said? I'm sorry.
My concern, and I did try to read this this morning, and I do have a couple concerns. And having talked to you about similar, you know, having a lot of family, some family construction, some of what we talked about, This seems to run contradictory, and I think that was kind of alluded to by Representative Alantis. My concern is that we're about to have a substantial amount of money spent on highways projects, specifically the ones that are designated as qualifying for this tool. I guess what I need to ask is, well, first, you said that it could only be used in emergency situations,
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
42:59
but I don't see that in the bill. I think that you have to look at
Speaker 81
43:08
the track record out the highway department. And the track record has been very fair on the bidding process. I agree with you. And the contractors
Representative John Burris
Unverified
43:17
agree with that 100%. Yeah, and I do too. But could you explain a little bit about the tool in the toolbox? What does the tool accomplish exactly? Having the ability to seek a noncompetitive bid and award a project to a person without a bid process, potentially a billion-dollar bid, what does having that tool accomplish?
Speaker 81
43:37
Good question. This process has never been used. I don't think that it will be used. I don't think that you'll see it happen. But again, when you're trying to get a bond program done and you're trying to build it out in five or six years, it is possible that you could have a project that was a very, very, very large project and you couldn't even get anybody to bid on it. It might help in that situation. You may have a situation where you have maybe two contracts and you may have to get something ready real quick in order to be able to meet the deadlines to do the other projects. So it might be a real small project that was an emerging situation that you had to get it done before you could let the other project to bid. And I hope that is the best way to answer that question. I'm sure I've missed something, but I'm doing the best I can with that.
I don't think the process will ever be used. It certainly hasn't been, and I know that the contractors of this state want to competitive bid projects, but it is a tool, and it's something that's asking to stay there. It
Chair
Unverified
44:45
does have an expiration. It expires, too. Representative Cozart, for what purpose? Question. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Jonathan, would these be licensed contractors that would be bidding on this?
Speaker 81
45:01
Good question. Are you a licensed contractor? Yeah, I think you are. Okay, I'm sorry. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, the highway department, they don't really,
to be real truthful with you, and you don't want me to answer this this way, but the highway department doesn't care whether people are licensed or not. They don't care. They want to know if they can bond the project. They want to know if they met the bidder's qualifications on the bidder's qualification sheet. They want to know if they can finish the project as agreed,
and they want to know that if they can't finish the project, there's some kind of bonding mechanism or insurance in place that guarantees to the taxpayers that job will be finished. They don't care whether you're licensed or not. But obviously Arkansas
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
45:43
licensing law requires you to do so, so it's understood, yes. But thank you for that question. Thank
Chair
Unverified
45:50
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Barnett has explained the bill. Does anyone wish
to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative Davis, you recognize, to speak for the bill.
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
46:10
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I want
to try to very quickly draw a distinction between something I think many of you may be concerned with, and that's construction management, and what this bill addresses, and that's design-build. And the design-build project, and these have been proven in the construction and engineering industry because it actually brings both under the same umbrella to save cost, especially on larger projects, because you actually simultaneously design and build some portions of the project.
If you can imagine for a moment a large project where you have the possibility, or maybe you can see the degree of difficulty in designing it completely from start to finish and not having any issues arise during construction. If you're familiar with that, then you know what a change order is, and those add costs to the project that were unanticipated when it was originally budgeted and estimated in the beginning. In design build, you can begin some portion of the design and then begin some portion of the construction, and you're better able to anticipate those changes that may be required
or potential problems with your design as you're going, so you eliminate many opportunities for change orders and other things that can increase the cost of the project. As to the highway department, I would just reassert that they had this authority for some period of time and chose not to use it, and I just think that goes to the fact that they will use this very judiciously. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
47:43
President Hobbs, for what purpose? You recognize.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
47:46
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So in highway dollars, would you define a large project? I mean, I'm not personally
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
47:55
involved in highway construction, so I don't know that I'm really qualified to do that. But, I mean, I don't know, $25, $30, $50 million, that's a big project.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
48:07
So you don't know why the minimum amount of $50 million was deleted from this field end? I don't
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
48:14
know specifically. I can say in the industry you may delete a minimum because
you may have something that's very specialized,
and it may not dollar-wise get to that point, but because of the specialization of the project, it may lend itself to design-build arrangement. Okay, and since you touched on,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
48:33
again, large projects, do you think a minimum amount should be included? I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
48:40
don't think it's necessary, no. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I'd also like to add, I forgot to mention that in design bill projects, to your point, Representative Nichols,
your design bill arrangement is between the design professional and essentially the general contractor. or individual trades and small projects within the contract typically are still bid out. Representative Nichols,
Speaker 42
49:06
for what purpose? Question. You recognize? You're
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
49:10
going at the heart of where I have problems with construction managers and design build, and that is those subparts of the contract where what we would call the subcontractors bid.
and I think there's been abuses in that where it's not open to the public and you really don't know what the requirements were. Was it really the low bid that got the job? And I haven't seen anything in this legislation that protects that subcontractor. Are you aware of any? I'm not aware of any, but
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
49:48
I would say that I don't think those problems are unique to design-build.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
49:53
No, they're not. They're construction management. It's a major problem there. And these are public dollars, correct? And the people of Arkansas voted big time to fund this, but I would assume they realize that the work would be going to the lowest responsible bidder, and so I just hope that we're not going down a slippery slope. Would you agree with that? I agree. Representative Davis has spoken for the
Chair
Unverified
50:25
bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative Barnett, you recognize the close for your bill?
Speaker 81
50:35
thank you it's nice to have somebody that represents highways here represent davis i appreciate that um and representative westman i think was my highway guy last session and has an engineering degree and i appreciate that too but uh i'd appreciate a good vote it's it's it's a good bill i'm i don't i don't feel at all that this will be abused and if it is we need to step in and change it legislature needs to step in and change it if it's abused as some other
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
51:05
departments out here that I think are abusing it.
Thank you very much. Appreciate a good vote. Question for
Speaker 43
51:10
the House is passage of House Bill 1702. Prepare the machine, Mr.
Speaker 2
51:22
Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 66 yeas, 16 nays, and 1 present. You have passed the bill. Read House Bill. Representative
Chair
Unverified
51:32
Altus moves for the clincher. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no.
