House Rules
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (11)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HR1016
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HR1016 Richmond TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATIO…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION … | Richmond | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1006
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HR1006 Schulz TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. | Schulz | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
HR1007
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RIATION BILL TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. HR1007 Eaton TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION B…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COUNTIES USING … | Eaton | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1008
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HR1008 Wooten TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM ACCOUNT … | Wooten | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1009
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM ACCOUNT PROGRAM. HR1009 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO REQUIRE A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS … | McNair | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1010
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HR1010 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF A COMPUTER … | McNair | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1011
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HR1011 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT … | McNair | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1013
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HR1013 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DIGITAL … | McNair | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1014
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS. HR1014 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO REQUIRE A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS … | McNair | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1015
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG OR LEASING LAND OR A BUILDING OR BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. HR1015 Beaty Jr. TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATI…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL CONCERNING THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPANSION ACT. | Beaty Jr. | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HR1012
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1012 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO REGULATE THE IMPACT ON WATER USAGE … | McNair | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
to order. Chair sees a quorum. If there's anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against the bill, there's a sign up sheet. I suggest you sign up. And without objection, I'm going to take House Resolution 1016 first. Representative Richmond.
record and you're recognized representative marcus
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
0:52
richmond district 52 And the purpose here today is I'm presenting a resolution, again, asking permission to present a bill later on that is not a budget-type bill.
It's not a fiscal bill. We've had some of those this morning already, and there's going to be some more later on. So this is one of those type of bills. And mine is the Arkansas Property Rights Protection for Shreya Law Act. And let's go, the purpose of this bill is to regulate certain housing arrangements where a business entity owns residential property and individual purchase an interest in that entity instead of directly owning the home. What we're trying to do is protect consumers from deceptive type real estate practices
because most consumers go in, they think they're buying a house, probably don't. read the fine print and end up with an interest instead of actually having control over that property. We want to be sure that that's disclosed, that they know what they're getting into. We want to protect the religious rights of all individuals. If I buy into a certain community, say that I buy into a Muslim community like this one is going to be, and for some reason at some
point I, you know, convert to Christianity or Buddhism or some other Hinduism, whatever it might be other than being a Muslim, I don't want to be forced out of the property that I've purchased. I just want to be able to protect those rights. Same thing, some homeowner association or white supremacist group, you know, if we have that going on and they're breaking the law, bring me a resolution. I'm happy to run that too. People should have their property
rights protected. And again, we want to be sure that people cannot, these business entities cannot circumvent the fair housing laws, and we want to be sure the surrea part of this is very limited. The part of that is that any type of legal matter will be adjudicated in either an Arkansas court or a federal court. There will not be tribunals or other things within some organization where an individual is held to a standard other than our constitutional laws that we have in this state.
And again, these arrangements occur, these problems possibly when a company owns the residential property and a person buys an interest in the company that gives them the right to live in the property. The key protections is transparency for buyers. The bill requires that any purchase agreement must clearly state that the buyer is purchasing an interest in the entity and not the property itself. Arkansas courts only. I've already covered that. Protection against discrimination.
Again, we want to restrict transfers. You know, anything that restricts transfers unfairly, we don't want that to happen. Anything that imposes any kind of discriminatory requirement, discrimination should not be tolerated no matter where, who, what, or where. And deny participation, anybody trying to deny participation of someone that's qualified. What this bill doesn't do, it does not stop any religious group from purchasing a house in any community anywhere to include purchasing from a development of that.
It's not going to stop. I know that when you see Sharia law up there, everybody kind of panics and everything, but it does not stop that mosque from being built. It does not stop from them having a center there. It does not stop anybody from buying the property or purchasing the property within that community that's proposed. And if it's Muslim only that's doing that, as long as they reveal the fact that the individual is purchasing an interest instead of the home
and the restrictions that come along with that, they could do that. Transparency is the key, and people understanding what it is that they're trying to do. This is not trying to run the Muslim communities out of Little Rock or anywhere else. That's what people think when you see Sharia law. But you should be concerned about Sharia law taking hold anywhere at any place in the state of Arkansas or anywhere else in this country. If you've never lived in that environment, which I have, it's difficult.
It's difficult on your female children. It's difficult on your wife. It's difficult to have men willing to put their hands on your kids. And so that's my concern. Let's make sure we keep things in the Arkansas courts. Let's make sure it stays there. And let's make sure that anybody that buys property out there knows exactly what they're buying into. And I know that, you know, you real estate guys, I know that you don't want deceptive practices. J.R., you don't want deceptive practices in real estate.
It gives everybody a bad name. It's going to hurt your business here in Arkansas. So let's just, you know, let's keep that from happening. There are some other comments, but that's basically, for the sake of time, that's the pitch on this. So, you know, I'll take any questions that you guys have. And I know a bunch of
you have questions. ahead and let's see what we can do i'll answer them or i won't answer them i'll know where i won't know i won't make any crap up you know which is a little different than some of the times that
Speaker 22
7:05
representative falk you're recognized for a question thank you from now on please refer to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
7:10
me as jr um for this um representative richmond i so i hear what you're saying and i agree with about 85 of what you're saying right but when you talk about making entities or neighborhoods right now we have poas and homeowners homeowners associations inside the
state of arkansas that are allowed with homeowners associations they create rules for their neighborhoods no matter whatever your religious creed is or anything like that so uh you they like i know in my neighborhood we have a poa that we don't allow burning we don't allow signs in yards we don't allow political signs in yards uh we don't you can put a flag on the house but you can't put a flagpole in your yard like there are rules in place right so if we are saying with this property rights rule that not only are we talking about a religious organization but we're
also saying poas can no longer create rules for their neighborhoods is that correct i
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
8:07
don't see anywhere in the bill where it says that but we're talking about property rights we're talking about property rights but homeowners association again the thing that we're asking for is clarification on what you're actually buying when you purchase something we're not saying you can have the rules whatever except again if it's a legal matter does the homeowners association do they have a tribunal of some type that determines a dispute between neighbors or between them and the homeowners
association some of them might deal with the homeowners association things probably but if It's a legal
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
8:43
matter. We file a lien against homeowners if they don't pay their dues. And we have a group that gets together. There's three board members that get together. If you violate something in the current neighborhood, there's a group of three that determines whether a lien should be placed on somebody's house. And we go through the court system to do that currently. That's the way my POA does. Court system?
Yes. Is it an Arkansas court system? It is. But you just said this wasn't just about Sharia law. You literally just
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
9:14
said that. Arkansas court system, okay? What you're describing is exactly what we're asking them to be sure that they make everybody know and what they do, that they do not have their own tribunal. If they want to have a homeowner association that says, you know, we're not going to allow this, this, this, and this, the same way it is with anywhere else, you can't stop that, not under current laws. But we can stop them from selling property, or at least we should.
stop them from selling property in a deceptive manner. You take somebody there, they've searched you out, you bring them there as a real estate agent, show them the beautiful home and everything, say, okay, we get all the papers signed, and then they come back and contact you six months later and say, listen, you know, my company gave me orders to go somewhere else, and I can't deal with this property the normal way that you can deal with property because it wasn't disclosed. Those are the things that we're concerned about and the things that we're trying to address in this. And this is what happened in Texas with the same type of business entity.
And so we just want them to know from the beginning, be fair, be sure that you're transparent, and you're going to be good. And that I think everybody will benefit from it. It's not going to affect homeowners association. Unless you're a homeowners association that I move into as a Christian, I decide to become a Muslim, and
Speaker 30
10:44
you tell me to get the heck out. follow up thank you
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
10:47
okay so in Arkansas we are one of I believe it's 12 states
that is a disclosure state we you have
you are a non-disclosure state but when you're a homeowner as a realtor I give you're selling your property I say here's a disclosure of your property but if there is a homeowners insurance or a a homeowners association on the contracts in arkansas it says if there is a
homeowners insurance you have to disclose the rules of the neighborhood the minutes and the the financials of that neighborhood so under your example that you just gave if if you're moving in you would know all
that up front because in the contract it says it states you have
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
11:31
to disclose that apparently not in texas well we're not in texas well you're in arkansas and what can happen in texas can certainly happen in arkansas the same place well they've got laws in place too in texas and that's why they come in and filled in the gap with this this same type of bill to try to prevent deceptive practices from happening on this again i would think that every real estate agent would want to
be sure that their customer doesn't get screwed when he buys a home somewhere. And that's what we're trying to do with this bill. We're not trying to affect anybody's bottom line. We're trying to be sure that these type of business entities, again, they don't sign contracts, they sign agreements in these type of business entities, and that the transparency is what I think will keep people from making mistakes and be able to be sure that they either decide that,
you know what, I can buy property here, I'm going to be all right, or we've come to an additional agreement on how this property is going to be sold and it's going to be my property, or I'm okay with buying, you know, an interest in this property. That's where I am on this. I've been doing
Speaker 36
12:48
it a long time. Representative Hawk, we have
Chair
Unverified
12:55
others in the queue. Representative Clowney, you're recognized for
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
12:57
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to piggyback off of what Representative Hawk was asking about, can you talk specifically about whether this would cancel, am I good?
