House Insurance & Commerce Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1369
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1369”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1393
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1393”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1419
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1419”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB293
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB293”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB339
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ir and committee. Thank you. The next bill on the agenda is Senate Bill 339, Senator Raypert.”
|
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
We will skip over that bill at the moment. Hopefully he'll be able to return back later. The next bill, next item on the committee agenda is Senate Bill 293. Representative Biviano is going to present this bill to the House Committee. Representative Biviano, you're recognized to present Senate Bill.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
0:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To your permission, I would like Mr. Isom and Mr. Daniels to join me. They're recognized. Thank you. Members, I appreciate the opportunity. This is a real estate bill that was essentially today the education requirements are administered the State Board of Private Career Education, and we're asking that that be brought under the purview of the Arkansas Real Estate Commission where they have the expertise and knowledge to administer it. In addition, we're going to change some pre-license requirements for brokers.
And I would like Mr. Isom and Mrs. Daniels to comment on this bill.
Speaker 6
1:18
Thank you. MR. Thank you, Representative Viviano and Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Gary Isom, Executive Director of the Real Estate Commission. The only thing I'd like to add is that in my several years with the Real Estate Commission, I found that the one most powerful tool that we have to protect the public with regard to real estate transactions is our education and our instructors.
I have seen a direct correlation in the number of complaints we've received with the quality of education that we offer. And the Real Estate Commission feels it's in a position to improve the quality of education if we can bring that under our purview. And we will be glad to answer any questions. I'll turn it over to Commission Chair Tina Daniel at this time. Thank you. I'm currently chair
Speaker 9
2:12
of the Arkansas Real Estate Commission and have been involved in real estate education since 1982.
So I think it will be a good opportunity for our classes and our instructor guidelines to be improved as the Real Estate Commission has been basically monitoring the classes for the past 20 years. We also have letters from the Director of the State Board of Private Career Education where it's currently under, and they have no objection whatsoever to it. They believe it would be a good move, and it would be a way to improve real estate education for the state of Arkansas.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
2:47
Committee, it's also a privilege to have Mrs. Daniels involved in it. She somehow was able to get me through my licensing requirements and ability to pass a test, so that's nothing short of a miracle. So I would close this bill and appreciate a good vote. We'll take any questions. Are there any questions by
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
3:15
the committee? I recognize you. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So, number one, are the realtors on board with this? Because if I'm reading this correctly, what we're going to ask people to do is an annual 40-plus hours per
Speaker 6
3:36
year. Am I reading that right? Yes, go ahead. The Realtors Association does support this bill. Yes, sir. What we are doing, the broker education requirement is currently 60 hours per year. What we are changing is to require that 45 of that 60 hours be in a specific curriculum that the commission has developed.
We've worked with the Realtors Association for the past two and a half years to develop this curriculum. They've been very involved. They've been concerned about broker education, and they initiated the action for us to develop something that would help brokers in their educational efforts. Okay. So where I was wrong is we're not adding
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
4:16
a new 45-hour. What we're doing is we're taking of the 60 that's already required, and we're just saying what to do with 45 hours. Yes, sir. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4
4:30
Do you recognize Representative Copeland-Labor? Thank
Representative Harold Copenhaver
Unverified
4:35
you very much, Mr. Chair. Will these be able to be accessible online, the continuing ed courses? Yes, sir. We
Speaker 6
4:43
have distance education courses available now, and they will continue to be available. Okay. Thank you
very much. Do you recognize Representative Love?
Speaker 29
4:56
Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Viviano, I just want to ask, is there any additional financial hardships in regards
to this program? Not that I'm aware of. is there is there any additional fees any
Speaker 6
5:14
can anyone answer that representative I think our practitioner represent Miss Daniel would be the best in the best position to answer
Speaker 9
5:24
that question as a school we don't see any any additional fees as a matter of fact we probably see less
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
5:32
of a cost okay so education Okay, so because I'm not fully aware of what you're, but I'm assuming that when you go
through these courses, you charge a rate or
Speaker 29
5:45
to? To the licensee? Yes. Yes, there is a charge to the licensee, but we
Speaker 6
5:50
don't regulate that. The market sits that, and
Speaker 36
5:53
we certainly don't think that this bill will increase that fee at all. Okay. MR. You're not certain, but
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
6:01
you don't think that this will add any additional financial hardship? MR. No. If anything,
Speaker 6
6:07
it would lessen it, because we do anticipate that this will lessen the
Speaker 38
6:12
cost to the real estate educator. MR. Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. Thank you.
MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Any other questions from the committee? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak against the bill? for the bill seeing none would you like to close your bill it's closed thank you and appreciate a good vote what are the wishes of the
Speaker 15
6:42
committee we have a due pass all those in favor aye opposed
Speaker 19
6:57
same sign ayes have it thank you to the committee
congratulations Thank you very much. I was looking for Representative Linderman. He's not made it in yet. Okay, we're looking for House Bill 1393.
Representative Baltz, are you ready to present your bill? Okay, we
Speaker 45
7:32
shoot that at 10.30. I've got a fire department. I can move up there for a picture.
Representative Valtz, you're recognized. Present House Bill 1393. Thank you, Mr. Chair and
Representative Scott Baltz
Unverified
7:59
committee. I'd like to ask Eddie Jones to come up here with me if it would be okay. Pleasure of the committee. You recognize Mr. Jones. Committee, this is a banking bill. It's been sent down from the Association of Counties and municipal governments.
It's kind of a cleanup type deal. I'll refer to Mr. Jones to let him
Speaker 52
8:40
explain the bill. You recognize Mr. Jones? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee. Eddie Jones, Association of Arkansas Counties. This bill is requested by both cities and counties to amend the code that deals with
deposits and depository agreements, and really puts some of the language that's in certain areas and other parts, just moves it around to be in a more pertinent area, and talks about the required documents that are required to secure a public deposit. doesn't delineate those, just says any supplemental agreements needed to perfect security in public
deposits. And the reason they're not delineated is because the FDIC sometimes changes their regulations and what they require to perfect security in a deposit. We know what those things are right now, being a depository agreement and a security agreement and the custodial services agreement, and the certificate of corporate resolution. Those things all have to be there to perfect the security, and it doesn't change anything
concerning collateral as it stands now, or anything on the banking side. One thing that it does change, and you'll notice in a portion of the code where it strikes and investment, and it does that because this is a code and a section of the code that deals with deposits, and so we're required to have that collateral on deposits that aren't secured
or insured, those amounts above FDIC insurance. And back in session in 2011, the investment codes for public deposits were somewhat liberalized, not very much, but some so that counties and cities could invest in subtypes of government bonds and agency securities. Well when you or say school bonds or county or city municipal bonds, when you buy those
and you own those securities, you don't get collateral on them. So that was kind of a misnomer in that particular section of the code. And it's the reason that that is stricken. And it says what you're going to have the collateral on and the type of deposit that are in those financial institutions. So a lot of it is cleanup. up, and one thing that it also does is makes the use of the
standard form for those collateralizations be suggested and available from the State Board of Finance, but not mandatory. A public entity could use other forms as long as those forms included the language that was necessary to create an enforceable, perfected security interest in the collateral for those deposits. We also put in the word, instead of just federal laws, laws and regulations, because mainly what we're dealing
with are regulations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. And if there are any questions, we'd be glad
Speaker 15
12:26
to try to answer those. MR. I have a – I
really want to understand – you're saying you're not changing the collateral requirements of the bank itself?
No. No, sir. Not at all. So I would assume here then that you have maybe not an approval but no objections from the Arkansas bankers. Yes,
Speaker 52
12:51
and that's something I should have covered. Of course, this has been totally vetted with county and city governments, also with the Bankers Association, and they are all right with it. In fact, Paul Benham with the Friday Firm looked at it as well for the bankers, and he was all right with it.
In fact, he was the one that suggested we also include the word regulations, and that was added into the bill. Thank you. Any
other questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, I'll ask the audience if there's anyone here that wants to speak against the bill, for the bill. Would you like to close your bill on Representative Paul?
Representative Scott Baltz
Unverified
13:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just would appreciate a good vote. Thank you, committee. What are the wishes of the committee?
Speaker 15
13:53
We have a do pass. All those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill, Representative Valtz. Thank
you, Mr. Chair and committee. Thank you. The next bill on the agenda is Senate Bill 339, Senator Raypert.
House Bill 1419 is the next on the agenda, John
Speaker 15
14:40
Burris. Are you going to present that bill, Representative Wright? I just thought she was real anxious there. Like you're slipping up on it. I don't... Okay. We know that Representative Linderman
wants to run his bill today.
and I don't know what progress he's made over in Agri. We have a special order of business for March the 1st and I might announce that at this moment that we're going to have our Tuesday night dinner at the Wills firm is going to be the sponsors for that. but it's 630, the name of the restaurant said North Little Rock across from the old post office.
I can't remember the name of it right now, but I'm sorry. But we can get you in there. You'll get more information about that later. I think that maybe we'll just go into a real short recess here and see if we can get our people together and everything, and we'll call it back in order here in just a moment. We have on our agenda now House Bill 1369, presented by Representative Linderman.
