House Insurance & Commerce Committee Part 2
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB2143
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2143”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB739
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…hairman. Marshall Wright, state representative, here to run Senate Bill 739. I'm helping Senator Hutchinson run this bill. Basically wh…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1450
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1450”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2117
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2117”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2138
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…pecial order business, yes, please. Which bill? Which bill? House bill 2138. House bill 2138. Thank you. Thank you. All right. No, we'r…”
|
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
Speaker 3
0:00
Operation Friday, please. So your special order business for Friday? Special order business, yes, please. Which bill? Which bill? House bill 2138. House bill 2138. Thank you. Thank you. All right. No, we're
not putting it in a special order business. Okay. Okay.
All in favor let it be known by saying aye.
Speaker 9
0:34
Aye. Opposed? Okay. Who cares? Reverend Hyde, you'll recognize. Sure. Yep.
Speaker 18
1:07
Lord. Yeah, I was going to say, that's enough, man. You know that. I don't like speakers. I can't hear you. Yeah,
Speaker 19
1:15
I'm going to meet them. I have to call you back, sir.
Speaker 26
1:23
Okay, Representative Allen, do you want to put your amendment on to 2138 of our member's own?
and that way it will already be engrossed into the bill, but I think that we hear it. Okay. All you have to do is
Speaker 28
1:37
give it to Martha, and she'll take care of the money. Okay. Hey, you don't have
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:44
to worry about it. This wouldn't have no sense in paying any attention to this one. It won't cost you $200 million of premium tax later.
Representative Hyatt, you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
2:21
you, Mr. Chairman. Members, the amendment is simply the, you know, working the bill through the companies and through the regulation.
And this whole thing is kind of a result or response to the Dodd-Frank Act. Our due date on that is going to be July 12th of this year, so we've got to move on it. And I would move, Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions, that we adopt
the amendment. Okay. Okay. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
2:57
Okay. Amendment adopted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, House Bill 2143 is the Arkansas Insurance Department surplus line's premium tax.
Let me point out now that this is not a new tax. We've been paying premium tax ever since we began insurance, you know, however long ago that was. This bill simply is trying to get us in line with the Dodd-Frank Act. Congress has passed a law that changes the way states collect premium taxes from surplus lines insurers. Beginning this year, states will no longer collect these premium taxes individually by state. There will be a pool that collects the premium taxes that would previously have been divided by the state to which they were owed.
In order to claim your state's portion of premium tax that is collected, states are directed to enter into a multi-state agreement that establishes the procedure for collecting your state's tax. For Arkansas, that amounts to roughly $9 million that goes to the state's general revenue. There are NCOIL and NAIC model acts that establish the procedure for collecting the tax state by state. However, these associations have not yet finalized and adopted these models. Accordingly, given that we must act during the legislative session,
we have modeled this bill after the language in the federal law. During the next regular session, we hope that there will be some national uniformity established, and at that time we can amend our law as needed. So, members, this is simply to preserve premium taxes that are presently collected and due Arkansas in the future in response to how that's going to be changed by the Dodd-Frank law act. And we do have John Morris here from the Insurance Commission, Mr. Chairman,
if we have any questions. And, members, there is no known opposition to this bill. Members, are there
any questions from the members? Okay, hearing that, is there anybody in the audience that want to speak for or against the bill? Okay, your name, sir?
Mark Lowry. You're welcome to come to the end of the table and identify yourself and tell us who you're representing.
Mark Lowry
Unverified
5:20
You're recognized, sir. There it is. My name is Mark Lowry. I'm representing professional insurance agents of Arkansas as well as the NAPSLO organization. I'm not quite like the President was this morning of saying that I'm testifying against but not really against. My main issue for these organizations is that there's still so much uncertainty in terms
of this particular law. As a matter of fact, even the presentation that you heard from Representative Hyde has there are some nuances on that. There are some issues that are mandated, but there are many of these things that are being given, the power that's being given to the commissioner actually is permitting. It is not mandating. One of the main arguments and concerns that, and I should just spell out for you, there are a number of groups that are opposed to the concept of the compacts, specifically
the compact that would be set
Speaker 9
6:30
up by the NAIC, the Risk and Insurance Management Society is opposed, the American Association of Managing General Agents, the American Insurance Association, the Excess Line Association of New York, the National Association of Mutuals. Point of
Speaker 38
6:42
water, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure if none of these folks are here to speak or have given us any direct correspondence. They certainly
cannot be quoted. Thank you. Unless they're here to actually testify themselves, you can't quote them, sir. I'm sorry.
