February 22, 2013
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (20)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1013
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ve Edwards recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1, House Bill 1013.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1251
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…6A, 0 and 80, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Read House Bill 1251.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1363
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “pass over House Bill 1265 read House Bill 1363 House Bill 1363,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1012
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1012”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1265
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “pass over House Bill 1265 read House Bill 1363 House Bill 1363,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1276
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ommittee on city, county, and local. To whom we have heard, House Bill 1276, House Bill 1278, and House Bill 1383. I beg to leave the r…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1278
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…county, and local. To whom we have heard, House Bill 1276, House Bill 1278, and House Bill 1383. I beg to leave the report. We have th…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1308
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1308”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1328
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1328”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1368
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1368”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1383
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…o whom we have heard, House Bill 1276, House Bill 1278, and House Bill 1383. I beg to leave the report. We have the same under consider…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1386
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1386”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1392
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1392”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR10
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “10-12. House Resolution 10-12, Representative Thompson et al. to encourage the Governo…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1015
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “committee on aging children youth whom is referred house resolution 1015 house resolution 1016 and house resolution 1017 beg lead re…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1016
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…aging children youth whom is referred house resolution 1015 house resolution 1016 and house resolution 1017 beg lead report we had the same u…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1017
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…is referred house resolution 1015 house resolution 1016 and house resolution 1017 beg lead report we had the same under consideration herewit…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB151
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB151”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB206
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB206”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB42
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB42”
|
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
Chair
Unverified
0:00
who is the father of Representative Chris Ritchie and guest of Representative Kim Hammer. And to remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Representative Debbie Hobbs. Let us pray. Our Father in
Speaker 4
0:16
Heaven, we thank you for the gift of another day of life. We thank you for the privilege of being here in this legislative body. And I pray for each member, and I pray that you give them wisdom and direction as they write and pass laws for a free people.
I know, God, you are a God of law, because when you delivered Israel from bondage, you made them a free people. And free people need laws to govern. And you gave us laws that speak about our relationship with you. You gave us laws that establish homes. You gave us laws to protect life. You gave us laws that help us to keep our vows to build good homes.
You gave us laws that, Father, that maintain integrity and dignity. And, Father, you gave us laws that says thou shalt not covet, that help us to protect people more than things. And, Father, we pray that we would also have laws that would do the same thing, that would build a great nation for a great people. Lead God in everything that they do, for I pray in Christ's name, amen. Amen.
Speaker 5
1:40
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, individual, with liberty and justice for
Chair
Unverified
1:52
all. Members, indicate your presence by pushing your yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
All right, cast out the ballots. There are 96 members present. The chair sees a quorum. Any request for leave?
Chair
Unverified
2:45
Representative Vines, you're recognized. Leave for Representative Malone. Leave granted for Representative Malone. Leave granted. Representative Hickerson, you're recognized. Leave for Representative Slinkard. Leave granted for Representative Slinkard. Leave granted. Representative Hillman, you're recognized. Leave for Representative Broadway. Leave granted for Representative Broadway. Leave is granted. Any other request for leave? Representative James L. Word moves to be dispensed. the reading of the previous day's journal no objection so ordered or the reports from select
committees or the reports from standing committees
Speaker 20
3:22
read the reports mr claret mr speaker we your
Chair
Unverified
3:25
committee on aging children youth whom is referred house resolution 1015 house resolution 1016 and house resolution 1017 beg lead report we had the same under consideration herewith return the the same recommendation that they do pass. Respectfully submitted, Representative Warwick Sabin, Vice Chair.
Mr. Speaker, we are a committee on city, county, and local. To whom we have heard, House Bill 1276, House Bill 1278, and House Bill 1383. I beg to leave the report. We have the same under consideration herewith. Return the same recommendation that they do pass. Respectfully submitted, Representative David Fielding, Chair. is there any
Speaker 13
4:14
unfinished business are there any executive communications members i'd like to take
this time to welcome some visitors in our gallery in the east gallery this morning we have the fifth and sixth grade students from bigelow elementary guests of representative tommy thompson and david
Chair
Unverified
4:41
Meeks. And members, a special guest of the speaker's office. We have Mr. Tony Montemuro in the North Gallery behind me from Chicago, Illinois. Welcome, Tony.
Chair
Unverified
5:11
10-12. House Resolution 10-12, Representative Thompson et al. to encourage the Governor to consider geographic distribution and the production of relevant commodities when appointing members to the Agricultural Research and
Promotion Boards. Representative Thompson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. members this resolution does just exactly what it says for years the row crops the catfish
the beef cattle all of them participate in checkoff programs and that money is distributed out through these research and promotion boards to get research work done around the state And all this little resolution does is says that we are encouraging the governor when they make appointments to those boards to, after the various groups have made their recommendation, to look at those boards and be sure that geographically they represent all areas of the state where these crops or these livestock are produced.
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
6:26
And I'll entertain a question if you've got one. Representative Burris, what purpose? Question. You recognize. Thank
Representative John Burris
Unverified
6:32
you, Representative Thompson. It's a resolution. I'm going to vote for it. But I'm just curious that checkoff money is a pretty serious deal to folks. The checkoff money is a pretty serious deal to folks. I'm just curious about what geographic considerations do you think need to be there? Is it counties? Is it regions of the state? Could
you expound a little bit on that? Now, when I moved to the
Arkansas River Valley in 1995, we had one person from there that was on the soybean promotion board.
And three years ago, that person moved on to the national board. At the present time, there's not a farmer from the Arkansas River Valley on any of these boards. I consider it, when I say the areas where these crops are produced, you know, we have the Delta. We have the North Delta, South Delta, the Grand Prairie, Southwest Arkansas, and the Little Red River Valley, and the Arkansas River Valley.
And there's crops grown in all those areas. and all this does and it doesn't change the way any group makes their choices it doesn't change their number of choices all it does is give the governor the opportunity to look at those recommendations and see if those areas are represented if they're not then he can ask them to bring me some more recommendations and hopefully this will give us representations from
Chair
Unverified
8:13
all areas of the state. Representative Hutchison, for what purpose?
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
8:20
Question. Recognize for a question. Representative, are you saying that the governor would have the authority to override who was picked on her?
Is that what you're saying? Not at all. I'm confused. Not at all. All he's going to do is after they make their recommendations, hopefully they will look at this, and after they make their recommendations, everybody will be covered. But if they're not, then he can ask them to just make some more recommendations.
And they're still going to be the ones that make the recommendations. And those boards, if y'all would like to look at the—I'm not going to have them read this thing because it's three or four pages long. But it's the Soybean Association, the Rice Promotion Board, the Wheat Board, the Corn and Grain Sorghum Board, Catfish Growers, Beef Council, Farm Bureau, Riceland Foods, Soybean Association, the Ag Council, Producers Rice Mill, Arkansas Rice Council, Arkansas Wheat Growers, the Catfish Farmers, and the Cattlemen's Association.