Mr. Linderman, I recognize you to present
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
16:26
your bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to apologize to the committee. I was asked to be next door for a contentious issue that, you know, these things are coming up, and so I do appreciate this. This bill is House Bill 1369 is a bill that came together from some contacts that started in my district. Representative McCrary came to me, and he had some concerns in his district,
and we were talking about it in the quiet room, and Bruce Cozart said, hey, I'm running one of the same things. And so we all got together, and they decided to dump it all in my lap. When this started coming together, it was very interesting that there is a perception by some people that pawnbrokers are out there buying stolen merchandise and doing those things, and the vast, vast majority are legitimate businessmen that are performing a very needed function for people in their communities. You can't run to the bank and get a $300 loan anymore.
You can't do that. And so there are people that have short-term needs, and they go to pawnbrokers. One of the problems is that there are some items that show up in pawnbrokers, places of business, that are not able to be identified as far as a license number, serial number, or anything like that. So in working together, what we have, there is a law in place now that a local municipality or a county can require their pawnbrokers to list online their transactions.
Now, the original wording was the things that are pawned, and working with the Arkansas Sheriff's Association Executive Director, we also put purchases on there. The pawnbrokers in my area were for it. Tim Collier with the Arkansas, I understand he's president of the Arkansas Pawn Brokers Association, is on board with this bill. What this bill does, there's no cost to the pawnbrokers, but it does require them, when I say there's no cost, if they currently have computers and Internet access,
there is no cost to them. It will require them to put online only those things that are currently required by law to be available. This law enforcement is on board with this because they can go online then and look. Used to, if there was a robbery, sometimes they would go and go to the pawnbrokers, and they would go to ask to go look at the merchandise. This will place the burden on the pawnbrokers to put it online. Eighty percent of the law enforcement agencies, I understand, subscribe to this,
and I'm going to drop a word here. There's nowhere it's in the bill, but there is a group called Leads Online that supplies this service where the pawnbrokers put them online. Again, there's nothing about Leads Online. It's just one that I'm familiar with. But the pawnbrokers would be required to put it online, and then the law enforcement agencies can determine if they want to access this.
There's no mandated cost to them. If they choose to do this, there is a small cost. I understand in Craighead County we have 96,000 people that the cost is about $6,000 a year. But, again, it's permissible for the counties to participate in this. I know of no opposition to this, no pawnbrokers. I've got a couple of them that are personal friends of mine. They're on board with this. Again, Mr. Tim Collier with the Pawn Brokers Association and Ronnie Baldwin, who's the Executive Director of the Arkansas Sheriff's Association.
He told me, so I really like your bill. I want you to add two words. We amended it with those two words, and so they're on
Speaker 43
20:29
board with this. Thank you. I'll take any questions. Are there
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
20:35
any questions by the committee? Representative Williams. I just wanted to thank Representative Linderman for this and want to echo this is a good bill and it leads online. That service is a good service. You may remember we've done that with
scrap metal and Sudafedra and other areas, and it's
working well, and I'd like
Speaker 71
20:57
to have a motion at the proper time. Representative Ward. Thanks,
Speaker 72
21:03
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Letterman, are there any penalties opposed for those pawnbrokers who fail to register
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
21:10
online the property that they received? Yes, sir, there are.
The penalties, if you will notice, are not in this bill. My understanding is the penalties are in code that this applies to.
If they do not properly log in their transactions now and have that available for law enforcement, there are penalties. If a county sheriff goes into a pawnbroker and says, I want to see your transactions for yesterday, and he cannot produce those transactions, then that is a penalty, and there are penalties for that. This bill applies to those, but it's not specified in this bill. Do you have
Speaker 72
21:58
any idea the amount of penalty one may face for failing to actually register those since it's not in this bill but
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
22:09
Okay, let me clarify this. On page 2, line 31, it says that if they do not comply, there is a fine of up to $1,000. MR. Yes, that is correct. My understanding is that
Speaker 62
22:24
is also current code. That's my understanding. MR. Okay. Thank you. MR.
Speaker 71
22:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Farmer. MR. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 80
22:36
Chair. On that next line down, it says it could be $1,000 per day.
