House Public Health, Welfare And Labor Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (4)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1151
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “hb1151”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1018
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Representative Nichols has his bill, House Bill 1018, set for special order a week from today, February 14th. So…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB51
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…us at the end of the table, you'll be recognized to present House Bill 51. Just a friendly reminder to all the members of the committ…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB134
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB134”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
First order of business, well, let me just say, I know that we're going to have a little shortage of room today, so if you don't have a chair, find the best corner to stand in and find a wall to lean on and make yourself comfortable, but I know it'll be tight, so everybody find a spot, and like I said, make sure, there's going to be a lot of noise today if we're not careful, so please turn your phones on silent. And if you've got conversation, take it out to the hallway after each bill passes because we've got to work our way through an agenda here.
So if you're here for a particular bill and that discussion is over, just please go ahead and move to the hallway as quickly and quietly as you can so we can keep going. And if any luck, we'll be able to have lunch before 1.30. As a quick update, just for those that weren't there yesterday, we did have a meeting with Director Selig of DHS and Andy Allison, the Medicaid director. They passed it a couple of handouts that address the current Medicaid shortfall. It was reduced based on new projections from $138 million in this year's budget to, I think, $61 million currently,
which they believe they can address through some efficiencies in the system that they had already proposed. So that was hopefully an interesting discussion. It was kind of informal in nature, but just wanted to do that outside the regular committee time. If you need any of those handouts or you missed any of that information, you can contact me or Phil Price, and we'll get you that information. But it is pretty important and pretty good info. So that being said, we will move into the agenda. We do have – actually, let me just do one too quick housekeeping.
Representative Nichols has his bill, House Bill 1018, set for special order a week from today, February 14th. So put that on your calendars. Make sure you're here. We've got a couple bills to pass over, but I'll just wait and do that afterwards. House Bill 1151 by Representative Douglas is set for special order. So Representative Douglas, if you would join us at the end of the table, you'll be recognized to present House Bill 51. Just a friendly reminder to all the members of the committee and also in the audience,
as always, time is a factor. Please keep your comments limited in scope directly to the bill that we're addressing. Be respectful. Be nice. We get, I've said it before, but if we get to the point where everything's been said but not everybody said it, I'm going to try to move it on. This is an important legislation, but let's just be respectful of time and be
to the point. So with that being said, Representative Douglas, you are recognized to present
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
2:38
House Bill 1151. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1151, it's an act to repeal the Arkansas Prevailing Wage Scale.
The Arkansas Prevailing Wage Scale is actually a mini Davis-Bacon Act. I don't know if you're all familiar with it. Let me just explain a little bit. Any public entity in the state of Arkansas that goes to build a construction project, whether a new building or remodeling, and the total cost of the project is over $75,000, has to abide by the prevailing wage scale. Now, what this amounts to is the Department of Labor has a division of prevailing wages,
and there is a board, and they send out questionnaires during the year to licensed contractors to do commercial construction in the state of Arkansas to report the wages of the various trades that they represent. They send those back in, they compile them and come up with the average wage rate for each county or location. Sometimes it's numerous counties lumped together.
And any construction done over that $75,000, those laborers, be they carpenters or painters or electricians, have to be paid at least that minimum wage rate. That's the intent of the law to make sure that everybody's on an even keel and that the state jobs are not undercut by low-paid laborers from out of state or out of country, you know, help keep the wage rates up.
On my time on the Benton County Quorum Court, I saw various construction projects that we did there, and also owning commercial property and knowing what the construction cost me, I saw a big difference on some of these projects. So I got to inquiring, and the reason I was given was because the prevailing wage rates inflate the prices of some laborers. Not all of them. Sometimes they're under. Let me just give you an example.
There's the intent of the law, and then there's the real-world application. Here's what happens in the real world. I have a project, construction project, sheetrock, suspended ceiling. The man does the job for me, contractor comes in, he pays his employees $18 an hour, pretty good wage. If he did that same job for the county, and we had one done in Benton County a year or two ago, he had to pay him $25 an hour, a lot of difference there.
He also tells me in the real world application that if these workers are working for the county at $25 an hour, and the job for me would be 100 hours, he has to figure there 125 because they know when they get done they're going back to $18 an hour and they tend to stretch it out, make it last as long as they can. Human nature. Don't blame them. I'd do the same thing. So there's a difference in, well, maybe I wouldn't, I'm too honest to you, I wouldn't
do that, no, let me retract that statement. But anyway, we sometimes have the intent of the legislation and the real world application. I've also talked to other contractors that said that they don't like the hassle of dealing with it so they either don't bid on it. And even if their wages that they pay are already higher than what the prevailing wage says, that they add 3 to 5 percent to the contract price to put up with the extra regulation
and everything that goes along with it. What it amounts to is a higher cost for counties, cities, and state government. It costs more to do the building projects. of how much construction falls under these wages, the Bureau of Legislative Research gave me information. In the last three years, 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were over $1.6 billion worth of construction
work done under the Arkansas prevailing wage scale. If we can just save 5% on this, 5%, that would be $80 million that would have been saved over those three years, almost $30 million
a year. Well would this hurt the workers? Yes it would on those
jobs where they're getting paid an exorbitant rate.
They wouldn't make quite as much money. normally imagine a pie and you take out half a slice that's the piece that they are spending working on state jobs or city jobs or county jobs normally the rest of the year they're getting paid the same thing they always do these workers are getting paid the same thing on it or they're getting paid on to build hospitals, shopping centers, banks. They're getting paid good wages. This would
not affect those. Some people say, oh, you'll bring in outside labor that will undercut the bids. These are local people doing local construction work. It should not affect their wages. It's adding cost and extra regulation to our cities, counties, and state. Needs to be repealed in my opinion. I know there are other people here who have differing opinions and we'll be hearing from them. Let me just say this.
There are 31 states that have prevailing wage scales. There are 19 that don't. In the past, there have been nine or possibly ten, I'm getting some different information, nine or ten states that had it that have repealed it. So we wouldn't be alone in repealing the prevailing wage scale. Oklahoma does not have it. Kansas does not have it. Mississippi, Louisiana don't have it. A lot of our surrounding states, they get their buildings built, good quality buildings, without it.
and their labor rates are staying up there. This is just to eliminate unnecessary regulation and try to save the taxpayers money.
At this time, I'll take questions if
you have any. Thank you, Representative Douglas. Representative Hank Wilkins, you're
Speaker 11
9:55
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Thank you for your bill and your presence here today. A couple of quick things. One, we've noticed in the last several years that Arkansas has done well economically compared
to 90 percent of the other states across this nation. So to some extent, I guess I'm surprised to see this particular move toward repealing this. And then secondly, I heard you say that the Bureau of Legislative Research had indicated that $1.6 billion would have been saved on projects. Did
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
10:34
I? No, sir. You did not hear correct. There were $1.6 billion worth of construction work that fell under the prevailing wage.
Right. Okay. So if we saved 5 percent on those construction costs, it would have saved $80 million. I want to be clear
Speaker 18
10:53
on that. Okay. Well, that's what I thought I heard you
Speaker 11
10:57
say. Okay. I heard the 80 million, I guess the question that pops into my mind is, so who loses that 80 million? That comes out of the pockets of workers. Is that not right? MR. Some of it would. Could you just give me a yes? Is that correct?
I just need to know if yes or no will really suffice
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
11:19
if you can. MR. I can't say definitely yes or no. Part of it would. Part of it would come out of the pockets of
Speaker 25
11:27
workers on those particular jobs. That's what
Speaker 11
11:30
I mean, on the ones that you're talking about that fell under the $1.6 billion that you
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
11:36
were talking about, the $80 million. Yes, part of it would, but part of it would also come from the contractors that just add extra
cost on it to put up with the regulations and the paperwork on it.
Speaker 11
11:49
Well, it sounds like it, and I'll be brief. This is my final statement or question on this. It sounds like to me that this would actually have a negative impact on economic activity in Arkansas and in the pockets of people who are those who are in the greatest need of an income in terms of construction and so forth.
So I just wanted to make sure that the numbers that I was hearing were correct, $1.6 billion would fall under that, 5 percent of that would be
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
12:33
$80 million. That's what I heard you say. Yes, sir. And that would be $80 million that could be used for
Speaker 11
12:41
more construction projects. And it's also $80 million that out of the pockets of the people who made that then provides additional economic activity in the communities where they live. MR.
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
12:53
And $80 million less taxes that are paid to fund these projects that could go back
Speaker 34
12:59
into the taxpayers to spur more economic
Speaker 11
13:04
development. MR. Well, I guess we could argue that point because either way, the state is going to get its portion, whether it's being spent by the workers or whether it's being spent by... Oh, wait a minute. They wouldn't get it, though, if the folks who are over the projects are not spending
it. If they save it, then we get nothing in terms of taxes on it.
Speaker 25
13:36
Oh, you just made me realize that. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Just a warning, no applause, please. Maybe if you get your way at the end, yeah, but in the middle of the testimony, please don't applaud.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
13:58
Representative Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, would you just go back and give me the short version? I either didn't hear it or it wasn't stated.
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
14:12
Why did prevailing rates get started in the first place way back when?
Okay, I'll tell you what. It goes back to the Davis-Bacon Act, enacted in 1931 on the federal level, and a lot of states came after that and enacted their own state prevailing wage scale. Originally, back in 1931, Senator Davis and Representative Bacon enacted the law.
is during the Depression there was cheap labor from the South being brought in in tent cities set up to do construction work in New York City. And Representative Bacon did not like that, and they enacted this law to try to hold up the wages. The thing is times have changed. We have new labor laws that we did not have then. And we have all sorts of regulations to ensure that we have legal workers working here.
And it's a more competitive marketplace. You go back to the free enterprise system. These workers are the same ones that build banks and hospitals, and they get paid good wages there. So this will not bring in outside labor to drive down the wages. That's a bygone day. You'll hear that argument, but it's the same argument that was used
Speaker 38
15:30
in 1931. Okay, and do you know of the states that have repealed it
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
15:35
that you mentioned a while ago,
do you know what their reasoning was specifically, and do you know are there any measurable results to
see how that decision to repeal it has impacted their states either from a workforce level or from a tax revenue
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
15:55
level? Yes, there is some information on that. But at this time, I would like to refer to Mr. Greenberg here that has that information, if
Speaker 42
16:04
I may, Mr. Chairman. MR. Sure. If you would, Mr. Greenberg, introduce yourself to the committee.
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
16:11
For the record. MR. Dan Greenberg with the Advance Arkansas Institute. And I can give you a brief overview of what happened when states started to repeal or modify their prevailing wage laws. One thing that happened was one thing that happened in Ohio was that the legislature voted to exempt school construction and renovation work from their prevailing wage laws. And what happened after that was that the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, an agency
of the legislature, was asked to study the impact of that suspension on school construction costs. What Ohio state government found was that when they allowed competitive bidding, Ohio schools had saved nearly $500 million, which was 10.7 percent of construction spending. There were other states that got rid of prevailing wage laws largely because courts found the operation of the law to be an unconstitutional delegation of authority from state to federal government and they also found after they got rid of these laws that there were large
savings to taxpayers and government budgeters as a result of these. And so their experience confirmed that government saved a great deal of money when it eliminated prevailing wage laws. For instance, an economist, Richard Vedder, studied what happened in Michigan and he found that on various state construction projects in Michigan, nonunion contractors were able to substantially underbid union contractors. Vetter in his study in Michigan concluded the state saved approximately $275 million
in construction outlays because competitive bidding prevailed rather than the prevailing wage laws. So there were many states that got rid of this largely because the expenses were simply too high. And I think experience demonstrates that their theory that expenses were too high and getting rid of prevailing wage laws would save government money, I think that was confirmed by evidence. I'd add one more thing if I could, Mr. Chairman, and that's that I think that we're missing an important piece of the puzzle when we say, you know, we're going to save X million dollars
and that's going to come out of people's pockets. In fact, what really happens is that if government has, say, an additional $80 million to spend, then it's going to go to needed projects to help people, and it's going to get rid of government waste. Government is not helping anybody when it spends $180 million rather than $80 million on a project. You're not putting more money into anybody's pockets because you're taking away from valuable programs to help people, and you're harming taxpayers. So that's my perhaps too long answer to your question.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:56
All right. Let me tag onto that, this one then. If we did away with it, what would stop a contractor from taking advantage of their employees, and what guarantees would remain that the $80 million savings that's being
referenced would actually transition into savings to the state as opposed to contractors just keeping their bids at the same price and pocketing the savings themselves, and we as a state would never realize any of it?
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
19:26
Can you give me a comfort level on all that? Well, speaking generally, you know, the reason that
Davis Bacon was enacted in the first place was that there was tremendous competition in the industry even then, and there's always going to be competition in any industry that's large where people can make money. And so I think that there's going to be a robust competition in construction markets, and people are going to attempt to come up with reasonable bids as long as you have a system of competitive bidding rather than the system we have today, which prevents competitive bidding and furthermore there's a great deal of
evidence which suggests that even in a system of competitive bidding you don't see anything like the you know the enemies of competitive bidding predict for instance you see the same kind of health effects and injury rates and accident rates in competitive markets as against uncompetitive markets in construction bidding according to insurance data and according to academic studies you don't see higher rates of injuries or lower rates of safety
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
20:28
or anything like that. Additionally, I might add, in a competitive marketplace,
where the contractors are already paying a competitive rate
to their employees on the non-prevailing wage scale jobs, when they're building a hospital or a bank or a shopping center, they're already paying what the marketplace says as the rate. And that's what the workers do, 95% of their work throughout the year. There may be one or two that just specialize in these government jobs. But one of the problems is in setting these rates, they are all over the board.
They do not seem to make clear sense. For example, in Faulkner and Lone Oak County, they say a carpenter's rate is $13 an hour, while a painter and sheetrock finisher is $20 an hour. Then you go to Columbia, Hempstead, Lafayette, Little River, and Nevada County. That $13 for the carpenter goes to $27.56, while the $20 for the painter and sheetrock finisher goes down to $14.35.