And I can tell you that each of those organizations were contacted. If you were in committee, Farm Bureau and our Secretary of Agriculture were there to speak on behalf of this. It's all agreed on by all of these different groups. Jefferson Hutchins is recognized
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
9:51
I guess I'm still just a little bit confused here why this is even coming up. I mean, well, I mean, I guess I'm trying to say is the governor going to have more authority here or what? I mean, I don't know the reasoning behind this. I really don't. Other than you made a good point, though, about if there's not a soybean farmer on
the soybean board, there needs to be, right? Actually, what I'm saying is if there are farmers in areas that are not represented, then we're going to try to get someone from those not represented.
Hopefully, that doesn't ever happen. Representative Douglas, for what purpose? I speak for
Chair
Unverified
10:43
the bill. Okay, when we get to that point, I'll give you that opportunity. Representative Thompson has explained the resolution. Does anyone wish to speak against the resolution? For the resolution, Representative Douglas, you recognize, come speak for the resolution. Come down to
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
11:07
the well, please. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, colleagues.
I think this is a good bill because in one sentence it creates diversity and representation from areas of the state. It just gives the governor a second look at whether all the crops and all the different farm entities are representative and have a say. So I would speak for the bill. Representative Douglas has spoken for the bill.
Chair
Unverified
11:37
Does anyone wish to speak against the bill?
For the bill, Representative Thompson, let's close the bill. The question before the House, passage of House Resolution 1012. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Members, I'd like to recognize our doctor of the day, Dr. Omar Atik from Pine Bluff. Welcome,
Chair
Unverified
12:05
doctor. Morning hour has ended. Representative Edwards recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment 1, House Bill 1013.
Mr. Clerk, read Amendment 1. Senate Amendment 1, House Bill 1013. Representative Edwards, you
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
12:25
recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a great American day. On this day in 1980, the American hockey team defeated the Soviet hockey team, so that's a good way to start. And Charlie Collins and I, we're code warriors, so we can appreciate that. This amendment is to concur in the Senate bill, same as last time.
We had Senator Sanders as a co-sponsor. We add the Arkansas Veterans Home Task Force as another set of eyes to look at the location sighting. And thanks to Representative Lee, this bill has been on a white calendar, a blue calendar, and a red calendar. So this is truly a red, white, and blue piece of legislation. Thank you. Representative Hammer, for what purpose? One question, please. You recognize for a question.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:22
I wanted to make sure in the relocation efforts, I know there's a task force being developed, But when it comes to the final placement of the veteran's home, will there be a competitive bidding process or something that will allow all areas of central Arkansas to have an opportunity to try to have the veteran home established
in their community other than just right in Little Rock proper? That's an
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
13:48
excellent question, and it's given me an opportunity to say the same answer that I give to everyone.
The intent of the legislation and the way the legislation is written is that we want a home in a safe place, in a convenient place, and my mind or no one else's mind that I've talked to has any specific location in mind, as long as it's convenient to our veterans to make sure, for example, that they are not going to be on the road for hours trying to get to a VA facility. So I would think that any place in central Arkansas would be an excellent place.
But, you know, there are some locations that may end up at the end of the day being, you know, better than others. But I think our touchstone and our guidelines should be let's get this right for once, please. Let's do it right for the veterans once, please, and pick the best location that we can for these guys. They deserve
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
14:49
it. But, again, there's nothing in the bill that directs that it has to be located in one specific location? Absolutely not. Okay. No. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:00
Ripson Walker, for what purpose? A question. You're recognized. Were you implying that the address on Madison Street in Little Rock, Arkansas, was neither
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
15:12
safe nor convenient? No. What I was saying was what we've done both in Madison Street, Arkansas, and what we did in Fayetteville, We always put a home in someone else's facility. Our veterans need to be in a place that is single-floored, safe for fire, quality place. We have not done that anywhere in this state.
That's what I want to see happen, a safe place, convenient to their locations, to make sure that we don't have multilevels with people trying to go up or go down. Someone else may have that argument, sir, but that's not mine. I just want to have a building that was actually built for veterans so they can be safe. Follow-up question, please. Thank you,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:01
Mr. Speaker. Are you suggesting that you will not consider building a new building, possibly at the same site, if that site is sufficient in acreage?
Speaker 64
16:11
Because that particular site, given the current condition
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
16:16
of the building, given the cost of the building, given the fact that it is a multilevel building, I don't think would be suitable. But the question on that point right now, though, I guess we even supersede that. That building is in the process of being advertised for sale now. Now, again, I don't personally, you know, and that's why I drafted the legislation the way that we did, to have plenty of input, plenty of oversight into the legislation.
But what we have seen here in this state and what our surrounding states have not, I mean, what they've accomplished, and we haven't, is that they have buildings on one floor in an environment typically, and I'm just using this as a suitable standard I've seen, but they're mainly like 18 acres, you know. But, again, I specifically wrote this bill for that to be an open question. The legislation that originally created Little Rock Homes specifically listed that site.
That's the same thing that happened in the Fayetteville home. And while I think the intentions of all that were good, I would like to see us do something with a good facility that was actually designed. That's
Speaker 65
17:36
what we've never had before. Have you taken
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:40
into account the adverse impact upon that area? And that area happens to be in my district. Of course. And taking into consideration all of the other adversities of being foisted upon
Chair
Unverified
17:52
that general area of the state of Arkansas?
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
17:56
What I've taken into account, sir, is that we have not done right by our veterans. And as I've told Representative Hammer, I've also spoken with Representative Perry about this, is that I don't have a care where the facility is, but I just want to make sure that we have a facility that can safely meet fire codes, that can, and not just in theory, but in practice, in our Fayetteville home today,
and to keep everything in context, folks, in our Fayetteville home today, which is, I'm very proud that we have one up there, but we have veterans living on the 4th and 5th floor of an old hospital building. If there's ever a fire up there, we're going to have some challenges. And I'd like to get us, like our surrounding neighbors, with homes that were specifically designed, you know,
Speaker 27
18:57
for the safety of our veterans. Representative Edwards has spoken in favor of concurrence. Does anyone wish to speak against
Chair
Unverified
19:06
concurrence? For concurrence? Representative Edwards is closed. For concurrence, the question before the House is the concurrence
of Senate Amendment 1, the House Bill 1013. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
has everyone voted has everyone voted cast the ballots with 95 yeas, 0 nays and 0
Chair
Unverified
19:31
present, you have concurred and with we passed the motion we have passed the bill, excuse me we're going to
pass over House Bill 1265 read House Bill 1363 House Bill 1363,
Speaker 68
19:54
Representative Hobbs, to expand the membership of the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission.
Chair
Unverified
20:02
Representative Hobbs, you're recognized to
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
20:09
explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we have an early childhood commission that serves as an advisory board to the Department of Education and to the governor on items that concern early childhood education. Currently, the board, by statute, or the commission, is made up of 24 members. This amendment would expand that number to 25.
The reason for that is that in a number of federal grants, Race to the Top is one of them, we did not receive that. And one of the reasons they gave was because there was not a member from the higher education teacher programming on the commission. And so this just simply adds that position. I appreciate your vote.