Speaker 9
6:58
Okay. Well, certainly the National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Office, Napslow, who has asked me to speak, is
Mark Lowry
Unverified
7:06
opposed. One of the concerns that they have, and I understand that the commissioner, and I've spoken with John Morris, the deputy commissioner, that they just want the flexibility to be able to decide later on if they want to move one direction or another as far as a compact. However, this is not, despite what you were told, this is not something that is mandated.
There is a date certain of July 21st, but at that point, if the state of Arkansas has not done anything, they can continue and will continue to collect the surplus line taxes, which is 2009 numbers were actually $7.8 million. I'm sure Representative Hyde's numbers are more up to date of $9 million. The only states that are really going to benefit from compact are the states that do not have corporate headquarters in their states. Two states that signed on very early were Wyoming and South Dakota.
They have one-fifth of the premium taxes that are collected in the state of Arkansas. One of the things that we are very fortunate, even being a small state, is we do have a number of Fortune 1000 companies. And if we do not enter into this compact, and understand what the compact is, is a sharing of tax revenues, a sharing of tax revenues that we do not have to share, that we can keep ourselves. Now, the issue of concern would be, and I'm sure the argument would be,
well, we might be able to share in monies from the other states. But there's no documentation to show that that's the case. And so what we're asking is that some time be taken on this. You know, the amendment that was just presented to you, I was told that the amendment would satisfy us, that we were going to get it late last week. I got it about 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon and was told, you know, that I had that time to comment. We did review it overnight, and it really doesn't change anything.
The flexibility is this. It gives the power, and I really do have a difficult time of being able to testify against giving the insurance commissioner flexibility in anything. He does a great job, and every insurance commissioner we've had does a great job of balancing the protection of the consumer, but also being open to the industry. However, this particular bill gives power to the commissioner that is your power, The power to set tax rates, the power to share taxes with other states,
those are legislative functions and not executive branch functions. And for that reason, a number of organizations, especially NAPSLO, has issued a legal opinion saying that there are some constitutionality issues in terms of being able to give that power to the executive branch. So what we're asking is just that. One, that there would have to be a fiscal impact study before there would be any compact entered into. That's not contained in this legislation.
We ask that you would recognize that any time you're talking about setting tax rates or sharing tax revenues that you're already collecting, that that is something that should come before the legislature and not be done by rule or regulation. Are you finished, sir? I am. I'll be glad to answer your questions if I can. Any questions
from the committee members? Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Okay. Anybody
else sign up to speak forward against the bill?
Speaker 55
10:45
You want to speak forward? Sure. Recognize yourselves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Len Zeno, the Director of the Independent Insurance Agents of Arkansas. This bill basically just gives the Insurance Commissioner the flexibility to enter into multi-state agreements, whichever one he thinks best to ensure that Arkansas gets the best taxes possible. And any rules and regulations that are promulgated by the Department are going to have to come before the Rules and Regulations Committee of the Legislature in the interim.
So we support this legislation. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Any questions from the committee members? Mr. Viviano? Yeah, thank
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
11:24
you. Hi, can you, on the previous witness, made a comment that it would take power away from the legislature. Can you comment on that?
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
11:34
We're not a full-time legislature. That's really the comment. Representative Biviano, maybe I can offer this explanation to you. You know, as we're talking about flexibility to respond to the Dodd-Frank Act and the requirements therein that you and I don't have a choice about, we can complain about,
our bank friends can raise heck about, but it's reality and it's upon us. And the date, in fact, is July 21st of this year. That flexibility concerns allowing as much time as possible for the insurance commissioner, who would probably make the ultimate decision or recommendation to us anyways, to decide which packed model he would use. There's two organizations that have developed models that are generally accepted to be good models
and widely supported nationally by the NAIC, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, has one model, which is self-explanatory. It's the organization of the insurance commissioners. All 50 states are represented. And then we have NCOIL, which I have worked in for the last several years as representative of Arkansas's legislator, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators, a very conservative group, a very thorough group. And they have what's called SLIMPAC-2. So as we're down here kind of to the 11th hour, the decision on which way we're going to go
has to be made within, I guess, the next three and a half months. And I can tell you from my work within COIL that the details are kind of developing pretty quickly. And if we're still preserving a choice as to which direction we're going to have, it's probably my fault because I have continued to advocate for NCOIL. I'm a member of it. I worked on it. It's a legislator's viewpoint. But I can't tell you unequivocally that it's the better way to go. But I can tell you unequivocally is that we need to go one or the other.