It's just all over the board, and it's due to whoever decides to send their survey back in and the compiling of the data just makes no sense. And these people work with building other projects in your communities
Speaker 34
22:00
and make a good wage and living there, and that won't be affected. May I have one
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:09
last question, Mr. Chair? Is there any penalty that's imposed upon those who do not send the forms back in,
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
22:16
or is this just a volunteer thing? No, they have to keep records, and there are penalties if they do not comply with the regulations. I think whenever – I didn't print them out, but there's 41 pages of regulations there whenever you print them out on the – or look them up on the Internet. Forty – how many
Speaker 57
22:39
pages? 41 pages of regulations. Okay. Just an observation,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
22:42
it seems like maybe if we just stiffened up the penalties, you'd get greater participation to give a better perspective across the board if it's being pocketed
because only a few are sending them back in. And then I'd ask you this one last question. At the end of the day, does it really boil down to the reputation of the contractor, the construction company itself, as to how well they take care of their employees regardless of what this does or does not do? Is there any leverage in that? You
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
23:13
know, it's always up to the reputation and the quality of the contractor, no matter what you're doing, whether it's work quality, taking care of your employees or whatever.
It's whoever's running the job and the business that makes the difference. And that's where your free market competition and having good quality craftsmen that are staying with the company because they take care of them takes precedence over this. MR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Thank you, Representative
Hammer. Representative Harris. MR. Thank you, Representative Vice Chair Murdoch. MR.
Speaker 64
23:56
care of or to make sure, ensure that the workers are getting wages that are fair because just leaving it open and you take away the regulation or any prevailing wage rate, then it's up to the individual contractors to just above obviously minimum wage would then become your only standard that's a standard that's regulated. And we know a lot of people need jobs. You bet.
But what we want to force people through this act, if you take it away and, you know, and have to work for lower wages. I think we run the risk, excuse me, of hurting the people with this type. And I don't think that's your intended consequence, but I think business. And I'm a contractor, okay? Okay. I do exactly what you're talking about. I live by the rules that you're talking about, okay, prevailing wage. So certainly if I had the opportunity and it become a competitive situation and, you know, it's $13 versus the $25,
and the prevailing wage is $25, and everybody has to pay that $25, then certainly that levels the ground as far as that goes, and it ensures that people get good wages for that particular item. But absent of that, then it becomes something else. It becomes, first of all, the people that we're most concerned with, the workers, you know, they become just pawns in the game. And you want to make sure that we do, as legislators, that what we do is not take care of my personal business, so to speak.
You know, though we do care about business, we do care, but not necessarily that I just make myself continue to find ways to get richer. I want to make sure, and I think we should make sure, that we take care of the people and that they have wages, whereby they'll continue to spend money in Arkansas. Tax money will come from that. We'll receive all kinds of benefits from people making higher wages. So I think we really need to be concerned as we go forward that we're making sure that we're taking care of the people and not just the entities because my savings, truthfully, may not go back to them.
My savings, and this happens in corporate America, may go to my personal estate, okay? And that's not necessarily wrong. But what I want to do is make sure that what we're doing is through this process that we don't have any unintended consequences that hurts people. And these people that are in here today, they need to make good wages. They have all the concerns that we have, pay bills, take care of family, health care concerns. Let's make sure we take care of them in what we do.
Speaker 48
26:38
Thank you. You bet. Mr. Greenberg. Well, I'd just say,
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
26:42
I mean, there's always upward pressure on wages, and there's always downward pressure on wages. And,
I mean, I can't imagine that in your contracting business, you pay people the minimum wage. So there are all sorts of forces, competitive forces, that push wages upward, just like there are forces that push wages downward. What we're talking about here is kind of like a situation where if you go to the car dealership, you know, there's a sticker price on the car at the car dealership. Well, just because the
car dealer asks for the sticker price, that doesn't mean it's the market price. And we have to think about what the appropriate market price would be. And the way to increase wages through market prices has a lot to do with a state that's got a good climate, that has a good tax structure, and a good educational structure, but it's not going to be assisted really by just artificially making everything a sticker price. I mean, ultimately, all of us have to have our wages adjusted by reality, upward pressures and downward pressures. Those are market forces.
Speaker 64
27:41
And if I may reply to that, I think we philosophically disagree, obviously, in that you're putting
that burden on someone else. The regulation is there for a reason. It's because in competitive bidding, people will push the labor prices down. That's who will suffer in this. So I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with what you're saying. Without the regulation, I think that who suffers is labor and the
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
28:09
workers without the regulation. I would add that construction is the only thing that we have prevailing wage on.
Whenever we look at the county bidding out for new radio antenna towers put on top of a building and labor is involved in that and installing them, we don't tell them we're going to bid it out for lowest bid. You know, if it's under $75,000, it's not a construction project. If we're buying equipment and having it installed, we don't tell them, oh, we'll buy it, But you have to pay your people this much.
You know, this is the only thing, construction. There are other areas that counties, cities, and states employ people, and we don't tell them what we have to pay them or what they have to pay their employees. That should be their business, not
all. Thank you, Representative Douglas. Representative Womack, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
29:14
Mr. Chair. Most of my questions have already been addressed, but I was just curious if you knew, Representative Douglas, what percent of contractors typically reply when they set these prevailing wages for the counties?
Is it a small percentage, or would it be fair to say that it was a healthy? I'm just wondering if you know that number. I do not
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
29:34
have that information available. Hey, Representative Womack, the Department of Labor is going to sign up to testify against
the bill, I assume, And so I think they'll have the answer to that question, or at least hopefully more likely to. They
might be a good source for that information, help both of us out. Is that it, Representative Womack? Sorry. All right, we'll come back to you when the department gets up.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
29:58
Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have witnessed firsthand where a project, a CDBG grant goes to a county to build a specific facility and that on the front end, given the amount of that grant, a budget was developed, a private contractor was asked what size facility can we build with this budget,
and the facility was estimated to be X number of square feet. Once the project got started and got underway, then bids went out and so forth, and for a variety of reasons, but I am told that one of the chief reasons is because of the prevailing wage, suddenly that had to be scaled back more and more and more. And in the end, the county wound up with a much smaller facility than what they had originally planned on doing,
given the same amount of budget, and the private contractor who had devised the original plans wound up being the one who won the bid. And so that person, you know, that bid amount was the same, the contractor was the same, but the facility was considerably smaller, and the taxpayers got a whole lot less for what they bang for the buck, so to speak. Would
your bill, do you believe, address some issues with regards to that?
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
31:35
You bet. What this bill would do would mean that you, Representative Mayberry, or I, could not build a building cheaper than the city or the state or the county. And that's the thing. The taxpayer sometimes takes it on the chin. And what this has been, because of this law and these regulations, I can build a building cheaper than the city or the county or the state can.
Speaker 82
32:05
And that's exactly what this would do, would be even
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
32:09
the playing field. And in this particular situation that we're talking about, it doesn't appear to me, and I would ask if you agree, that any fewer dollars were spent and put into the local economy and circulated and helped create productivity, it's the same number of dollars either way, correct? But in the end, the taxpayers have more or would potentially have had more to show for what they spent.
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
32:41
The taxpayers will get more for their money, and I'll tell you,
even if it's not grants for a specific amount, if there is money in the budget, I know most mayors and I know some county judges that would spend every dime that they have available there on projects and go back
into the cities. Maybe I shouldn't have said that in front of my county judge over here, but he's used to hearing
it from me. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you. One quick question for me. It's related because we've mentioned the competitive bid process potentially, you know, being the factor that drives down wages.
Do you know how many of our publicly projects are competitively bid now? No, I do not. I think it would be interesting to look at because it's not the
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
33:28
same process for most public projects when it comes to competitive
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
33:35
bid. Representative Greenberg? I mean, you raise actually a very interesting issue there because – I thought I did. It underscores, right, that we have competitive wages in projects both in projects that are
not covered by the prevailing wage laws. And so I think that the suggestion that we've heard today, which is that, you know, wages are going to drop substantially and there will be subsistence wages or minimum wages is a real mistake because we have all sorts of projects that do not fall under currently, do not fall under the prevailing wage laws that have high
and competitive wages here in Arkansas today.
Okay. Representative Link, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Douglas, these are state, city, county projects.
They go through an inspection process, do they? Yes. I mean, on all construction processes.
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
34:25
Yes. All construction goes through an inspection process.
There's some sort of inspection process that is looking to be sure that a certain quality of work is
Speaker 90
34:33
done. Is that right? Or at least the work meets some sort of safety? bet to make sure that it meets the building code
requirements. Are you somewhat assuming then that we're not, by paying more, you're not necessarily getting a higher quality work, or maybe not quality, or I mean what do you, how are you
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
34:54
addressing that? Well, you know, that goes back to what was mentioned earlier about the integrity the contractors, and you can have that on anything. Are our hospitals built to quality buildings? Are our banks built quality? Are our shopping centers? Oh, and one interesting thing. When this says public entities must go by the prevailing wage scale, highway construction
is excluded and K through 12 schools are excluded. I forgot to mention that. K through 12 schools are exempted. So does that mean that by not participating in the prevailing wage scale we get inferior quality schools built for our children that go there? Do we hurt laborers that work on public schools K through 12 because they're exempt from this.
These are the same workers building schools, banks, that are building our buildings and make a good living on and a good wage on our schools, but we've got to pay more for our jails and courthouses and dormitories at universities, higher ed would be included. So if I could,
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
36:21
you know, sometimes it's difficult to measure quality, and your question is how we measure quality in these two arenas, but we learned something from Ohio's experience
and what the corresponding unit of BLR here in Arkansas, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission did a study, and what they did was they surveyed a whole bunch of school district officials. They were trying to figure out whether there was a drop in quality after they got rid of the prevailing wage laws. And what they found was that 91 percent of the school district officials I surveyed said there was no change in the quality of work done when open bidding was allowed. And of the remaining 9 percent, 3 percent said the quality had fallen and 6 percent
said it had improved. So with respect to the evidence that we have, I think
it's very hard to make the argument that there's some kind of drop in quality when we
get rid of the prevailing wage standards. Mr. Chair, that's good enough for government work. Thanks. All right.
Speaker 63
37:23
Thank you, Representative Link. Vice Chair Murdoch. Thank you again. Mr. Greenberg, to your point in your poll, again, you have lots of
Speaker 64
37:30
polls. Everywhere I go, you've got a poll, and it's usually pretty swayed, pretty much real toward what you're advocating for, 91%, but that's okay.
Well, thank you for the compliment, Mr. Chairman. or something like that. What I'm trying to say also is that Mr. Link just mentioned the inspection process. There is integrity in the process to ensure that you get the quality of work that you should get in whatever public entity is performing it. You have an architect and you have local inspectors. So that's kind of taken care of in another area. So I want to make sure as we're framing this that we continue to deal with the facts. And I think some people coming
behind us, and I'm going to save some of this for later, Department of Labor and others will be able to speak to some of the information that we're getting now, but at the end of the day, we're putting this on someone else. You said earlier that competitive bids versus prevailing wage is not going to hurt the average man that he's going to get the wage that he should get, that contractors are going to pay them, that they're not going to be hurt by that, but there's no regulation. I'm not sure I said that, but go ahead.
Well, it may have been the representative. I'm sorry. I'd be happy to speak on what I think will happen, but I'm not sure that's what I said. Well, it's coming from that end of the table. Here's the point of the regulation. Again, I'm reiterating the point, is that the quality will be there. I'm not questioning the quality either way because someone else is going to ensure that in terms of inspectors and those others' oversight. But what I'm talking about is making sure that the laborers get paid properly for their work with the prevailing wage, and to that degree it could be everywhere for all entities,
but prevailing wage should ensure that they get their piece of the pie. What happens the other way, and you can't deny this, I don't think, is when they hand it all to the contractor, the savings go to the contractor, so to speak, in this case, because in a competitive market, you're saying how the market is set. market is set by how bad I can beat down the sheetrock guy, how bad I can beat down the plumber, because there's no market set, okay? So it's just a competitive bid. It doesn't
hurt anyone. When we give the money to the ones performing the labor, then that money ensures that they have good wages, and then it helps us as a state be more viable economically, then they're able to spend more money. It comes back to us through revenue and taxes There's another way. So I think that that's a good point that we must not forget, that giving it to them does not hurt us. You're saying giving it to
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
40:06
the business. Can I talk a little bit about what I believe happens in a world of contracting where you have competitive biddings?
If the chairman allows you to. 30 seconds. Okay. Thank you. So I think that in a world where you have competitive bidding, you're going to have repeat customers and repeat bidders, and firms are going to be looking to produce excellence to satisfy the contractors. And they're going to have to bring in expert workers who do good work, and they're going to have to pay them good wages. And if you're going to have repeat bidding where you have the same customers and the same contractors, there's going to be reputational effects, so people will have to bring good work, they'll have to bring good laborers, they'll have to have good wages.
And again, it's not just a philosophical difference, Mr. Chairman, because I think that reality demonstrates that when you have some projects that are under the prevailing wage standards and some projects which are not, and we have both of those here in Arkansas, reality demonstrates that even in the universe of projects where we have projects that are not under prevailing wage, people get paid good wages for a
Speaker 70
41:10
good day's work. You have a gross misunderstanding, in my opinion, of what this process yields for the
Speaker 94
41:17
common man. A gross misunderstanding. Is that a question, Mr. Chairman?
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
41:21
That's a statement. Okay. Thank you. And at
a good time for a reminder, have questions. You're recognized for questions. Make it a question
and make it early, not at the end. Representative Love. Representative Butch Wilkins, you're recognized for a question. Mr. Douglas,
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
41:42
I've been contacted by some contractors that urged me to support this bill, but now how do I justify in a state that already has a very low income and something
we're trying to do is to raise our income up instead of going backwards, and you may or may not know I have a minimum wage bill that I intend to introduce sometime in this, but how do I go home and tell my workers, my people that are building these buildings that I voted to lower their income. Yeah, I mean, are we just doing that for tax purposes or, you know, we're already very low on the income scale in the United States,
and that's something that is pulling our state down, I believe,
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
42:32
so. You bet, Representative Wilkins. I understand where you're coming from. And, you know, the thing is there will be more money for more jobs. There will be less tax revenue used to pay for these projects that can go to other projects and construction. There will be less taxes paid.
