House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee Part 3
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB2159
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB2159”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1991
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1991”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB213
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB213”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB764
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB764”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB846
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB846”
|
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
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
0:00
The liability issues and the bonding issues, in the regular remodeling industry right now, there are no requirements, there are no limits, there is nothing. You can go out and remodel, build, do whatever you want, there are no licenses, there are nothing, except for a very few cities in this state that do require a license for a remodeler. And I believe, is Fort Smith one of those? And Rogers is one of those. There are probably about three, maybe Little Rock or north of Little Rock.
So what we're trying to do is to bring these people in. Our threshold is going to be $2,000. If you do a contract or any type of work that would warranty over $2,000, we would like for them to be licensed to protect our consumers so that they do have a recourse, that if they do have a problem, they can come and bring that problem to the contractor's board and express their problems, and if they do have a big enough problem that these people cannot make that work with them, then the Contractors Licensing Board can impose penalties, fees, and hold their license or take away their license.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee, any questions from the
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:16
committee? Representative Penartz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, I realize what you're trying to do is you're trying to professionalize your particular industry, and I applaud you on that, and by having all these people licensed, I mean, I really support that. And let me just ask another question. Do you have a website?
Does your association have a website? The Contractors
Speaker 10
1:41
License Board or the Home Builder? Yes, the board, yes. The Contractors License Board, yes, has a website. I do not know that website right now, but it is under the Arkansas
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:53
website. Let me ask the lady this question since she's the executive director. Can you enter a complaint via the website? Let me
Speaker 13
2:04
answer that. She is with the Home Builders Association.
Speaker 14
2:08
She's not with the Contractors Licensing Board. Okay. Well, I thought she was –
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:13
okay. But, yes, I can answer that, and yes, you may. Okay, that's what I was wondering, because, I mean, it makes
it easier for the consumer if they've got
Speaker 18
2:22
an immediate complaint, if they can do it via the Internet. Yes, there's a form that they can fill out over the Internet, yes, and there's also a place that they can actually look to make sure that their person
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
2:34
that they are thinking of hiring is licensed. Okay, and just one
final question on this. I still have a problem with the liability issue, but could you please explain to me why you don't do that?
Why home contractors do not do that?
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
2:50
Why do we not have liability insurance? Yes. Just because it's not required. That is something that only is required by the people that you are working for if you're doing a contract and they require you to have liability insurance. Now,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
3:05
most people do have liability insurance, but not everyone. Well, if I
may, Madam Chair, one last. Do you think it's good standard operating procedure to have that insurance?
Yes, I do. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative. Thank
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
3:29
you, Madam Chair. Representative Wagner, you're recognized. I may just not be hearing correctly from this distance, but I thought you mentioned $2,000. Were you meaning
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
3:40
$20,000? $2,000 is a limit before they have to have a license. They can do work under $2,000 at any time, but any time they do a contract over $2,000
or they're going to do many contracts during the year over $2,000. I mean, at any point they go over $2,000 limit, they need to be licensed. That's what we're asking for. And that's in
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
4:00
here. I couldn't find the $2,000. That's why I'm trying to clarify.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
4:03
It is in the amendment. Originally, we had it at $1,000. We amended it to $2,000 to kind of give them a little more leniency on that because there are a lot of jobs that are going to be a little less than that. And that's per
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
4:16
contractor? Per contractor, yes, ma'am. Are they called subcontractors?
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
4:23
Well, if they're a subcontractor, that could be also – you could be a subcontractor under a homeowner. You still would be required to license, yes, such as a roofer, a painter, or someone like that that is not already licensed by the state. Thank
Speaker 18
4:39
you. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's actually on page 7, line 18, and page 7, line 21, where it talks about the amount of $2,000. committee any
other questions if so if not what's the pleasure of the committee
have a motion do pass for house bill 1991 as amended anyone in the audience wish to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience wishes to speak for the bill? If not, then the question before the committee is the passage of House Bill 1991 as amended. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Cozart, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee.