It's what we're going to have to use to make sure that we comply. You know, there's a little pride in authorship on NCOIL, but either one of them is probably going
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
13:37
to work just fine. That's really the choice. Just a follow-up question, if you don't mind, Mr. Representative Hyde. And I'll take your word for it. There's nothing in this bill that would, if we ultimately disagree with what the insurance
commissioner does in adopting these taxes and so on, nothing that limits our ability to come back and try to rectify that?
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
13:58
No, this is, you know, just like anything. We draft a bill and we, you know, get it to committee and get it heard. These taxes, and I don't want to make this too complicated because I probably can't explain it adequately to you, But, you know, we have corporations who buy tax here, but some of that coverage in that product is in other states, and that's this revenue sharing that already exists. It's already occurring out there. So that's really what we're talking about. You know, the statement was made is that there's really nothing for Arkansas to gain. That might be true, but I can guarantee you there's a whole lot for us to lose if we don't comply
and we put ourselves at risk again. You know, we've had a long discussion earlier today that I don't want to reignite this late in the day But, you know, we do have ramifications that we've got to, you know, deal with And we've got to be, you know, responsible We've got to be prudent to make sure that we don't expose the insurance department And the premium tax dollars that we count on in trying to fill all these needs we have of our constituents That we don't mess up I mean, that's really about the long and the short of it So, members, I tell you that this is a good bill
I think that the amendment has been thoroughly prepared. It's been shopped all over. It's not something that we sprung up with yesterday. It's been worked, I guess, for more than two weeks now, and I'd ask for
a good vote. Thank you, Representative Hott. Representative Woods,
you're recognized. I'd like to make a
Speaker 63
15:25
motion at the proper time. Okay. Any further questions? What's your
motion? I'd like to make a motion. Do pass. Okay. As amended. Okay.
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. You passed your bill as amended. Mr. Chairman, I
Speaker 66
15:42
appreciate it. Thank you, committee. Okay. Representative Wright,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
15:55
you're recognized. He's got about four or five people that are going to be It's not going to be non-controversy. You've got some people against that.
And so that's going to be a long, long, long-term amount. All right. That's
it. Speaker guessed it. Representative Wright, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Marshall Wright, state representative, here to run Senate Bill 739. I'm helping Senator Hutchinson run this bill. Basically what this bill is is it's in reaction to recent federal legislation allowing state-chartered banks to branch into states other than the bank's home state.
Section 614 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act amended federal law to allow for free interstate branching by state-chartered banks. And I've got Brent Taylor here to help me field any questions y'all may have about the bill. Are there any questions from the committee members? Seeing
none Representative Lewis, you recognize I'd like to make a
motion at the proper time Okay Is there anybody in the audience who want to speak for or against the bill?
Okay Representative Lewis, you recognize for your motion Thank you, Mr. Chair I'd
like to make a motion, do pass Okay All in favor Let it be known by saying aye Aye Opposed Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Camille. Representative Barnett, do you recognize to present your bill?
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
17:44
proper motion am i recognized mr chairman
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
17:57
have the opportunity again to to bring my bill before you it's uh i'm not going to say a whole lot for it right now unless i have to later.
Representative Westmanland is here as well, and he has worked with me on this bill, as you all well know, throughout the whole process. I do have several people here that will speak for the bill if it's necessary. But anyhow, I'll be glad to, you're all familiar with what the bill does. It basically sends a lot of this to interim study. It defines what's going to happen during that process, who the players are going to be, And it has a lot of directives in it as to how we're going to go about this.
So I'll be glad to answer any questions, or we're prepared to do what we've got to do down here. Representative
Biviano, do you recommend I ask a question?
Motion at the proper time. Okay. Representative Wadlow, do you recommend I
Speaker 87
19:06
ask a question? I just want to know, if we don't do this, does the federal government take over this Part II? MR.
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
19:13
I had heard that. I was just wondering. MR. This is actually a states' rights bill.
It allows the state to provide their own legal framework without some federal intervention, so it is a states' rights bill, and I think most of you
all realize that. MR. Representative Lovell, you're recognized for several
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
19:36
questions. MR. Well, now, one I think is false, but somebody told me that the storage container was going to be biodegradable paper.