There will be less money wasted on regulation, meeting regulations and guidelines, and the taxpayer will have more money and disposable income because of less taxes to spend and spur the growth of the economy. Would you not agree that
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
43:16
as wages are paid to Arkansas citizens that money, there is no better way to circulate money than to get it back into the economy which helps the
entire state? Would you not agree
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
43:31
to that? Yes, sir, I will. And I will agree that
by having more money in the taxpayers' hands to spend will spur more job growth.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
43:48
One more. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. President Douglas, but having more money in the hands of our citizens, that spurs job
growth. That's what we're really all about. That spurs job growth, and that helps the entire economy, and, you know, I'm having trouble understanding where we're going with this. It really benefits the state other than we will be maybe
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
44:15
benefiting on the tax end, but the taxes are going to be paid
Speaker 82
44:21
anyway, I think. Representative Wilkins, the
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
44:24
whole contention here is that normally it is a small portion
of the workers' yearly wages or yearly time, hours that are spent on these public work projects. They make the majority of their living the rest of the year on these other projects that are competitive wages through the free enterprise system. And so, yes, it's about taxes, it's about giving the taxpayers a fair shake. It's about I just have a philosophical problem with the fact that I can build a building cheaper than a county, city, or state can, or you could build a building cheaper.
It's something about that, that the taxpayers have to pay more for their buildings than you or I would. I just have a problem agreeing with. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Wilkins. Well, just one more
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
45:25
observation. Representative Wilkins, if something costs $100 and state government pays $200 for it, it's really not helping us out. If it helped us out, we could do a lot of that, and we could really build up the state. But paying $200 for something that has a market price of $100, it really doesn't help anyone
out in the long run. Okay. Thank you. We have one last question that we're going to move to comments from the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:53
audience. Representative Hammer, you have a quick question. Yes, sir. Would you explain to me why public highways, you made comment that public highways and K-12 are excluded? Did I understand that correctly a while ago? Yes, sir. And why are they given the exception to the
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
46:10
rule? That is a very good question. If it's good for the rest of government, you'd think it would be good for K-12 and our highways.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
46:19
Do you know what the motive was to get them excluded way back whenever it happened?
Do you have the history on that? Because of expense.
Okay. And then the second question, follow-up question to that would be through what you're intending to do with this bill, is it all centered around
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
46:47
the fact that it will allow savings through a cheaper labor base? It will provide that city, county, and state buildings can be
built with the competitive rates and competitive labor prices that your public schools, K-12, that your hospitals, that your banks, that your shopping centers are being built for.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:10
Okay. Let me ask another way, just to make sure I get the same answer twice from two different directions. There's
no other component in this bill other than dealing with the
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
47:25
labor rate that will create any savings. There is some component that due to the regulations, some contractors add price or price increases to cover their extra time and efforts in complying with the regulations.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
47:40
That's the 3% you were talking about? Sir? Was that the 3% you referenced earlier? Yes, yes. Is that a
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
47:50
hard number or is that speculation? That's more or less speculation. It varies from contractor to contractor on
Speaker 38
47:57
that. So it goes back to the integrity and the ethics of the contractor. You bet. And just to follow up,
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
48:04
a lot of the wages set by the prevailing wage scale are below what employees are already getting paid.
Employees are getting paid more than what the prevailing wage scale says on a lot of them. But there
are some areas that are completely out of skew and add dramatically to the cost. So is this the prevailing wage then, is
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:26
it perceived or should it be perceived on that statement that it's a safety net, that the laborers are up here right now, but what the prevailing wage does is provide a safety net in the event there's a change in the course of doing business that they won't fall below
that level that's established by the prevailing wage law? There are some people that would argue
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
48:49
that being the case. There are other people that would argue that it is just unnecessary regulation. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank
you, Representative Hammer. Representative Wardlaw, one quick question. Thank
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
49:03
you, Mr. Chair. I want to know, Mr. Douglas, Representative Douglas, in your opinion, what makes these areas
Speaker 130
49:09
skewed? Because you just said that certain areas are skewed more than others.
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
49:16
And it will, yes, that's right. If you looked over all these wage rates, you would think, my goodness, this makes no sense at all. And they vary from year to year. One year they'll be high on one area, and the next year they'll be lower. A lot of it has to do with reporting. A lot of it has to do with if there were some construction job that got paid an extraordinarily high rate.
The big thing is reporting there. Nothing makes a good reason on why these wages vary. For example, $27 an hour on carpenters in Columbia and Hempstead and $13 an hour in Faulkner and Lone Oak, in Faulkner,
right up the road here. Conway, that's a progressive.
You'd think that would be a higher. Representative Wardlaw, if you'd like, we can ask that to the Department of Labor. They might have a good idea. Did you have any other questions for
Representative Douglas? Okay. All right. MR. Thank
you. Seeing no other questions, thank you for your presentation, Representative Douglas. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MR. Thank you. We're going to move to testimony for and against the bill. We'll start with against. First we have signed up is Mr. Dennis Oxley, or Denise Oxley, with the Department of Labor. If you'll join us at the end of the table, state your name and affiliation, and you are
recognized to speak against House Bill 1151. MS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Denise Ottsley
Unverified
50:59
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Denise Ottsley, I'm General Counsel for the Arkansas Department
Speaker 137
51:04
of Labor and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I'd like to preface my remarks by publicly thanking Representative Douglas. He's come out to the agency, he's visited with us, he's listened to us every time we've asked him to. We just happen to be on different sides of this issue and disagree about this bill in
particular but we do appreciate him. Arkansas prevailing wage law the current law was passed in 1969 in Arkansas it's not a depression era legislation it was passed when Governor Rockefeller was governor at the time and the legislature was very clear about it being the public policy and I can quote from the law that it that not less than the minimum failing hourly rate of wages for work of a similar character in a county or locating locality in which is the work is performed shall be paid to
all workers employed by or on behalf of a public body engaged in the construction of public works. The underlying public policy was that, or the underlying public policy argument at that time was that government should not use its buying power to undermine wages of local workers, and that's the underlying policy. Currently, there are 32 states that have prevailing wage laws. There are 18 states that do not. Nine states never had a prevailing wage law.
Nine states did, in fact, repeal those prevailing wage laws, but there has not been a repeal of the state prevailing wage law since the early 1980s. There have been several attempts. The most recent attempt in the surrounding state was the state of Missouri last year, and that bill died in committee. Proponents, I would say, of the states surrounding Arkansas or bordering Arkansas, I think it's important to realize that those states that have no prevailing wage law are Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Tennessee all have a prevailing
wage law. While proponents of repeal argue that it will save tax dollars by reducing wage rates, it's our contention that there's no real evidence that that is the case in Arkansas, and I want to talk to you about why that is so. There are a wealth of studies out there, both for and against. None of them, to my knowledge, deal with the state of Arkansas. One of the big proponents for repealing state prevailing wage laws has been the conservative think tank, the Cato Institute.
In their most recent findings, they issued a report in 2010 proposing repeal of state prevailing wage laws, I would point out. But I think they have a conclusion in their findings that is very important to Arkansas, and I want to quote that study. In states where organized labor is relatively weak, the wage determinations are close to competitive market rates. I contend that that is the case in Arkansas. We work real hard to make sure that is, in fact, the case.
The Arkansas Department of Labor conducts an annual survey of building rates actually paid in your district. We do not make up the rates. We do not look anywhere else. Do the rates actually pay on construction projects the preceding 12 months in those counties? Some states that have prevailing wage laws only conduct a statewide survey. Some states only conduct a survey every few years. We conduct an annual survey, and we look at local wage rates. While you're there, could you address some of
the questions about the percentage of people
that replied to the survey and also one of the variation year to year
Speaker 137
54:53
and county to county? I'll certainly try to do that. In terms of our – we survey – we send out two basic surveys. One is to all the contractors, licensed contractors in the state of Arkansas get a mailing list from the Contractors Licensing Board. In addition to that, we send out a targeted survey. There are a lot of licensed contractors that may not have done work just because that's where their address is. They may have been on a big project somewhere else. They may not even be in business anymore.
That's just a mass mailing. We do also a targeted survey of we look at the Dodge Reports, which is a compilation of construction done in the state, and we survey those general contractors that actually did work in a particular county the preceding 12 months. We asked them to give them a list of their subcontractors, and we send out survey requests to those subcontractors. And, Ms. Oxley, I'm sorry, just
for the sake of time, instead of the procedure, could
you just tell us the percentage of people that
Speaker 137
55:56
reply? On the targeted surveys, it runs about 78 percent statewide. Thank you. One of the things I do want to address is the report that this bill, if passed, would save 5 percent on public works construction projects. This bill will only address wages and doing away with prevailing wage law. Wages is not the only component on a public construction job.
In fact, wages generally account on most construction projects for 20 to 30 percent of the total cost of a job. So in order to save 5 percent on the total cost of a construction project on the public sector side, the math is real simple. You got to slash wages 20 percent. And I really question whether that is what we want to decide to do as a public policy in the state of Arkansas. But that's what it would take, wages cut by 20 percent.
Now I do realize there are a lot of studies out there, and I know they are boring, and And I know it is hard to believe that two economists can look at the exact same data and reach two completely different conclusions, but unfortunately that is the case. So that's why I think it's real important to take a look at what would happen in Arkansas. One of the things I think is particularly telling is that in a lot of the studies that say prevailing wage rates, if you repeal prevailing wage legislation that the wage rates will go down, is those studies are looking at four states, Michigan, Ohio, New York, and California.
And I would respectfully contend that none of those states is comparable to Arkansas, and we need to look at what would it do to Arkansas. I want to mention two studies – do I need a – I can
– No, he was just raising his hand for a question. You
Speaker 137
57:49
can continue. I do want to mention two studies in particular, apart from the fact that they're favorable to prevailing wage legislation. I think one is because it's the only study I know of of a neighboring state, and it's one of the most recent, and the other was because it was actually commissioned by the
legislative body of that state. And the first one is Missouri. It has had the most recent attempts to prevail prevailing wage in Missouri, and the University of Missouri at Kansas City conducted a study on the total economic impact that repeal would have on the state and concluded that it would result in lower wages for all construction workers, including workers on private projects. It would result in reduced sales tax revenue to the state, reduced income tax revenue to
the state, increased numbers of out-of-state contractors working on public works jobs in Missouri, and increased occupational injuries and their resulting associated cost, as well as fewer young people entering construction apprenticeship training in Missouri. And that was real important to the Missouri legislature because they think they have one of the best apprenticeship training programs for the construction industry in the country. The second study I would mention was actually commissioned by the legislature of New Mexico
when they were looking at repealing prevailing wage in New Mexico, and they also decided to keep the prevailing wage law in New Mexico. They looked at surrounding states to New Mexico, both those that had prevailing wage laws and those that did not have prevailing wage laws and concluded that there was no significant impact on the cost of construction, although there was a significant impact on the cost on actual wages paid to others. There are a couple other things that I feel that it's real important to mention real quick
if I can is penalties. The Arkansas Department of Labor is in fact authorized to issue penalties. It has been our enforcement focus for years and years now to focus on making workers whole, getting things corrected, and making sure the back wages are paid. Our database began in 2006. We haven't issued an administrative fine or administrative penalty in a prevailing wage matter since 2006.
I know it's been longer than that. I couldn't tell you how long that would require a manual search. I'm sorry. The other thing is red tape and paperwork, because we hear this a lot from contractors. Most of those contractors are confusing federal Davis-Bacon from state prevailing wage law. We do not require certified payroll. That is federal. There is nothing required for contractors at the state level in terms of administrative cost,
in terms of record-keeping that is not required of any other employer in the state except for one thing, and that is that the hours worked on prevailing wage cost and those labor costs are segregated. Now, any contractor is going to segregate those costs anyway. Most contractors will because if they don't segregate their costs on a project-by-project basis, they're never going to know whether they even break even on a job. But those surveys are not required. We do not penalize people for failure to do that.
In conclusion, and I do appreciate your time, so I'm going to try to be very brief. I cannot tell you conclusively that if you repeal the state prevailing wage law that that will have a negative impact on the economy of the state of Arkansas. But I can tell you conclusively that we do not know because there has been no study at all on that total overall economic impact. And it is our opinion that a 40-year-old worker protection statute should not be lightly repealed.
Denise Ottsley
Unverified
1:01:48
Thank you very much. I'll be happy to answer any
questions I can. Thank you, Ms. Oxley. Representative Malone, you're recognized for a question.
Members, we have about five more people signed up to testify, so just keep that in mind,
Speaker 150
1:02:01
please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm not sure if I need to direct this question to you or who else, but I'll give it a shot. yesterday we had a committee of the whole and we discussed this new steel project which is 125 million that the legislature will vote on to give this company and I'm sure part of that will go towards construction of the steel
company that being said since these are public tax dollars that are being used does that mean this company will go under the prevailing wage law as far as
Speaker 152
1:02:30
when contracts are bid that's not a public works project it is not a public building for public use
Speaker 137
1:02:37
it's a private but even if taxpayer dollars are being used that's correct that that is not a public works project okay that's my question thank you now there is undoubtedly that that that is a huge project and it undoubtedly we survey those private sector projects so
undoubtedly the wages paid on that project will
Speaker 155
1:02:54
affect the prevailing wage rates for a couple years okay okay thank you thank
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:03:05
you representative Malone Representative Hamer. Would you care to give an opinion from and one of the difficult things is sitting on committee is people come from different sides and they've got their different studies and here we are to you know to sort out the information so I've got two questions on that. Since 1969 there's never been a study specifically on this in the state of Arkansas did I understand you
Speaker 137
1:03:24
correctly? That is my understanding I am not aware of
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:03:28
one. Okay and then the The second point is, would you care to enlighten us as to, from your perspective, why public schools and highways, certain entities, are excluded from this, why others have to, you know, comply with it? I'd like to hear your input on that, please. Absolutely. And I'm sorry. I
Speaker 137
1:03:46
remarks, and I did not, Representative Hammer. But highways are not excluded because they have a whole other law that covers them, and the Highway Department sets those rights.
They have rights set, but they're set by the Highway Department, not the Department of Labor. And what about? Public schools are exempt, and I do not know exactly what the public policy reason for those were. I assume that they had a stronger lobby in 1969.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:09
Okay. And do you know, have there been any studies that, and maybe it was referenced a while ago and all the information that was being thrown out, do you know if there are any studies that show that for the highway department and K-12 that they are getting more bang for the buck than the other entities that are having to build under the compliance of this law?