Representative Hobbs, let's explain the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House, the passage of House Bill 1363. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Chair
Unverified
21:24
Cast the ballots in 96A, 0 and 80, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Read House Bill 1251.
House Bill 1251 by Representative Sabin and all to create the Partnership for Public Facilities and Infrastructure Act and to regulate public-private partnerships for public facilities and infrastructure. Representative Sabin, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
21:52
you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. This bill is basically designed to clarify the framework within which public entities can work with private entities on public infrastructure projects.
And I think we all, you know, respect and want to encourage government to take on more of the positive principles of private industry. We all know that the private sector oftentimes can do things more efficiently and with more expertise and more innovation than government. And what this basically does is it provides a framework to do that. And the framework is desired by the private sector because, you know, of course they want to have predictability and they want to know exactly how they can interact with the public entity when they're working on a public infrastructure project.
And, of course, from the government side, we want to make sure that there are the appropriate checks and balances so that the public money is indeed being spent in the most efficient way possible. And so that's what this legislation basically does. And you'll see that it preserves all of the good government things that we want to make sure are preserved. It specifically preserves eminent domain law. It preserves our Freedom of Information Act. It preserves all existing procurement laws. But at the same time, it does provide one major innovation,
which is allowing for unsolicited proposals from the private sector for projects that they think might be in the public interest. But again, the risk and some of those negative things that may come are kind of accounted for in this legislation so that, you know, the government money is going to be well spent. One other thing I'll add, this is not required. This basically becomes another tool in the arsenal of public entities to use when they want to try to get a project financed,
and that's really important because we all know that with less government money available, you know, we want to make sure that we're as innovative as possible in spending the government's money. And there are 34 other states that have legislation like this, and it's worked really well in those other states and this legislation's been vetted by just about everybody I could have it vetted by. I didn't rush this legislation. I ran it by the State Chamber of Commerce, the Municipal League, the Association of Arkansas Counties, our higher education community, the highway department, utilities. I mean, everybody's looked at it,
spent a lot of time with it. I haven't encountered any opposition and I'd be happy to take any questions. I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
24:22
Representative Hutchison, for what purpose? Question. You recognize it. Representative Saban, would this allow private corporations to have access to eminent domain? Absolutely not. In fact, it's very specifically stated
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
24:35
in the legislation that eminent domain law will not be affected by this legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Collins,
Speaker 45
24:43
for what purpose? Question. You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Does this legislation give local localities any increased taxing authority? Absolutely not. In fact, the fiscal impact statement
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
24:54
provided by Bureau of Legislative Research says that there's no fiscal impact of this legislation at all. Thank you very much. Thank
you. Professor Western, for what purpose? Question. You recognize? Representative Saban, I'm just
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
25:09
trying to understand this better and maybe put it on a practical level. Would this allow, say, if
somebody wanted to build a new building and they didn't have the money to build it,
but they maybe had the money to pay like a lease fee over time, would it allow them to move forward with a project
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
25:31
like that? Well, the main way I begin answering your question is that this is only for projects that have a public use, and that's really important to this legislation. It's something we went over in committee pretty heavily because, you know, It's not just somebody's got an idea for a business and they want to come to the government to help them kind of fund it. So, you know, if it's a public use, if it's a building that's, you know, primarily intended, you know, like a college dormitory or something, you know, in a city that is going to be, you know, for the public's use, then, yes, somebody could come to the government with a proposal.
But the proposal will still have to be competitively bid and, you know, still have to be analyzed. In fact, Representatives House and Lowry helped me add an amendment, actually, that I think would make sure it would be reviewed by an accountant and a lawyer to make sure it's a good thing for the locality. So there's a lot of protection in there to make sure it won't be abused.
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
26:25
So like if you wanted to build a library, but you didn't have the funds to maybe go out and build the library, but you had the funds to rent a library for a few years or until you could contract with somebody to build the library,
pay the lease fee, and get a library that way? Yeah,
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
26:45
and I think your example is right. I mean, I think it's a little more complicated than that, but definitely it would be a way that the public entity could get a library built, And it would have to be something that obviously worked,
you know, on both sides. It worked for
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
27:02
the public side and the private side. Representative Viviano, for what purpose? Question? You recognize? Representative Saban, you said that there's no fiscal impact to this legislation. Who within government then will be used to create this partnership, maintain it, negotiate these deals?
How will that be resourced and paid for? Sure. Well, I'll
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
27:19
clarify that. The Bureau of Legislative Research, as you know, does the independent fiscal impact statement, and they're the ones that said there's no fiscal impact. I think the key to answering your question is that, I mean, obviously, if there's going to be any project that the government does at any time, you know, it's going to be paid for in some way. This is just a way to get a project done that would have been done anyway. It's not like this creates more expense for the government. In fact, it probably reduces it by making it more efficient.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
27:47
is it the intent of the partnership to define uh you know there are different structures of different deals and financing options is there going to be guidelines that are used from deal to deal or will there be totally flexibility in each different deal or well the guidelines
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
28:05
in the legislation you know actually spell that out and you know what they do is they strike that balance between having guidelines that obviously you know make sure that you know there's accountability and there's transparency. But at the same time, it does give, you know, just a little bit more
flexibility to ensure that, you know, we're able to attract private investment for some of these projects that otherwise might not ever happen. Thank you. Thank
Representative John Burris
Unverified
28:29
you. Representative Burris, for what purpose? Question. Greg can ask for a question. Thank you for taking the question. I respect staying in the well. It's hard sometimes. This would have been solved if I more thoroughly read your bill, but do you define public use or do you depend on existing case law to define that? Well,
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
28:45
we talked about that in committee, and, I mean, we're defining public use as, you know, anything that has a public use, I
guess that would be defined by, you know, existing case law.
Okay, so it doesn't address the definition in your bill, it just relies on the existing standard? I think that's correct. It doesn't create its own definition, it just uses the term. I don't fault you for not addressing it
Representative John Burris
Unverified
29:08
in the bill because it could be addressed through other legislation, but that's a little bit of an issue with me on how we define public use versus public benefit. But, again, I don't necessarily fault you in this legislation, I guess, for not addressing it because it can be addressed in separate statutes. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Gene, for what purpose?
Speaker 96
29:28
You reckon I asked for a question. Representative Sabin, on the task force out of state agencies, kind of explain to me how
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
29:37
that's going to come together and work. Sure. Well, the task force is basically set up to make sure that there's a broad diversity of expertise that can come together on an occasional basis to make sure that best practices are being respected. You know, obviously one of the things about, you know, again, utilizing the advantages and benefits of the private sector is that as, you know, efficiencies and innovations happen, the state government can take advantage of that.
And that's really the intent of the task force is to have different people represented, different interests represented. How many members will be on the task force? I can't remember whether that's listed in here or not, but I apologize. I don't have a ready answer for you. Will they all be legislative members? No, definitely not. And it says no more than 20 members. How many will be legislative? It says two co-chairs who are members of the General Assembly.