Forget that question. What happens to the storage, what do we do with carbon dioxide if we don't do this? Well, that's
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
19:59
a good question. You know, I don't think that the federal government is going to let you continue to put it into the air as we've done in the past. I mean, they've already mandated, you know, some of the things that they're going to require us to do. So the capture is going to have to take place. I mean, the energy companies who are involved in this, who support this piece of legislation,
know that in the future that they're going to have to capture the CO2. And you can't just capture it. You've got to transfer it and you've got to store it. You've got to do something with it. So that's what this bill is about and what it's going to discuss and what we're going to be discussing during the
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
20:40
interim. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Any
further questions from the committee? Is there anybody in the audience that want to speak for or against the bill?
Did you sign up, sir? I did not. Okay. You want to go down to the end
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
21:05
of the table and identify yourself? We're not supposed to. I'll let him go.
Point of order. Yes, sir. Can you have the computer at the table? No. For notes even? No. No electronic devices. So
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
21:18
you have to close it up. Okay. That was my notes.
Speaker 78
21:25
That's okay. Okay. Okay. Identify yourself, sir.
Paul Calvert
Unverified
21:29
My name is Paul Calvert.
I'm from Faulkner County. One of the concerns that I have with this bill is that it's promoting some of the ideas concerning that CO2 is a pollutant, and I think it's not. I think it's the idea that it would make the atmosphere thicker, that it would harm the earth. I think it will not. I think it may actually improve the environment.
I think the science is not very good in this regard. I wish I really had my notes. It concerns me as far as the CO2 issue. And I think there's also some property rights issues with the pipelines that are being proposed because it is kind of a private business issue when you're manufacturing electricity via coal and shipping the CO2 through private property
and basically taking the property from people against their will. Okay. Mr. Calvert,
would you be willing to take questions? Sure. Representative Hyatt, you recognize for questioning. Mr. Calvert, I want to tell you, sure, I'm sorry
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
22:37
you couldn't use your computer. You didn't know our rules in advance. But wouldn't you agree that this is
a welcoming place, and now you know how to come down to the Capitol and speak to your lawmakers, and I'm glad that you made the choice to come down and talk to us, even on things that we may not agree on. And thank you for being here.
Speaker 104
22:56
Well, thank you. I've never had anybody tell me I couldn't use my
Speaker 54
23:01
computer for notes before. We're a little behind. Okay.
All right. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak full against the bill? We have a motion. Representative Viviano. Motion do pass. Okay. The motion before you, committee members, do pass. It's all in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
Congratulations. Representative Barnett, you passed
Speaker 106
23:33
your bill. Representative Hamra, are you here
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
23:39
Okay. We have one more. Representative Hamra. One more. One more. Please be courteous. And
Speaker 110
23:51
I believe there's an amendment, sir, if
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
23:54
we can get that passed out.
Yes. Okay. It's 2117. Okay. 2117, there's an amendment coming around. This late in
Speaker 68
24:17
the session, there's always going to be an amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 117
24:37
I'm not the best of words. Very nice. Yeah. I don't think that was a title. Most of the shale, Bill? Yeah. Yeah.
Representative Hamlin, you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, sir. Let me
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:21
just give you a brief history. Although I've been told the phrase shell bill is not exactly a good term to use sometimes, that's the way this started off, came back, and last week you may remember I sat before you and it was late in the game of the day and presented an amendment to you and this is actually
a secondary amendment and do I need to ask the committee's vote to accept this before I go any further would you like me
to explain it further sir okay it's a motion to adopt all in favor there'd be none all
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
25:54
right motion adopted proceed thank you sir the the amendment that you walked out of here last week, basically gave content and limited it to E-Verify, and also at the end there were some civil penalties that were assigned in the event summit should not use
that. I did receive some input from some folks whose opinion I value around this table, and actually what I did was went back and expanded it, not to be limiting to E-Verify, but actually it is a status verification system which gives some flexibility as to which system they use. The original intent of the bill is that anyone that receives any state funding for supplying any type of service to the state, whether it be, if you'll excuse this extreme example, toilet paper, or whether it's supplying chicken to the prison system, or whether it's multimillion
billion dollar contracts out here on the interstate system, that anyone that is paid by the state for any services render, that they would have to verify their employees through a status verification system. And the reason I went back, just to tell you, and this actually complies with a law that's been written in another state. In fact, I have a sheet of which I did not bring copies. But other than Louisiana, to the south of us, all the states that touch our borders either have legislation in place for such a type of verification system or have legislation that is pending.