Speaker 137
1:04:29
No, that is one of our big concerns is if we're going to repeal a 40-year-old workers' protection law, should we not look at those things and know the answers to those questions? Even if it adversely affected your position?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:04:42
Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, and as a note, Vice Chair Murdoch's pointed out that the highway department's regulated under the federal rules because so much of the funding comes from there, and so that's the reason there. I think you are accurate in your assessment of why K-12 is exempt, however, as well as they are exempted from other competitive bid requirements and things like that.
Speaker 163
1:05:07
Yes. Mr. Chair, do you know, does that apply to Department of Higher Ed as well, or is it just K-12?
The competitive bid requirement or the prevailing wage? Either or. Competitive bid or higher ed is exempted and on a certain level, and then prevailing wage, I'm not sure. They're
Speaker 155
1:05:23
covered by prevailing wages. Any other state agency would be? So it's K-12 that's
Speaker 137
1:05:29
got the exception. Yes. All the state-supported institutions of higher education, their building projects fall under prevailing wage. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:05:37
Thank you. Representative Wardlaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you tell us why there's such a widespread variance in different areas across the state, as Representative Douglas alluded
Speaker 137
1:05:49
to earlier? I'll be happy to try to address that. I do not know that there is wide areas across the state. When we issue rates, new rates, at the beginning of July 1 of every year, there will be some that do not have a statistically significant amount of construction done the preceding 12 months for us to issue rates, which means an old rate will be carried over for a long period of time.
It may even be several years before we get enough construction in some areas to set a rate for a particular craft, say carpenters or whatever. And so when we do get enough statistical data to set a rate, if it's been three or four years, then there is generally a big jump in the rate, yes. Thank you. Representative Love, you have a question? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:06:40
Chair. Well, I'm going to follow up with Representative Warlock's question.
And so with repealing, if we were to repeal the prevailing wage law, would this correct the variances? because, you know, I'm trying to understand where Representative Douglas is. One of the arguments was that, you know, we have a varying wages here, there, and everywhere. I don't know. But would this correct that? Well, if we repealed the
law, would it correct this issue? Talking to you, Mike, please, Representative Lutz. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. If we repealed the
law, would this correct what Representative Douglas brought as one of the central arguments? There would
Speaker 137
1:07:25
no longer be a minimum requirement, but it would not affect the fact that there are going to be different contractors paying different rates in different counties. We do not make up that variation. That variation occurs because that is data actually paid to those workers in those areas the preceding 12 months.
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:07:48
Okay, so repealing this law wouldn't correct that issue
at all? No. Okay. No, sir. Now, let me ask you, because I know Representative Wilkins asked about the per capita income, or he alluded to it. And so in the surrounding states where they have no prevailing wage law, is the per capita income higher or lower
Speaker 182
1:08:14
than the ones with the prevailing wage law?
Speaker 137
1:08:19
Well, I can tell you if I was going to suggest emulating the economy of one of the surrounding states, it would not be Louisiana and Mississippi where they do not
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:08:30
have prevailing wage laws. Is that what you're asking me? Well, I'm saying, because, I mean, we're really talking about something that will affect per capita income by repealing prevailing wage. And so, therefore, I mean, in the states that have prevailing wage and the states that do not have prevailing wage, who has a higher per capita income?
Speaker 137
1:08:51
In the states that abut Arkansas, the states with prevailing wage laws have a
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:08:56
higher per capita income. Okay, so this would possibly lead to the conclusion that prevailing wage, that without a prevailing wage law,
we may face wage suppression. Is that correct?
Speaker 187
1:09:12
We're saying we do not know. You know, there's just no
Speaker 137
1:09:16
study with respect to Arkansas, and we don't think we ought to play Russian roulette with folks' livelihood.
Denise Ottsley
Unverified
1:09:24
We need to know. would it suppress the wages at least Missouri thought
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:09:31
so okay I won't ask any further questions thank you mr. chair thank you
and I don't make very I'll try to follow my own rule but I just want to make sure that I'm clear on something and it's and I know I am but when you're talking prevailing wage on a public project it's a tax dollar that the state took from a taxpayer that we're now paying to somebody else because of a prevailing wage law.
You do not inflate the economy by taking a dollar from one person and giving it to another. It is still the same dollar. We took it from the economy in the form of taxes, and we are giving it to somebody else in the form of a wage, but it's the same dollar. MS. Is that a question directed at you, Mr. Chairman? MR. No, it's not. I'm breaking my own rule, but it's just a basic concept that we're missing, I think. So it is still
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:10:20
a dollar that was taken by in the form of taxes from a taxpayer because these are public projects. Certainly.
Denise Ottsley
Unverified
1:10:26
And I think the legislature makes those public policy decisions all the time, whether you're talking about minority contracts
Speaker 137
1:10:32
or veterans preference or I think there's a few Buy American bills floating around in this session. You know, when you're talking about spending tax dollars, you make public policy decisions.
I guess my basic point is if a dollar entered into the economy in the form of a wage because of a prevailing wage laws inflates the economy and creates economic activity, I am smart enough to deduce that the dollar taken from the economy in the form of taxes, which is
that same dollar, deflates economic activity. So if we agree that the $80 million we're talking about that we spend more on public projects because of the prevailing wage laws is creating an economic activity that's good for the state, I think we also have to talk
about how every dollar we take in the form of taxes from the economy is
Speaker 137
1:11:19
deflating it. I really have a problem with that $80 million figure for the reasons I've said before. That would assume that you're going to save, if you repeal the prevailing wage law, you're going to save 5 percent across the board on public works projects, and labor is not 100
percent of a public works project. In order to save $80 million, you're going to have to reduce labor costs by 20 percent, not 5 percent, in order to get the 5 percent overall savings.
Okay. I broke my own rule, and I apologize, but that was hopefully somewhat of a question. A couple more. Representative Butch Wilkins, you have a question? Okay. Representative Link. Of the dollars
– thank you, by the way – of the dollars being spent on these public projects that we're talking about.
Have we said somewhere along the line, and I missed it, have we said an estimate of those that are federal dollars, federal tax dollars versus state tax dollars versus county versus city? No.
Speaker 137
1:12:17
The total dollar that Representative Douglas gave, that actually came from the Department of Labor, and that is correct in terms of prevailing wage. Now, that won't be actual contract costs. Those were bid costs. So, you know, they may have . .
. But we don't know exactly where those tax dollars came from, which might be kind of
going with Representative Burris or maybe arguing a little bit with Representative Burris. It may not be a dollar directly out of that same economy, back into that same economy. It may be other tax dollars from other locations. That's why
Speaker 137
1:12:49
I was asking the question. That would not be if they're federal tax dollars in most circumstances that will be Davis-Bacon rates applicable and
Denise Ottsley
Unverified
1:12:57
not state-providing wage rates. Very good. All
right. Thank you, Representative Link. Representative Mayberry, that would be the last question.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:13:05
Well, that actually kind of goes to what I was about to ask. Given the lengthy agenda for today, would it be appropriate to limit debate at this point? I'd like to make a
motion to do this. Put that in the form of a
motion and quantify it. I'd like to make a motion to... Well, I'm sorry. I was going to give you...
Speaker 207
1:13:25
I think 10 minutes on each side is more than enough. I would like to
make a motion to limit debate to 10 minutes on each side. Okay. Thank you. That is a non-debatable motion. So, members, the motion is to limit debate,
10 minutes each side. For the audience, if it passes, that means it will be 10 remaining minutes to speak for the bill, 10 remaining minutes to speak against. Any questions? Well, I'm sorry, no questions. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? No. I'm going to rule the ayes have it. So, the clock starts now. Representative Love. Mr. Chair, I'm going to have to challenge that. Okay.
do we? We'll roll call it. I love roll calls. Roll call. I love them. Roll call. Hands are easy to count. So two
hands, I saw Ward Law, Representative Ward Law. Okay. So, again, the vote, well, you know how you voted. So we'll call the roll, Representative or Mr. Price. debate yeah yeah this
Speaker 210
1:14:32
is just a limit debate representative word
Speaker 211
1:14:37
representative Butch Wilkins representative Perry representative Malone representative
Hank Wilkins representative Hank Wilkins representative letting representative Love, Representative Link, Representative Harris, Representative Wardlaw, Representative Hammer, Representative Branscombe, Representative
meeks representative mayberry representative overby yes representative Ritchie representative woman yes representative Ferguson no vice chair Murdoch chair Burroughs 12
votes to limit debate so
motion passes again this we're still
debating it's not everybody's gonna have a chance to have their say let's just expedite it a little bit so beginning now we'll have 10 minutes remaining to speak for the bill 10 minutes to remain speaking against as a note that also includes the sponsors closing for the bill so in a lot of ways this is more limiting to the proponents of the bill you will have more time for people to speak against representative Doug if you're speaking for the bill just keep in mind and we'll do time updates but there's no time left before at the end
of the the end of the public comment representative Douglas doesn't get to close for his bill I believe that was all the questions for miss Oxley so thank you for joining us for your testimony just signed up to speak for the bill we We have Bob Kleinert. So, Mr. Kleinert, if you would join us at the end of the table and state your name and title, you are recognized to speak for the bill. Again, keeping in mind that the clock is ticking.
Speaker 224
1:16:54
Well, I'll say it quick. Benton County Judge Bob Kleinert.
I'm here today to support the bill to abolish the Arkansas Prevailing Wage Law, which probably more aptly should have been named the Arkansas Union Wage Scale Law because this law artificially imposes wages by the government on private industry. I don't think that's our job as the legislature to impose these kind of restrictions. Could you get just a little closer to the mic, please?
Just to give you some of my credentials, I am now the Benton County, Arkansas judge, and I've been there for the last two years and was reelected, and I have two more years in the office. My background is in construction, having earned a degree in construction management at Oklahoma State University and spent my entire working career in commercial construction. I'm a former licensed contractor in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. I only dropped the Arkansas license because I became the judge and I didn't want a conflict there. I'm a current licensed GC in Florida.
I have as much knowledge as anybody in this room, I believe, about construction. That's all I've ever done my entire career. I'm not sure where the name prevailing came from, but the wages set forth by the Labor Division are not prevailing, but quite simply stated, in many cases, not all cases, are equal to union pay scales. The reason I say in many cases is because sometimes the scale is lower. Representative Douglas pointed that out.
For instance, in Benton County, a painting contractor was to get $12 an hour. Our painting contractors that work for us on bid jobs, he pays his people somewhere around $15 to $17 an hour. So that's not a prevailing wage in my county. Also in our county, we had a project bid that the bid was $41,000 for the drywall and acoustical and tape and bed. I called the contractor, and I said, that's just too high. He was the low bidder.
And he said, well, $6,000 of my bid is for the prevailing wage. And so it kind of brought to my attention, as I was a contractor before, we just paid the wages because that was the law. So I started to question this practice and why are we doing that? Why is government imposing wages on the construction industry? They don't do it for any other industry in this state. The carpenter rate that was set for Benton County per the Labor Department was $27.50 an hour, I believe.
I may be off a few pennies. The going rate in Benton County is about $17 to $19 an hour. It just depends on how much qualifications these people have. So as he spoke before, not only does it cost more to do the work, It takes longer to do the work because this human nature is that these jobs take a little longer when they're getting paid more. They don't want to go back to their job. It causes dissension if you've got a contractor with 30, 40 employees, 10 employees,
and you're going to pull four or five of them or 10 of them over to another project for three or four months and pay them significantly more than what they would normally be making. They're jealous of each other, which is just human nature. They're going to have those thoughts. In the construction business, the construction specifications are the standards by which you build a project. And in this state, if you've got a prevailing wage project, in the specifications will be
all of the requirements for the prevailing wage law if it applies, and also the specifications for the rest of the project. So in there, you're bound to do what the engineers, what the architects, what the building inspectors do. Everything is monitored as far as the quality of the work. The contractor is important. The contractor, being one myself for 30 years, if you don't ask for quality, you're not going to get quality. But what you pay, if it's competitive, and I don't mean minimum wage, if it's competitive, the quality is going to be the same.
It's the same people. These people that went over here and worked on this project for me just moved from one job to another inside Bentonville. Same people, same quality, same everything. The paperwork that's filed, and I know, I'm sorry, was it Ms. Owensby? Oxley. That's the record-keeping requirements of this law. It's a typewritten page. Now, I don't know what her thinking is of saying we don't have to keep records.
There's a whole page of records that you have to keep, all kinds of records. And that's somebody in their office, and you've got to keep these records for three years. And they're always subject to being mailed to the department. I assume they have people down there that are checking these records to be sure these wages are being paid. So to say there's not much record keeping is just false. It's just there's a myriad of records that have got to be kept. I've worked on union projects from Florida to Texas to all over the United States.
These people that are in unions are fine workers. They do quality work. I've never had much difference, though, in what the work they've done because they've got to get a license. If an on-union contractor, electrical contractor, plumbing contractor, They have to license all their people, and they have the same training. The quality of the work is not that much difference if the inspection is good and the contractor is good. But I don't see that you can legislate how a company should run their business.
I think the free enterprise system is what I'm most interested in here today, is that the government should stay out of the business of private industry, Let the market set the rate, and that's what I feel that we need to do here. Okay.
Thank you, Judge. Is that 10 minutes? No. You used up about 70 percent of it, though. I want to make sure we keep a little for Representative Douglas. I vote against that. Any questions for Judge Klinard?
Okay. Thank you for your testimony. I just want to make sure we leave a little time for Representative Douglas. Thank you. Now for the against, and as a – that was six minutes of the ten. So, yeah, I was –
so it's not 70%. Yeah, I thought it was seven. I didn't mess up that math.
My clock was wrong. So against, I believe we've got – Mr. Hughes with the AFL-CIO, I believe you had a couple other people.
You said we're okay with joining you. If you all would like to join us at the end of the table and states your name and affiliation, you are recognized to speak
Speaker 232
1:24:21
against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and representatives of this committee. I am President of the
Speaker 233
1:24:25
AFL-CO, Alan Hughes. Next to me I'll let you, if they would, introduce yourselves or someone that deals with this
all the time. I've heard a lot of talk today about construction, competitive bids, and all this stuff. If everybody's working on the same wage, to me that takes part of that bidding out. Everybody else is still working on the rest of that bid. It's still competitive bidding. But this room today is filled with workers, and this to me is about workers in Arkansas, about trying to struggle to make ends meet. We talk about bringing the steel mill in here, paying good wages. We talk about education.