Ayes have it. Clincher is adopted. Reads in House Bill
1751. House Bill 1751, Representative Barnett, to amend the definition of state highway employee for Arkansas State Claims
Commission death benefits. Representative Barnett, you recognize to explain your bill. Thank
Speaker 81
51:56
you, Mr. Speaker. This modifies the definition of what a state highway employee is. Arkansas Code for the Unpleasant Purpose of Arkansas State Claims Commission Death Benefits
currently defines a state highway employee as an employee of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department who actively engages in highway maintenance, construction, or traffic operations on the roadways or bridges of the state highway system while the roadways and bridges are open for use by the traveling public. That definition is too narrow for two reasons. First, it only covers those employees engaged in construction and maintenance activities. It does not cover other employees who work out in the field as part of their job duties.
This would include planning personnel who put out traffic counters, materials, employees gathering samples for testing, survey crews, and even public information staff reporting during snow and ice events. So in other words, if the head of public information, Randy Orr, was out on a highway talking about the snow or the sleet or the traffic problems, he would be one of these people that would be excluded presently. And secondly, it only covers activities on a roller bridge open for use by the traveling
public. It does not cover, for example, the construction of a new highway or a new bridge that is not open for traffic yet. Fortunately, the Highway Department has never had this situation arise, but it has been identified as something that needs to be corrected. And I'd be glad to entertain any questions. Mr.
Chair
Unverified
53:42
Speaker. Seeing no questions, Representative Martin has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill?
Speaker 2
53:50
Not the question before the House. This is a passage of House Bill 1751. Prepare a machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the balance of 86 ye, 88 ye. Zero nays and zero present. You have passed the bill. Members, at this time, I'd like to welcome in our West Gallery Mr. Milton Crenshaw, who trained the famed Tuskegee Airmen to fly.
He's guest representative John
Chair
Unverified
54:40
Edwards. Mr. Clerk, Passover House Bill 1781, Reed House Bill 1948. House Bill
1948 by Representative Jean to amend the Arkansas Existing Workforce Training
Act of 1995 and to raise the pay for instructional hours from $80 per hour to $100 per
hour. Representative Jean to recognize to
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
55:09
explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this is an economic development bill, House Bill 1848. What it does is right now our junior colleges train our workforce, it's a 50-50 partnership, and our economic development budget in Section 2 of this year, we have a million dollars
in training. That's where half this money comes from. The other half comes from the industry that needs the skills of the worker to be increased or enhanced so that this pays the fee that our junior colleges do. anticipating right now an increase and there's only one level that reaches 75 dollars an hour and it's a computer technician on these plants now nobody goes out and turns valves uh manually it's all controlled greg lake chemo schools and elder rata albumar is controlled
by computer access people stay in front of computers all day long so this is what it's doing and they're anticipating a lot of these junior colleges in our areas that do workforce training there will be some type of increase in the fall and uh per hour uh tuition for this training uh a simple bill just changes the maximum from 80 that they can charge to 100 most of all the training is quite a bit under that per hour but it's not a charge to the student it's not a tax increase it's already in the economic development budget if i can entertain any
Chair
Unverified
56:34
questions i'll do so at this time representative hutchinson for what purpose question you recognize Is there any job
Speaker 139
56:43
openings? My constituents might be interested. Call your local junior college. Anything else? I'd appreciate a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
56:51
Representative Gene has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? For the bill, if not, the question before
Speaker 43
56:57
the House is the passage of House Bill 1948. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Chair
Unverified
57:05
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Be cast with the ballots of 90 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present.
You pass the bill. Read House Bill 1686. House Bill 1686 for Representatives Womack and Harris to allow criminal history checks and child maltreatment central registry checks of volunteers in public education and to declare an emergency. Representative Womack, you're recognized to
explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
57:36
Friends and colleagues, I consider it a privilege and an honor to stand before you today and present House Bill 1686. This bill very simply allows for volunteers that go into our public schools to be subject to criminal history checks and child maltreatment central registry checks. It does not mandate anything to the schools. It simply provides a tool for the local school districts to use as they see fit. It has minimal revenue impact to the state, and there is no known opposition, and it passed out a committee unanimously.
Chair
Unverified
58:09
So with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Womack has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
58:30
the bill? Representative Bell, you recognize to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago, I was a watchdog dad at my daughter's school. And I remember as we went through the class, the orientation seminar to get ready for that,
a couple of dads who were at that and then subsequently didn't follow through to become watchdog dads. And I actually looked a couple of those guys up and asked them why. And there was a fee associated with getting a background check done that those two guys weren't able to afford. and it prevented them from being able to do their watchdog dad day with their kids at school. And this bill will help remove a substantial barrier to some of our folks that just simply can't afford to do that. And I would appreciate a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
59:13
Representative Bell has spoken for the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the
Speaker 43
59:22
bill? Question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1686. Prepare the
Chair
Unverified
59:29
machine, Mr. Clerk. Voting on the bill and the emergency
Speaker 2
59:34
clause. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots for the 88 yeas, 0 nays and 0 present. You pass the bill and the emergency
Chair
Unverified
59:46
clause. Read House Bill 1770. House Bill 1770, by Representative Perry et al., to amend the provisions of law concerning academic, fiscal, and facilities, distress of public schools and school districts, and to declare an emergency.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
59:59
Representative Perry, you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Members, House Bill 1770 is kind of what the title states. It's an act to extend the time in which a public school can be held in or actually be classified as an academic, fiscal, or facilities distress. This would extend the time period that the Department of Education could maintain oversight
and help work through these difficulties from two to up to five years. That's a synopsis for you. It's 26 pages. I'll be glad to take any questions.
Speaker 42
1:00:42
Representative Kerr, for what purpose? Questions. You're recognized for a question. Representative Perry, is
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
1:00:46
this going to be retroactive to those schools that are in current distress? Will that extend their time? Good question,
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:00:54
Mr. Kerr. Representative Kerr, that would extend that time and give them up to an additional three years.
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
1:01:00
Okay. It doesn't start over. Okay, I totally agree with you. This
Speaker 42
1:01:05
does need to be done. Thank you. Representative Linderman, for what purpose?
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
1:01:09
Question. You're recognized. Mr. Perry, this bill was brought by the Department of Education as a way to assist these schools in achieving or working their way out of distress. Is that correct? That
Speaker 16
1:01:18
is correct, Representative Lenderman. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Representative Holcomb, for what purpose? Good question. You recognize. Representative
Speaker 153
1:01:26
Perry, I think it extends it to five years, but they can opt out sooner if they don't see a need to stay there.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:01:32
Is that correct? Yes, sir. Actually, it gives them up to five years and actually puts some language in there that will allow some advisory boards. Once progress is being made after two years, where those advisory boards can come on and they can lead those boards to help. Thank you. Members, I appreciate a good
Chair
Unverified
1:01:50
vote. Representative Perry has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill? If not,
Speaker 43
1:01:55
the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1770. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clair.