I hear you. About whether this would cancel out arbitration clauses in contracts. I'm looking at Section C on page 2 of the bill that says, you know, a purchase agreement and any other agreement shall not require that a dispute be brought before any tribunal other than a court. That, as I read it, means that you cannot have an arbitration clause in a private property agreement,
which seems to me like we're actually taking away private property rights rather than granting them. Can you let
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
13:42
me know what your thoughts are on that? Well, my thoughts on that is that with the Attorney General and their review, they found no problem with that. That is not going to take away anybody's rights. It's going to enhance property rights. So they said that this bill is defensible, and there was nothing brought up about that being any type of problem with the Attorney General's review. They said this is a good bill or resolution, ultimately bill.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
14:10
You recognize for a follow-up? Thank you. And I guess I wasn't clear. My concern isn't that it's unconstitutional. I mean, I think the AG's office is probably fine with the constitutionality of that part. My concern is just is that from a public policy perspective what we want to be doing? Because it does, in fact, as I read it, unless you read it differently, this will do away with all arbitration clauses in contracts of this kind. Well, we read it
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
14:31
differently then because I disagree with your conclusion on that. Oh, okay. Representative Moore, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
14:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Richmond, I understand what you're trying to do here. And I'm not against the nature of what you necessarily want to do with public disclosure. In fact, as a real estate, licensed real estate broker myself, it is Arkansas law that I have to disclose material facts to any buyer or seller. But that's neither here nor there. I think this bill has some issues with it, just looking at it from different perspectives. The first one that I'd like to bring up is the last section of the bill, it says it does not apply to acreage over 25 acres or more.
And if we're trying to worry about disclosures for Sharia law, I would also like to cover the white supremacists up near Ravenden, which I'm sure they have much more than 100 acres. And I'm pretty sure they're trying to do the exact thing that you're describing here, which is you purchase into an LLC or to some sort of corporation that owns the actual real estate, and you're bound by their laws or by their rules and regulations.
So if we're going to pass legislation, it should apply to white supremacists as well, would be my thought. Moreover, looking at some of the language in this bill... Can I address
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
16:02
one thing at a time? because as you go along, I'm going to forget what your original comments were. Would you not agree? I'm like a chicken. I wake up in the new world every morning. I'm trying to get to the end of the day before my memory clicks off again on this. But, no, I think that possibly, and it's worth looking into, that what I have here, if they're breaking the law up there with the white supremacy group
and doing things similar to what you say they're doing, You know, are they a non-profit organization? I think there's some sort of... I mean, we could take a look at... And again, from this resolution to the bill, there can also be amendments made that could possibly be sure that we address that because I'm sorry, I don't care what kind of wacko you are. If you're breaking the law, then you need to be held accountable to the law.
It doesn't matter if you're white, black, green, yellow. or polka dot i don't care but that's the way it is and so this could apply to them as well in my opinion and i will find out more about that but i think that if they're if they're trying to do the same type of deal then they're going to fall under this this proposed bill that this resolution is seeking permission to run again that's the other thing it's a high bar to pass anything out of the house i think it's two-thirds it's got to be two-thirds vote to pass it a new
bill during the fiscal session and so if this thing doesn't have two-thirds support or whatever i just think it would be a good idea to hear the house and what they feel about it i don't think people people are fairly smart despite what we do from time to time but people are fairly smart They're going to look at it, and if they decide that this thing's full of holes, it's not going to get off the House floor. But if it's something worth considering to prevent a problem that could very well become a bigger issue and a bigger problem,
and I'm not talking Sharia law on that. I'm talking cheating people, basically deceiving people. Then I think this bill, such as white supremacists, I think that it could address that. Uh, again, I don't know enough about what you're talking about, but if they're doing the same kind of stuff being deceptive, then this ought to whack them between the eyes to follow up, Mr. Chair, you recognize, thank you for your response.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
18:40
I've got one more question. And I think this is what really is the main issue for me, at least the way I read it. And I'm no attorney. Um, you talk about business entities or partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, LLCs. or other business organizations and on the top of page three you talk about they cannot restrict the transfer of the interest imposing requirements to maintain the interest or refusing to grant an interest to an otherwise qualified person and i think what this does at least in my line of work being in real estates particularly selling duck hunting
properties or deer hunting properties there's a lot of hunting clubs out there that are owned by a singular llc and you buy a membership into that club and you can't i mean there are rules that you have to follow in that clubhouse and a lot of times those clubs have residential properties on the club itself where people go and they stay and you have to follow those rules and a lot of times those hunting clubs require you to offer your if you want to sell your membership you have to offer it to the club members first and i think at least in this small perspective i'm
i'm a little nervous that your bill would negatively affect those do the
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
19:56
people at least i know in the hunting clubs i've been part of that i knew what the rules were before i ever agreed to anything do the people in most of the hunting clubs or at least some of the hunting clubs know what the rules are know where they stand as far as their rights to participate and enjoy that property and and the fact that okay that they if they want to transfer that that there may be extra steps to take because it is a hunting club do they know that going in
Speaker 58
20:28
i would hope that anybody would know what they're buying into before they make a large purchase yes No foul,
no problem. Representative McKenzie, you recognize for
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
20:40
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has gone pretty far afield. This is a rules committee. We are taking up a non-germane entity or issue as a resolution to be given the permission in order for us to consider a bill later. As much as I'd love to talk about property rights in every committee I'm in,
this is not the property rights committee. This is the rules committee. Is this relevant? Is this measure in front of us germane to what we need to address in a larger bill later? I do have to ask, I mean, is this an emergent or exigent circumstance that we need to resolve immediately? I did not vote on the fiscal session constitutional amendment when it came through, probably before my time. Nevertheless, we're here today. It's a part of the Constitution. Whether we like it or not, we need to remain a citizen legislature. We need to only take up things that are germane unless it's an exigent or emergent need.
So can you help me understand why this
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
21:32
is exigent or emergent need? This is why I think it's germane right now, and I will use this example, that you're watching somebody, you've had a lot of burglaries or something like that in your neighborhood, and you're watching somebody scouting out your neighbor's house. Are you going to wait until next week to contact law enforcement, or are you going to contact them now and try to do something before it becomes a bigger problem? That is the premise of why I think that this is being addressed now.
At least I look at it and go, okay, we need to talk about this now. We need to deal with this now. It may not make it. You guys may not pass it out of here. And if you don't, well, then, you
Speaker 66
22:17
know, that's okay. You'll deal with it later on or
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
22:20
you won't deal with it later on. And then our children and grandchildren will deal with whatever comes out of that circumstance someday. Or maybe not. who knows I'm too freaking old to be worrying about too far ahead on this I'm just happy I get
around as well as I do now but that's why I think that it's something that could if we don't do it then you're going to have victims who possibly buy into something and then come to realize that this wasn't the agreement I thought and they're going to find themselves in a bad situation as far as how they can deal with it and and you know again over with the white supremacist the people like that you know that's could potentially be a big problem as well so it's not just one issue we
may be dealing with here i don't know yet about the white supremacist thing but it could be two issues that we're dealing with right now and so waiting that's ultimately up to you guys if you decide that this thing isn't germane enough but it's it it won't get easier it's not going to be easier next spring yeah you got a lower threshold for voting and everything but it's still going to be the same question same problem people worrying about their
bottom lines and that kind of stuff i
Speaker 68
23:38
hope you know that's about as well as i can answer your question yeah thank you so um now
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
23:43
on to the property rights part. There's a lot of this that I understand, and I'll just say from the beginning, you know, putting Sheree Law on the title probably has gotten this a little more frothed up than it needed to be. I mean, in my estimation, reading the bill, this is about consumer protection rights. Property rights to a certain degree, but it's talking about consumer protection rights. At the end of the day, I mean, a lot of people use property rights as like a political football down here to incorporate what they mean about it, like the nimbyism of it, or Or I'd like this in the private sanctity of my backyard.
But in reality, the property rights find their root or their orthodoxy comes from the rights of individuals to enter into contracts. So at the end of the day, I don't see this necessarily hurting the ability for two individuals to enter into a contract. It does hurt one party's ability to exit after an acceptance, an agreement, the terms, and the length of a contract are agreed to. And then there are some things I think that need to be cleaned up. The 25-acre-plus exemption, I don't understand that. That then captures a lot of other, I know we've got things in the news about settlements in North Arkansas and then this West Little Rock thing.
We've had religious orders and organizations exist for hundreds of years in the state of Arkansas that would be inadvertently swept up into this. I think that additional consideration needs to be taken into account, not only to mention First Baptists, the Second Baptists of the world that have been acquiring land time on application for the purposes of their flock and their mission and their ministry. So I think maybe we need to take a harder look at that, but in your estimation, does this help, hurt, or indifferent to the standing of individuals to enter into a contract for them to clearly know what is the term, what is the length, what is the acceptance, and what is the outcome of a contract?
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
25:26
Well, I think you just stated it just then with closing that this helps to determine what that individual is actually getting into when they sign that agreement, buying interest into one of these entities on
this. And, like I said, that last 25 acres, stuff like that, call
Texas, why is this in here? And apparently it hasn't worked in this committee, but it was to help real estate folks down there feel a little better about what was going on.