One co-chair shall be a member of the Senate. One co-chair shall be a member of the House of Representatives. And those are the only ones mandated. I'm sure that, you know, there can be others if they're appointed
Speaker 96
30:42
and the task force is set up. And I apologize for not reading all this, but I just go to the source. I understand. How often
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
30:49
will this task force meet? Well, I think that's left kind of up to the discretion of the task force. It says at least annually. Is this a paid task force? No, definitely not. That's why there's no fiscal impact. Thank you.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
31:00
Thank you very much. Purpose of Hutchison for what purpose? Question. You recognize? I, too, represent and respect you. You know that. Sure. And I'm just trying to clarify this. I'm happy to answer the questions. Yes. I'm interpreting this like maybe is this allowing the public to do things and maybe not attaining a 501 status nonprofit? Is that kind of maybe
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
31:30
what it's doing? Not really. I mean, it's basically what we're trying to do is, you know, create another opportunity to get infrastructure projects that, you know, might not otherwise happen, but have them, you know, created in partnership with private entities.
And most of those private entities are probably going to be for profit, although it may
Speaker 102
31:50
be nonprofit as well. Well, I mean, if it was, I think that would be a good thing. Sure. Thank you. I'm good. Thank
you. Thank you very much. Mr. Hammer, for what purpose? Mr. Saban has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Mr. Collins, recognize to speak for the bill.
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
32:19
I'm generally very skeptical of things like this. However, it appears to me that Representative Sabin has done one heck of a lot of work. I know he's worked very closely with other people to get a lot of input in this, and it seemed like he took a lot of questions and did a good job of answering all
Speaker 45
32:36
of them, certainly to my satisfaction. So I'm going to vote for it. Representative Hammer, for what
Speaker 53
32:41
purpose? Question, please. You're right, can I ask for a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:44
question? Representative Collins, the one thing I'd like to get some public assurance on record of is I'm always a little bit skeptical when private entities get together with government entities
and there's money involved because what I'd be afraid of is that a private entity would get into a business deal trying to provide a service to government and the private entity go belly up and we as taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Can you give me a reasonable level of assurance that there are safeguards in this bill that will prohibit that from happening? I think
Speaker 107
33:12
that's a good question. I share it. I know Representative Saban is going to have a chance
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
33:17
to close for his bill. Well, maybe he can address that directly, but if the fiscal impact said zero, my hypothesis is
Speaker 108
33:23
Tice and the boys and ladies over there thought of that too.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:27
Does fiscal impact apply to presently or into future situations that may occur in reference to the example I cited? I would
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
33:35
hope they use a net present value model, which would have projections out
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:40
into the future with some probabilities on things of that nature, but they won't let me design their
DF&A process. Thank you very much for taking the question.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
33:51
Thank you. Representative Nichols, for what purpose? Question. I've noticed in the part of the Act procurement requirements,
and it says the responsible public entity is not required to select the proposal with the lowest price offer, but the responsible public entity may consider price as one factor in evaluating the proposals received. That gives me a little bit of cause for concern because I think you and I would agree that public money should go to the lowest responsible bidder. And what's your thoughts on that aspect of this bill?
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
34:32
I think that's a great question. When I think about the concept of value, I think it has two components, what you get and what you give up. And my hope is the intent of that provision is to ensure that when they're assessing what they're getting and the price associated with it, that they're getting the best value, in other words, the best dollar per return. I understand sometimes if you just take the lowest absolute bid, you give up a lot on the other side. So my hope is that the decision-makers would be responsible in that regard.
Chair
Unverified
35:07
Representative Payton, for what purpose? Question? Recognize for a question.
Speaker 114
35:13
Representative Collins, I appreciate the fact that you've studied this bill, and I hope you can help me clarify something in my mind. Does this establish a tenant and landlord relationship between the government and private entity? I hope
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
35:27
Representative Saban is taking notes so when he closes, He can hit some of those things exactly, so I'll have to defer to
Speaker 53
35:38
Representative Murdoch, for what purpose? Question, but I think I'm going to defer because I think what you said is true, that Representative Saban will do that. Okay. Representative
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
35:52
Westman, you recognize for what purpose? Question. You recognize for a question. I've got a question for you, Representative Collins, that I hope Representative Saban takes some notes on. But suppose you build a college dormitory, and after a certain lifespan of the investment, does the private entity or the college own the dormitory at the end?
Would this create a situation where, say, a private entity actually owns the assets on a public land? Again, I hope Saban's
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
36:20
taken notes as well. But my hypothesis is that it would be worked out as part of the overall project arrangement and based on, you know, who's putting what money into what. Just like the super project we're looking at, the state's putting a certain amount of money into it. Equity investors are putting a different money into it. And people that are providing debt are providing different money.
And each person gets something back differently, including the ownership stakes. Thank you. Representative Collins has
Speaker 52
36:50
spoken in favor of the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill,
for the bill? Representative Alexander, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
37:05
Speaker. I'm not speaking completely for the bill, although I think it's a good bill. I'm going to vote for it, but I can answer that last question.
I was Director of Housing for 35 years, and I'm familiar with this process as it regards dormitories. The typical arrangement is it's a land lease. The university owns the land. The entity that pays for it owns the building until such point it is paid off and then ownership reverts back to the university. That is the typical way of doing it. I would also say from my experience, and I haven't used this personally, but I have a lot of colleagues that have, and I suspect that what I'm about to say would apply to other applications of this kind of a concept as well.
Well, I've seen situations where it worked great, and I've seen situations where they wish they'd never gotten into it. It's just like any other business arrangement. You have to do your due diligence. You have to know what you're getting into. You have to know that the financial assumptions that are being used to calculate how this is going to work are sound principles. But it can be used very effectively. It can actually save the state money. This may come as a surprise to some of you, but the state in handling business processes is not always terribly efficient.
I know that one of the reasons that some campuses have used this is they had an immediate large deficit of housing and could not meet demand for the students who were coming to campus. and they look at the process, the typical process the university goes through to build a new residence hall and you're looking at a minimum of three years before you're going to open the building. This can cut this down in half, actually.
And there are other reasons for it as well, but that's the way that usually works in the case of a
Speaker 122
39:11
dormitory. Representative Rand for what purpose? that's motion motion what's your motion immediate consideration Mr. Speaker
Chair
Unverified
39:21
that's proper motion non-debatable all in favor say aye aye any opposed no no's have it anybody wish to speak against the bill
Speaker 53
39:34
represent all of us you recognize speak against the bill thank
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
39:42
you mr speaker i've been hanging around here for a while and it seems like every time we create a commission authority or a or a public private partnership or anything like this all we're doing is growing government it takes on a life of its own keeps growing and growing soon they're raising taxes i'm voting no representative altis has spoken against the bill does anyone wish to speak for the bill
Speaker 27
40:05
So, against the bill, Representative Saban, would you like to close for your bill? You recognize to close for
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
40:18
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I can assure this audience that the intent of this bill is certainly not to grow government or to raise taxes or raise expenses in any way. And I think it's important, again, for me to reiterate, one of the reasons why I felt confident bringing this legislation before this body is because of its track record and how it's been used in other states
and because it's helped, you know, with creating good infrastructure, public infrastructure in these other states under challenging circumstances. And in Arkansas, we know we have challenging circumstances, and we know that counties and other municipalities and public agencies, state agencies, all are looking to, you know, try to keep up and try to build infrastructure and are having a more and more difficult time to do it. And so this seemed like one tool they could use in a positive way to achieve that.