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
22:42
MR. That is my understanding if they refuse to comply, yes. MR. Okay. So it will be $1,000 a day. MR. Yes, sir. Wow. MR. Tim Collier, who is the chair of the Arkansas Pawn Brokers Association, I worked through a lot of people with him, and they are on board with this. Again, I know of no opposition to this bill as it's written. And one of the things I want to expound on that is pawnbrokers are a legitimate business that have a very beneficial effect on local communities for short-term loans, and they
are legitimate businesses. They don't want to be people. I got one of the e-mails that said, finally, from a pawnbroker, I believe, in Hot Springs, that said, finally, someone's not accusing us all of being thieves. We like your legislation. And so, yes, to my knowledge, they're totally on board with this. Okay. Can I have
Speaker 80
23:38
one more, please? Go ahead. On third page, line nine, it says, a different centralized secure tracking system and Internet website other than the centralized source of the system.
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
23:49
Is that the lead you're talking about? It can be leads online. There are others that are out there. A county may choose to have their own. Especially the larger counties that have their own good tracking system. We did not want to specify a certain company that they did. So it can be any? It can be any within that county, yes. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Any
Speaker 36
24:09
other questions from the committee? Go ahead, Representative Ford.
Speaker 71
24:21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those small pawn shops that may not have Internet Connect and all, how would you handle that?
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
24:33
Okay. My understanding is that 80 percent of them do that right now. Those that don't, they would ultimately have to comply, Representative Ward. Again, I have not had any that have opposed to this. law requires that they have these transactions listed now. This would simply require that
they do this. I have a representative, a friend of mine is from a small town of 1,700 people. And he came to me and he said, my pawnbroker is on board with this. He said, they're going to have to put the system in place. But he said, they need to do that. They want to have that tracking in place as well but I have not had anybody register any opposition to this so it
Speaker 72
25:22
could be a cost to those small pawn brokers that is currently without internet service that is correct yes sir thank you mr.
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
25:38
Representative Barnett. I live in a border city. Oklahoma's butt's up right against us. In fact, my office is a quarter of a mile from the Oklahoma line. Missouri is about 20 miles to the north, so we're pretty close to Missouri as well. And if you go across the line into Oklahoma from Solomon Springs, you'll notice several things. Number one, you'll notice a big casino over there, Cherokee Nation Casino, which is attracting a lot of Arkansas business.
And you notice a lot of pawn shops that have crept up, and there are a lot of signs on their billboards outside that say, you know, we buy gold, we buy silver, we buy this. And then they also say no questions asked on the billboard, I mean, out there on their signage. And it's funny because even in Asylum Springs, we just used to have a couple of pawn shops. Now we've got about eight or nine. It seems like we're picking up one every six months, and they're big pawn shops.
They're not small ones. They're big pawn shops. And so you've got the Arkansas side, and then you've got the Oklahoma side. I'm just curious. Is this, I mean, obviously we want this to happen, but they're competing against people across the line. They're saying no questions asked. How do you address that? My district borders the boot
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
27:10
hill of Missouri. We see the same thing. You ask how I deal with that. Again, the vast majority, I have a friend that's got a pawn shop that I go to church with.
When I talked to him, he said, last year I had two items that showed up that were stolen. But in the past, if I'm going to use this as an example, it happened to a friend of mine, had a trailer stolen. He found it at a pawnbroker's store some time back, and it still had the license plate on it. When he went and got a deputy, they went in, and the pawnbroker says, great, I gave $150 or whatever.
You give me my money back, and you can have this. This bill will allow, and my understanding is through law enforcement, will allow law enforcement to put a hold on that merchandise. But it does, we're not trying to create a secondary victim here. You get your trailer stolen and then you have to go buy it back, you're a victim a second time. Years ago, I had a theft that took place in my Agri building, and one of the items showed up at a pawn shop.
Law enforcement went and got it, showed it to me. They said, we've got to keep this for evidence. That's been over 30 years ago. The person left the state. He was never prosecuted. The evidence, I have no idea where it went to, but I didn't get it back at the Agri building. So there was actually a couple of victims there. The pawnbroker lost that. This is going to ensure that a judge would release the item, that it would go through the proper channels. And to answer your question, we cannot legislate what other states do.
And the vast majority, and I mean that with all my heart, that the vast majority of our pawnbrokers want to do the right thing and they want to legitimately have a legitimate business transaction. I'm not sure how we deal with people running across the line, whether they're carrying illegal liquor or buying cigarettes that are taxed at a different rate or selling scrap copper. We cannot mandate what they do in another state.
So it is a sticky situation and a difficult one. I don't think it will adversely affect our pawnbrokers here. They would much prefer if they steal something in Siloam Springs Probably to run to Oklahoma and sell it anyhow Simply because the trail is more hard to follow So I'm not sure I can't answer that Representative Barnett Did you have
Speaker 15
29:58
a follow up for Representative Barnett?