Chair
Unverified
5:48
So, Representative Hubbard, Representative Klemmer,
Representative Wardlaw, Representative Nichols, Representative Penards, you're recognized. Just
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
6:06
a point of information from the Chair, if I may, I know we're getting late here.
When you're reading these off, if these individuals have passed over their bill, how many times is it required before they
go to deferred? They've passed over two times on the third time they go to deferred. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Unless they ask to keep it on the calendar and we allow that. Presentative Stubblefield, that's House Bill 2159.
Mr. Stubblefield, welcome to public health. Have a seat at the end of the table and have
Speaker 47
6:58
your guests introduce themselves for the
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
7:02
record, please. No, it's 2159. House
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
7:11
Bill 2159, Madam Chair. Yes. My name is Danny Gunderman, I'm a local
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
7:18
representative for Americans United for Life. Thank you, Madam Chair. This House Bill 2159 is a bill that establishes a woman's right to protect her unborn child.
This bill simply protects a pregnant woman's right to use physical or deadly force in order to protect her unborn child against an assault. I think a lot of people in this country don't realize that over 320,000 women are assaulted every year as a direct result of just being pregnant or carrying a child. You say, well, doesn't Arkansas law already protect pregnant women against criminal assault? Yes it does.
Arkansas law protects unborn children even against murder or manslaughter. But Arkansas law does not protect unborn children against assault or bodily harm at any time. While a pregnant woman does have the right to defend herself, her own body against a criminal assault, in Arkansas she has no legal right to defend the child inside her against assault. If an unborn child is not dying in an assault, no crime has been committed against the child. Let me give you just an example.
If someone assaulted a pregnant woman for the specific reason of hurting the unborn child, they could break every bone in that baby's body. They could even crush the skull. And if that baby was born alive, there could be no charges brought against the assault. So this law simply gives a pregnant
Speaker 57
8:57
woman the ability against criminal liability to use force to protect her unborn child.
Representative Stubblefield, are you finished with your presentation? Well, I
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
9:12
would like to say that other states, Missouri and Oklahoma, have passed this law. And I also would like to say that
a woman in Michigan a few years ago was charged with manslaughter because her boyfriend tried to kill her quadruplets, and
later she was exonerated and that was overturned. Yes, ma'am, I'm through.
All right. Committee, any questions? Representative Lovell? Thank
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
9:44
you, Madam Chair. You're talking about the lady that was exonerated from charges of deadly force or whatever. Why do we need a bill if that person was exonerated for doing what this bill would
Speaker 68
10:03
do? Well, repeat the question. Well, you
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
10:08
said that the lady was protecting her babies.
This was in Michigan. Yeah. But evidently she was charged. She used deadly force, and she was charged with a crime. And then later on she was found not guilty of that crime. So why do we need a specific bill to allow something that's already allowed? I can
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
10:35
answer that. Representative Lovell, that lady was placed in jail and went through legal fees to defend herself in a decision that should have never come before the courts.
She should have been exonerated on the first day that she had to use that lethal force. But, in fact, she had to go to jail and be humiliated and go through attorney's
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
10:58
fees to fight a battle that should never have to have been fought. Okay, I understand. Answer, a follow-up. So, tell me who it falls upon, the burden of proof falls upon to prove that the baby was in danger if there was not a witness present.
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
11:18
Well, we already have laws in place to protect ourselves, I mean self-defense
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
11:27
laws in place to protect ourselves. Okay, that doesn't answer my question. If someone attacked a pregnant woman and she used deadly force, or in the case of if she was not attacked but said she was and brings charges against an assailant proposed,
who has the burden of proof to show that he did or did
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
12:02
not use deadly force? I'm not sure I completely understand the question, but if the intent of this bill is if the pregnant woman perceives or she feels that the intent of the attacker is to do bodily harm to her baby, she has the right under this bill to defend to death against that attacker.