Louisiana is the only one that we touch borders with that is inactive in any effort. And the reason
I removed the civil penalties out of this was I got to thinking, you know, if y'all bless this with a good vote and we get out of here and it gets all the way through the process and becomes law, it really, in my opinion, became that it would not be fair to those who would be doing this just to turn around and hit them with a civil penalty right off the bat. Give them a couple years to get acclimated to it, get accustomed to it, get it in place,
and then if it's a problem, then we can address it in future legislative sessions. So in essence, what the bill does, anybody gets any money from the state, protects the state tax dollars, we can make sure that at the end of the day, all their employees are legally recognized citizens of the United States, and it doesn't assign any civil penalties at this time. And I'll be
glad to take any questions. Representative Murdock, you'll recognize
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
28:16
the question. Thank you. I apologize, Representative Hamer, because I missed some of that.
Okay. Sorry. Now, so you're saying that anyone that receives funds from the state needs to have a registration
Speaker 123
28:30
with the state, registering all their employees and? Again, what this would do
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
28:36
is if you receive money from the state for providing services to the state, and
I gave some bookend examples, whether it be something as simple as supplying the paper upstairs that we run through the copy machines, you know, you're a paper supply
company, and you provide that service to the state, the state sends you money. Or whether you are out here working on multimillion-dollar contracts out on the interstate system, and the reason you're out there is because you're receiving state tax dollars, you know, through the budgeting process. This will verify that any business that is doing business because they are receiving money from the state, that their employees on their payroll will have gone through a status verification system to make sure that all those employees and
those businesses that are actually being supported indirectly through state money are actually legal citizens. Let me ask you this.
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
29:32
What about a situation with, like you said, those guys that may be at companies that may be doing contracts on the, say, highway or whatever, and they have several subcontractors that are independent contractors? So they could provide you a name possibly of an entity that they've entered into a subcontract with, but I want to make sure that this is not leading down the line to put some real undue stress
and strain on the, say, contract in this particular case that sublets out a portion of the work. And then that's all that he's going to have because right now he don't have to go and verify all of the subcontract outside of his licensure and insurance requirements. But you see where this could be going? And then from the state side, who's going to monitor and deal with all these volumes and volumes of paperwork?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
30:35
Yes. Where is this coming from? Okay. Mark, go ahead. I've got a question. I've thought, okay. I'll answer it this way. And this is not the first time we as a body have heard things involving contractors and subcontractors and verification process, et cetera, such as that. This bill will go directly to whoever gets the check. So if the check goes to the contractor, it will be the contractor and the contractor's payroll. I will tell you that my intent is not to go beyond whoever gets,
and I'll be real simple layman terms for my benefit. If the check goes to company ABC and it goes in company ABC's checking account, then company ABC's payroll is one that needs to be verified through a SAS verification system, not below that point. Right, and I think I understand
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
31:27
intent, but I need to, and I don't mean to be long, but I want to be clear in that if you go to company A, B, and C and he's sublet the concrete part of that work out to company D,
then all he's going to be able to give you is these are the list of people that have worked for me but he won't have necessarily those documents I guess the only thing I'm trying to make sure of you may need to have some other language that excludes certain people from certain type of requirements that are not theirs directly I know where you're going I don't have a problem with necessarily where you're going but I think it may need
Speaker 123
32:08
to be cleaned up a little bit based on what you're telling me.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:12
MR. Well, after hearing all the questions, if that is a concern to you, I'll be glad to address that after hearing all the other concerns so I can address them all at one time, if that's all
right. MR. All right. Those things. Representative Wright, you recognize? MR. Thank
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
32:30
you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, are you going to say you're going to do another amendment by that, or what? MR. I've heard promises
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
32:39
made around here, and I will make a promise that before it gets to the House floor,
I'll make a promise to honor that request right there, and I'll just be straight, so I don't have to come back in here. I'll give you my word that what representative word law is going to be. I don't have a
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
32:57
problem. Sorry, Murdoch. Sorry, my bad. If you tell me, I'll take it to the bank. The thing I would like cleared up is, what about us in this room? I mean, am I going to have to e-verify my secretary, my other employees? I don't think it's clear that it specifies that, and I think that's a real concern.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:23
The intent, and again, I can clear that up, is whoever contracts with the state, because nobody, in my understanding, and I stand to be correct if I'm wrong, But we don't, you and I, in this capacity that we serve, I don't, in my opinion, we are not under contract with the state. But if you have a business out there and you may be a representative here and you have a contract with the state providing services and you're receiving payment from the state for those services, then, yes, your business, you would have to do that.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
33:54
Let me ask you, would you mind then maybe clearing it up on the other end to make it clear about direct state employees as opposed to
Speaker 61
34:03
contractors? I will, but I will tell you that was not ever, well, if I'm saying it, it's just not clear. If you just wouldn't mind considering
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
34:11
clearing that up, I'd be fine. I'd be glad to
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
34:14
clear that up because that is not what's behind this anyway. Thank you. You're welcome.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
34:27
Representative DeHammer, we're talking about actually the
E-Verify goes to the National e-verified, whatever it is, website, or they have
to call that to get the e-verified taken
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:07
care of? If you choose to use the e-verified, and the reason I came back and amended this was because it was on the advice of somebody that don't limit it down to just e-verified, that there are actual multiple opportunities out there. And I talked to somebody in the industry that gave me some direction on that, and we actually actually matched the terminology up against another state to avoid being so narrow with it to a status verification
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
35:36
system. MR. Let me go to my next question.