That could come off easily enough, and we've talked about that, and we're probably going to remove it. And if
it's not removed, then just kill it on the House floor. You're not going to hurt my feelings. Thank you. this representative dobby you
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
26:16
seat mates now go easy you would you wouldn't take my candy
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
26:20
offer to you today so now i got to ask questions listen i'm trying to maintain
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
26:24
this girlish figure i have and if i keep eating that candy i just won't be
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
26:29
able to do it i appreciate it thank you mr chair uh representing mckenzie has already stolen some of the things that i wanted to bring up and he and and i think he's brought up some very valid points that we need to we need to be careful in this but my question to you representative richmond is back in 2017 we passed act 980 of 2017 and in that particular act if you move on down there because in your opening you said just a few moments ago that this is going to guarantee
that they can go to court and all of that we already have all of that in act 980 we specifically said and it passed and is in law I
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
27:11
don't think I said that going to guarantee that they can go the court what I said was that it would keep
it into in Arkansas courts okay or the federal court in the court system not a tribunal now I understand where you're going to some degree with this and I'll let you finish in just a second but I want to you know like I said I've gotten old in my mind I'll lose the thought and I'll be thinking about turkey hunting here in just a second
But I need to say that we all know that sometimes these certain organizations, and it doesn't matter which religious group it is, it happens in Christian religious groups and everything, that they decide they're going to handle these things internally. And sometimes it is something that needs to go outside of the homeowners association, outside of the church, or whatever.
But they have incredible peer pressure. And again, it's with, it doesn't matter if it's Islam, it doesn't matter if it's Christian, either one of those. Jewish, I don't know about, you know, how much pressure that they can bring on this. I just simply am not that familiar with it. But they can do that and basically bend people to their will. And we want to be sure that these folks know that they have other rights and just being clear on that.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
28:36
Sure, and I appreciate it, and I appreciate you opining there for just a moment, but I want to get back to Act 980, which I think already addresses a lot of this. And I don't think there's anybody that – I can't imagine that there's anybody in this committee that disagrees fundamentally with what you're trying to do. But I think we do need to tread carefully, judiciously, to make sure that we have covered the bases properly.
But what I want to point out, and I guess it's really a question but also a comment for the committee, but when you look at that, we have already specifically said a contract, which an agreement is. If somebody is in an agreement, it is a contract, a contractual provision that provides for a jurisdiction for purposes other than, say, a canon law or whatever that you just went through just a moment ago, like a religious law or something like that.
let's see i've lost my okay grants uh the corridor arbitration panels of which representative clowny mentioned a moment ago over the parties to adjudicate the disputes between the parties from the contract that was mutually agreed to and let's face it people often don't read the fine print but we're not here to be their parents it's in there and they can always go back and adjudicate it if it violates the public policy of arkansas or the laws of arkansas it's void and unenforceable, and so we already have some of those provisions, and if you go on
through that act that's now our law, it says if a resident of Arkansas who is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arkansas seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency, etc., etc., then they come to the courts of Arkansas, and the courts of Arkansas are not to apply canon law or sharia law or any of the others and so i'm having a real hard time with the way that this
is written at this time why we need it if we if where the exigent circumstances are i don't see it right now because we have laws that would cover it and come january i think there's a number of folks who would more than willingly take this up to hone that down so that we are not um not doing something unintended i think right now parties are covered by the current
law do we need to strengthen it possibly so but i think that that is my concern so my question is is why do we want to eviscerate Act 980 of 2017 when we have something that will work right now and then we can come back later and take care of that for our children and our grandchildren? Could you please address that? Well, I disagree with
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
31:50
your big word, eviscerate. I think that this is going to be complementary, if anything,
dealing with the a circumstance that is not covered and when it comes to the real estate dealings of these these business entities that are selling interest instead of the actual purchase of property and so the the that is such a small portion the courts of things that that we We have, and again, the attorney general's office would be the one that would determine
if something had been violated, would determine if there was a need to take it to court and everything, and they've come forward, and they're okay with this, as it is written right now. So, you know, I can only rely on them. I'm not a lawyer. I don't even try to play one anymore since I'm off Judiciary Committee, and so, again, I am concerned that we have left a space in there where people can be misled and buy property thinking one thing and end up under a completely different situation.
And that if it comes down to a legal issue, and I don't see a problem with saying in our bill that that is determined in Arkansas courts or federal courts. I don't see where that's a problem and causes confusion or eviscerates the previous act that was passed. I see it addressing a specific problem that we have potentially people being cheated, not being cheated because they don't understand or maybe didn't read the fine print,
And no, we're not supposed to be their wet nurse or mama or anything else. The bottom line is, though, people do make mistakes. They don't read the fine print. And so why not make sure that whoever's selling the property reveals the fine print to them when it has such a major impact on their life when you purchase a home? I mean, goodness gracious, congratulations to anybody that can afford to purchase a home. That's a huge investment. And I think it's worth a little bit extra caution on our part to try to address it.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
34:21
I think I'm good. Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, just a quick question. Do you feel like what you're trying to do here today, do you feel like it conflicts with Act, I believe it was 960 of 2017, or do you feel like it complements Act 960 of
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
34:45
2017? I personally feel like it complements it. I don't feel like it conflicts with it, that it's complementary, just reinforcing the fact that here in Arkansas,
you use Arkansas courts or federal courts. We don't come up with any special type of tribunal. It doesn't matter which group you are or anything. Again, this applies to any Christian group out there as well. But, I mean, you'll have to, each one of you guys have got to decide for yourself if this reaches the mark or doesn't reach the mark, and I understand that, you know, go ahead and vote ever how you have to vote. I already don't like most of you, so it's not going to affect our friendship.
No, no, I mean, again, you know, there's good points been made here, things, considerations and stuff like that, that we go back and maybe take a little look before you actually see a bill. and and highlight that but i think we need to
Speaker 87
35:48
address this now representative boardlaw you recognize
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
35:55
for a question nope question for the chair you did no i didn't
i got a question for you the chair So I, too, tend to agree
with Representative McKenzie's statements earlier. Are we voting on the bill? Are we voting on the fact that we're going
to let the House and the proper committee hear the bill? We're voting
on the resolution, which would allow a bill to be filed. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, we have three individuals signed up to speak against the bill, the resolution.
We're going to start with Reverend Britt Starda.
All right. I guess they choose not to speak. Next individual is Dr. Sherry Sim. Simon? Simmon?
Speaker 102
37:02
No? Okay. How about Norman Hodges? Okay. So we have no one
to speak against the bill. Is there anyone out in the audience that speaks for the bill? All
right. Seeing none, Representative Richmond, would you like to close for your bill? Your resolution.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
37:32
Okay, there we go. Been here 12 years, still haven't figured out the system. Maybe it's time to go. But again, thank you. Thank you for taking the time and listening to my concerns and the presentation. You guys got, you know, you have a hard job here. I'd hate to be on rules. I don't like following them, so I probably wouldn't be any good on it. But again, thank you very much. I appreciate the time that you've dedicated to this, and I know you have a busy schedule so please I'd appreciate a good motion do pass and a good vote thank
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
38:06
you thank you mr. chair what's the will of the
Speaker 112
38:21
committee can I make a motion of do pass with
discussion we have a motion do pass is there any discussion on the motion yes you recognize for discussion on the motion yes sir so uh thank
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
38:32
you mr chair at the end of the day i agree with there's a lot of sentiments of this room but at the end
ask this the author of the bill if he believed there's an exigent emergence emergent need to pass this resolution for the whole has to consider outside of that without any other additional direction i think that this meets muster for consideration so just based on that us being the rules committee and not a gatekeeping committee our job is to see if this passes rules or in my estimation allows for the body of the whole to make a determination so without passing judgment on the merits of the bill i say that this should have
the opportunity to at least be heard for a vote in consideration by the whole body all
right seeing no other discussion i want to uh there's a
lot of non-members present here i would caution you not to vote we're getting
ready to call for a So we have a motion do pass on House Resolution 1016. All in favor
say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Sorry, Representative Richmond, your resolution has failed. all right members we're going to go back to the
top of the agenda and we're going to take up house
resolution 1006 representative schultz if you'll go to the table and introduce yourself you'll be recognized to explain your resolution thank you mr chairman in committee can we have
quiet please Order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
40:06
committee. Representative Bart Schultz, District 28. Representative Richman kind of left a hard act to follow here, so I'm going to just get right to the point. House Resolution 1006 is a proposal to increase the Homestead tax credit by $75 from its current rate of $600 to $675.
Just for a little history, in the year 2000, the Arkansas voters overwhelmingly voted for Amendment 79, which was titled Property Tax Relief. That, in turn, propagated a half-cent sales tax, which has put money into a fund ever since for this very specific purpose. A few years ago, we built into legislation that a report would come out in January of every year. if this fund is big enough to support an increase how much would it support so in this january we
got a report saying that the fund would support the 75 increase as a general rule i am not a fan of running non-appropriation bills in physical session that being said this is a very narrowly tailored proposal out of a fund that is specifically for this purpose. In a
time when gasoline is high, groceries are high, I was not comfortable with sitting on this for a year before we brought it to general. And I would try to answer any
Speaker 87
41:39
questions. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
41:51
- Representative Schultz, I tend to agree with you and I think it is timely and I think this is one that we should
pass out. Did you know that you could have done this with special language to the budget appropriation without having to come
Chair
Unverified
42:05
through this process? - We talked about that, but the decision was made to run it this way.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
42:13
- Well, if it doesn't make it out of here today, let's talk. Representative Falk, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Schultz, is it my understanding that so if we do this now in nine months when we come back for session in January, we're going to potentially have another one of these to do depending on if the study that was voted
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
42:41
on. Let's hope so. If we follow trends from the last several years, that would probably be the case, but I can't see into the future.