If she cannot flee the attacker in a way that protects her baby, she has a right to defend
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
12:32
to death against that attacker, according to this bill. Okay. And if today, today if someone were to attack her, and she used deadly force, then there would be a trial. Okay? And then somebody would prove that she was, she was, she could have done what she did,
or they're going to find that she should not have done what she did. But if this bill passes, then what if a pregnant lady reported that she was attacked and used deadly force, and then it turns out that she was not attacked, no witness, who does the burden of proof fall on to prove that she was, in fact, attacked prior to her using deadly force?
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
13:26
I think the investigation from the police, if an attack occurred, would be overwhelming evidence that an attack had occurred and the attack would have been severe enough. If she felt the intent was for this person to be doing harm to her baby, the attack evidence would be overwhelming through the police department report that would say that this woman was attacked with enough force to warrant deadly force back against the assailant. So I don't know if a trial would ever come in that case, especially if the person had died, the assailant had died.
I'm not sure a trial would actually come in that case. But the evidence from the police investigation may be enough with this law to prevent a trial from ever occurring. okay if i could
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
14:16
if i could sum it up if you did not have a witness then the police are going to have to investigate uh the the crime either from the woman or to the woman and then also to the assailant they're going to have to prove that it did in fact happen which is the same
think today that they're going to have to prove it did to exonerate her, as you said before. So I guess my basic question is tell me when we need it, when we can already do what you're trying to do in this
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
14:52
bill. Well, I think the distinction here is if the assailant doesn't die, the investigation from the police department proves that there was an assault. Well, if there was an assault on the pregnant woman and it didn't kill the pregnant woman or didn't even break a bone in the pregnant woman,
there's going to be much reduced charges against that assailant. Whereas if during that assault the baby inside her womb had broken bones or was damaged in a way that it was going to be severely disabled or even dies from this assault, then there would be murder charges brought upon this assailant. Whereas there would be no murder charges brought upon this assailant with the infliction of wounds just on the mother. It brings a different level of legal action against the assailant if we enact this law.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
15:52
Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I've got two or three questions, if I may. Currently today, if there's a mother and her child, let's say it's a two-year-old child, and there were someone committing an assault upon that child, doing ghastly things to that child,
would a mother be able to use deadly force to protect her child in that instance? Yes. And there would be no question about that from a legal standpoint. And there could be an instance, could there not, where that mother and that child and that assailant were the only people there and there were no other witnesses. That's, Representative Mayberry, that's exactly
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:44
what this bill is doing. If a mother has a right to protect her child walking down the street, she has the right to protect her child while it's in her womb,
giving her the same right to protect her child just like you would if your child was assaulted, you have the right to protect your child who's walking beside you down the street. And I certainly think you would have the right to protect your wife's baby while it was inside
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
17:13
her womb. Would you not? That's what this bill does. I absolutely agree with you. I guess my question is that this is just setting the same standard that that attack upon that child is that that mother can protect that child
just as though she could, she could protect her two-year-old. That's correct. And would hold that assailant to that same degree of accountability for that. That's correct.
Chair
Unverified
17:44
Thank you. Representative Lee, you're recognized. Representative
Mayberry asked my question. Thank you. Committee,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
17:59
any other questions? Representative Penartz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Stubberfeld, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't believe you are either. You're correct. Is that – sir, are you a lawyer? No, ma'am, I'm not. Okay. I really think this bill belongs in judiciary, Madam Chair, but since we have it in here, we have to deal with it. Is it your understanding, Representative, that if someone came out here and you walked outside and they had a gun and that you could protect yourself
by using deadly force against them? Is that your understanding? If someone had a gun
Speaker 99
18:41
and they were out there and you could protect yourself, yeah. Yes, I have the right to protect myself. Yes, ma'am. Okay.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
18:48
And if I went out there and that same thing happened to me, I would have a right to use deadly force. Correct. Is that not right? That's right. So if a pregnant woman went out there and she was the same circumstance, does she have a right to protect herself against that person? Is that not right? That's correct.