Chair
Unverified
1:02:04
Voting on the bill and the emergency clause. Has everyone voted? Has everyone
Speaker 2
1:02:11
voted? Cast the balance for the 89 yeas, one nay and one present. You pass the bill and the emergency clause. Read House Bill
Chair
Unverified
1:02:23
1528. House Bill 1528 will represent as Bibiano et al. to designate the Department of Education as the primary charter school authorizer. Representative Bibiano, you're recognized to explain your bill.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
1:02:34
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I couldn't imagine that this bill would have created, or the origins of this bill would have
created as much discussion as it has. But in a way, I'm pleased with that because the idea was to raise the awareness about charter schools and their contribution as a tool in our educational system.
What this bill will do, it will take the authorizing power away directly from the State Board of Education
and give it to the Department of Education, which has a charter panel. That panel is appointed by the Commissioner of Education, 5 to 11 member board. And the real emphasis here is focus. focus on the charter schools, allowing that panel to be able to understand what those applications are about, to evaluate those, and make the proper recommendation.
Now, this bill has taken a lot of work and negotiation with both the governor's office and the Department of Education, and I'm happy to say that they both support this bill. And with
Speaker 113
1:03:49
that, I'll open it up to any questions.
Chair
Unverified
1:03:54
Representative Bain, for what purpose? Question. You
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:03:57
recognize. Is this board going to be subordinate to the Board of Education, or what is its relationship going
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
1:04:04
to be within the Department of Education? It's actually made up of employees of the Department of Education
that's appointed by the Commissioner of the Department of Education. Thank you, and I appreciate a good
Speaker 140
1:04:18
vote. Representative Bibiano has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the
Speaker 43
1:04:27
question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1528. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Speaker 2
1:04:40
Cast the ballots. 87 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Read House Bill
Chair
Unverified
1:04:49
1282. House Bill 1282 by Representatives Edwards, Steele, and Wright to modify certain eminent domain laws that arise out of property rights secured under Article 2, Section 22 of the Arkansas Constitution. Representative Edwards, you're recognized to
explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:05:10
In keeping with the finest traditions of the Oscars, I first want to thank my supporting cast yesterday, Representative McElroy, Representative Burris, and I hope you'll be able to help me out today if I need any help in support of this bill. But ladies and gentlemen, this bill actually is about amending State Statute 2767-317. And I've referenced our Constitution and our Arkansas Constitution because I think on occasion it's very vital to us as a General Assembly to pay attention to certain provisions.
And one of my favorite provisions of the Arkansas Constitution deals with private property rights. Private property rights, in our Article 2, Section 22, we have a provision there that's probably one of the strongest ones in the nation, where it says the constitutional sanction of private property is before and higher than any other sanction. What this bill does, in my mind, to help make sure that we're giving our private property owners the best protection we can
is in the event that the Highway Department has a condemnation proceeding on a piece of land. Now, I'm going to be like Representative Barnett. I have a high esteem for the Highway Department. We need roads. We need a department that can work. But they have a lot of power. And when you have a small landowner, a mom-and-pop landowner, they're going up against a lot of power. Now, if they have a dispute on that and they feel strong enough about what a piece of property is actually worth,
their only alternative, if they can't settle it out, is to go to court. And if it goes to a jury, and even if they win, the way the law is right now, that they may win the extra amount of what the value of the property was if it was higher than what was originally deposited into the registry of the court. But guess what? We don't have a statute in place that allows their fees for appraisers, expert witnesses, and the attorneys to be paid.
So what this bill is trying to do is make sure that we make a private property landowner whole for any cost that they win. They've got to win by 10 percent or more. If they don't win by that amount, you know, we're out. Now, I thanked the two gentlemen earlier for helping me with the bill yesterday. I also have to thank Representative House. When this bill was first introduced, it was much longer. And he brought some comments from his circuit clerk, and I worked with the Association of Counties, and we took care of all of that.
Speaker 149
1:08:07
So I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Hutchinson, for what
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
1:08:14
purpose? Question. You recognize? Representative, how is this going to affect if this clean line energy power
line comes through? How is it going to work with that? Sir,
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:08:24
to my knowledge, it would have no impact on that. This is strictly dealing with the highway department. The only way it could possibly come into that is if there was an event where a highway was having to be moved for some reason.
But it would protect your citizens and your constituents if they could not resolve this matter. Only with
Speaker 42
1:08:49
highways. That's right. Thank you. Representative Edwards, Representative Gillian, for what purpose
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
1:08:56
do you recognize? This is really no different than provisions we have in other parts of the law, say contracts, where somebody with a sort of superior power position is forced to pay attorney fees if they're found not to be correct in their adjudication of the matter. Is that right?
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:09:17
That's correct, and there have been some Supreme Court decisions that said that in this specific instance, if we wanted to do something about that, we would have to pass a statute for this effect. So that's
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
1:09:36
what we're trying to do here. Thank you very much. Representative Alexander, for what purpose? Mr. Speaker? You recognize? Could
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:09:43
you clarify for me how the 10% part works? What's the thinking behind that? I worked with a group of attorneys on this issue about what would be fair and equitable to all parties concerned,
and this was the number that we came up with. We didn't want to have it where there was like a 1% or 2% because we felt that that was just too close, but we felt like this gave an equitable cushion that would be fair to all
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
1:10:13
parties involved. Representative Davis, for what purpose? President Edwards, I understand your bill is specific to the Highway Commission. What about local entities, cities and counties?
Do we need to take the same action to provide property owners the same protection regarding to their powers, eminent domain? I would suggest that
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:10:33
we'd have to research that individually. One of the things that's unique about the Highway Department is they do receive a lot of federal funding for these projects. And so I would say when you take that into account, you would need to look at each thing individually. And that's why I didn't want to do anything broad. I just wanted to keep it very specific to what we were dealing with.
Chair
Unverified
1:10:56
Representative Hutchinson, for what purpose? You recognize. Do you,
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
1:11:00
Representative, do you think there might be a need since this power line might be a federal issue that we need to include this in that to help our landowners that's coming across our entire state? Sir, that's a fair question,
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:11:15
but it's beyond the scope of this bill. So we'll be happy to talk with you about that later. This bill doesn't impact that.
Chair
Unverified
1:11:23
Thank you very much. Representative Edwards has explained the bill.
Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? Before the bill, if not, the question before the House is to pass
Speaker 2
1:11:44
it to House Bill 1282. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the balance for 77 yays, 7 nays, and
Chair
Unverified
1:11:57
0 present. You have passed the bill. Read House Bill 1525. House Bill 1525 by Representative Gossage regarding sex offender registration laws and partial compliance with the Adam Walsh Child's Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Representative Gossage recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:12:14
colleagues. On June the 9th, 1995, my son and my family were enjoying his seventh birthday party at home. Sometime toward the end of that birthday party, sometime around 10 o'clock that evening, at a ball field in Alma, Arkansas, a little girl named Morgan Nick was playing with some friends. And as all of you probably know, Morgan disappeared.
It's never been found. And that case is ongoing. There's investigators, as we speak, still working on Morgan's case. Morgan and my son were reading partners in the first grade at Ozark that previous year. Since that time, I've been obviously very interested in this subject. I've worked with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children I've attended some of their trainings I've been in conversations with their staff
and I asked them in Arkansas what would be the most important thing that we could do in regard to this problem and they said one of the things that we could work to do is to completely implement the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006 this bill that you're looking at I worked with ACIC on for the last few weeks. This does not make us totally compliant with the Adam Walsh Act, but it does bring us into near compliance. Some of the things that this adds
to our existing laws are that sex offender registry would now include cases from the District of Columbia, United States territories, Indian tribes, and different areas that were not included previously. It also adds sex offenders from Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and other countries around the world. It requires the taking of palm prints which are currently not done. It requires that officials take and get a copy of their passport. It asks to get a copy of
any immigration papers they have. It asks for copies of their professional license if they have If they own aircraft, they must identify that aircraft and the registration numbers. You also, at their place of employment, you do not list the specific place, but you do have to list the block number of where these offenders are employed. If they're going to an institute of higher education, they must identify the institute of higher education that they're attending. They also must report any planned trip outside the United States 21 days in advance.
Now, these are things that we currently do not require in Arkansas law. All of them are important if not only Arkansas but other states around the country are going to get totally serious about stopping these child predators that are at operation. They're mobile, they move from state to state, and even country to country. Again, this does not bring us into total compliance, but it gets us much closer.
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
1:15:27
I would appreciate a good vote on this bill. Representative Alexander, for what purpose? Question, Mr. Speaker? You recognize. Could you identify what are the points that are in variance with the other law? What did we not include to
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:15:47
bring us into compliance and maybe why we didn't do that? Yeah, the rest of them are some things that we can work on in the future. I wanted to make sure that the most important elements that I felt certain would pass this body would be implemented.
The last thing I wanted to get into was so many areas that were new that it could cause a battle that might cause this bill to get defeated. One thing the Adam Walsh Act requires is a lifetime registration for all offenders. They can never come off. Current Arkansas law does not require that every offender stay on there permanently. They can request to come off. It also says that we cannot treat juveniles any differently. If they commit an offense while a juvenile, they will stay on the registry forever.
It also requires that all four levels of sex offenders are placed on the website. Current Arkansas law only requires level three and four and some level twos. And there's arguments about whether everyone ought to be included or not on that registry. But those are some of the things that at this point we didn't want to tackle because judges do have some discretion, particularly in what's known as the Romeo and Juliet situation, where they can waive this and not put them on the sex offender registry under Adam Walsh.
Chair
Unverified
1:17:04
They cannot be removed. Representative Stephen Meeks, for what purpose? Question, please. I'm with
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:17:10
you in spirit. Just a couple of questions for you that regards to the international. You said, for example, someone comes here from Canada, they have to be registered. And then you also stated that they're not allowed to travel out of the country unless they give 21 days prior notice. Two questions regarding that. The first question I have is, say an offender comes in to Arkansas, they get registered, they have family members, say a mother passes away that still lives in Canada, any exemptions that would allow them to travel back to that funeral, or is that funeral going to have to be held off for 21 days so they can attend?
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:17:44
I'm just wondering if you could address that situation. No, they can still travel. They just have to inform law enforcement so that the United States marshals can contact the area that they're going to be traveling to to inform them that this offender is going to be traveling to their area. It will not
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:18:00
prevent it. They just must report it. Okay, and that was my other question is how are we as a state going to prevent someone from traveling across international borders when that becomes more of a federal issue? But I think you've answered that for me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Chair
Unverified
1:18:16
Representative Gossage has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the
question before the House is to passage House Bill 1525. Prepare the
Speaker 2
1:18:31
machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballots for 92 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the
Chair
Unverified
1:18:44
bill. Read House Bill 1354. House Bill 1354 by Representatives Branscombe, Shepard, Steele,
Vines, and Wright to define the term infamous crime for the purposes of who shall not be a candidate for or hold public office. Representative
Branscombe, be recognized to explain the bill. All
Speaker 187
1:19:03
right, everybody pay attention. This is important. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. President Roosevelt, in his speech asking Congress to declare war on Japan following an attack on Pearl Harbor, called Sunday, December 7, 1941, a date that will live in infamy.
The President very deliberately chose the word infamy to describe the attack on Pearl Harbor. He knew that infamy under the Anglo-American system of common law is a word used to describe the disgrace of loss of reputation as part of the punishment for committing an infamous crime. A person convicted of an infamous crime would, therefore, in the eyes of the public, be held in a state of infamy, suffering disgrace and a loss of their reputation, thus disqualifying them from public service.
Throughout history, treason, fraud, perjury, any crime punishable by imprisonment in a penitentiary, crimes of piracy, bribing a witness, suicide, has been classified as an infamous crime. Infamous crimes have also been defined as those inconsistent with common law principles of honesty and humanity. It was in this line of thought that the framers of our Arkansas Constitution knew that no person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public money,
bribery, forgery, or other infamous crimes, shall be eligible to the General Assembly or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in the state. Arkansas, like most states, has never provided a clear definition as to what qualifies as an infamous crime. Until 2005, the Arkansas Supreme Court has not even ruled or defined the term. While the element of moral turpitude that carries a stigma of disgrace arising once from shameful conduct, there is no clear, concise, or bright-line rule for the definition of an infamous crime.
I have worked on this bill for well over a year. I had no idea what I was getting into. I've been to the Attorney General on four different occasions, and bless their hearts, they have helped me tremendously. But without my legal help of my legal team of Vines, Wright, Steele, and Shepard, I would not have been able to come to the bill that I have now. You might ask, what does this bill do? It could do a lot. I don't really know.