You have all these apprenticeship programs. A lot of these people in this audience today have been to those apprenticeship programs. We've invested money into them going through this training. And it's not a skill of just digging a ditch. We're talking about electrical, plumbing, the list goes on. I know one example here in Little Rock, Arkansas several years ago, the Verizon place over here. Started falling apart before they even got it open and had
Speaker 235
1:25:24
the first basketball game. Could you get a little closer to your mic?
Speaker 233
1:25:29
I'm sorry. because of shoddy work on it. We see this filling wage does give you quality work,
safe workers, trained workers. It does go back in the economy. And all I want to ask you to do is look around this room and see the faces here. A lot of these people are two weeks away from having trouble making ends meet because they don't work 52 weeks a year. A lot of them only get nine months of work because of weather or lack of jobs and stuff. Not all of them is guaranteed 40 hours on that job. And I do appreciate the judge what he said a while ago about the quality of work from unions. I appreciate that.
And I think with the education and giving them those wages, you can get that in every job. So if it's all right, I'd
Matt Fair
Unverified
1:26:21
like to turn this over to two gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Matt Fair. I'm here representing the Arkansas AFL CIO as well. And I'm a former business manager of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union. I take exception with what the judge had to say about union wages being set
and causing this to be the cause of the rates being what they are because the union companies in the state of Arkansas only set 3.68 percent of the prevailing wage. The rest of it is done with the open market. So I do take exception to that. And unfortunately, Representative Wilkins isn't in right now, but he can attest to what I'm going to tell you. I was his neighbor for, oh, there he is.
Sorry about that, Representative. He was my neighbor for about 30 years, and he knew the type of work I did. And in the plumbing and pipe fitting industry, to try to garner more of the work, We took a cut in our wages at one time of 15 percent to help gain back some of that work. I could not afford to go to work for 15 percent less money than what I'd been making. I had a wife and three kids to feed, and Representative Wilkins can tell you I didn't live high on the hog.
out there around Bono. We're just good old country folks, and we live just like the neighbors did. But saying that, if I couldn't take that 15 percent cut because I couldn't afford the gas to go to and from work, the only option I had was to go out of state and go to work if I wanted to support my families. Unfortunately, that's what I had to do a lot of the times. And as Ms. Oxley stated earlier, we're talking about a 20% cut in wages if we do a 5% across the board.
Can these folks afford that? Can you afford to take 20% less than what you're taking right now and get to work? Feed your kids, buy them school clothes. That's what we've got to look at. And as it was, whenever the law came into being in 1969, back in Governor Rockefeller's era, as Ms. Oxley stated, and I want to close with this, the government should not undercut wages to workers just for their benefit.
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:29:01
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dennis Donahue, and I represent the Carpenters Union, and I also sit on the Providing Wage Advisory Board. Two things I want to point out, and the judge has a very tough job. There's no tougher job in the world than a county judge. I've known a lot of them. They're my friends. But I want to point out, in Benton County, that's a county that has a good revenue, and these wages are surveyed every year, and they go up and down. One of the reasons the carpenters shot up so high for one year there was the Crystal Bridges Museum,
which was being built by a non-union contractor, and the Walton family about a third of the way through that dismissed that contractor. They brought a union contractor in that finished that project, and that $27 also includes, that's not all wages, that's insurance and training and retirement for those workers. But with that being said, I want to put the first thing I want to say is we applauded the steel mill coming into the state of Arkansas, that $1.1 billion job, and we all agree that's great for the state of Arkansas.
The owner said $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 a year wages. Nobody disagreed with that. Everybody said that's what Arkansas needs. At the same time, we're applauding a steel mill coming in, paying those kind of wages. This committee is considering a bill that would bring the wages of construction workers when there is literally thousands in this state that does that, bring their wages down. I do not disagree with some of the things they said, but on their philosophy side of it,
they're trying to make a budget. They're just going about it the wrong way. The last thing I will say is I want this committee to put their self in a construction worker's shoes. I was there for 16 years before I got a better job as far as easier on my body. These men in this room will tell you, and I want you to put yourself in their shoes. They usually work longer and harder than other trades or other types of work. They have to get up earlier.
They have to drive further. they're either hot or they're freezing or it's wet or it's dusty it's not a easy way to make a living and they i know i'm talking i'm talking union and non-union when you're out there in work there's no difference in how those jobs are they work extremely hard and you are considering bringing that pay down put yourself in their shoes just for one minute put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself if you can vote to lower wages on these hard-working
construction people because that's what this will do and the last I'll close with mr. chairman it is always easy for large construction companies or large employers that have a good living and make good money which they deserve to try to say we'll say that say of Arkansas money by cutting wages that's the wrong way to save money thank you thank you gentlemen
we used up eight minutes there but I think y'all are the last together I'm sorry there was one
more okay so eight minutes but any questions for these three gentlemen okay seeing none thank you all for thank
you all for testifying we had one Scott McDaniel signed up to speak for the bill mr. McDaniel there
you are if you'll join at the end of the table. And again, just a reminder, there's four minutes remaining, and I'd like to reserve a couple for Representative Douglas. Okay.
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:32:48
Thank you all for your time. Can you all hear me? I have kind of a scratchy voice. I apologize about that. My name is Scott McDaniel. I'm here today on behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors. We are an association built on the idea of the merit shop philosophy, which is basically that projects should be awarded to the company that has the most merit, more or less. There shouldn't be barriers to entry. Could you get that mic just a little closer? Yeah, I'm sorry. Like I said, I apologize. Anyway, long story short is I'm also a general contractor,
and every time we bid a public job, the first thing we do is we call the architect and we ask that architect for the wage scale. Nine times out of ten, it's in accordance with what we currently pay. But that one out of ten times, when that scale is different, we're not going to bid that job. And so the current system is set up in such a way to where I think it creates barriers to entry on public work, which I don't think that's a good idea personally. I want to hit just a few things that was brought up. One, I believe that the chair was talking about how not all projects are competitively bid.
All projects in the state of Arkansas are competitively bid, even alternative delivery projects. Those projects are broken up into package, and they are bid. So the answer to that question was actually 100%. My main issue, though, I want to talk about also is there are currently no safeguards. How do we know the wages are correct when they send them in? It's all based on self-reporting. I mean, I would, quite frankly, just me personally, I can't speak for the association here, but I would prefer the certified payroll, because at least then we know, actually, that the wages are fair representations.
I have more to say, but I want to concede my time for the closing, but I will entertain any questions. You and I can meet
afterwards to discuss who's right about the competitive bid. Wonderful. I would love to. Yeah, sure. Thank
Speaker 163
1:34:53
you. All right. Signed up to speak against the bill, we have Mr. Steve
Jordan. You've got two minutes remaining, and I think you're the last one. Is that right?
So feel free to use all two. All right. I'll be
Speaker 248
1:35:06
lucky if I use that. I'm not a politician by no means. I'm a pipe fitter. I was raised by a dad that was a prevailing wage worker. He provided us health insurance and a little retirement that he hadn't got yet, but I went into the trade not because of the benefits or the wages because I love it. is where I'm from, Baton Rouge. In 1988, they did away with their prevailing wage. About the same time I came down with a bone marrow disease. When the bill went through or they
got rid of the prevailing wage, they gave me the option. I could stay for a dollar more an hour and everybody else was going to have to leave. But that dollar an hour didn't include health insurance. I'm already done. I'm already seeing three doctors. I could say they'd give me an extra dollar, but no benefits, none of that. So I packed my bags and come to Arkansas, One of the best moves I've ever made, not just because of LSU and Arkansas and all that stuff, but Matt, business agent over here, he knew what was wrong. He knew I had problems, and most any, I'm not going to use the word nonunion, but any
non-preventing wage contractor would have never hired me due to my health insurance and this, that, and the other. Thank the Lord they did, and they have to provide everybody with that. I have a cousin that's working right now for a non-prevailing contractor in Baton Rouge. He's in a wheelchair now because of a pipe that dropped on him, and everybody can tell self-sob stories. But my main thing is when you're talking about wages and $27 an hour and all this stuff, a big percentage of that is you've got to provide in these day and times health insurance,
some sort of a little pension plan because people will spend every penny they got, never go to the doctor. If I had stayed, I would be a bigger burden on the state today than I would be if I had not have moved. I would be on the welfare system with no health care, and I don't know how much that would cost, but I know it would be quite a bit. So just consider the whole thing. It's not about $5 an hour, $28 an hour, $40 an hour, $1 an hour. It's integrity. It's health care. I mean, we're all in a debate about this.
Hey, Mr. Jordan, I'm sorry. Oh, man, come on. I'm just getting
on a roll here. I don't think health care was going to fit into two seconds. My dad's a Baptist preacher, so I'm practicing for
when he retires. I don't think you need any more practice. All right. Thank you for your testimony. I think there's just about two minutes left, three maybe. Two minutes. Representative Douglas, you're recognized to close
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
1:37:38
for your bill. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do appreciate the comments and the questions
both for and against the bill.
It brings out a good debate and decorum, and that's what we're here for. In closing, I just want to say, you know, we're not, by repealing this, we're not trying to hurt the workers in the state of Arkansas. They do a good job for us, and we need to support them however we can. But we take a look at it, and one thing Ms. Oxley said, in the process. We have a government agency that is sending out surveys to ask employers
what they are paying in a region. Then they take that information back and then they send it back out to employers to say what they should pay in the region. Now, does that make any sense? Do we need an agency to tell construction companies, you tell us what you're paying and then we'll tell you what you need to pay your workers. The workers are already making the wages. By repealing this, it should not change their wages at all because they're already making them.
The problem is when things get screwed up during the governmental process of analyzing and taking the information in and sending it back out, That's when we get abnormalities
that drive the cost up. Private construction, private industry
can run their own business, save the taxpayers' money. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Douglas. Thank you, members of
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:39:23
the public, for your testimony. What is the pleasure of the committee? Representative Meeks. All right, we have a motion due pass. Is there any discussion on the
motion? If not, all in favor of the motion do pass, please say aye. All opposed? No. I'm going to rule the no's have it.
Okay. One hand for a roll call. Two hands. Okay. Y'all don't be bad. I have a feeling we're going to have a lot of roll calls. I just want to
start doing it, and that's okay. don't hurt my feelings
Speaker 211
1:40:09
call the roll mr. price representative word representative Butch Wilkins representative Perry representative Malone representative
Hank Wilkins representative letting representative love representative link representative Harris representative Wardlaw representative Hammer representative Branscombe representative makes representative
Mayberry representative Overby representative Richie representative Womack, Representative Ferguson, Vice-Chair Murdoch, Chair Burroughs. Yes.
Representative Douglas, you failed to pass your bill. Thank you for the presentation. I said at
the beginning, I know a lot of folks are going to be leaving, so if y'all could expedite that process quickly, we've got to continue our work here. So just please save your conversations until you get outside.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:42:43
if you're still in
you're talking please leave or sit down and not talk we're going to continue going through our agenda representative fight has asked that we pass over her bill there we go house bill 1172 she asked that we pass over it one more time representative Malone would you like to run 1186 pass over representative Broadway has asked we pass over 1189 representative hammer 1190 pass over it
And Representative Davis, 1197, he did say that he intends to run that on Monday. So if that is an area of interest to you, be here on Monday – I'm sorry, on Tuesday to go through that. This time, I think I'll just probably go ahead and make a motion to pull Senate Bill 134 off of
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:43:53
the table. I have a comment, Mr. Chair. On the motion or about something else? on the just
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:44:00
about some some comments that were made tuesday regarding when we were going to
take up this bill if that's proper now or after we
i'll go ahead and i made the motion so now's the time for well i'll tell you what i i know it's i will stop it's an undebatable motion but out of respect for you i'll let you say your piece and then then we can
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:44:25
discuss the motion thank you mr terry i do appreciate that um if it is the pleasure of the committee to take up this bill today. That is absolutely fine. I understand and respect Senator Rapert's desire to move forward today, but I do believe Tuesday, when we were originally going to run this bill,
you, Mr. Chair, did say that your preference would be to set a special order of business. Again, that's fine if we take it up today, but there were several people in the room here today we're going to talk about the bill. I think there are several people who want to be here to talk on both sides because this is a very important issue, and since the plan was not necessarily take it up today, they might not be here. So I would just respectfully request that if we do move forward today, we at least get a five-minute recess to perhaps talk with a few people. Thank you.
Speaker 272
1:45:24
The motion was non-debatable, so we're going to take the vote of the body. All in favor of
Speaker 64
1:45:36
the motion to remove Senate Bill 134 from the table. All in favor of removing Senate
Speaker 70
1:45:47
Bill 134 from the table, please indicate by saying aye. opposed? No. Ayes have it. Senate
Bill 134 is off the table. Representative
Letty, I'm going to honor your request and I'll double it. So why don't we recess until noon, give people some folks some time to get here because I realize this is an important issue and I know everybody's hungry but there's There will be a cafeteria downstairs. We might even have lunch delivered. Let me work on that, but we'll recess until noon and then come back in to discuss Senate
Bill 134. We'll stand and recess until noon.
Speaker 292
1:47:50
That's what I'm doing. And that's what
Speaker 290
1:48:13
I'm going to do with the leverage. And
Speaker 266
1:48:18
I said, well, let me come back.
Are you still at the same building? I'm sorry. Are you still at the same building? No, he just, he just pulled it down. And I've been back. He asked Andy, I've been kind of working hard. Because the deal is, this is what Paul said that he said. Andy, if they've got, if they take our ability of 26 minutes in case he can take the limits out. And so I said call, leave it open so I can take care of his place.
But he'd say, yeah. And
Speaker 266
1:49:17
long as we get it. Yeah, I heard that.
Speaker 297
1:49:32
I heard that. Hey, how are you? I'm all right. I'm going to say
Speaker 298
1:49:36
hi to Michelle. We have a five-minute read. Oh, so you're not wanting to get her back in for, come out here tonight with me. Okay.