But in January, every year we get this report. But there's
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
42:53
a potential that we could do this again. So it's not just like this is the end-all, be-all. We could do it
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
42:59
again in the regular session. Yes, the past three years, we've made an increase each of those three years. This will be the fourth. So, yeah,
let's hope so. Thank you. Representative Veves, you're recognized
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
43:13
for a question. Thank you. Just a quick question. you know today we passed an appropriation out of the house uh that um allows the the money to be
turned back and this is going to increase that amount or do you know if there's enough appropriation at uh dfna to do this i don't think
Speaker 140
43:29
what was passed today would would solve that we that would have to be so you you plan
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
43:34
on doing both then yeah okay representative mckenzie recognized her question
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
43:50
thank you mr chair is this an emergent or exigent
need to have this resolution considered and to be passed
Speaker 142
43:55
i don't know that i would use the term emergent
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
43:58
but if you filled up your gas tank lately or or you've went to the grocery store you see what's going on so $75 doesn't sound like a lot but I've seen a time in my life where it would have made a big difference so I feel like it's our mission as the legislature if we have if we have the means to put that money in their pocket maybe it is emergent follow-up so one might say
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
44:23
tax relief is an emergent need. Yes, sir. Okay. Representative
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
44:37
Dalby, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually have two, maybe three
Speaker 135
44:42
questions, none of which are hard. Yes, ma'am. That's good.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
44:47
I struggle with hard questions. One is I agree with Representative Wardlaw that this could be done in special language to take care of this nine months.
And I'm curious as to you said, well, we decided. On what basis did you decide that special language? Because you take that up, as we all know, you can do special language. It's that limited time. Then you come in January and move forward for the next year. So my question is, what was the basis for not doing special language other than we just decided? Well, we
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
45:20
had several conversations, whether we could, whether we couldn't, how to do it, whether it would work, whether it wouldn't.
I've got limited knowledge of how the special language process works, so I was asking questions of other people, and some didn't think it would work. I knew if we could get the votes, this was a
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
45:46
I guess ultimately I chose that route. Okay. Follow up. Let's see if I can remember my second question. My second question would be why when we come back in January could we not take this up and make it retroactive?
This particular one, retroactive, we do that all the time, make something retroactive. Make it retroactive for this year because we would be in the next year. make it retroactive, and then also put the other one on it. It would accomplish the same thing and give the relief. I'm certainly not against the relief. I think I've always voted through all the years, and before you started carrying it, what Representative Lanny Fite carried it. It's always been a good thing to give the money back.
We've got that fund sitting out there. But my question is, could we retroactively pick up 2026 at the same time we do 2026? of it yes ma'am i considered that uh and yeah
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
46:43
that that's a thing that could happen but in my mind if we can do it now and we have the report saying we can do it now i wasn't comfortable with withholding that money for a
Speaker 123
46:54
whole year if we could get it to the taxpayers now and and then
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
46:59
my third question is this is tax relief have you discussed with the governor's office as to putting
this on the call for tax relief and if so is there a reason why or why not that that would
Speaker 142
47:12
be i ran that up the flagpole and uh it i uh
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
47:21
saluted correct that's a good way to put it yeah
i tried that and it didn't didn't go all right seeing no other questions uh representative schultz would you like to close for your bill your resolution i'm closed
Speaker 101
47:39
okay all right committee all right we have a motion do pass we have any discussion on the motion seeing none
Speaker 150
47:52
all in favor say aye opposed congratulations your resolution is passed thank you committee
Speaker 153
48:09
okay all right members we're going to house resolution 1007 representative Eaton if
you go to the table please identify
yourself and then you'll be recognized to present house resolution 1007 good
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
48:50
afternoon thanks for having me committee I'm going
I'm James Eaton, District 26. Brian King, Senator King, is going to present this bill. Thanks for hairpins.
Senator King, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minimum Committee. So one of the things
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
49:12
our founding fathers in their wisdom set up, when they set out in the forming our country, that has really, I think, been a key cornerstone to keeping our country together, even during difficult times, is that our government is not just based on population alone.
So if you look at, I just had a visit with Senator John Bozeman the other day in Harrison, and I knew Senator Bozeman when he was just John Bozeman and running. And if we just set our whole system up of government on just on population alone, think how much that would change and impact Arkansas. We would not have U.S. Senators equal to New York. And because of that, we can keep funding and a lot of things where we're not run over just by population alone.
Now, this bill is not just about an urban versus rural issue, but it is about trying to look at addressing issues
in this state that is changing dramatically and what is impacting them. and so basically if you look at this dollar bill that was handed out and this is what is so important if you use this dollar bill and I'm probably sure many of you do uh the first year I came in uh and I was talking with Senator Hester the day about like in budget higher education was
16 percent of the budget turn back dollars was almost five percent and that's basically if you had to ask my opinion about where we should be in our rsa allotments and let me say this this is a budget bill the difference in this budget bill it has more planning to it and i'll explain that here in a minute so basically and i think the budget back then was less than four billion now i think what is the proposed 6.7 billion so it was five percent of that budget back then if you look at
the last three years in 23 24 it was only 3.3 percent then it was 3.4 percent then it was 3.4 percent this next proposed budget is four percent of the budget not up there were five percent so if you look at it what
we are turning back to cities and counties and this is more designed for counties and I can explain that later if you want to get into that why I'm only targeting them right now but basically if you look at the shorted amount like what 1.6 about 1 percent of 6.7 is 67
million so if you look at 6.2 billion and you take 1 percent of 6.2 billion then you take 1.7 that's almost 100 million dollars so I try and explain it we are not like Washington DC that just keeps spending more money and doing these programs and when things get messed up they just print more money doesn't matter what's party it is so our budget's like a balloon in this percentages when you expand in one area for whatever reason you are going to contract in other areas and that's
basically what's happened the last few years and it's causing a heartache and hardship on our counties more specifically and not just rule you can see in Pulaski County where they look to be having maybe a cash flow issue. Costs have went up, especially over the last four years. Road graders are now $100,000 more than what they used to be. You look at county personnel, everything that they're dealing with, with personnel cost is higher, road repairs are higher, everything is
higher. Taking care of police, everything. What this bill would do would go along the same path what our founding fathers set up I think great for Arkansas that we are on the same level playing field at least in the senate as New York or California or Texas so basically what this would do is to say the first 150 million dollars of sales tax and sales tax generated it's sent down here then it's dispersed back and turned back the first 150 million that is collected in the new
fiscal year would go into the turn back fund then once it hits 150 million which would probably be september or fall every county in arkansas would get two million dollars doesn't matter what your population is that would allow solidifying their budgets that have been reduced i believe by the percentages if you look at that the legislature has been giving them back it would allow rural counties for example it doesn't matter if it's in the delta or it doesn't matter if it's in the
Ozarks. Right now, Newton County, for example, they used to get $400,000 tax off their timber tax. They've had a lot of situations come in, and two-thirds of Newton County is in federal government land. So if you took Benton County and made two-thirds of it federal land, think of the economic change that would be to Benton County. So like Newton County was getting years ago, $400,000, because of the different dynamics of what is happening with purchasing property there, a lot of people are not wanting that timbered they buy it to have a right to do that that tax
is now collected is only generating forty thousand dollars now you think about the cost that has went up dramatically in each one of these counties in every one of our counties of just doing business think of roads think of repairs think of water and sewer if phillips county for example had been getting 10 years ago two million dollars a year and the reason i'm doing this in this environment instead of coming to budget if we just did a budget bill to only be one year if you look at Phillips County for example and some of the things that they're dealing with on the water sewer issues
I believe if they had been given two million dollars every year think of what they could have been doing for their water and sewer that don't have to be bailed out with a grant necessarily in one area so I'm just trying to do something that found that goes along with our founding fathers. It's actually a budget bill, but once again, it will allow plans. Let's look at a jail expansion. Right now, passing jail taxes is getting more difficult even when counties need them.
So you take a county that has a jail tax or expansion, and it's going to cost $14 million. Had they been given $2 million a year and banking that money back, they wouldn't even be having to pass a tax to build a jail possibly. So this is going to greatly impact and help public safety. It's going to help the roads. It's going to help stabilize their budgets that are going to be critical. In the next few years, it's going to get even worse. You have 50 counties right now
that the economics of them is not what some of the other counties are. And because they've lost population this would help them get more road infrastructure back help them with infrastructure and allow them to budget for 10 years if they know they're going to get to 10 million dollars for the next five years in say representative Tosh's counties well they can start planning on that if we just do a budget bill for one year it's one year and it's basically gone so uh you know a jail tax expansion in one county for example what they're going to do on 14 million by the time they
get that paid off will cost 32 million when you add the interest into it so if they have some type of program like this they could literally save jail taxes they could save a lot more money and we get the money as reagan said the best government is the government closest people this is more of a jeffersonian madison principle of getting the money back local to take care of those basic needs and give them year after year of planning that we don't right now you can look over the last 20 years, these turn back percentages have fluctuated.