Until we let a judge decide. It is my hope that this bill will give some direction as to what this General Assembly would like to see infamous crime defined as. And with that, I'll answer any questions if I can. Representative Wren, for what
Speaker 28
1:21:58
purpose do you recognize? Representative Branscombe, did your legal team
Chair
Unverified
1:22:02
work pro bono? Yes, they did. Representative Bell, for
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:22:12
Mr. Branscombe, what, in your opinion, is an infamous crime? I mean, where are you going with
Speaker 187
1:22:18
this? When I first started with this, I wanted the infamous crime to be big. And that's when I talked to the Attorney General and I visited with Justice Hannah of the Supreme Court. But because infamous crime is in our Constitution that I read in my statement, it precluded me, it limited my ability to describe what I wanted to be an infamous crime. Infamous crime, the reason for the purpose of this bill that I started with is because we have had cases in the last few years, prosecutors, and the prosecutors have followed the law.
They've done nothing illegal or anything underhanded, if you so probably. But I wanted infamous crime to be what I thought our founding fathers intended it for it to be. I think it's been taken out of context. There's some cases now that are pending on some public officials and some that have been removed from office that we wouldn't think today that would be an infamous crime. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.
Chair
Unverified
1:23:20
Representative Letting, for what purpose you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:23:24
Branscombe, I was chatting with Representative Wilkins back here and might have missed something. But did you include suicide in the list of infamous crimes? Suicide is infamous. we got a problem with people committing that crime running
Chair
Unverified
1:23:43
finished anyway okay thank you representative branscombe has explained the bill does anyone speak against the bill um represent fine i apologize for what purpose question you recognize
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
1:23:51
representative branscombe we have seen this used for political purposes in recent years are you seeing this as a tool for judges that they would be able to say no this is not an infamous crime yes ma'am that is
Speaker 187
1:24:06
that is the whole gist of the bill that this legislature will give the judges some direction in what they will conclude an infamous crime should be so hopefully this will be a tool uh for them to use for common sense thank you purpose of hutchinson for what purpose
Speaker 149
1:24:23
I can make a statement. You can't recognize
Speaker 159
1:24:27
it. Question, question, question. You recognize for a question. Question. Question.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
1:24:35
Thank you, thank you. Question. The question is, I think, let's see, how do I put
Chair
Unverified
1:24:41
this? Great job. Great job. Thank you for that question. Can
you produce a question out of that? Never mind. God, never mind. Representative Barnett, you recognize
Speaker 81
1:24:56
Question I thought that last was a great question You recognize Now, if the governor chose to pardon somebody That had been convicted of an infamous crime It would still wipe their slate clean Is that
Speaker 197
1:25:09
correct? That's a great question If the governor pardoned somebody I suppose that would be the final act of it Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:25:18
Branscombe has explained the bill Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? I'm sorry Okay, Representative Wilkins, for what purpose? Question. You recognize?
Speaker 199
1:25:28
Representative, I'm looking at the top of page three of your bill. Is not a misdemeanor and that which is infamous by definition mutually exclusive? Representative Wilkins, page 3, line
Speaker 187
1:25:51
1 through 6 has been amended three times by the request of the Attorney General.
So you can answer that as well as I
Speaker 199
1:26:10
can. All right. That little line has given me a lot of trouble. But, okay, but you understand my concern that if you're saying it's infamous and you started off with what the president said about the bombing, right, and that's infamous, and then we have a misdemeanor. Well, to you and I, that would be infamous. That's what I was trying to clear
Speaker 187
1:26:31
up, but I had a lot of trouble with it because of the Arlo Constitution.
What I was trying to convey, that's what an infamous crime is. But I couldn't clean it up like I wanted to because the wording
Speaker 204
1:26:48
is in the Constitution. All right. Well,
Speaker 199
1:26:51
I'd like to extend my concerns to your legal team. Duly noted. Representative Branscombe has explained the bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:27:00
Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative Steele, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:27:09
I hope I do less harm than I do good here, Representative Branson. I'm sure you're
trying to answer that question. The problem we run into is, you know, it's the court's job to interpret the Arkansas Constitution. The legislature can't do that. What we're hoping to do is put into the code legislative findings that the court can then adopt. But one problem is, and as the Attorney General pointed out, the court has already recognized that some misdemeanors are infamous crimes that meet that definition when the Arkansas Constitution was adopted. So we couldn't exclude misdemeanors because some misdemeanors have already been determined by this court to fit that definition.
So that's where we are. We try to tailor this down to what the court had already decided and then adopt legislative findings that we hope that court will put into their next opinion or if they're deciding these cases in the
Speaker 28
1:27:57
future. Representative Bain, for what purpose? Question. You recognize for a question? So
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:28:02
if the Supreme Court already has a definition, why are we trying to redefine what they've
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:28:06
defined? They do not have a definition. They've just made findings. They've called the balls and the strikes on certain candidates, and they've said that violates that provision of the Constitution.
They haven't actually put forth one big, long definition. But when we are trying to define it and hope that they will adopt that, we can't exclude misdemeanors because they've already found some misdemeanors to be influenced. Does that make sense? A follow-up question? You say hopeful, so
Representative John Baine
Unverified
1:28:29
in other words, this won't actually be binding on the Supreme Court. They may go with
their totally separate definition at a certain point. We can't statutorily bind the Supreme Court to something
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:28:38
that's in the Constitution, so no. Thank you. Representative Wilkins, for what purpose? Question.
Speaker 145
1:28:46
Recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Real brief. Representative Steele,
Speaker 199
1:28:49
in light of the explanation you gave, Would it be appropriate for me then to now say to Representative Branscombe that he can pay his legal team? Hey, we'd appreciate that. I think he could afford our rates. All right. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:29:06
Steele has spoken for the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the
Speaker 43
1:29:10
bill? For the bill. If not, the question before the House is passed to House Bill 1354. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
1:29:19
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots for 92, 93 yeas, 0 nays and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Passed over Senate Bill 441. Read Senate
Chair
Unverified
1:29:44
Bill 487. Senate Bill 487 by Senator Woods to allow the use of a voter education certificate in an acceptable electronic format in lieu of a paper certificate.
Representative Neal, you're recognized to explain the
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
1:30:01
bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. People born after 1987 are required to obtain a boater education certificate in order to operate their boats on Arkansas waterways. SB 487 will allow our citizens to use an electronic device to comply with the law when they are asked to show proof of their boater education certificate. It can be pulled up on the Game and Fish website. I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Neal has explained the bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:30:26
Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is a passage of Senate Bill 487. Prepare to
Speaker 2
1:30:39
machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 90 a 0 and a 0 present. You pass the bill. Read Senate Bill 501.
Chair
Unverified
1:30:50
Senate Bill 501 by Senator Bledsoe to amend the requirements of multi-year vehicle registration. Representative Baird, you recognize to explain the bill.