Speaker 259
1:51:38
Stephen Moore is awesome, he's a great, I
Speaker 310
1:51:45
like a lot of colleagues. He's good at shit. He opposed, I had a conversation
Speaker 282
1:51:53
for a few years ago. I used that as a conversation, They should go, okay, have three more. And he was, he wrote an editorial in the journal.
And he was like, no, I'm
Speaker 301
1:52:15
like, I like this one. But the thing
Speaker 313
1:52:20
is, I'm just such an confusing thing
Speaker 282
1:52:29
for other people who are just pre-married. You were convinced of, voting yesterday, to
Speaker 316
1:52:49
avoid mass in the lives. I just don't want to burn civilization.
Speaker 313
1:53:01
Okay. That's a good job. You know, had I been in a good time for that, had I been in a good summer, and that's, you know, that's what it's worth. Well, there were people in the office, and they were in the same district. No, no,
Speaker 322
1:53:33
no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Even with, even with this one, Richie, yeah.
Speaker 325
1:53:37
Did you get my email with me? Uh, yes, I did. I mean,
Speaker 282
1:53:59
I did get a response from our doctors about if it's too long, also if it's too much, if it's too long, too long, it's like a trickle.
There's a lot of attachments to it. Do you think
Speaker 325
1:54:17
that's going to help? I mean, are there any more? They're very opposed to the Oh, that's quite okay. Okay. See, here's the
Speaker 325
1:54:34
problem. That's a long term. Yeah, it's not bad.
Unknown speaker
1:54:56
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'll make this announcement again, but just so you know, we did order lunch. It's going to take about 25 minutes to get the sandwiches up here. I have a feeling we might be here. If not, you can take your sandwich to go and take it with you,
and it will get eaten one way or the other. Let me grab everybody from outside. If you all can go ahead and – I guess I'll – I'm going to go ahead and just call us back into session. So
if everybody in the room can grab your seat. I'm going to give
it just a few seconds here, folks, because I know everybody kind of wandered
out. And then as soon as I feel a few of the chairs fill up, we'll go ahead and start and recognize Senator Riper to present his bill.
And Senator Rapert, if you'll join us at the end of the table, state your name. Well, you're just recognized to present Senate Bill 134. I
Speaker 337
1:58:56
believe that Representative Klemmer, I don't know if she stepped away to the restroom, but somebody needs to get Representative Klemmer and get her back in here. And we do have some others, so. I'd suggest
a nice lengthy presentation. Okay. But as soon as Representative Clemmer gets back in the room, she can join you at the end of the table.
Yeah, because she actually is going to make the
Speaker 339
1:59:19
presentation. She maybe didn't get the time there just a little bit, but she was right here. I appreciate the body for taking this up today. Senate Bill 134, as you know, is the act to create the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act. The bill, all of you, I believe, at this time know the contents of the bill. We're going to go over that with you. but I also wanted to make sure that you know that we do have an amendment that Representative Clemmer has put in for this bill.
There she is right now. I want to defer. I was just at the amendment because actually Representative Clemmer was going to present, okay? I apologize. I thought
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:59:56
I still had a minute or two. Has the amendment been passed out? Phil, have you passed the amendment out? It
should be on our tablets. Well, I'm sorry. I thought they
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:00:12
were actual copies. I forget. I'm still on the old school.
It's all right. Never mind. You're recognized to go ahead
and present. And actually, I think it would probably be best if we – I know there are amendments, and I think we could entertain those motions now. I think we need to do one at a time so if you go ahead and state which amendment would you like
Speaker 344
2:00:54
to adopt Representative Meeks yeah they're not
yeah the amendments aren't numbered this is a little bit more complicated with the tablet. So I know which amendment you're talking about, Representative Meeks, and for the members, it would be the Amendment 1. Point of order, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Yes. I believe that only members
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
2:01:14
and staff are allowed past a certain point. And we have a gentleman over here who is recording the proceedings. Okay. If you could just move
to at least the back of the room. If you're not a member of staff, just please stand behind the sign. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Fair enough.
Representative Word? Yeah. We'll go and distribute the hard copy of the amendment and we'll distribute the one that representative makes is making the motion to adopt I think representative Ferguson will have a motion to adopt another amendment, but we'll handle that immediately after so we'll pass out this amendment first Sorry for the confusion Should I begin talking while
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:02:00
they're passing it, or do you want to wait until everybody has a minute?
Give it just one second, if you don't mind, please. Okay, I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:02:24
think we're getting close. Representative Klemmer, you are recognized to explain the amendment. Essentially, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment addresses some of the major concerns. This is an agreed-upon amendment.
We listened to the arguments and some of the concerns the other side had, and really those concerns have been addressed in this amendment. You have the amendment in front of you, but essentially I think the first thing I want to say, and this isn't in order of what's on the paper, it moves to not allow an abortion until after 12 weeks and a heartbeat. So this is the heartbeat protection, but it is heartbeat protection after 12 weeks,
so that it is essentially not touching abortions in the first trimester, approximate trimester. It also deals with protecting the right to have an abortion if there is a major health risk for the mother, and those are defined there on your first page, medical emergencies and major bodily function, which I don't feel the need to read out loud. I can if you'd like me to. Everyone has a hard copy so they can read for themselves.
We feel like, again, we've listened to the other side and incorporated willingly the objections to protect. The right to an abortion for the first 12 weeks is protected in this bill and these amendments. And I don't know what else we need to say if we need to answer questions about the amendment. Yeah, I will say,
Senator Rayford, do you have a comment
Speaker 337
2:04:02
on the amendment? I would just like to say that we have entertained every suggestion at this point for the bill.
In addition to that, I think that Representative Ferguson has an agreed-upon amendment. I had some counsel that it was not necessary to actually do this, however, I see why we need to do
Speaker 339
2:04:20
that. And so I want to let you know that I fully support the amendment that will be offered by Ms. Ferguson in consultation also with Representative Wardlaw. Thank you. Okay. That'll be
the amendment we vote on next. Are there any questions from the committee members about the amendment that you have in front of you now?
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
2:04:41
Okay. Representative Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify because the medical implications have been one of my big problems with the abortion bills in general. If there are Conditions like fetal anomalies like anencephaly and no kidneys and conditions that are not conducive to life, in other words, the infant would die soon after birth, this bill does allow for abortions in those cases. Is that correct?
Speaker 339
2:05:11
I was in discussion, so I thank you, Representative Klemmer.
Speaker 337
2:05:16
I actually had a discussion with one of the doctors from UAMS, and it was determined that we could not literally list every single, you know, eventual outcome. And so what we did is, and I met with them and also with other parties, we got in touch with one of the leading firms in the nation regarding constitutional language. We agreed without any, we have not changed a word.
We just said, please send us the language that has stood the test and other abortion bills that you have seen already challenged. And what you see here is, and I'm going to go ahead to make this clear, that every exception here states major bodily function includes without limitation functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive bowel, bladder, neurological brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions. And specifically, in trying to say just medical emergency, because this does not prevent abortion to, you know, to preserve the life of the mother or in a life-threatening medical emergency, one of the physicians said, well, that just seems so open-ended.
It's meant to be open-ended because I doubt you would ever have a prosecutor in the state of Arkansas with documentation and a file about a medical emergency try to prosecute a doctor. And we went further to say medical emergency means a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, a physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself,
or when the continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of a pregnant woman. So you see that it is very expansive. It takes into account everything that could possibly be done. Any other language, there's just no way to say it any clearer. So we feel confident, especially with the fact that we've vetted this with legal scholars that actually have said this has stood the test and and now that we also have
made the amendment that she talks about with the 12 weeks we will wait and discuss a little bit more later but we are now within the standard of road we
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
2:07:44
laid actually so is there any felony conviction for doctors attached to this bill ma'am if
Speaker 337
2:07:51
someone actually went further as you know this has an exception for rape, incest, life of the mother, all the things that we've stated there, and there is no prohibition in the first 12 weeks whatsoever.
As long as they stay within that, they're fine. Other abortion laws here in the state do have penalties. If you breach those, we do have a partial birth abortion ban, which is one of the first things that we were able to do in the state to line up with our state constitution, which says we're going to protect life from conception. So you're exactly right. There is a Class D felony if they broke that. But, again, you would have to have a prosecutor come into that situation, look into those medical records, and make a determination.
I think it's highly unlikely that a doctor ever would breach that in the state
Speaker 356
2:08:43
of Arkansas. Thank you. Well, no. Actually, my husband was one of the co-sponsors of
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
2:08:47
the ban on partial birth abortion, so I support that. I just want to make sure there were, I think there were only two abortions after 21 weeks last year for these fetal anomalies where the child would die at birth, and I just wanted to make sure that that was protected because it's much easier, as you know, to abort a baby that's going to die anyway at 20 weeks than to wait until term,
Speaker 356
2:09:11
and even anencephalic, sometimes you have
to do a section, so thank you. Thank you, Representative Ferguson. Any other questions on the amendment? Okay, we had a motion to pass the amendment from Representative Meeks. No other discussion. All in favor of the motion to adopt the amendment, say aye. All opposed? Amendment passes. Representative
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
2:09:36
Ferguson? I want to offer an amendment to strike the emergency clause.
Somebody's got their cell phone on vibrate, I guess.
Speaker 286
2:09:49
It would be a big one. Collective cell phone. You're recognized to present
your amendment also. Do I need to go to the end of the table? No, ma'am. You can keep your seat. They're passing it out, so as soon as they have most of the folks have it in front of them, you can
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
2:10:13
go ahead and present. It's just to strike the emergency clause because, you know, to give time, there will probably be a little chaos here in the interim and to give time for both sides to prepare to litigate.
Okay. Members, you should have the amendment in front of you. It is just to strike the emergency clause. Any questions for Representative Ferguson on the amendment? Representative Letting. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
2:10:39
Representative Ferguson, can you just clarify again why you want to give both sides a chance to get organized? Well, I'm not
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
2:10:46
an attorney, but my understanding is that there will probably be some legal challenges, so I want to give them time to prepare. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Any other questions for Representative
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:10:59
Ferguson? If not, what's the pleasure of the committee? Motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Representative Wardlaw. Okay, all in favor of the motion, do pass
an amendment. Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, you passed your amendment, Representative Ferguson. Now, Representative Klemmer, you're recognized to present SB
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:11:25
134 as amended. Well, first of all, I don't want anybody to worry that we've got pictures.
We don't have – I mean, I'm trying my best to keep my motions in check. I think we had those last week. This bill will substantially alter the number of abortions performed in Arkansas every year. The fact is 93 percent of the abortions conducted in Arkansas are conducted on healthy mothers with healthy babies – 93 percent. So we do spend a lot of time talking about exceptions, but they are, for a reason, exceptions.
And 93 percent, again, of all abortions are performed on healthy mothers and healthy babies. Abortions after 12 weeks are more dangerous for the mother. So we have allowed, I think, ample time, virtually the first trimester, to accommodate a woman's choice. I'll see if I can take care of it. I feel like I need to form a route. That's all right. If we
can ignore it for now, we'll see if we can take care of that.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:12:47
was in the ninth grade in 1973. I feel like I am, you know, there was an age of an Aquarius, and the age of Aquarius was kind of an age of abortion. And, you know, I've known a lot of women that have been put in positions where they weren't happy to be pregnant. And some of those women chose to have an abortion.
And to be honest, a lot of the women that I know that made that choice are still today. decades later, just really torn up about the decision, about the decision that we were saying as a state and as a nation was okay. Now, again, you know, we could bring lots of people up to testify to that. I think for obvious reasons, I think that a lot of women don't want to testify about
not something that they have become troubled over. They don't want to be out in public and talk about the abortion that they had when they were young. I also know that there are a lot of women that thought about abortion and decided not to. And for very much the same reason, there aren't a lot of those women that want to testify to that. You know, how do you tell your child, gee, I thought about having an abortion.
I really didn't want you, but you're here. So we don't have a long line of women here to testify to that. But I think that if you think about it, and, you know, let's face it, women are a minority on this committee. We're a minority in this legislature. But we've known people in that circumstance. I had three unplanned pregnancies. I went through with all of them and delivered babies.
Wonderful children that are now wonderful adults, doing wonderful things for the world. And the law gave me the opportunity not to have those children. And I respect that law because it is where we are as a nation. but I also think that the choice that's there can be made in the first 12 weeks and that the choice can be made to allow that freedom to continue.
But after 12 weeks, we're closing the door, except for rape, except for incest, except for these extreme health concerns. And with that, I will yield to the bill's sponsor. Thank
you very much. Do you have the piece that we had
Speaker 337
2:15:40
that has some of the information there? Thank you. I appreciate the committee for eyeing us. I want to get right to the heart of the matter about the provisions. You've already heard some about the exceptions that are in the bill.
We believe this is a good bill. We believe that it's been vetted thoroughly and obviously has substantial support from the Senate coming to you. very important thing for you to consider the only remaining thing and I don't think we've even discussed is that we specifically agreed that this would be an abdominal ultrasound in the original bill it stated that the state medical board would decide what would be the the way that they wanted to set that
practice obviously the debate went to a procedure that caused a lot of concern I did not want that concern to be there and we feel like that by utilizing the abdominal ultrasound which is fully capable of detecting the heartbeat at 12 weeks also this puts us in line with Roe v. Wade Roe versus Wade stated in 1973 that states cannot regulate abortions during the first trimester but it actually went was able to when you look at this I will sell you
briefly straight from the decision it says that for the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician for the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester which is what we've now done in this bill the state in promoting its interest in the health of the mother may if it chooses regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
We've included all of those, and we stand the test of Roe v. Wade. For the stage subsequent to viability, the state in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate and even prescribe abortion, except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the life or the health of the mother. In addition to that, in the Gonzalez case which I argued in committee in
the Senate, I stated that this is where we settle in on the heartbeat. It states clearly and it applies both pre-viability and post- viability because by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism within the womb whether or not it is viable outside the womb. I'll go further to summarize. In addition to that, this bill does not regulate abortions during the first primester.