I've heard often that this nationally verified website doesn't work exactly well. Would we be putting employers in jeopardy of lawsuits if they don't do that or if they get a wrong verification? Okay. If
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
35:58
it had been the way originally it was with eVerify, I think the door would have been a lot wider open for what you're asking about.
But because the terminology has been changed to a status verification system, That's the reason that it was changed, was to eliminate the potential for lawsuits such as that. And if you're not familiar with the e-verify system, you hire an employee. You still go ahead and hire them. And you hire them, and then within three days you have to go through the status verification system. The report comes back. And if it should, my terminology, not anybody else's, red flag, an employee,
there's an appeal process to go through. It's not like you can just terminate them on the basis of that. There is a built-in that I do believe is regulated by federal regulation. Yeah. I
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
36:56
understand that. Most of that, you know, when I read the bill, I guess that does bring up a question of a small employer that's supplying chicken to the prison or eggs to the prison or something like that. Would it be difficult for them if they didn't, unless they were high-tech and had computers and Internet and broadband and all this other stuff,
would it be very easy for them to go
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
37:22
through this program? I'm glad you asked that. I'm going to give you a real live example to that. A friend of mine who owns a construction company, they erect steel buildings, and they actually have just gone through getting E-Verify set up because the contract that they got, which had federal funds attached to it, required that they, and they were in a subcontractor's role actually, that they had to verify all their employees through a status verification system.
She chose E-Verify, and within a matter of about an hour and a half, she had it set up. She does have to go back and do an online tutorial class, but her words to me was that this was not as hard as I was told it was going to be. Now, I will say this. You asked me to sit down and do it, I'm going to struggle because I'm not computer literate like others, and I think there is a human variable there that's outside of the realm of all of our control.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
38:23
And I agree with you. I would be the same
way. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
38:31
Representative Viviano, do you reckon I ask the question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Follow-up to that question right there. Is
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
38:38
there an option to submit it manually? I do not know, to be honest with you. Everything that I've heard and all the research and talking to everybody I've talked to, it is all online. Excuse
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
38:46
me for one second. I just want to remind everyone, we only have about seven minutes.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
38:53
All right. Final question, Representative Hammer. How many states have went ahead and implemented this type of legislation,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
39:00
roughly? Roughly, let me get the ones that I'm looking at. In fact, I got this totaled up. There's nine that require all employees, one state contractor, 15 have legislation pending. Illinois is the only one, according to the statistic that I'm looking at, Illinois is the only one that doesn't have it or is not in the efforts of getting it outside of Louisiana, as I mentioned.
I do have a copy if you'd like to
Speaker 36
39:28
circulate that to verify it. Let's hit a motion,
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
39:31
but we have a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for immediate
consideration. Okay. Proper motion. None debatable. All in favor? For immediate consideration, there would be no more saying aye. Aye. Okay. Okay. Now the question for us is passage of . . . Okay. Someone needs to make a motion to do pass. Okay. Motion is proper time.
Speaker 52
39:57
Okay. You recognize the motion. Do pass. As
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
40:00
amended. Okay. And amended again. All in favor, let it
be done by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The no's have it. You can roll call.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB2143
SB739
HB1450
HB2117
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 3
Representative Fred Allen Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 15
Speaker 18
Speaker 19
Speaker 26
Speaker 28
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Mark Lowry
Unverified
Speaker 38
Speaker 55
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Representative Jon Woods Chair
Unverified
Speaker 63
Speaker 66
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Speaker 82
Speaker 87
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
Speaker 78
Paul Calvert
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 54
Speaker 106
Speaker 107
Speaker 110
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 68
Speaker 117
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Speaker 123
Speaker 61
Speaker 138
Speaker 36
Speaker 52