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:30:59
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, in 2011, we created a pilot program that allowed vehicle owners in the state of Arkansas to register their personal vehicle for multiple years, either two years or three years. As part of that pilot program, we said that in order to do that, if you did it for two years, you had to have paid your taxes, assessed your vehicle, and had current insurance for the prior two years. If you were to register for three years, you had to have done those things for the prior three years.
The program's been a very good success. About 150,000 people have enrolled in that. DF&A says it has worked very well, and so what we're doing with this bill is we're proposing to expand that so that up to a million vehicles in Arkansas can be enrolled in that program. What it does simply is it just says that in order to enroll for multiple years, You must have assessed, had no delinquent taxes, and insured your vehicle for 12 months prior to registering for multiple years.
So it's just an expansion of the current
program. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Appreciate a
Chair
Unverified
1:32:06
good vote. Representative Barrett has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is a passage
Speaker 2
1:32:14
of Senate Bill 501. Prepare the machine, Mr. Barrett. Has everyone voted? As everyone voted, cast the ballots for the 87 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. I'll read Senate Bill 482.
Chair
Unverified
1:32:32
Senate Bill 482, but Senators Flower and Bledsoe to reinstate the minimum qualifications of the Director of the Department
of Health. Representative Ferguson, you're recognized to
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
1:32:55
explain the bill. Senator Bledsoe has actually worked on this with the Department of Health during the interim, so it wasn't done in response to Dr. Halverson resigning.
I didn't want anyone to think that. And Senator Bledsoe asked Senator Flowers and I to carry it for the Health Department. The creation of the Board of Health was established in 1913 until 2005. And at that time, the Arkansas Department of Health merged with DHS. So a few years there, we had DDHS. And then in 2007, they separated again. And for all the time that it was the Arkansas Department of Health,
there was an M.D. was always the head of the Department of Health. When they merged and became DDHS, the director became a doctor of public health. So now that they've gone back, they need to establish the rule for hiring the director, and this just establishes that the requirements for the director, he has to either be an M.D. or a doctor of public health.
Thank you for a good vote. Representative Ferguson, recognize. Oh, I was just going to say, and this is, it completely leaves the discretion of
Chair
Unverified
1:34:22
who to hire to the governor. Representative Ferguson has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill? If not, the question before the House is a passage of Senate Bill 482. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
As everyone voted, cast out the ballots with 77 yays, 4 nays, and 2 present, you have passed the bill.
Read Senate Bill 790. Senate Bill 790. Senate Bill 790 by Senator Bledsoe to improve the quality of health care and to ensure that peer review committees for medical professional associations are afforded
confidentiality. Representative Ferguson, you recognize, to explain
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
1:35:14
the bill. This bill also came from Senator Bledsoe, and Dr. McGee is a co-sponsor of the bill,
so if you have questions, I may let him answer it since he's a physician, and Mike can answer your questions better. What this bill does, there is already a procedure in place for hospital doctors to do peer reviews. And I'm not sure I explained this very well in committee, but the peer review committees, it's a group of doctors who get together after the patient's dismissed. It's a retrospective look at care, and they get together and they decide, you know, how to improve quality of health care for patients.
They look at everything that was done and make suggestions to each other how they might have done a better job. And it's done retroactively. As you know, we're not in the world of Marcus Wellbeing anymore. There are almost no single doctors in practice by themselves. Those are dinosaurs. So there are these big corporate doctors groups. And all this does is afford that same peer review confidentiality from discovery in a lawsuit to groups of professional corporation doctors and LLCs.
And if you have questions, I'm going to let Dr. McGee
Chair
Unverified
1:36:35
answer them. Representative Ferguson has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative McGee,
Speaker 64
1:36:50
I recognize to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. Senate Bill 790 is needed in today's world. As Dr. Ferguson said, most of us don't practice anymore as individual physicians. And we're in many bigger group practices.
And one of the things in the past in the hospital settings, as she mentioned, we would have peer review committees. And that's privileged information that is protected from discovery. Now, what it doesn't do is if there is a case that arises that perhaps someone thinks that they need to pursue and discuss with legal counsel, all that information is still discoverable about that individual case. What we're talking about is just what the peer review committee does. And this affords physicians, by adding physician groups, that protection.
That allows us as physicians to, amongst ourselves, retrospectively review cases and help improve care as we move forward. And I'm open to any questions, anyone. Representative Hammer, for what purpose?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:37:46
Question you recognize. I was just wondering if you could educate me real quick on the professional associations. Does that just apply to the physicians only that are in those associations, or is there any other discipline that's included in that? The way that I
Speaker 227
1:38:03
read this is that's just for the physicians.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:38:06
Physicians only. Okay, thank you. No other questions?
Speaker 227
1:38:12
Appreciate your support. Appreciate your good vote. Thank you. Reverend McGee has
Chair
Unverified
1:38:15
spoken for the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? For the bill. If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill
Speaker 43
1:38:22
790, Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone
Speaker 2
1:38:29
voted? Cast with the ballots with 83 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 present.
Chair
Unverified
1:38:36
You have passed the bill. Read Senate Bill
654. Senate Bill 654 by Senator Woods concerning the discharge and release of an inmate from the custody of the
Department of Correction. Representative Harris, you're recognized to explain
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
1:38:58
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. This bill is regarding to the release of inmates, and this was Senator Woods and I worked on this bill with the Department of Corrections, Ms. Dinah Taylor.
This has to do with the testing of inmates for HIV. And this started back in 2007. And since then, only three inmates have had tested positive for HIV. And two of the three inmates would have been tested anyway. And the third one was tested positive going into prison. And so the good part of this, this is going to save the state $100,000 a year to not test these inmates.
And even though Representative Walker isn't here, he spoke in favor of the bill while speaking against yesterday's bill. I found out later. So I'd appreciate a good vote on this bill. I'm happy to take any questions. Representative Harris has explained
Speaker 2
1:40:04
the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House is a
Speaker 43
1:40:11
passage of Senate Bill 654. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
1:40:19
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballots with 81 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the
Chair
Unverified
1:40:32
bill. Read Senate Bill 171. Senate Bill 171 by Senator Key to amend the
offense of criminal impersonation. Representative Gill will
Representative Gill
Unverified
1:40:43
be recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Friends, I've
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
1:40:46
got before you a bill from Senator Key. It addresses a situation that has arisen over the last year, and most notably for him at least,
with some constituents in Baxter County. This bill comes to you through a Judiciary Committee. It adds a particular line in here that we're now considering the offense of criminal impersonation for those who pretend that they are law enforcement agents when they are not. That was not in the code earlier. And what had happened was there was an incident when someone stopped a patron of a Walmart in Baxter County,
accused them of shoplifting, claimed that they were a law enforcement officer, and harassed them for an extended period of time, as it turned out. The person did not shoplift, nor was the person doing the harassing an actual law enforcement officer. And that is kind of the genesis of where this comes from, and I would appreciate a favorable vote for Senator Keaton. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:41:45
Gilliam has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? For the bill. If not, the question before the House is a passage of
Speaker 43
1:41:53
Senate Bill 171. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
1:42:00
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. It's 86 yays and 0 nays and 0 present. You have passed the bill. We move to the yellow budget calendar. Representative Bayard, do you
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:42:22
recognize? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd move that we re-refer House Bill 1056 back to the Joint Budget Committee.