Doe v. Bolton 1973 says states cannot prohibit abortions that preserve the health of the mother. This bill contains an exception for the serious health risk to the mother. Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992. States can impose limited restrictions on abortions before the fetus if viable and impose greater restrictions after the fetus is viable. This bill does not violate anything in Planned Parenthood versus Casey the last case Gonzales versus Carhart
2007 allowed states to prohibit abortion prior to viability This ruling allows states to prohibit partial birth abortions before and after viability and it concerns concerns that this bill may limit abortions prior to viability should consider the fact that the The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed states to prohibit abortions before viability. With that, I'll yield to my spot. With the chairman's approval,
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:19:33
I would distribute those court cases that he just cited so that the members could look at those.
Okay. Thank you both for the presentation. Staff will distribute that
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:19:49
out. I would just like to add one
other thing. In 1999, the legislature passed a fetal protection act that created a 12-week-old baby in the womb as a person. And so this abortion timeline is consistent with what the status of a baby would be if
a woman were attacked or a victim of negligence due to an automobile accident, gross negligence. A person who kills a 12-week-old unborn child can be charged with murder, manslaughter, and various charges in between. And so we are consistent with using the 12-week mark. In fact, it was interesting to read the law passed in 1999 that outlined this status
and come to the specific portion of that that says, of course, the exception is made for abortion. So anyone who causes a woman to lose her baby intentionally or even due to negligence can be charged with a crime. The woman could not. But now, and again, we're not touching the first 12 weeks,
but after 12 weeks, we're putting the mother, we're not making her criminal, but we're also just eliminating her option for killing this person as defined in state law. Okay. Thank you
for the presentation. Members, as you saw, the food is here, and I know that this is a little bit of an unusual situation. I don't like eating in front of other people, but we do go right into session after this. And so we all probably have about 20 phone calls from constituents
to return in between two. But slowly, just a couple at a time, If you all want to make your way back to grab a box lunch, have a seat back down, we do have a lot of testimony. People signed up to speak on the bill. I want to make sure we give that the appropriate attention that it deserves. But just kind of one at a time, mingle back, grab the lunch that you want, have a seat. We're going to hear the testimony, questions from the committee first, and then also those folks signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Ludding, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
2:22:28
And thank you, Senator Rayburn and Representative Clemmer for being here today. I have just two short, simple questions. The first, since I'm a man and have no medical training and have not yet had the opportunity to be a father, I'm unfamiliar with kind of the average timeline of a pregnancy, but I did have a female friend a couple of days ago tell me that when she was pregnant with her first child, she didn't find out until 10 weeks. Is it possible for a woman to be 10 to 12, maybe even 13 or 14 weeks along before she knows she's pregnant?
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:23:01
I'm no doctor, and yes, we all hear circumstances where someone goes to the bathroom and delivers a
baby and never knew she was pregnant. I have always wondered how that happened.
And I have too. But yes, and to be honest, Representative Letting, even though I was a supporter of the original version of this bill, I am much more comfortable with the 12-week mark because of the fact that it, you know,
even though we know that a heartbeat can be detected at five to six weeks, many times, especially someone, a young girl, whose cycles aren't regular might not know that she's pregnant at that time. There are going
to be circumstances probably where someone doesn't, but
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
2:23:49
they are unusual. And thank you. And I will say that I also am much more comfortable with the amended version of this bill, so thank you. My last question is, if a woman happens to miscarry beyond that timeline, is there any kind of legal burden on her or her doctor to prove that it was a natural miscarriage?
Speaker 337
2:24:11
Representative Letting, I think that the fact that there is a Class D felony that's there, I don't know of a doctor that would want to do that. and she has no penalties but the doctor and I just severely doubt that under facing a class D felony that there would be a doctor that would do that if there is one then he would have a penalty
Speaker 339
2:24:30
if he and what I'm saying is if he did an abortion and tried to say that it was a miscarriage but no miscarriage is totally covered in that and that would be in the medical documentation and I appreciate your comments
Speaker 361
2:24:42
Representative Letting very much so thank you that's all Mr. Chair
Speaker 70
2:24:46
okay we have a question from Representative Link First
off, let me comment that I have a bill out there that does away with a lot more paperwork, and I'm almost regretting it as I try to scroll through this thing. So I'm trying to find the reference to the 12 weeks. I mean, I hear us talking about it, but I don't find it in here. It's in the amendment. On the
Speaker 371
2:25:10
second page. There's two pages of your amendment. Well, we have three amendments.
Speaker 337
2:25:14
Second page of them. Okay, let me look on the paper here. I bet I can find it. The amendment that you have, the draft that includes all of the medical emergency language should have a second page to it, Representative Link. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. You got it now? Got it. Hey,
Speaker 371
2:25:29
I'm glad you got that cleared up, though, too, though, because we want to make sure that's everyone understood. All right. Thank you. Are there any more
Speaker 380
2:25:44
questions from the member? Okay. Representative Hammer.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:25:50
Senator, would you just educate me as far as when a mother determines that they are possibly considering having an abortion or have one, do they currently have to state the reason why they have chosen to have the abortion? Is that required in any of the current law? Say that again for me now. Does a woman who chooses to have an abortion currently have to declare why they have
Speaker 337
2:26:17
chosen to have the abortion i would have to check statutes on this but we're not dealing with anything that affects any other statutes whatsoever with this language it's standalone language at partial birth abortions you would have obviously there would be some restrictions it's there but in terms of any other language out there
Speaker 339
2:26:37
representative hammer in consultation with the attorneys consultation also with the scholar that we consulted nationally in consultation actually with people that have opposed it. We've not had anybody bring
Speaker 156
2:26:49
that particular issue up, but that is a good question. Okay, and I would like to know,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:26:54
based on some comments that Representative Klemmer made a while ago, and either one of y'all can answer this, talked about where we are as a nation and et cetera. When it comes to the subject matter of abortion, what would you say, and every law has unintended consequences, Maybe not every law. That might be a little stern, but it seems like most laws end up having unattended consequences to them.
What would you say are the unattended consequences that might possibly come as a result of this law being passed, or do
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:27:33
you feel there are any? Unintended consequences, I don't know of any. I mean, the purpose of this bill is to make abortions safe, legal, and more rare. But right now, we believe that this bill would save about 815 lives a year in Arkansas.
Speaker 70
2:27:52
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Are there any more questions from the members? Okay. We have
Speaker 150
2:28:03
about us. Oh, yes. Representative Malone. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one quick question. Oh, thank you. Has it been considered or do you all consider that the accusations of rape or incest would go up if this law passes? Is there any – does it state that they would have to prove that, or can a woman just walk in and say, I was raped, and they say, okay, and they – I mean, is there any –
Speaker 337
2:28:30
That's a great question. That's a great – I have lots of great questions. I just don't always say them out loud. Well, thank you. Well, you do have a great
Speaker 339
2:28:41
question, but the hypothesis assumes that somebody is going to walk in and lie to a medical doctor about her situation. And so in terms of answering to that, you would put a doctor in position of violating a Class D felony. So obviously documentation is what you have to stand on. And so if there's a documentation in the person that presents, but there's no law in any field,
not only an abortion that prevents somebody from lying about something. So it's actually an ethical question, really, on the part that would be hard to answer.
Speaker 150
2:29:16
You've got a follow-up. Go ahead. Thank you. And having asked that, I mean, I guess, you know, teachers are supposed to report if they see child abuse in the home or whatnot. So is the abortion doctor legally obligated to report a rape?
Speaker 337
2:29:34
Are they, I mean? Representative Malone, I believe that they currently would report a rape of somebody presented to the hospital to do so. But I would say that, again, you're beginning to ask me some questions that it's hard to answer because, again, it deals with the ethical issues from somebody that may be lying when they present to
Speaker 371
2:29:55
the doctor. Senator Rayford, if I could
just interject and just say, Representative Long, they are good questions. I think that these specific changes to the statute and code don't address it.
Whatever the law is, I think already addresses it in a different section. We can find out that answer. Thank you. This
Speaker 388
2:30:16
doesn't change any law already in place. Thank
Speaker 52
2:30:22
you. And, again, they are excellent questions. Thank you. Okay. Representative Hammer. I'm going to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:30:29
direct the question to the chair, if I may, on the basis of what you just stated to the representative. What I would like to know is if a woman presents herself to a physician and she states that she has been raped
and as a result of that an abortion is performed, is the mother subject to be charged with murder of the baby? Is that addressed in this law, or is that covered somewhere else in statute? It's already somewhere. This bill
Speaker 163
2:30:54
doesn't address it. It's an appropriate question. We can just find out the answer. This bill has nothing to do with it. So this bill will not alter that in any way, shape, or form once we make these allowances? No. Whatever law that exists provided for
these exceptions is on the books. We can just get the answer. And if we feel like there's some changes that could
be made, the bill fell on deadlines a few weeks away.
Speaker 70
2:31:17
Thank you. All right. Thank you. any more questions okay now we'll go to the next race thank you we're gonna yield to those who are for against first we're going to against we're gonna go with against we have Curtis Lowry Dr. Lowry if you would come to the end of the table there
Speaker 72
2:31:47
and introduce yourself for the to the committee and present mr.
Speaker 392
2:31:51
makes has a question go ahead mr. chair I'd like to
Speaker 382
2:32:01
limit debate on both sides to ten minutes okay it's motions to limit debate on both sides
for two 10 minutes. Let me clarify. Is that 10 per side? Mr. Chairman, is that 10 per
Speaker 392
2:32:14
side or 10 total? Let's clarify your motion. 10 per side. We'll do five minutes per side, 10 total. Five minutes per side, 10 total.
Is that too, I mean, we can do 10 each side? You want to do 10 per side? Mr. Chair has asked me to do 10 per side. We'll do 10 per
side. I just – I'm just trying to eat my sun chips up here, but I think 10 a side will be more appropriate. I just want to make sure that
Speaker 382
2:32:44
we – 10 per side. That's fine. Okay. Everybody clear
Speaker 70
2:32:47
on the motion that we limit debate to 10 per side? Ready to vote? All in favor of the motion signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed?
Ayes have it. So now we're under – we're under restrictions.
Speaker 72
2:32:59
We have 10 minutes, and the clock will start now with the against. Dr. Lowry, would you please introduce
Speaker 398
2:33:07
yourself and present to the committee. Yeah, hi. Thanks for allowing me to address this. This is
Speaker 399
2:33:12
Bill. I'm Dr. Curtis. I'm a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. I'm chairman of the OB-GYN department, director of the ANGELS program, which is a high-risk pregnancy program around the state of Arkansas. And I'm a maternal fetal medicine specialist, board-certified maternal fetal medicine specialist.
And so I'll begin by saying I spent my entire career, which is over 30 years, caring for mothers and fetuses. And the Arkansas Angels program is fought to improve the health of pregnant women and their babies. And during the existence of the Angel program, we've significantly reduced the death of pregnant women and newborns around the state. So the concern that we have regarding this bill is that in the management of high-risk pregnancies, we have to have intimate discussions with the pregnant women and we have to balance the risk of the mother
and the fetus and sometimes we put the mothers at risk for the sake of the fetus and sometimes we put the fetus at risk for the sake of the mother and it's sort of a very complicated complex process. It's not black and white. I wish it was black and white, it would be a lot easier if it was just that simple. We just, you know, pick a number and it would be over with but it's not like that and this bill does not adequately protect the physician's ability to interact with a patient.
This law will be enacted and then the judicial system will begin to enforce that law. And the doctors who are trying to make appropriate decisions about the pregnancy will be, can be convicted of being a felon. And I think that's a violation of the relationship with a patient and doctor. It puts the doctor at risk of jail time, and as a result of this is going to infer my training program of residents at the University of Arkansas for medical sciences.
We've trained more than 80% of the practice physicians around the state, OBGYN physicians around the state at present. It doesn't adequately address congenital anomalies, and it doesn't adequately address premature rupture of the membranes, and this is when the bag of water ruptures prior to viability, we have to make tough decisions about how to manage that pregnancy from that point onward and so the and in this point in inducing these women you know 16 17 weeks even though they have almost no chance of having a live
infant and could get infected and suffer serious problems health problems result of that infection would now be subject to this law and and we wouldn't be able to intervene and do the things we normally do. So I think it puts the physicians in harm's way, and it interferes our ability to manage pregnant women, and I think it's going to put women in harm's way, because now we're going to be forced into following this. Dr. Larry, if I
Speaker 72
2:36:10
can interrupt you. You have five against, and we only have 10
Speaker 400
2:36:14
minutes, and we've already used how much?
Speaker 401
2:36:16
I'm finished. You used 30 percent, so I want to
Speaker 400
2:36:20
make sure those others have a chance. I understand. That's it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 70
2:36:25
I appreciate the opportunity to talk. Thank you. Well, we may have questions for you. Any questions for
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
2:36:31
Dr. Lowry? Representative Letting. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and thank you, Dr. Lowry. Would passage of this bill in any way
Speaker 399
2:36:37
threaten any kind of accreditation for you? Yes. Okay. Our program got – we have a very strong program right now. It got cited because we don't provide adequate training for abortions to our residents.
That's a mandate, national mandate. And so if we lose the ability to do that, either we're going to have to send the residents out of state, and we don't have money to pay for that, or we're going to lose accreditation. So it puts our program at
Speaker 63
2:37:02
risk. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Representative
Speaker 156
2:37:05
Hammer. Does this count against the 10-minute time, the questions?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:37:08
Yes. Explain to me real briefly how it threatens your accreditation again, please, how this law impacts your accreditation. Well, we have
Speaker 399
2:37:16
national reviewers that come in and review our program, and there are criteria
they use to review the ability of the program to train residents one of them is training residents about contraception and abortion they cited us for our residents not having adequate training for abortions even now before this law is enacted and so we're gonna have to deal with this in some way we're gonna have to provide better training for the residents otherwise we'll lose our accreditation and they were going to come back this happened about six months ago okay so what I hear you saying is that
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:37:45
it can't be done you're just going to choose not to do it did I misinterpret what you just said no I'm
Speaker 399
2:37:52
saying that it's even going to be more difficult to provide this service and and if you reduce significantly the number of voices performed in Arkansas I don't know where we're going to get the opportunity to train our residents so it puts our program in jeopardy as far as
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:38:06
that portion is concerned not the whole program but it
Speaker 399
2:38:09
know the whole program because they decredit the whole program if you don't meet the criteria that they tell you you have to meet okay Thank
you Chairman Burris. Thank you and I just want to be clear because you mentioned you've said that
it's already a problem because Arkansas has I guess restrictive laws regarding abortion than other states. So this problem already existed because we are a state with more restrictive abortion laws. Is that correct? Yes that's
Speaker 70
2:38:36
correct. Okay thank you. Thank you Dr. Lowry. There are no other questions. Next we'll hear oh sorry Representative Harris.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
2:38:42
Dr. Lowry, now let me just it can be a simple question are you saying that you're complaining because if we restrict abortion you won't have the opportunity to train your doctors, is that what you're saying?