And it's certainly just a tool. It's not mandated in any way. To address Representative Hammer, you know, there's no way that the government or any entity whatsoever will ever 100% be able to avoid risk. And I would never stand before you to say that this legislation accomplishes that. But everything that all of us do in all of our lives, including through the mechanism of state government, already has some risk involved. And what this legislation attempts to do is create as many safeguards, established safeguards and guidelines as possible to make sure that that risk is minimized and that best practices and due diligence is part of the system.
Representative Nichols, with regard to the value component, I think Representative Collins did an excellent job in answering that. And I should thank Representative Collins for doing my work for me up here, and I really appreciate it. But I think value, it's important to measure value in a lot of different ways. It's not always the lowest price, but, I mean, I think that, again, price will become a very significant factor and probably the most significant factor any time a public entity is evaluating what it's going to do with regard to infrastructure.
And then finally, Representative Alexander, I think, kind of addressed the last two questions. No, it doesn't change any landlord-tenant provisions. I don't think that that would have been possible through any mechanism of this legislation, and certainly a private entity would never be able to own any public assets. So I appreciate all of the debate and all of the questions. I think it's important. I wouldn't have shied away from it. It's an important bill, but I think it's going to do really good things for the state, and I'm proud of it.
I appreciate the consideration and a good vote. Thank you. Representative Saban has closed for
the bill. the question before the House, the passage of House Bill 1251. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballots with 61 yeas, 19 nays, and two
Chair
Unverified
43:21
present. You have passed the bill. Read House Bill 1392. House Bill 1392 by Representative McGee to amend the law concerning the eligibles list for Civil Service Commission for the Municipal Police and Fire Departments.
Representative McGee, you're recognized to explain your bill.
Speaker 125
43:35
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. House Bill 1392 simply adds a 90-day time limit when Civil Service Commissions have to certify their officers for advancement. Appreciate a good vote. It's supported by the Municipal League and also by my local Civil Service Commission. Thanks. Representative McGee has explained the bill. Does anyone
wish to speak against the bill, for the bill? Not the question before the House passage of House Bill 1392.
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 92 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Read House
Speaker 68
44:24
Bill 1308. House Bill 1308 by Representative Williams concerning the lease
Chair
Unverified
44:27
or rental of land owned by the state and used by the Board of Corrections. Representative Williams, you're recognized to explain your bill.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
44:37
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill for the Department of Corrections. Right now, as many of you all know, the Department of Corrections, they farm a significant amount of land throughout the state of Arkansas outside of a five-mile radius. They bus prisoners or inmates to the farmland and back. They're looking to expand the territory that they farm, not by purchasing land, but by renting or leasing land. We have an antiquated law that says that they rent or lease land more than five miles from a – they'd have to build a camp or a stockade.
We don't build camps or stockades anymore. They'd like to be able to lease land outside of the 5-mile radius without building a camp or a stockade. Just like the land they currently own that's outside the 5-mile radius, they'll bust the inmates there and bust them back. And this is simply a little cleanup legislation to allow them to do that. I'd be happy to try to answer any
questions. Seeing none, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Williams has explained
Chair
Unverified
45:36
the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? for the bill. If not, the question before the House, the passage of House Bill 1308.
Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the ballots for 94 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present.
You have passed the bill. Read House Bill 1328. House Bill 1328, by Representatives Hank Wilkins and all, to require the Division of Youth Services to appear before the General Assembly for all contracts and contract changes, to require notice to be
given before changes to community-based provider contracts are made.
Representative Wilkins, you're recognized to explain
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. And first of all, let me thank those of you who have
asked me if this is a controversial bill. I want to assure you that it's not the one that you're thinking about. Thank you, Representative Gossage and others. That Senate Bill 335, that's the one that you all are thinking about, and I am against it and hope you will be when it gets here.
But in the meantime, this bill is a very different bill. So and I must confess, even though I am a pastor and I have to preach every Sunday, I've never worn a bow tie in the pulpit. And yesterday, day before yesterday, Representative Wynn and Williams and Love were saying, let's have bow tie day on Friday. Let's have bow tie day. So I look for a
Speaker 132
47:19
bowtie, and I go through all this trouble, and I get here, and look at the way they're dressed.
I think we need another memo, Mr. Speaker, about the
way folk dress around here. This is not the controversial bill that you're
Speaker 132
47:45
concerned about. What this bill simply does is require that the Department of Youth
Services would have all of their contracts reviewed by administrative rules and regs.
It does add an additional layer of review. If there are amendments, modifications, or changes of any kind to those contracts, those contracts then would come before administrative rules and regs. Someone asked the other day, why is this important? It's important because in this era of term limits, We, as the legislature, need to make sure that we have every opportunity to assure that the taxes of the people of Arkansas are being properly spent.
There have been several cases recently within DYS where contracts were modified, monies were redistributed in a way that was not in accordance with what had initially been agreed to in the RFQs and so forth. So with that in mind, I would encourage you to join with the 70 other persons who are co-sponsors of this legislation.
Remember, we're in an era of term limits. I have seen what term limits has done. It makes it more difficult for us as legislators. I started in the legislature back in the late 90s in the House, spent 10 years in the Senate, and now I'm in my second other term in the House, my third term.
And during that time, I served
in the legislature with Mike Beebe and a whole bunch of other folks
who've been around a long time. And I am here to tell
Speaker 132
50:07
you that as it stands right now, without the help of our Bureau of Legislative Research, we would have more stuff sneaked
past us and never even know it until it hits us out there in the public.
and then our constituents would say why in the world did you not address this we would not have addressed it because we did not know so i would ask you i would encourage you to please vote for house bill 1328 and let's make sure that we have an opportunity to review the changes that come before DYS.
And, Mr. Speaker, with that, I'll be glad to answer questions if there
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
51:03
are any. Mr. Hammer, for what purpose? Question, please, if you recognize. I applaud your effort, and I appreciate that you would allow us as a General Assembly to have more participation in the process. I just wanted to get a point of clarification. If they bring a contract before the respective committee through the due process, Ultimately, will we as a legislative body have the authority to say, no, we don't authorize the change in that contract, and then will it become our responsibility to negotiate that contract, or how would that point of indifference be resolved?
Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Hanna. Good question. We would not have the responsibility for renegotiating that, But in our role of oversight, we would have a responsibility to say to that agency, we are not in accordance with this. You need to go back to the drawing board. Generally, because the legislative branch holds the purse strings, we have the opportunity to give a lot of encouragement.