You can see how greatly they fluctuate and how 1% change can make such a critical difference. So that's why
I'm bringing, this is a non-budget bill resolution, but this is 100% a budget bill. Representative Falk, you're recognized for
Chair
Unverified
57:31
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. senator
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
57:33
king i like the bill i i think that it you know it does
a lot i know people in your
neck of the world don't like to use talk about jails um but i will say that um you made the example about you know jail expansion in a lot of counties and i know in saline county we've had that issue and seeing something like this could do that but my question maybe it's in the bill and i'm just not reading it correctly but you talk about the equalization for every county so everybody's going to essentially get the same thing how is that calculated now is that in the bill or is there is a formula formula for knowing like how much each county is going to get off that 150 million when it
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
58:11
starts yeah let me let me clarify there's a difference between jails and
mega prisons so uh and every one of my
six counties has passed taxes for county jails and boone county passed a sunset in this next year that they don't know is going to pass or not so this could help them too so there's a difference between mega prisons and jails i've been around a little bit but thank you so basically what this would do is so the first 150 many million of sales tax revenue that comes in from the citizens of arkansas will go into a fund and then it would immediately when it gets 150 million be dispersed about so they're going to get it early in their
fiscal year waiting rather than waiting to the end of the year it's like our budget you know what if we waited to fund everything we did at the end of the year you know counties they have to wait they have you know usually they need to get a surplus going till the revenues they operate on a little different than what we do so this would allow even saline county let's say you had a jail expansion or you say you know even 10 of this would be could be used could be used for community services much like emergency management uh it could be to you know the other day senator wallace
has that about trying to get money to plug a hole for a certain program this just gives your saline county quorum court the ability and flexibility to look at that in some other counties it's different i'm like you know more libertarian and more jeffersonian are like i don't want to be deciding what's best in in fayetteville all the time and i don't want them deciding what's best in in green forest all the time and allow flexibility to do that to meet their own needs let's say senior centers you know they may not be struggling in one area of the state but yet in another area they are struggling so this would just to get them allowed back and it
would allow my brothers on the corn court and full disclosure so it would be to do something to be honest like i do with him it gets the monkey off my back they say hey why don't you help out our senior centers like go talk to my brother you know so uh it would allow flexibility back to your local government it follows reagan's principles it follows our founding fathers it He follows Jeffersonian-Madison principles if you study him. So, I mean, like I said, Pulaski County is different. Saline County is different. It allows them. Newton County, for example. One of the big problems in Newton County that people don't realize is it's such a tourist state, tourist county.
So all of our emergency management, for the most part, is volunteer. So when you go up there hiking, and we have a situation now of all the tourists coming in and bringing in money, that's great. But when you only have volunteers, we literally have these – I'm going to speak of my age, and I'm not talking down because I do it. These younger people got out on some logging road that was on some GPS and got lost. We had 70-year-olds fishing out 25-year-olds that got lost, volunteering. They're now struggling to make – I mean, equipment for volunteer fire departments is getting tougher.
It's more expensive. It's harder to get volunteers. It just gets flexibility back to each county to let you do what you want. And it sets up a more structured plan to give them that every year where they know they're counting on it. Arkansas County, for example, you know, it's much different than what Carroll County is. Thank you. Representative
Wardlaw, you're recognized for a question. Thank you.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:01:28
I'm real slow, Senator King, so I need you to help me.
So you're going to take $150 million sales tax money and put it in an account. That's going to come off the top, correct? That's correct. So on a year where the surplus is projected to be less than 150 under current services, what services would be cut first
if 150 is now taken off the top? So that's a good point.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:01:54
I mean, the reality is you talk about critical needs. We're hitting critical right now. A lot of these counties are redlining right now. They really are. I'm just trying to get out ahead of this to figure out after five years of cost
and trying to get out ahead of it and actually prioritize it. I think if you want to look at me, and we're going to have to look, and that's what the next bill is about learns, is trying to control costs in another one. Once you expand one program, doesn't matter what it is, you're going to contract in somewhere else, and that's where the debate needs to happen.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:02:26
The question was, it was a simple question, where are we going to contract? What is, you're
taking the money from the current programs, what program are we going to lose? Are we going to lose some sort of program in Medicaid?
Are we going to lose EFA accounts? What are we going to lose to pay for the $150 million? And
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:02:43
I think that's what the discussion is of having it when you get it in the hopper of having a discussion. It doesn't mean this bill is going to pass. It may be at the end of the day, everybody looks at it and says, as you think, this is going to hurt this other area. I don't want to do it. It's just throwing it in the mix and at least starting the process that a lot of these counties can count on that money year after year. This is just an introduction to start the process. The end product will be what it is, and you'll be able to decide by then
whether you want to vote on it or not. But to shut it off right now means that you're going to be ignoring the fact that these counties are having critical needs that they are not meeting. Look at Pulaski County that was in the paper. Look at the counties I've talked about, even in the
Delta, to the Ozarks, to everywhere else. Representative McKenzie. You're
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:03:37
recognized for a question. I think I've got the answer, but is this an exigent or emergent need?
I can't hear. Is this an exigent or emergent
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:03:47
need to pass this resolution? I think it's clearly an urgent need because you look at situations like I mentioned about Boone County that passed the tax with the sunset tax, they're going to have an urgent need. You're going to look at the emergency services in counties that are getting struggled and hurting. We want more tourists to come in, and I agree. It helps our economics of that. So, absolutely, it's an urgent need because you can sit there. Franklin County
laid off emergency services people. So, I think it's an urgent need to be discussed.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:04:16
Okay. Follow-up? You're recognized. Was there a thought or process for this not being run as special language? Yeah.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:04:23
If you run special language, it's just a year after year. It's only a one-year problem. This is a more sustained to allow counties to have $2 million a year to look at major projects that they can take care of. Water and sewer, if you just give one-time money for water and sewer projects on the front end, then, you know, that helps, but it's not correcting the long-term process to get counties out of something.
Much like the jail tax, we've got to get these counties solidified money that they know they're going to get so they can do better long-term planning and not just keep pushing the can down the road. It's just a discussion at this point, but I think it's critical. One more follow-up
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:05:00
quickly. You're recognized. Have you ever run a bill similar to this in the past? You know, I brought this
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:05:06
up, you know, back when we, long before we even had video, back a long
time ago. And some of my colleagues at the Times wished they would have done that because some of their counties would have received a lot of money back then.
But it is hard to, I have not ran a bill like this. I have actually pushed this bill in the past. If you look at a lot of times as Representative Wardlaw,
you know, this is going to be about critical needs. And economics is the allocation of scarce resources. And the reality is you're looking at our budgets, whether you're voting for learns, Medicaid expansion, you know, all these other things. Once they expanded, education some years ago was 39% of the budget. Now it's 44%.
So we're going to have to balance our needs and everything. But yet these counties, if we don't do something and get some sustained funding out there and prioritize it, or at least have the discussion, Things are going to get bad and worse. Thank you. Representative
Reeves, you're recognized for a question. Thank you.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:06:08
Does this expand what you can use turn back funds for these counties? You know, if you look at the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:06:14
language and the direction, and direction and details, it's like, you know, the introduction and going through the process, you get the details worked out.
The direction is for infrastructure, specifically dines of that, so they couldn't spend it on an art gallery or something. I mean, that's not my vision. Critical infrastructure, water, sewer, roads, police, debt service, those type things
I think need to be critical that we confine it to that. Senator King, you made the statement that
if we did this as a budget bill, it would only be good for one year.
Would that not be a good way to go? that would
get us to the regular session where you'd have the full session to be able to discuss
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:07:03
this and vet it? Well, it would, but yet if you look at the hole that a lot
of these counties are getting into, they're going to have to have a long-term sustained plan. This is just about a discussion about it and starting a discussion on a budget bill that allows more long-term planning that is critically needed for our counties.
Seeing no other questions from the committee, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this resolution? All right,
seeing none, what's the will of the committee? I'm sorry, Senator
King, would you like to close for your bill? No, I just want
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:07:41
to say, like I said, our founding fathers set up a great system in our country, like I said, that didn't balance everything on population or urban areas. You know, and I get the thing of, like, somebody asked me from Benton County here a while back. I won't name names. Will we send more tax dollars and money?
That's true. No question about it. But if you look at Benton County, for example, where does your lumber come from that's building your houses over there? Where does your poultry come from that's sold in Walmart? Where does your clothes come from? Where does your rice come from that you're eating at your sushi restaurants? Our balance that our founding fathers set up, that the urban areas and rural areas that there was at least a balance and respect has been instrumental for Arkansas. Because let's face it, if we weren't, we'd be a barren wasteland right now. And our needs in the Ozarks is different than the Delta or even southeast Arkansas.
And we've got to get flexibility back to these people to work with and at least have a discussion about a long-term plan to allow them to pay for critical infrastructure. You can't go in debt into a jail or sewer or something like that or water system with just a one-year payment All right, what's the will of the committee?