Speaker 399
2:38:57
We don't have material there's no way to
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
2:39:00
do it so if there's no one you can
Speaker 399
2:39:04
practice on then you can't train correct, so you say practice but what you really mean exposure to it I want to clarify
Speaker 70
2:39:15
all right if that's if that's all dr. Laurie next we're gonna have some of
this voting for I mean excuse me speaking for the bill dr. Vicki
Speaker 72
2:39:26
Parker will you please come to the end of the table and introduce yourself and present to the committee you have ten whole minutes I
Speaker 411
2:39:35
don't think I'll need 10 oh minutes actually I'm Vicki Parker and I'm representing Millie Lace who is a licensed practitioner she was unable unable to be in the state today when this convenes so if you'll permit me I'm going to read her testimony for you good
morning mr. chairman and members of the committee now afternoon thank you for listening to my testimony my name is Millie Lace I'm a licensed professional counselor of the state of Arkansas and I'm the founder and director of the concepts of truth
Representative James L. Word
Unverified
2:40:10
Inc and when concepts of truth is
a professional counseling care center ma'am I'm sorry I'm gonna have to stop you representative word you recognized
Speaker 414
2:40:24
I don't think that that testimony should be permitted
because it is not coming directly from the
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:40:31
individual. It's a little bit of a gray area, ma'am. I'm going to go ahead and take
the point from Representative Ward simply because it would kind of fall under a restriction of hearsay testimony. Since we don't have the ability to cross-examine or ask questions of the person offering the testimony, it's generally something that's prohibited. if you you would be allowed to summarize the testimony that you're trying to present and then we can ask you questions after you after
you're done with that I apologize for not
Speaker 411
2:41:02
notifying you of that in advance okay okay I will do my very best the bottom line is was in 1979, Dale and Millie Lace found that at a doctor's appointment that something was wrong with their baby. And so it was suggested that they would get an abortion. And in which that's what they followed through with
and did. From that what Millie states is that what happened was they said what they were told to her and Dale at the time that this baby was a blob of tissue. That it wasn't anything more than that. She, for 12 years she suffered and cried to herself because of the grief
and the pain and the missing, even though this was a medical procedure that supposedly was supposed to be because something was wrong with the baby, it did not nonetheless leave her devastated, and Dale devastated from the death of this child. They still missed that baby. She still suffered from the pain and the anguish of having to make that decision or even being able to make the decision.
So it has hurt them, and for years she has worked to try to help other people through her position as a licensed counselor in the state of Arkansas and all over. I personally, I mean, I can give Millie's, I work with many women, anywhere from 5 to 20 women a year who have suffered from
the anguish of abortion and whether it was they felt like it was forced on them or whether they made this decision feeling like they had no other choice the end result always is the same and is that they are hurt, it changes some of them ability to have the career that they wanted to have some are not able to go on and finish school some you know become self-destructive so this just
becomes something that is very harmful and hurtful for many women throughout it all so okay thank you miss Parker
there any questions okay thank you for your
testimony next we have oh I'm sorry
did you have a question representive hammer but not for the speaker but
Speaker 418
2:44:11
for the chair yes is there time left for those
who are wanting to speak against yes is there somebody else lined up to speak against yes several I have one question if time would allow I'd like to ask the doctor it's very yes or no question if just put it in the thought process if you will if that would be
Speaker 163
2:44:32
allowed it Dr. Lowry the previous yes okay at your discretion chair
thank you If it's, all right, Representative Hammer, I'm going to go through the list, and then
if we have some time remaining, I'm
going to do that. Is it Lou Williams? I yield to Dr. Janet Cathy. Okay. All right. Thank you. And we've got three more,
I believe. Oh, Dr. Janet Cathy. Okay. Yep. there we go you are recognized there's four minutes remaining on the testimony so you are recognized if
Speaker 421
2:45:15
you'll state your name for the record I'm Dr. Janet Cathy I'm board-certified OBGN I've been in private practice in Little Rock since 1986 in the question that Dr. Ms. Ferguson addressed to Mr. Raper I don't
think was adequately answered at least not to me it's whether this does allow for congenital anomalies and that's one of my biggest concerns and if I as a the physician don't understand really when it's explained to me. I don't think it's a very good, you know, it's not very well defined. We have spent billions of dollars probably in prenatal diagnosis and many of those using our very best science possible, we cannot diagnose these congenital anomalies before
12 weeks. Most of them do get the results from 12 to 16 weeks. The remark that 12-16 week abortion is dangerous compared to first trimester, of course, but it's not nearly as dangerous as being pregnant. The most dangerous thing a woman can do in her life is to carry a pregnancy, and I want that clarified. I'd also like to say that I think this bill targets younger, it targets poorer, it targets the disadvantaged because they are the people that are less likely to find out they're pregnant
and to be able to procure an abortion if they so want it. I'd also like to point out that what you say about emotional problems with abortion and this carrying on for years and years, that's not what scientific research suggests. Scientific research suggests that most women do not have any kind of post-traumatic stress or however you want to address it, from having an abortion.
No doubt some do, but scientific research shows that most do not. Again, I want to say that I think that this bill is punitive. I don't think it's necessary. And, yes, people lie to their doctor all the time, and that puts us at risk. It puts more and more people between the physician-patient relationship. I have to worry about the patient. I have to worry about the legislature, and I have to worry about the prosecuting attorney
coming after me. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Cathy. Vice Chair
Speaker 174
2:47:42
Murdoch, about two minutes left. Thank you, Chair. So to be clear,
Speaker 70
2:47:46
Doctor, I want to make sure because Representative Ferguson did, and I guess you could ask this yourself, but I want clarity as well. On the fetal anomaly question, you're saying as a medical doctor that you don't think the explanation has been given
Speaker 94
2:47:59
that that is part of this exclusion that's not clear or you're saying it's not
Speaker 421
2:48:04
there it's I think I think it's not there is my
interpretation and if I'm I'm the person that this is directed at if I don't understand it then I think that there's an issue thank you okay well thank you dr. Cathy for
your testimony did you have a question representative Womack for Dr. Cathy yes thank you chair doctor
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
2:48:25
do you I'm sorry you're still taking questions do you have any data to back up what you said about the women that have had abortions not suffering any kind of stress or emotional disorders for the rest of their life because I have noticed one thing we've not heard
from a single woman in any of these testimonies that explained how her life was benefited after the fact but we've heard a lot of stories the other so I just wondered was any data available or if that was just
Speaker 421
2:48:51
an opinion oh I think If we could hear from a lot of women who would tell you how a pregnancy, a delivery of a child, would have adversely affected them at a certain point in their lives, there's no doubt about that. And, yeah, I can't cite the article right now, but there's no doubt it's in the research.
You know, that's part of my training
to learn that kind of thing. Thank you, Representative Womack. There's nobody else signed up to speak for the bill. I'm going to recognize we've got two more people to speak against Ms. Bettina Brownstein, the
Speaker 424
2:49:27
ACLU I'm going to let not speak, you know what I'm going to say I'm going to defer to Lori
Williams Okay, I couldn't quite hear what you said to your point I
Speaker 424
2:49:38
would like to defer to Ms. Williams
You all know what I'm going to say Okay, you're
saying Ms. Williams you'd like to testify against Okay, I'll be honest, you're out of time. I'm going to show a little discretion
and allow for it just because of the uniqueness of the situation. But just please be respectful of that, and then we'll let Representative Klemmer and Senator Raper close for the bill. But Ms. Williams, if you'll join us at the end of the table, you'll recognize to speak against the bill.
Lori Williams
Unverified
2:50:13
I'll be very brief, I assure you. My name is Lori Williams. I'm a women's health nurse practitioner here in Little Rock. I thought that I could maybe better answer a question that was just asked about the psychological impact. There was a recent study published by the University of San Francisco that addressed specifically looked at women post after having an abortion and women who chose not to have an abortion. It was a controlled trial. It was very good science, and they looked at the psychological impact and showed that there was not long-term
psychological impact of most patients who chose to terminate a pregnancy. I also wanted to bring up that the risk of death from a first-trimester abortion is 1 in 1 million, but the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term is 1 in 8,000 of death from carrying a pregnancy to term. So as Dr. Cathy pointed out, if this language of fetal anomaly is not clear, we're asking a woman with maybe even a non-viable pregnancy to take that kind of risk with her health and her life.
Okay, thank you. any questions for Ms. Williams thank you for your testimony one more I think it's Denise Marion maybe if you'll join
us at the end of the table you're recognized
Speaker 428
2:51:37
to speak against the bill I am Denise Marion I'm here on behalf of myself and and my daughters. I'm from Hot Springs. I don't know any of you I believe, I don't believe
any of you know me, do you? And that is the main thought I want to convey. I totally understand limited government, and I completely agree with not wanting government to be intrusive in our personal lives. So I can't understand why something as intrusive as determining
whether and when I should have a baby or forcing me to carry a pregnancy that I do not want, How that isn't government intrusion. And how you could possibly understand the situation I live in. I lived in when I had my abortion. And how in heaven's name I would ever have established that that was rape.
It's difficult enough now to establish in the courts when a woman is raped. is
Speaker 386
2:53:02
just me against you who else is around okay thank you Miss Marion representative
Harris you had a question I do thank you mr.
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
2:53:16
chair just real quick miss man I appreciate your your testimony you coming up and I also want to say I do
Speaker 428
2:53:23
not regret that abortion in the least bit I'm sorry I didn't hear
you I was being told I don't I don't regret my abortion at all
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
2:53:32
okay I respect you and you're courageous for being here for talking out but I want to know you know you're talking about women's rights but who's going to speak out for the unborn child that's in the womb that has no voice representative Harris that's
the question it's rhetorical and I just prefer that we limit those given the hour okay I do have a response that's a that ma'am if it's okay with you that I'd just like to call it there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
There's nobody else signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Rafer, Representative Clemmer, would you like to close for the
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
2:54:15
bill? Let me say, first of all, that I'm pro-life, and obviously I wouldn't be at the end of the table if I weren't. But I also think the main reason I'm at the end of the table is because I'm one of the 17 women serving in the Arkansas legislature,
and we need a woman's point of view from time to time. And I said earlier that I had three unplanned pregnancies, and I didn't mean to imply that I didn't someday want children, but, you know, sometimes things happen, and you find yourself in that circumstance. And I don't want to belabor that point except to say that women do understand some things a little bit differently. I look back in hindsight,
and I could get really emotional here, and I'll try not to, because to be honest, I was probably about eight weeks pregnant when I found out each time, because again, I wasn't. But maybe six to eight weeks. But that time, I look back now, and I'm in my 50s. That's good enough. We don't have to get specific. That time is a blink of an eye in my life. I can even barely remember the last few months.
I mean, it is not, to save a life is not a big inconvenience to give up six months. If you are raped, if you have incest, if you have been attacked, you should know that there's a chance that you might be pregnant, and you could go to a doctor prior to that time and have that abortion up to 12 weeks. After that, I'm just comfortable as a female saying the clock is ticking and you have got to decide before 12 weeks.
And I'm going to let Senator finish the closing and talk about the number of abortions in
Speaker 337
2:56:27
the state of Arkansas. Thank you very much. And what is wonderful about this, and I'm going to be brief, is that this legislation has input from our Democrat legislators. This bill has input from our Republican legislators. Twenty-six senators joined by five Democrats and three women voted for this bill.
We've agreed to an amendment that we think makes a good bill better. And if today we were discussing, and this was the last discussion that could be had, and we could put our mind set in 2011, and you knew that your vote could save 815 lives in this state, would you vote yes or no? What we've heard today is testimony that failed to argue successfully against the fact that this legislation, the Heartbeat Protection Act, meets the test of Roe v. Wade, of Doe v. Bolton, of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and of Gonzales v. Carhartt.
This state has the option under Roe v. Wade to regulate abortion at the end of the first trimester and beginning of the second. What you're doing has been given you by the United States Supreme Court. Members, I appreciate a good vote
Speaker 339
2:57:48
and we're closed for the bill. Thank you
for the presentation. What's the pleasure of the committee? Representative Womack? Move to pass. Motion? As amended. Thank you. Any Any discussion on the motion?
Okay. All in favor of do pass, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Chair rules the ayes have it. Congratulations, you passed your bill. Seeing no other business to come before the committee, we'll stay in recess or adjourn until Tuesday at 10 a.m.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John Burris Chair
Unverified
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
Speaker 11
Speaker 18
Speaker 25
Speaker 34
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 42
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
Speaker 57
Speaker 63
Speaker 64
Speaker 48
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 82
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Representative Kelley Linck Chair
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 70
Speaker 94
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 130
Denise Ottsley
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 150
Speaker 152
Speaker 155
Speaker 146
Speaker 163
Speaker 182
Speaker 187
Speaker 207
Speaker 175
Speaker 210
Speaker 211
Speaker 224
Speaker 232
Speaker 233
Speaker 235
Matt Fair
Unverified
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
Speaker 248
Speaker 262
Speaker 264
Speaker 268
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 272
Speaker 283
Speaker 292
Speaker 290
Speaker 266
Speaker 164
Speaker 259
Speaker 297
Speaker 298
Speaker 258
Speaker 282
Speaker 310
Speaker 301
Speaker 313
Speaker 316
Speaker 322
Speaker 325
Speaker 330
Speaker 337
Speaker 339
Speaker 344
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 356
Speaker 286
Speaker 319
Speaker 361
Speaker 371
Speaker 380
Speaker 156
Speaker 388
Speaker 52
Speaker 72
Speaker 392
Speaker 382
Speaker 398
Speaker 399
Speaker 400
Speaker 401
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Speaker 411
Representative James L. Word
Unverified
Speaker 414
Speaker 418
Speaker 421
Speaker 174
Speaker 424
Lori Williams
Unverified
Speaker 428
Speaker 386