And generally, that encouragement works. And if it doesn't work, then, of course, you know what happens when we get back to budgeting. We hold their bills and see what we can do to help them understand what we mean by
Speaker 132
52:23
good policy for the people of Arkansas. Follow-up question, Mr. Speaker. Rick, is that what, in
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
52:30
preacher world, we would say, bringing them to the altar? Yes. I call it a come-to-Jesus meeting.
So basically this tool will be good for
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
52:40
us as a tool of leverage, not that we're going to have final say and the agency can go on and do what they want to do in spite of this,
but it would be a tool of leverage to surface some things to the top that we might have a chance to participate that otherwise would get slipped through. Is that
a fair statement? That's an excellent statement. If I had known you were going to ask me that, I would have asked you to present
Speaker 103
53:06
the bill for me, Representative Allen. I enjoy hearing you preach, brother. Thank you. Representative Gene, for what
Speaker 97
53:14
purpose? Question. Recognize. Representative Wilkins, why are we just reviewing the Division of Youth? Why don't we do this for other agencies?
Speaker 137
53:22
Well, actually, that's an interesting question because somewhere along the line, the other
divisions that got subject to the review of administrative rules and regs have already been doing that. But DYS? Hmm. Since you've been here since the 90s, why is that?
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
53:39
I'm pleading on your expertise here. Well, and you're making me feel stupid, too. Because I want to
Speaker 140
53:51
figure this out before now. But now that I've figured it out, I'm trying to do something about it.
Chair
Unverified
53:58
Thank you. Thank you. Representative Ward, for what purpose? Richard,
Speaker 143
54:03
you're recognized. In serving on rules, administrative rules and regulations the last session, we found out that a lot of agencies had already implemented rules before they actually come before the committee. Is there anything in that piece of legislation that is going to make sure that these particular agencies have already gone through the committee part of it before they come to the committee, ask whether or not that these brews could be actually taken care of?
Because we find a lot of time they've already been implemented before they even get to the administrative part of this body. Thank
you, Representative Ward. The answer to that question is yes and no. So, yes, in the sense that this piece of legislation does require them to file those contracts with administrative rules and regs 30 days ahead of time. Now, some of the folks from DYS said, well, you're doing this to help providers, but you're going to slow down the time that it takes for us to get providers the money for their contracts.
And I said, I'm not concerned so much about the providers. I'm concerned about services that are supposed to be rendered to the citizens of the state of Arkansas with our taxpayer dollars. And if that means slowing the process down 30 days in order to make sure that we do it right, then I'm certainly willing to do that. And I'll also just say this, ladies and gentlemen, as I was about to prepare to take my seat.
And the council has a very important responsibility, legislative council. When we're not in session, the council, through its various committees, are to monitor what happens with the agencies of the state of Arkansas. And there are times when it is necessary for legislators to really speak in a unified voice and with great clarity about our expectations.
And I'll give you just one example. Three or four years ago, I was chairing the budget hearings, and one of the directors of one of the larger divisions of state government came before the legislature to present that division, that department's budget. He was angry at several legislators who had been calling his office and trying to get answers to certain questions.
So he came to budget hearings with what I would call a bad attitude. And as legislators asked questions, this director, and it's a matter of public records. You can go back and search the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, and you'll see where the chair of the council at that time, myself, stopped the hearings and said, excuse me, sir, if you're not going to treat these legislators with respect, and your answer to their questions, I'm going to ask you to leave, and you will not have an opportunity to present your budget.
Because it's not your job to disrespect these legislators. I'm just trying to say, as legislators, we have a duty, and that duty extends to policy and oversight. Not that the executive branch is trying to do anything sneaky necessarily, but sometimes it happens.
Representative James McLean
Unverified
58:15
Mr. McLean, for what purpose? A question, Mr. Speaker. You're recognized. Senator Wilkins, just for my clarification, during the interim, all contract modifications
Speaker 149
58:29
do come through council. Is that correct? Not the ones by DYS, but from the other divisions
Representative James McLean
Unverified
58:38
of DHS, they do. Okay, so, for instance, any DYS contract with a provider or a modification to that contract would come through typically the peer committee of counsel.
Is that kind of typically how it would go under this legislation? Some are peer,
some are review. Okay. But in the case of DYS, those modifications do not come through the
Speaker 149
59:02
regular process that the other divisions come through. What's
Representative James McLean
Unverified
59:07
the current process for DYS in terms of any sort of contract being entered into or modified?
They filed a contract with the legislative branch, and it goes before either peer or review, depending on the size of the contract.
Once the contract has cleared and they move through the process, if there are modifications, they do not come back to get oversight of
Speaker 132
59:35
the legislature. And we have very specific examples of where that is the
Speaker 45
59:43
case. So this will give us an additional tool to provide oversight for
Representative James McLean
Unverified
59:49
the modifications. That's correct. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 147
59:54
Thank you. Mr. Hutchison, for what purpose? Statement. Error. Yes, statement
Speaker 152
1:00:08
for the bill. You'll have your time in a moment. Okay, thank you. Mr.
Speaker, I'll move from the podium so that the other 80 sponsors can have an opportunity to speak for this. Thank you.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:00:26
Representative Wilkins has explained the bill. Does anyone want to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:01:01
Hutchinson, you're recognized. Oh, I've got to go in the way.
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
1:01:09
to do was say i was wanting to state that you the man i was wanting to brag on you okay so anyway i hope that i i hope that when my time comes to leave here and probably anyway yes that's another story but anyway i hope that i can be the man you are okay thank you very much mr speaker and i am voting for this bill representative
Chair
Unverified
1:01:30
hudson has spoken for the bill does anyone wish to speak Speak against the bill, for the bill. Representative Edwards, recognize, speak for the bill.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:01:43
Recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sir, I really appreciate you bringing this legislation today. I appreciate the history lesson you gave us, Representative Wilkins. I think that's important for this body more than ever. And as I said today, when Representative Bell presented his bill, I think these oversights you bring in these term-limited times are vital. So thank you. Representative Edwards has spoken in favor of the
bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill for the bill?
Representative Bell, you recognize, speak for the bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:02:25
i just want to say thank you to representative wilkins for this good bill it is important that we as members of the general assembly maintain every aspect of oversight that has provided us in the arkansas constitution this is a great opportunity to do so appreciate a good vote Representative Bale has spoken for the bill
Does anyone want to speak against the bill? Representative Bale, for
Chair
Unverified
1:02:50
what purpose? Motion Immediate consideration Proper motion, not debatable All in favor say aye Any opposed? Motion carries Prepare the machine, Mr.
Speaker 27
1:02:56
Clerk Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Chair
Unverified
1:03:09
Cast with the ballots for 94 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present, you have passed the bill.
Read House Bill 1368. House Bill 1368, Representative Vines, to amend the laws concerning parties qualified to hold permit issued to a publicly traded corporation or to a corporation that holds multiple permits to require that an executive officer or director
be identified. Representative Vines, to recognize, to explain the bill. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker,
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:03:41
and sometimes the caption says it all. Proud to be with you this morning.