Represent of all motion to pass. Okay, we have a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion?
I have some, uh, I've already brought up the fact that this could be done in budget and it would, uh, it may only last for a year, but it would get us to the regular session where I think it
could be dealt with appropriately. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none,
Speaker 178
1:09:27
all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. No. Sorry, resolutions failed.
Representative Vooten, if you'll come to the table and identify yourself, you'll be recognized to explain House Resolution 1008. I believe Senator King
is going to be accompanying you. If you'll both identify yourself, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you, members. Am I recognized? Identify yourself. Senator King, Representative Wooten, would you please identify yourself? Identify yourself. Representative
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:10:29
Jim Wooten, District 59, BB. All right, thank you. All
right, you're recognized to present the resolution. Thank you,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:10:37
Mr. Chairman. This is about a budget bill as well with a policy aspect to it.
This is about the LEARNS Act that was passed here a few years ago. This is what I talked about, how when you expand one part of a balloon, it doesn't matter what it is, whatever program. It doesn't matter if it's LEARNS or the Brian King program. It's going to contract other areas, and we're already seeing that. If you look at the percentages, we did Medicaid expansion. If you look at, you know, when I came in, Medicaid was 24% of the budget. Now it's much more. So this is about a budget bill because the reality is last year learns $120 million had to be taken out of a one-time account to pay for ongoing and new expenses.
Just look at this next budget, it's $70 million. In my farm or business or anything that you do, if you are continuing to use one-time funds to fund ongoing and new programs, it is not financially responsible
to do that. Now, I got elected in 2006, and somehow I've become a public school defender because I did not vote for Learns for the financial responsibility of it and not being able to pay for it and that. But I will tell you, I am for school choice. I am for responsible, transparent school choice with accountability.
And if you look at in 2006, for example, you couldn't even transfer kids from public school to public school without the superintendent's permission. So I was not popular back then about talking about school choice. If you look at this financial program, it's like milk. You know, if you're not financially stable right now, it's certainly not going to be better a year or two now. I mean, you just can't keep using one-time money in ongoing programs. It doesn't matter, even if it's on our farm, draining bank accounts to pay for ongoing.
At some point in time, you've got to make financial corrections, and that's what this is about. Now, in a perfect world, would Brian King give vouchers to every person out there, no matter, regardless of income? Absolutely. But the reality is, we can't do that in the financial state we're doing. If you look at the cost and the spending of what is going on in this state, this can't continue, whether you're a Democrat program or a Republican program, and corrections have to be made. So basically, what this would do to constrain the cost of it, to make it more economically
responsible is there's a few aspects of it number one is if you're in a private school and then you've went to learns at least the direction not the details of it that has to be worked out but we've got to talk about the financial responsibility if you're in a private school and you've went to learns then at least right now you
are eliminated and it is only strictly because of cost and if you look at this map that you see in front of you
right here right now all the schools that private schools that are receiving over one million dollars are only in 11
counties if you look at look at the whole white area that is not receiving you can
see the number of learns recipients and homeschool has exploded so the next part of it to
try and address the cost part is to go to something that was talked about way back in 2006 is performance-based school choice. Basically, it would work like you go in, your college age student would go in and do a CT test. And if they scored a 25, they get this scholarship. If they score a 28, they get this
scholarship. If they score 31, it gets this scholarship. Now, I would tell you, I have got text messages and awards from homeschoolers before. And one of the things that they said as homeschoolers is we don't want to be associated with the people that do not do homeschooling right okay and I actually think homeschooling done correctly should be celebrated it saves taxpayer dollars every point that they make is correct in my opinion but there has to be
transparency accountability if you have situations where I got you're getting these emails where they're saying my student test child tests well in homeschooling if they test well their funding is going to continue now I did drop them out back to five thousand to have a discussion about that I think you have some learns people that are sitting there and they're doing
the learns program and then they're going and playing basketball at the local school or football now so if they're participating and those already paid are they
double dipping or not so I think it's just about
looking at number one making the overall cost less if we
reduce learns 100 million dollars that could free up money for a lot of other programs abc funding senator wallace's program i'm not saying this tax cuts it could free up
a lot more money and be responsibly i mean if you look at almost 90 million dollars has went to just these locations alone you know what i could do with 90 million dollars i could hire 400 to 600 new police officers to help fight crime we're going to have
to start getting into budget of like looking at where we're spending who's getting the money and what can we better spend it with but right now if you look at this 90 million dollars is only going to 11 counties right now in the top part so the homeschool would go to performance space it would exempt special needs it would also have one standardized test if you look at this i mean even in the public school i think they have a valid point of saying we have to go by the atlas test but yet all these other people that's not really fair i mean milton friedman would say
competition needs to be fair at the start line you don't need to have district different testing standards for all these different lanes in a track while one has only one and they get to pick what lane they want to go in and test him.
So you're having situations now where they're taking in the homeschool part that's probably not done correctly that they're going out and taking the money and then they're surfacing back into public school and they're behind. So this separates the wheat from the chaff. It allows if you do not test proficient you do not get the money and you get the money on
the back end after performance now as republicans they will say that is rankled said well we want work for welfare how many times
or you feel that that position well if that's the case that's what this is about so the other part is mandatory reporting there's an aspect of that
that says if uh if you take homeschool money then you follow the same mandatory reporting uh that falls under public schools private schools because if you're getting taxpayer money
we have entities out there that are dangerous you know you have some you know you want to talk about
the the islam thing but you also have iblp which has had been exposed as having some serious issues with that and what if families are getting that with under iblp which has had some issues come out so the other part is to
keep this thing of being trapped in public schools if you're in a dnf school and you go to the learns you get a one-year voucher after that and then you go to performance
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:17:59
standard he's explaining the bill like we're in here to discuss and amend the bill we're not we're in here to decide whether the bill meets the merits to be moved forward for those reasons So we should hear why the bill is emergent and why it should be brought up in a physical
session and then take a vote on that subject, not the actual merits of the bill or whether we're going to amend the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:18:25
merits of the bill. That's easy to explain because the program last year had to have $120 million out of one-time account to make it cash flow.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:18:35
Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that. I came here today with Senator
King mainly to address the need for the legislature to consider this because we've heard all day long about the overspending that's occurring that's taking place. Maybe not overspending today, but tomorrow. We had a billion-dollar surplus a few years ago, a billion and a half. True, it came from the infusion money from the federal government, but now that's down
to under $300 million. So we need to be careful. And as the former chief fiscal officer for the state, I'm telling you, we're headed for trouble. The folks out here on the street are hurting. Gasoline is $1 a gallon more. I don't have to tell you that. Diesel fuel is higher than I've ever seen it. And I was in the fuel business when I was coaching. But we need to address this.
We need to look at this. And so it's of dire need that we consider what the senator has gone through and the dissertation, but not only that, on the testing. A lot of the private schools didn't even report, but I won't get into that until later. But it's a dire need financially, not just learns, And I'm not against the private schools. They've been here for history, I mean, for a long time.
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:20:13
Let me explain. In 2006, when I came in, we had almost a billion-dollar surplus on a $4 billion budget. Within two years, that was gone. You think this money and $3 billion on that, you can might as well say, as I've even said, that of this whatever $2 or $3 billion or this COVID funny money influx is done, you might as well say in the corrections part, you might as well count a billion, billion and a half dollars. So you're down to a billion, billion and a half. Sounds like a lot on a 6.7 budget.
I can tell you from experience, we were had under $4 billion budget, and even he can go back farther than that. And we had a billion dollars when Governor Huckabee left and Governor Beebe came in. We had a billion dollars on $4 billion, and two years it was gone. This economic climate we've got today, as what Representative Wooden said, with gas prices, disposable income, credit card debt is at an all-time high. Disposable income going down. And look at the agriculture part. Agriculture is our number one economy right now. You want to say it's critical?
We've got bankruptcies. This is not the time to take off and spend, and it's time to correct it. And, unfortunately, this is one of the things that I think needs to be corrected because it's simply
Chair
Unverified
1:21:29
not cash flowing right now. Representative McKenzie,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:21:31
you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've tried it. I want to be as consistent as possible. You Have made the claim that this is exigent and emergent But at the end of the day, I I just fail to see This would create an emergency. This would throw us into turmoil. This would require almost immediately
40 to 50,000 additional students be put into a environmental an education environment not that they're currently in whether it be home school or private school which is around $400 to $500 million, however we skin the cat, because there is a cost savings for children that draw down an EFA compared to a per-pupil funding basis. But nevertheless, yeah, I mean, if you believe it's emergent and exigent, that's fine. I think this would create a far larger emergency. Would you agree? So if you look at most of the students
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:22:18
were in private school, how would they be kicked out when most of them were in private school and are now still in private school?
So most of them would only be impacted
in the amount of money that their parents were getting. So most of them would be that. So an unfunded mandate. So an unfunded government mandate. What's that?