Chair
Unverified
1:42:32
Proper motion is debatable. Representative Beard, do you recognize to explain your motion? Members, I just
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:42:36
ask that we send this back to budget so that a member can work on an amendment.
Speaker 2
1:42:42
Does anyone wish to speak against the motion, for the motion? If not, the question before the House is a re-referral of House Bill 1056 back to the Joint Budget Committee. All
Chair
Unverified
1:42:54
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. As I have it, Mr. Clerk, please send the bill back to
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:43:00
Joint Budget. Representative Barrett, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, if you'll look at the next seven bills, these are all bills that were prepared according to the recommendations in the fall.
We're going to go ahead and batch these bills as usual. If you want to pull one out to ask a question on or to vote on separately, I'll be happy to do that. So, members, the issue is the passage of the appropriation bills and emergency clauses on the list before you. I'm going to read down the list of bills one by one by bill number. If there's one objection to the consideration of a bill, it will be removed from the list and placed on the regular joint budget calendar for later consideration. House Bill 1063, House Bill 1119, House Bill 1120, Senate Bill 30, Senate Bill 90, Senate Bill 158, and Senate Bill...
Speaker 235
1:43:45
Rep. Baird, bail for what purpose? I have a
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:43:53
question on 158, like it pulled out of the batch. Rep. Baird, will you pull Senate Bill 158? Senate Bill 158 out, and the last one will be Senate Bill 236 in the batch.
Your one vote will be recorded on each bill and each emergency clause after they have been read for the third time. So, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to
Speaker 239
1:44:26
direct the clerk to read the bills for the third time. Clerk, read the bills for the third time. House Bill 1063, House Bill 1119, House Bill 1120, Senate Bill 30, Senate Bill 90, and Senate Bill 236. Grab the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
1:44:45
Holding on the bill and the emergency clauses, if
Chair
Unverified
1:44:52
everyone voted, cast the ballots of ADA, zero nays, and zero present, you pass the bills and the emergency clauses. Representative Baird, you
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:45:02
recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we are back on Senate Bill 158. I don't know, did you want us
Speaker 28
1:45:09
to pull it down today? Representative Baird,
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:45:13
bail for what purpose? Just a question. Recognize. I think you can probably answer this, but I had expressed some concerns at the auditor's office regarding some of their advertising policies and duplicative advertising.
Do you know if they've made any changes to their advertising budget over the previous year? I do not know. I don't know the answer to that. If you don't mind to pull it down and
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:45:34
give me the opportunity to address those concerns, I'd appreciate it. Okay. Mr. Speaker, can we go ahead and pull out and pass over Senate Bill 158? Without objection, so ordered. Members, next we'll go down to bills which have been considered and introduced by the Joint Budget Committee.
The first four bills are actually not appropriations. They're substantive bills. The first three of those are transfers of these three agencies into the Department of Health. These are type one transfers, which means they are administrative transfers only. The boards and the authority that these agencies have still remain, but these transfers will simply consolidate the administrative and accounting functions of the agencies. So that's the first three. And then the second one is an amendment to the Securities Department Fund.
One of their revenue sources makes a change in the code. So we're going to batch those together. So, members, I'm going to go ahead and read through those. And if anyone wants to ask a question or pull one of those out for a separate vote, just let me know. So we're going to be considering in this batch House Bill 1758, House Bill 1759, House Bill 1760, and Senate Bill 536. Representative
Speaker 42
1:46:55
Lee, for what purpose? Question. So your question, you recognize?
Speaker 92
1:46:59
Thank you, Mayor. Representative Baird, I did not keep a list. Are these the three that we studied over the interim
Speaker 93
1:47:06
that basically just decided that all of them were administratively going to be combined for the purpose of saving money and they're all going to basically room together, et cetera? But I didn't make
Speaker 92
1:47:18
my notes during the interim on to which three they
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:47:23
were. We did. In the fall, there was a discussion about consolidating some of these agencies, in particular some of the health-related boards and commissions.
and I think we sent surveys out to the agencies and kind of asked them. I was thinking there were five, but there are three here. Well, there are these three, and there's another one coming, but I don't believe it's related to health, but we will be seeing one more transfer that was recommended in the fall. Thank you very much. So, members, I'm seeing no other questions. Your one vote will be recorded on each bill and each emergency clause after they have been read for the third time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to direct the clerk to read the bills
Speaker 239
1:48:09
for the third time. Read the bills for the third time. House Bill 1758, House Bill 1759, House Bill 1760, and Senate Bill 536. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Voting on the bills and
Chair
Unverified
1:48:27
the emergency clauses, Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Cast the ballots with 84 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You pass the bills and the emergency clauses. Representative
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:48:45
Beard, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The final bill is Senate Bill 605. This was a governor's letter, Governor's Letter 12, that was sent to us. The Department of Education rents space in their building, and so this simply appropriates the authority they need to utilize that money. It's appropriation for $3 million.
I'd be happy to answer any questions. I appreciate a good
Speaker 239
1:49:11
vote. Read the bill, Mr. Clerk. Senate Bill 605, a joint budget committee, an act for the Department of Education, Capital Complex, Facilities, Renovation and Repairs, General
Chair
Unverified
1:49:19
Improvement Appropriation. Senator Baird has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill
Speaker 43
1:49:23
for the bill? If not, the question before the House is a passage of Senate Bill 605. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Speaker 2
1:49:34
Voting on the bill and the emergency clause, has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 79 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You pass the bill and the emergency clause. Remember, to my left, I'd like to welcome on the floor Mr. B.G. Hendricks, who is a former speaker of
Chair
Unverified
1:49:55
this body, who hails from Fort Smith, Arkansas. Mr. Hendricks, nice to see you. without
Speaker 220
1:50:11
objection speaker directs the re-referral of house bill 1801 from insurance and commerce
Chair
Unverified
1:50:17
committee to the judiciary committee hearing none so ordered representative baird you recognize after the announcements reading of the
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:50:24
bills placing the calendars on the desk amending members on bills with their own amendments, members withdrawing their own bills, finalizing resolutions, reading communications, and any remaining committee reports. I move we adjourn until 11 a.m. tomorrow. It's a proper motion, not debatable.