I bring you House Bill 1368. This is an ABC bill that is basically a housekeeping bill, and what it does is if a company or actually an applicant for a license is a publicly traded company or already has 10 permits, it relaxes the standard of keeping a list of all shareholders that hold 5% of that stock. Not a big deal for most applicants, but there are some major retailers out there
that this is a burdensome task for, and what this does is maintains thorough oversight, but allows some flexibility. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but it is a good business bill and will allow the ABC to continue conducting their business. I'd be glad to entertain any questions. If not, I'd appreciate
Chair
Unverified
1:04:35
a positive vote. Representative advised and explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill?
For the bill. If not the question before the House, pass it to House Bill 1368. Prepare the machine, Mr. Blair.
Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots to 94 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 present. You have passed the bill. Read
Chair
Unverified
1:05:06
House Bill 1386. House Bill 1386, Representative Rice et al., to allow certain non-residential business consumers to opt out of utility-sponsored energy conservation programs and measures and direct their own energy conservation programs and measures and to declare an emergency.
Representative Rice, you recognize, you explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Today, members, this is the last House
bill shown on the calendar this morning. It's a good bipartisan pro-jobs bill. This is an act to amend the Energy Conservation Endorsement Act of 1977. It will allow qualified industrial manufacturing consumers of electric, fire, and natural gas
to opt out of utility-sponsored energy conservation programs in a relatively straightforward way, and it will allow those businesses to direct their own energy conservation programs after they opt out of the utility-sponsored programs. Members, we all know that competition demands that they use energy wisely and invest their own capital to become as efficient as possible to make those facilities energy efficient.
I have a lot of data and talking points I can give you. This passed without opposition by the Joint Energy Committee. The PSC is neutral, and we appreciate a good vote today. We'd like to
Speaker 53
1:06:47
take any questions. Mr. Walker, for what purpose? Question, Mr. Speaker. You
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:06:53
recognize. Representative Rice, can you tell me what the effect this bill will have upon the regulatory authority of the Public Service Commission?
The authority of the Public Service Commission, I would say they would not have taken a neutral position if they felt it was in any way harming their authority. What this does, there's already currently in place many manufactured industrial companies that are opted out now. What this does is, and I'll be glad to go in more detail, it will keep them from having time-consuming and expensive cost to continue in re-upping on these things.
It is they have proven to the PSC that they are energy efficient, either meeting or exceeding the requirements of the PSC. So, again, it is with their understanding of this and neutral states that to me. Mr. Walk, for what purpose? Does this
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:08:10
have anything to do with the Southwest energy grid and the possibility that a number of jobs would be transferred from Arkansas to other states because of their loss of certain contracts?
contracts? Nothing, sir, that I know of. This is an industrial manufacturer program that is in place.
The utility-sponsored programs that are in place are limited, in my view and view of others, of what they can tell somebody that has staff and contract people that are telling them how to be the most efficient right now. And they are not able to be as proficient as what these companies are in place.
This is strictly to keep these companies efficient and keep these companies energy-saving. So as I said, it's pretty straightforward, and I'm very comfortable with it. I'd be glad to take any more questions. If not, I would appreciate a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
1:09:17
Thank you. Representative Rice has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill,
for the bill? If not, the question before the House, the passage of House Bill 1386. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
clause. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots for
Chair
Unverified
1:09:46
90 yays, 4 nays, and 0 present. that you have passed the bill and the emergency
clause. Mr. Clark, read Senate Bill 42. Senate Bill 42 with Senator Malik to add a member to and to extend the Arkansas Legislative Task Force on Abused and Neglected Children until 2015.
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
1:10:09
Representative Saban, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senator Malik asked me to run this bill for him today. I hope he doesn't regret it. Ask your mercy, if not for me, then for him. But this is a pretty straightforward bill. It basically does two things. It adds the president of the Arkansas Counseling Association to the Arkansas Legislative Task Force on Abused and Neglected Children. And the second thing it does is it extends that task force for an additional two years because it was due to run out on June 30th of this year.
I can talk to you and answer some more questions about what the task force has done. but basically just so you understand how it's structured, there are 31 people currently serving on the task force, including the chair or his designee of the House Public Health Committee and the chair or his designee of our Aging Children and Youth Committee. And all of the members of the committee, except for legislators, serve without any compensation. So legislators, of course, are reimbursed for their per diem and mileage. But otherwise, by adding this additional member to the task force, you're not incurring any additional expense.
And I'd be glad to answer any questions. Okay. Representative Saban has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill? For the bill? If not, the question before the House passes the Senate Bill 42. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast with the balance 87 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Read Senate Bill 151.
Chair
Unverified
1:11:46
Senate Bill 151 by Senator Dismayne to revise the usage fee for branches of the Arkansas Bank located out of state and to declare an emergency. Representative Vige, recognized to
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
1:12:03
explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I'll bring you another bill this session, this morning. This is Senate Bill 151, Senator Dismayne's bill. And what this bill does is it corrects a wrong that's currently out there.
There's a little bit of a, not a little bit, but a lot of an unfair competitive advantage for Arkansas banks when they enter out-of-state markets. They're bound by the Arkansas usury law. And what this bill does is relax that when they go out-of-state and buy a branch or a series of banks and allows them to utilize the fee, the ATM fee in that jurisdiction. It doesn't bind them just to strictly Arkansas law. It's an unfair competitive advantage that the out-of-state banks have, well, actually that state's banks have when we go into another market, and this simply corrects that wrong.
There's no known opposition, and it affects absolutely no Arkansas consumer or customer. So with that, be glad to take any questions. Otherwise, we appreciate
Chair
Unverified
1:13:01
a positive vote. Thank you. Representative Vines has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the
bill, for the bill? If not, the question before the House passes through Senate Bill 151. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Voting on the bill
Speaker 13
1:13:18
and the emergency clause. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Cast with the balance for 93 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill and the emergency clause. We're going to pass over Senate
Chair
Unverified
1:13:48
Bill 195. Read Senate Bill 206. Senate Bill 206, Senator Hutchison, to clarify the responsibility for remitting premium taxes applicable to domestic surplus lines insurance companies.
Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized to explain the bill.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:14:03
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, what this bill does is, in the past, it's kind of a clean-up bill, actually, but in the past, when you've paid your premium taxes on special items of insurance, the money has went to the big companies out of state. And what this bill does is stops the money at the broker, and then the taxes are paid back in. And it protects our taxpayers when they know they paid a tax, they made it to the state.
We sure appreciate a good vote. Representative Wardlaw has explained the bill. Does anyone wish to speak against the bill before the bill? If not, the question before the House passes Senate Bill 206. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast the ballots to 93 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You have passed the bill. Move to the yellow budget calendar. Representative Baird, you're recognized.