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:22:35
An unfunded government mandate. We've given them a program. You now want to
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:22:40
take it back. And it is only for financial reasons because if you, as Representative Wooten has been around, when you go through a budget shortfall and things get tough, somebody's going to get shorted. And if you look at, because of the expansion of learns, we are giving three in four years, if everything stays the same percentage you're going to give 350 million back less to counties
and cities to operate so you're causing a hardship somebody's getting a hardship we decide three things who gets who gives and who profits and i'm just telling you we have to make changes we are either short in cities and counties in their turn back dollars it's causing hardship or you're giving it to these entities right here and somebody's going to get hurt and somebody's going to have to give somebody's going to have a crisis an emergency i can 1000 assure you at some point tom
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:23:27
just if we if we think if we think plasky county's got a problem you hadn't seen anything
yet when i was a trooper i used to drive one mile from my home sat there all day drive home for lunch or dinner whichever shift i was working drive back because the state police didn't have enough money for me to put gasoline in my car and since I've been down here in the legislature we've cut the budgets 10 percent one time now I added but by the by the end of the year we put the money back in but I'm telling you we're headed for a disastrous financial situation if we don't deal with this
we cannot afford 400 million a year and I give you an example Arizona is started out about 400 million dollars this year they will be a billion dollars going to private schools with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever mississippi just voted down the private school vouchers several states are having amendments to the law to change it either to strengthen the financial responsibility
of the state or to do away with it. And if we don't deal with it, we're going to run it into the same financial problem. Forget about the school choice. We're a poor state, a $6 billion budget. When I was director of the Department of Finance and Administration, it was $2 billion, $2 billion. $1 billion for the state and $1 billion from the federal government. That's true, that's been a long time ago, and I'm old, and some tried to make it in the campaign, and I admit it, but I'm proud of it.
I've been here for 85 years, so I'm not worried about that part of it, but let me tell you, we're getting ready to see some real trouble. And that's why I say,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:25:30
87 with my body, I quote Mickey Mantle, if I knew I'd lived this long, I'd take better care of myself, But in my time that I came in, Medicaid budget, state and federal, was not over $4 billion. Now it's $11 billion. That's a 350% increase. So once these things keep increasing, it's going to expand and contract somewhere else.
And we're going to have to get ready for the federal government is now cutting programs. Look at ABC. Look at how many times they're doing it. Guess what? You've got people up here wanting more funding. When you start, the hardest thing you'll ever have to do up here is probably representative is to tell good people we don't have the money for your good program. I mean, forget policy things, but it's going to get constrained of what's going on. Let's say the prison. Let's say, for example, the mega prison didn't go through. What are you looking at two or three years from now or six years from now to add 800 more people to your general revenue cash flow?
It's not there. Unless we have some major expansion in the economy or something blows up, this spending level cannot continue. All right. Seeing no other
questions, is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this resolution? Seeing none, would you like to close for your resolution?
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:26:44
If I may, I'd like to read one letter that I received among several, but I think this sums it up, and I think you need to hear this.
I have reviewed HR House Resolution 1008 and wanted to let you know I support the direction of the bill. The added accountability measures tied to student performance, let me emphasize performance, the standardization of testing. The private schools had to have a report in on what they tested. Many of them didn't test. Many of them did not test their students.
But let me continue this letter. The clarification of funding, all attention to the education freedom program account. Representative Putin, can you
Speaker 198
1:27:34
hold their point? We have a point of order. Representative Wardlaw, what's
Speaker 197
1:27:39
your point of order? The committee rules
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:27:49
are very clear that letters cannot be read or stated in committee without the author present to be questioned about the subject matter for
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:27:57
the law for bringing it to my attention and I
Speaker 174
1:28:00
apologize all right thank you all
right members what's the will of the committee hearing
no motion the resolution has failed thank you representative
McNair you'll go to the table members we're going to house
resolution 1009 and both of you will identify yourselves for the record you'll be recognized to explain house resolution
Speaker 205
1:28:52
1009 thank mr. chairman representative Ron McNair district 5 present HR 1009
Speaker 206
1:28:58
which is to allow senator Bryant's bills to be entered and I would like for him to
enter the discussion please please identify yourself
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:29:12
again thank you senator king i will tell you i'm going to present this first one if it doesn't make it what i don't expect and i'm going to drop the rest of them so i kind of do a general description these are the same but non-budget bill resolutions that i presented 2024 that all all six of them passed the senate with over a two-thirds vote in it basically we know the 2023 bill the data center bill crypto bill that got passed I believe deceptively tied the local hands of what local communities should
be able to do. It then kicked into some changes that were made that was basically written by the crypto industry. It didn't change anything. You're still seeing lawsuits in Arkansas County right now that we're in the court system. Every community that turned down a crypto mine in their local community, did not get sued. When you start tying the local hands, you start tying up local communities and court battles with federal court, which takes years and a lot more money.
The process in this is, if you see with these crypto mines and data centers that we didn't know at the time, they require a lot of electricity, they require a lot of water, and if you look at the poultry industry, for example, in Center Texas, the data centers that went in that were promised, all of a sudden it's impacting them. Most of these bills are just about allowing the local communities to be able to decide whether they want a data center or a crypto mine or not, and then it puts them on equal footing and does not kick them off in a court battle.
We can see now, if you want to look at the China influence, a lot of these crypto mines are clearly China influenced. So if you want to address the national security aspect of it, and if you look in your handout, President Biden closed down a crypto mine out in Colorado. We have not closed down one crypto mine down here. And I will tell you right now, it was a half billion dollar Chinese influence company that's doing this. In DeWitt, for example, had we reverted back to the original bill, we would not be in the federal court case that is now being sued. It wouldn't even happen
at all so this is about looking at the water usage we know in these data centers how much water they're using in northwest arkansas and carol boone we get our water from beaver lake everybody's getting their water from beaver lake at some point time we're going to run out of water in beaver lake so if you have a data center come in and it's going to take or crypto mine it's going to take an exorbitant amount of water it's going to continue to influence stuff if you look at the crypto industry which i'm not into crypto all the illegal currency that she sex trafficking drugs
everything else is now related back to crypto one of the exemptions that came into this was that it exempted them out of the uniform money services act as a transmitter basically if you did a money order you have to go through this process to be able to know what's going on and and have some insight into that money that could be transferred illegally all the all the legal activity now is financed by crypto you get on the scam sites so i'm just saying i'm going to explain all of them if i could have a little leeway for a second and then if the first one
we're trying to determine here whether it's something that cannot wait for the
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:32:27
regular session i think the critical aspect is the water part if you look
at this water issue that we need to know it's not like a new auto manufacturer comes in or a one crypto or one data center these may be a lot more coming we need to know in local communities how much water it may drain you know that hurt impacts rice farmers they need to know ahead of time and have more central planning and at least have the ability to be able to say yes or no to it without us tying their local hands
for that so i do think it is a critical need that we
need to address in the chinese influence for the illegal activity influence the water issue look at the electricity energy for example in 24 said oh and they said it in harrison we're not we
got plenty of capacity they said it said it in committee we got plenty of capacity we're not going to raise rates what they do they raise rates and they come down here and said we need a lot more capacity we do have an energy crisis right
now that needs to be addressed and that's why this needs to
Speaker 72
1:33:32
come up representative wardlaw you recognize for a question thank you mr
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:33:35
chair on thursday april the 6th 2023 at 6 0 4 p.m in the arkansas senate how did you vote on house bill 1799 we wound up rolling the vote let me just oh this is very simple i wound up getting voted
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:33:48
for it it was an eight hour day i would say this as far as a house member i would love to have buttons over there because i would not have voted for it but you vote for it correct correct no you know
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:33:58
the only member in the arkansas legislature was me yeah you know why because i do believe
that my local governments have rights you just sat here and told us the whole reason you filed these bills is because of this bill that you voted for and you've seen a foresight to pass on thursday april
Speaker 213
1:34:15
the 6th 2023 correct the bill was i didn't was not in committee
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:34:21
to hear it in the senate this is a process and i would did not we did not
know it was an eight hour day of
continuous bills and they changed the rules and if i wound up being roll call for it i don't remember at the time i would admit i did not want to know what a crypto mine was i did not know what a data center i did not know this tied local hands we did not have enough time to be able to make the decision once i made that bad vote i'll own it i've done nothing but try to get it undone that's all you can do every one of us will go through a process that we vote for a bill or not be told everything about it and then find out later a lot of times down here as far as people running bills
or bills you don't know it's a snake till it bites you later so he is correct i did wind up voting for it i owned up to it i've done everything since then to try to roll back everything that was the else that's all you can do you make a bad vote you
own up to it and try and correct it That's
Chair
Unverified
1:35:19
all I'm doing. Representative McElhinney, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:35:25
Thank you, Chairman. Senator King, I just want to clarify. I know you've talked a little bit about some of the urgency.