Okay Representative Murdoch I think my
Speaker 91
30:05
Thank you Vice Chairman I think my committee members are ready for immediate
Speaker 92
30:10
consideration, so I may not need to delay it because I think Representative Linderman addressed at the end of his reply to Representative Barnett that good legislation should not be precluded by or hindered by someone across any of our borders that may be doing something in a sloppy manner that
may not benefit the citizens overall. I think this bill in its entirety, the part about that Representative Word brought up about the burden it may put on those that don't have this access, I am concerned about that. But I think overall when you look at the legislation, as I'm concerned about what Representative Barnett said, but I think the overall piece here is much greater, the whole is much greater than the parts. And I think it's a good piece of legislation. I think that hopefully it will cause some of our border states to upgrade their method
of doing this type of business so that it makes it better for everybody because there's nothing but accountability and transparency which is a theme of what we like to do in state government. So I think it's a good deal for that reason and I do encourage us to do pass
if a motion is appropriate. Thank you. We have a motion that's been asked by Representative Williams, but I will
Speaker 15
31:33
still take other questions if we have other questions from the committee.
Speaker 72
31:37
Representative Ward. Representative Letterman, one of my main concerns is that the penalty phase of this particular piece of legislation that they can be fined up to $1,000 per day. I think that, you know, if a person is not in compliance, I think that's a great deal. Now if there were I guess a sliding scale on exactly how much for their first offense if they get caught and then maybe like $200, $250, and then later on if they are not the
following week or whatever that then the fine may increase. But we are talking about a pawn shop that is doing business, and if they are not in compliance, that if in a week they can be charged up to $5,000 or even, you know, I mean, whatever days that they are open, that they can be charged up to $5,000 a week and everything for noncompliance. And that seems to be kind of stiff to me. I would
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
32:41
like to respond to that, and that is that the fine is punishable by up to that
amount. I do not, as a legislator from Craighead County, Arkansas, wish to impose upon a judge from some other area what they do. I would hope and pray that our judicial system would use some common sense, that they would use some compassion in dealing with these. But it says a fine of up to $1,000. That's a maximum that it can be. I would suspect that probably if it was simply a noncompliance issue,
especially on a computer or something like that, a computer glitch, again, there has to be an arrest warrant. There has to be a hearing. It has to go through the processes before this could be assessed. And, again, I'm not going to try to second guess our judicial system. When it says up to that, it could be $1 or $1,000. But I would hope that they would use some common sense in administering this law.
Speaker 75
33:55
That part I would understand. But my only problem with it is that,
Speaker 72
34:00
you know, when it says up to, that means that, you know, it can be $1,000. And like I say, if you leave it to the judiciary system to interpret that and all, and that's like say per day and I can say it can be very, very expensive I think to a small business if they are not in compliance and actually being charged that kind of money on a day
to day basis until they become in compliance. So that was my only thing. I just wish that either or that they could show a penalty phase of it that would actually address a smaller amount and then increase as the violations continue. Thank you, sir. Representative Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
34:54
I want in response, I guess a question in response to Representative Ward, a question
to Mr. Linderman. Currently right now, as I understand
the law, the law is if a pawnbroker does not keep records in electronic format and daily upload those records currently, not your bill, but current law, they can be punished by up to $1,000 a day. Is that correct? That is correct. So nothing in your bill changes that at all. Is that correct? That's correct. So if your bill doesn't pass, then someone still can be charged up to $1,000 per day. Is that correct? That's correct. Your bill doesn't do anything with regard to that, right? That is correct. Okay. So his concern is with current law, and he has an opportunity to file a bill to change that if he'd like. Is that correct?
Speaker 86
35:30
That's correct, sir. Yes. That's not your issue, right? That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to have
Speaker 15
35:38
a motion at the proper time. Well, I really appreciate the information, Representative Williams. Just a minute.
We've been corrected and re-corrected here. I don't know exactly how many more we can stand on that. I am going to recognize Representative Williams for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This outstanding
Speaker 71
35:51
bill, I'd like to have a motion of due pass. We have a motion of due pass.
Speaker 69
36:01
All those in favor, aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. You pass
Speaker 66
36:08
your bill, Representative Linderman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Committee, for
Speaker 69
36:16
your help. I think that finishes our agenda today. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
HB1369
SB293
HB1393
SB339
HB1419
HB1369
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Robert E. Dale Chair
Unverified
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 9
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Harold Copenhaver
Unverified
Speaker 29
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Speaker 15
Speaker 19
Speaker 43
Speaker 45
Representative Scott Baltz
Unverified
Speaker 52
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 71
Speaker 72
Speaker 59
Speaker 62
Speaker 80
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Speaker 91
Speaker 92
Speaker 75
Speaker 86
Speaker 69
Speaker 66