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:15:02
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we have a total of nine bills on the budget calendar today. We're going to do these in two batches. We're going to do the first four bills first. So once again, if you have any questions, if you want to pull one of the bills out to vote on separately, just let me know. And with that, we'll go ahead and get started. 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 is 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. SB 37, SB 81, SB 83, and SB 235. 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 for the third time. To clerk, read the bills for the third time.
Speaker 172
1:16:07
Representative Lee, for what purpose? Question. What's your question? Representative Baird, could you explain the difference
Speaker 170
1:16:18
between being prepared by the legislative
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:16:21
council versus the joint budget? The first four bills were prepared according to the recommendations in the fall. So in the fall, it's a joint committee with legislative council and joint budget. So these were the recommendations that were made in the fall. The other five bills were from a governor's letter.
They were a request that was sent to the budget committee, and then subsequently we drafted a bill, voted the bill out of committee. So that's the difference
Speaker 174
1:16:51
between the two sets. Mr. Clerk, read the bills for the third time. Senate Bill 37, Senate Bill 81, Senate Bill 83, and Senate Bill 235. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Voting on the bills and the emergency clauses. Cast the balance for 90 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 present. You
Chair
Unverified
1:17:20
pass the bills and the emergency clauses. Representative Bayer, if
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:17:26
you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These five bills are all reappropriations. As I just said, they were sent
to the committee through a governor's letter. We approved the letter, and then we approved the bills. And so we have these five today. We're going to batch these. I'm going to go ahead and ask that we pull out SB 310 and pass over that today.
And so as I read through the bills, if anyone wants to pull out another bill, just let us know and we'll 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 calendar or the regular joint budget calendar for later consideration. So SB 309, SB 311, SB 312, SB 313.
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 for the third time. Mr. Clerk,
Speaker 174
1:18:30
read the bills for the third time. Senate Bill 309, Senate Bill 311, Senate Bill 312, and Senate Bill 313. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Voting on the bills and the emergency clauses.
Everyone voted. Catch the ballots, 82 yays, 2, 83 yays, 2 nays, and 3 present. You have passed the bills and the emergency clauses. Mr. Clerk, read the
Speaker 174
1:19:03
committee report. Mr. Speaker, we are commuting on state agencies to whom was referred House Bill 1283, House Bill 1389, House Bill 1401, and House Bill 1412. They report we've had the same under consideration. Herewith return the same with the recommendation that they do pass. Respectfully submitted, Andrea Lee, Chair.
Chair
Unverified
1:19:23
Representative Baird, you're recognized. After the announcements,
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:19:31
reading of the bills, placing the calendars on the desks, 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 1.30 on Monday. It's a proper motion,
not debate. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Any announcements? Representative House, for what purpose?
Speaker 177
1:19:54
Question. There is a document left on our table's general improvement district. Would you direct where you would go?
Members, grab everybody's attention because that's a good
Chair
Unverified
1:20:06
question. Representative Baird, why don't you come down to the well and explain the document on everybody's desk?
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:20:19
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we have distributed a sheet virtually identical to the one that we used two years ago pertaining to general improvement priorities.
And basically what we want to do is we just want to give every member an opportunity to have input on the distribution of the general improvement funds that we may have this session. So I'm willing to talk to anyone individually, but we figured this was a good way for people to either kind of mark on this list or maybe put some other items on there and just give us an idea of how we want to do that distribution basically, you know, in the same way that we've done in years past. So, you know, I'd be happy to talk to anyone to answer any questions.
But if we could, we'd like to go ahead and get this back by Monday or Tuesday just so we can
Chair
Unverified
1:21:13
prepare those bills and start moving
Speaker 178
1:21:17
forward in that process. Representative Love, what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Representative Verda, we're bound by precedent
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
1:21:22
to proceed with the items on this list because I know that last session we had a little heartache about this list. And so are we bound by precedent to proceed with this general improvement priorities list?
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:21:37
No. I mean, we could, you know, things could be added. Things could
be taken off. This was just basically the same list that we used last time. It was just a good starting point. You know, I think there's a lot of broad topics on here that we thought the membership might, you know, instead of just putting a blank sheet of paper out there, you know, just make it a little bit easier for people to know what some of the options are. So we're not bound in any way by this sheet of paper. Are
Speaker 53
1:22:03
there any other announcements for the purpose of Meigs? For what purpose? Questions.
Speaker 76
1:22:08
You recognize your question. Thank you, sir. Who do we need to turn these into once we've got them
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
1:22:13
filled out? You can either turn those in to me or maybe give them to Kay. I think either one of us. And if you want to put your name on here, that would be great. If you don't want to put your name on there,
that's fine, too. So thank you. Any other announcements? Read
Speaker 181
1:22:35
the bills, Mr. Clerk. House Bill 1446. Without objection, read it again.
House Bill 1446. Age and children and youth. House Bill 1447. Objection, read it again. House Bill 1447. Judiciary. House Bill 1448. Without objection, read the bill again. House Bill 1448. Judiciary. House Bill 1449. Use the bill again. Rejection. Read the bill again. House bill 14-49. Ushery. House bill 14-50. Without objection. Read the bill again. House bill 14-50. Ushery. House bill 14-51.
Exception. Read it again. House bill 14-51. Ushery. House bill 14-52. Without objection. Read the bill again. House bill 14-52. Point budget. House bill 14-53. 1453 with the bill again House Bill 1453 budget House Bill 1454 with the bill again House Bill 1454 with budget House Bill 1450 되는데 Pendleton 42 Once Bill 1455 Green Budget
credit House Bill 1456 session read it again House Bill 1456 Interjection House Bill 1450 seven coups out of objection read it again House Bill 1457. State agencies. House Bill 1458. Without objection, read it again. House Bill 1458. State agencies. House Bill 1459. Without objection, read it again. State agencies. House Bill 1460.
Without objection, read it again. House Bill 1460. Transportation. House bill 1461 Objection, read it again House bill 1461
Speaker 27
1:24:36
Renewing tax House will be adjourned until 1.30 p.m. Monday
Agenda
Prayer & Pledge
Committee Reports
HR1012
HB1013
HB1363
HB1251
HB1392
HB1308
HB1328
HB1368
HB1386
SB42
SB151
SB206
Budget Batch 1
Budget Batch 2
Announcements
Reading of the Bills
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 5
Representative Terry Rice Chair
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 13
Speaker 27
Representative Tommy Thompson
Unverified
Representative John Burris
Unverified
Representative John K. Hutchison
Unverified
Speaker 42
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 65
Speaker 68
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Representative Warwick Sabin
Unverified
Speaker 45
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 102
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 107
Speaker 108
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 114
Speaker 52
Representative Randy Alexander
Unverified
Speaker 122
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Speaker 125
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins Chair
Unverified
Speaker 132
Speaker 103
Speaker 97
Speaker 137
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 143
Representative James McLean
Unverified
Speaker 149
Speaker 147
Speaker 152
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
Speaker 172
Speaker 170
Speaker 174
Speaker 177
Speaker 178
Speaker 76
Speaker 181