Is there something specific that says we need to run this now instead of waiting to 27? Or are you just looking to be preemptive of something that you think might be coming? I'm just trying to clarify. So you have poetry plants in
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:35:41
Benton County, correct? Yes, sir. they use a tremendous amount of
water they do okay i just mentioned center texas down there where they didn't know what was really going on and then these data centers came in and used an exorbitant amount of waters and impact now it's impacting the hurting the plants of the amount of water they use poultry growers for example which you have those at benton county we use a tremendous
amount of water so whenever these came in and raised the expenses we just don't know and we need more planning when they come in to be able to count local governments to say we're going to need this x amount of dollars and give them where they know because we don't want to get in Benton County because Beaver Lake is so stressed right now as far as water and if the population keeps going in Carol Boone we get our water from Beaver Lake you also have water generation with the dam I mean this central water source that we have uh Alan Fortenberry who you
may not remember a long time guy he talked about water issues back all the way back to 2005 so it is critical on the water part we just had bills that raised rates you said energy down here that promised they said we had plenty of capacity and we're not going to raise rates and they turned around and raised rates and capacity so it's impacting everybody
and as long as electric process electricity process go up gas process yeah it's critical okay i don't want it to get worse okay so it's critical thank you
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:37:05
thank you representative duffield you're recognized for
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to direct this to Representative McNair. I've heard from several people in Harrison, Arkansas, and they have indicated to me that this is an emergent issue specifically there due to a crypto mine being discussed before the quorum court being constructed there that the local community does not want. Could you elaborate a little bit on that and why that may be emergent for us to discuss now?
Speaker 206
1:37:37
Well, part of the issue that they have with the emergency is actually the facility that was bought, and the folks still own it, they still own the land, but it wound up being in the city instead of the county. The city passed a moratorium, but that is expiring. So that's what they're looking at because the Chinese company still owns the property, and they're afraid that they're going to pursue coming back in there.
So that's the urgency on their part, and that's one reason they asked me to sign on to the resolutions to try to bring them out.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:38:20
When does that, do you know the date when that expires offhand?
Speaker 227
1:38:24
I think it may have expired. I don't
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:38:27
know exactly. I do know that every city or community that rejected crypto mine data centers for whatever reason before the law was passed, zero of them got sued. Zero. We need to return it back to local people because these things come in as representative in it and in her district is just, it may be good on the data center part.
In West Memphis, it may be positive, okay? We just need to know all the details of these things before they already happen. Once they happen,
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:38:59
the nod's tied, it's over. So specifically this potential facility in Harrison, it is
owned by China? We know this. It is clearly owned by Chinese influence,
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:39:11
and it even went back farther than that, Representative Duffield. When they tried to track down the office in Brooklyn, New York, there's no
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:39:20
one there. Okay. So in my discussions with constituents in that area, I asked them, I said, if you could pick one of the six of these resolutions for us to discuss that could specifically help their issue and help with local control across the state in regards to the building of these crypto mines.
Upon their review, they said that H.R. 1013, they believed, would solve their issue specific to Harrison. Do you gentlemen agree with that?
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:39:53
Or any other community that would allow it. It would get it back to local control. Had this bill not been passed or repealed before the DeWitt situation, they could have knocked it
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:40:04
down and would not be tied up in federal court right now. Okay,
so final thing. So if just say hypothetically today, we decided to move HR 1013 forward for discussion.
Representative Duffield, we're not discussing that resolution right now. Oh, okay.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:40:23
Sorry. Never mind. Thank you. Seeing no other
questions, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this resolution? Seeing none, you
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:40:38
recognize the closed resolution. I'm closed and I'm assuming that unless Represent Duffield wants to bring back the other
Speaker 185
1:40:43
one that if this one's not going to pass the probably the other ones are not And so there's no sense moving on unless represent Duffield wants me to present that one
What is the will of the committee? Have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion
well I want that we're on 1009 yeah yeah all right seeing no discussion all in favor say aye opposed nay resolution has failed all right thank you mr. marine committees I won't worry
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:41:21
about the rest of it represent McNair is it
your desire to skip over the
Speaker 205
1:41:30
rest of these resolutions with the time constraint I think it would
be fine okay thank you all right members we're going to move down to house resolution 1015 representative Beatty
you'll go to the table identify yourself you'll be recognized to explain the resolution
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:42:07
Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, here to present HR 1015, basically to amend the IDA bill that we passed last session. a little background in history as to why this is needs the attention of the committee today
economic development and the opportunities that we have in the state a split second today an hour they're immediate if you lose those opportunities sometimes they're gone and they're gone for good so right now that's why this is important the id bit ida bill this is not to fix mistakes or errors in the bill there were concerns that were raised from members of the legislature and their constituents that raised issues and concerns with with the
legislation that we passed and and this is taking into account the concerns that were raised by those individuals and trying to to be good representatives of the constituents we represent to address and make those changes the tool it is a a great tool that can be employed to stimulate and grow economic development. The purpose of it was not to take someone's land, to seize someone's property. It was for economic development, to bring industry in, to employ Arkansans, to pull in investment into our
communities. But those concerns that have been raised, I think it's been addressed in the bill. I'll cover those just briefly. It addressed the representation and accountability for board members, that board members of the IDAs actually have to live in the district that they represent. If they move away, then they need to resign, and it helps ensure that local leaders stay connected to the communities that they're serving. It also easier removal of underperforming
or board members that aren't discharging their duties, so the local government that created the ID could remove a board member for good cause. With a two-thirds vote, it adds another check against bad behavior or inactivity without making it too easy to politicize the board and the makeup of the board. There are more tools for economic health, broader powers for a wider variety of projects that promise growth, jobs, and investment. The big sticking point, eminent domain.
So no more eminent domain power. They would lose the ability of eminent domain as far as seizing or forcing the private property for public projects, even if older doesn't like it. So in short, what I would say, this is just a procedural step to take a good bill that we passed last session to address the concerns raised by certain members in the community to make it a better bill that that community can employ and they need to employ it now instead of waiting until next year.
So that's why this resolution is before you. And
I'll entertain any questions. Representative McElhinney, you're recognized
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:45:35
for a question. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Representative Beatty. So I will say, you know, Northwest Arkansas obviously
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:45:41
has been very vocal about this issue, and I appreciate you taking time, and Senator D. has taken the time to address it. It is critical. I guess the point that I wanted to make was that taking the imminent domain out
It's very important to constituents, making sure that the body, that an unelected body is not able to take property without any oversight or any transparency. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree, and that's why it's included in this resolution. I know,
Speaker 237
1:46:08
but that's my question. I just wanted to say
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:46:10
thank you, and I was trying to give you a question to say thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks for bringing it. I appreciate it. Representative Clowney,
you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:46:22
Chair. Representative Beatty um I have heard a lot from my JPs in Washington County too and one of the
things that I keep hearing is this addresses some of our concerns but not all of them so I guess my question to you is pretty simple we
have the chance it seems like to fix a few things now would you be willing to remain in talks
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:46:40
with folks who have concerns and come back in the future let's be clear all of us as legislators when our constituents have issues or concerns about legislation that we pass I would hope that every member that is elected and serving would be willing to hear those concerns and try to address those concerns to make it better so most definitely I know there there are other concerns that are out
there and and we'll definitely be receptive and try to address those concerns next session thank you seeing no
Speaker 238
1:47:04
other questions is there anyone in the audience that wants
to speak for against this resolution I've seen none what is the
will of the committee oh excuse me represented baby would you like to close for your bill your resolution thank you mr. chair I am closed I appreciate a good vote
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:47:24
of the committee what's the will of the committee have a motion do
pass any discussion on the motion seeing none all of them favor say
aye opposed nay I'm sorry sir your your resolution has failed all right members seeing no other business we are adjourned
Agenda
Call to Order
HR1006 Schulz TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT.
HR1007 Eaton TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COUNTIES USING CERTAIN STATE TAX REVENUES; AND TO CREATE THE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION COUNTY TURNBACK FUND.
HR1008 Wooten TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM ACCOUNT PROGRAM.
HR1009 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO REQUIRE A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS TO PAY A FEE FOR EXTRAORDINARY ELECTRICAL ENERGY USAGE AND TO IMPLEMENT OVERSIGHT PROCEDURES.
HR1010 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF A COMPUTER MANUFACTURED BY A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY IN DIGITAL ASSET MINING AND PROHIBIT THE USE OF CERTAIN SOFTWARE IN DIGITAL ASSET MINING.
HR1011 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS DATA CENTERS ACT OF 2023 AND TO AMEND THE UNIFORM MONEY SERVICES ACT.
HR1012 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO REGULATE THE IMPACT ON WATER USAGE AND THE ELECTRICAL GRID BY BLOCKCHAIN NETWORKS AND DIGITAL ASSET MINING.
HR1013 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS AND AMEND THE AUTHORITY OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS.
HR1014 McNair TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO REQUIRE A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION BEFORE PURCHASING OR LEASING LAND OR A BUILDING OR BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
HR1015 Beaty Jr. TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL CONCERNING THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPANSION ACT.
HR1016 Richmond TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION FROM SHARIA LAW ACT AND TO REGULATE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INTERESTS CONTROLLED BY CERTAIN ENTITIES.
Motion to Adjourn
Announcements
Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — HOUSE RULES, Apr 15, 2026 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jon S. Eubanks Chair
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 22
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 36
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 58
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 68
Speaker 72
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 87
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 112
Representative Bart Schulz
Unverified
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 142
Speaker 135
Speaker 123
Speaker 148
Speaker 101
Speaker 150
Speaker 153
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Speaker 178
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 198
Speaker 197
Speaker 174
Speaker 205
Speaker 206
Speaker 213
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Speaker 227
Speaker 185
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 237
Speaker 238