Chair
Unverified
1:50:40
All in favor, say aye. All opposed, nay. I just have it. Motion carries. Any announcements? Representative Lee, recognize for an announcement.
Speaker 93
1:50:47
Listen up, folks. If you have a shell bill in my committee, it is now on the deferred list. If you want it off the deferred list, fill it in and get with me or Sherry Thomas. and state agencies will meet in room 151 at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. Representative Fielding,
Chair
Unverified
1:51:03
you're recognized for an announcement. We'll sit in the county local and meet in the morning at 9 a.m. in Big Mac B.
Representative Fielding, you're recognized for an announcement.
10 in Big Mac B. At 10 o'clock, 10 o'clock. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Aging children and youth will
Speaker 89
1:51:29
meet 10 a.m., room 130. Come see us. Representative Shepard, you're recognized.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:51:37
House Ag, 9 a.m., special order, 9 a.m., room 138. Likewise, if you have a shell bill, it's on the deferred list. See me if you want it active. Representative Wren, you're recognized.
Chair
Unverified
1:51:50
Insurance and Commerce, 10 a.m., tomorrow. Any other announcements? Mr. Clerk, read the committee reports.
Mr. Speaker, we are in the Committee on Public Transportation to whom was referred House Bill 1857. Beg the lead report, we have the same under consideration here, we have to return the same with the recommendation that do pass as amended, respectfully submitted, Representative Jonathan Barnett, Chair.
Mr. Speaker, will your Committee on Public Transportation, whom is referring to House Bill 2013, Senate Bill 784, Begley to report, have had the same under consideration, herewith return the same with the recommendation that it do pass, respectfully submitted, Representative Jonathan Barnett, Chair. Mr. Speaker, will your Committee on Judiciary, to whom is referred, Senate Bill 417, House Bill 1440, House Bill 1447, and House Bill 1784, Begley Report. We've had the same under consideration here.
We have to return the same with the recommendation that they do pass as amended, respectfully submitted, Representative Marshall Wright, Chair. Mr. Speaker, will your Committee on Judiciary, to whom is referred House Bill 1366, House Bill 1503, House Bill 1708, House Bill 1856, Senate Bill 259, Senate Bill 433 and Senate Bill 705 We've had the same under consideration here with Return the same
Speaker 136
1:53:20
with recommendation that they do pass Respectfully submitted, Representative Marshall Wright, Chair
Chair
Unverified
1:53:25
Read the bills, Mr. Clerk Senate Bill 43 Senate
Speaker 136
1:53:50
Bill 43 Senate Bill 88 Senate Bill 88 Calendar
Senate Bill 91 Calendar Senate Bill 374 Senate Bill 374. Rules. Senate Bill 14. Without objection. Senate Bill 425. Objection, read it again. Senate Bill 425. Education. Senate Bill 484.
Chair
Unverified
1:54:25
Without objection, read it again.
Senate Bill 484. Transportation. Senate
Speaker 140
1:54:40
Bill 554. Objection, read it again. Senate Bill 554. Education. 670.
Unknown speaker
1:55:05
Thank you.
When you're ready, John.
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:56:05
Senate Bill 670 Without objection, read the bill a second time Senate Bill 670 Insurance and Commerce Senate Bill 712 Without objection, read the bill again Senate Bill 712
Chair
Unverified
1:56:36
Without objection, read the bill again Senate Bill 712 Education Senate Bill 731 Without objection, read the bill again, Mr. Clerk Senate Bill 731 Education Senate Bill 752 Without objection, Mr.
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:56:54
Clerk, read the bill a second time Senate Bill 752 Education Senate Bill 785 Without objection,
Speaker 260
1:57:04
read the bill the second time. Senate Bill 785 Rules Senate Bill 799
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:57:10
Without objection, read the bill the
Speaker 260
1:57:12
second time. Senate Bill 799 City, county, local Senate Bill 808
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:57:18
Without objection, read the bill the second time. Senate Bill 808 City,
Speaker 260
1:57:23
county, local Senate Bill 815 Without objection, read the bill the second time. Senate Bill 815 Calendar Senate Bill 830 Without objection, read the bill the second time Senate Bill 830 Aging children and youth Senate Bill 833
Without objection, read the bill the second time Senate Bill 833 Education Senate Bill 880 Without objection, read the bill the second time 880 Insurance and commerce Senate Bill 910 Without objection, read the bill the second time Senate Bill 910 City, county, local Senate Bill 1140. Without objection, read the bill the second time.
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
1:58:17
Upon completion of the items named
Speaker 265
1:58:40
in the adjourn resolution, the House will be adjourned until 11
Speaker 265
1:58:58
It's your house. Welcome. Every Arkansan has a house right inside the state capitol, the Arkansas House of Representatives. And what happens in this house affects the lives of everyone in our state, as it has for nearly two centuries. The Arkansas legislature began meeting back in 1820, nearly two decades before Arkansas
became a state. In fact, the territorial legislature was instrumental in helping Arkansas gain statehood in 1836. For 80 years, the House of Representatives met in what we now call the old State House. In 1911, the House of Representatives relocated in the then-unfinished State Capitol building where it is still at work today. There are 100 members of the House.
Agenda
Committee Reports
HR1035
HB1930
HB1874
HB2049
HB2033
HB1701
HB1702
HB1751
HB1948
HB1686
HB1770
HB1528
HB1282
HB1525
HB1354
SB487
SB501
SB482
SB790
SB654
SB171
HB1056
HB1063
HB1119
HB1120
SB30
SB90
SB236
HB1758
HB1759
HB1760
SB536
SB605
Announcements
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 2
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 8
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Representative Scott Baltz
Unverified
Representative Micah S. Neal
Unverified
Speaker 43
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Speaker 1
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Joe Farrer
Unverified
Speaker 64
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 73
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 78
Speaker 81
Representative John Burris
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 89
Speaker 90
Speaker 92
Speaker 93
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Speaker 99
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 109
Speaker 16
Representative Andy Davis
Unverified
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 42
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 139
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
Speaker 153
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Speaker 113
Representative John Baine
Unverified
Speaker 140
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Speaker 149
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
Representative Patti Julian
Unverified
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
Representative Bill Gossage
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 28
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 57
Representative Charlene Fite
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 197
Speaker 199
Speaker 204
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 145
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 227
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Representative Gill
Unverified
Speaker 235
Speaker 239
Speaker 220
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 260
Speaker 14
Speaker 265
Speaker 266