That's correct. Okay. Okay. You know, I don't have a problem with really what you're trying to do here. I think that you've not done it correctly in your bill from a legal standpoint. You've mixed some terms here and defined them in a way that they're not currently defined by the law. But I'm not a lawyer, but I did serve two years on judiciary, so I know a little bit enough to be dangerous, but I actually like what you're trying to do by this bill,
but I do not believe that you've defined on page two, and I'd like you to ask you a question about lines 30 and 31. Where does that definite – where in the current law, in the Arkansas Code, any place in the statutes, uh, is unborn child defined as you have defined it there. So they told me he would not be unresponsible if
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
20:20
did not know she was pregnant? No, no, it has nothing to do whether someone attacks someone or not. My question is specifically to the line on page 2, lines 3031, Representative. I'll let you read it for a second. You say unborn child. Tell me where in the code is that, as you have defined it there, is that your current
understanding of what the code currently uses to define unborn child? MR. I
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:56
think you know what the code defines an unborn child as,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
21:00
Representative Pinnard. MS. Well, but I'm asking you, your understanding, Representative Stubba-Phil. MR. You want my personal opinion? MS. I want to know factually whether you believe that that unborn child, as you've We've defined it there on lines 30, 31, and it's a perfectly valid question, Representative.
Right. I understand. Do you want to answer this?
Speaker 70
21:23
No, go ahead. I believe that life begins at conception. That's not the question I asked,
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:33
Representative. Unlead child means the offspring of human beings from conception until birth. Is that the line you're
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
21:40
referring to? Right. code, did you find that definition of unborn child? Or
where did you get that definition
of unborn child? From whom or what organization did you get it? From the ‑‑ do you answer that?
No. I'm looking it up here. Give me just a second, ma'am. Sure. No problem. Well, I'll tell you what, Madam Chair, in order to save time, since they're not immediately able to answer that question, I'll yield to my colleagues on the committee until they
can find that response to help expedite it. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Thank you, Representative Penartz. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Okay. Representative Lee. Representative Stubblefield, are
Chair
Unverified
22:43
you familiar with Amendment 68 of the Arkansas Constitution? The wording in there states it is the policy of Arkansas to protect the life of every unborn
child from conception to birth. Are you familiar with that? No. Would you read it to me? Yes, sir. I just did. Okay. Would you read it again? Section 68 to the Constitution of the state of Arkansas says it is the policy of Arkansas to protect the life of every unborn child from conception to birth.
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
23:12
Does that protect the mother who's carrying that unborn child?
Chair
Unverified
23:15
No. I'm just – I'm referring to – I'm helping you answer –
Speaker 99
23:19
I understand. I understand. Right. I understand what you're saying.
Chair
Unverified
23:24
Yeah. That's where that came from. I have a follow-up question, too, if I could. Or did you
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
23:32
– I'm sorry. Well, it was handed to me, Representative Pernards, I don't have the section of code with me to read to you today, but I believe that Section 52615 would be where that definition would be in the code as to the definition of a definition of an unborn
Speaker 115
23:49
child. Sir, would you repeat that, please?
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
23:55
I didn't catch that. Based on what I've been handed here, I believe the definition of an unborn child would be in the Code Section 5-2-615. I don't have it here to read that. I can't look it up right now, but I'd be
happy to provide that information when I have the ability to do so. Thank you, sir.
Chair
Unverified
24:17
Representative Penartz, you're recognized. I'm sorry, Representative Lee. Certainly you can. I appreciate it. In reading over your information that you have in this bill, the initial part of it is what I understand it to say is that statistics show that a woman who is carrying a child can be attacked specifically in the area where she is carrying the child.
And that's different than just an attack on herself. Would you agree? That's correct. Yes, I would agree. Thank you very
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
24:50
much. Representative Penards, you're recognized. Madam Chair, since the gentleman who's helping present this bill has provided a reference in the code, I think it behooves him to actually produce the definition in written form to us. So I'm not ready to proceed on this bill until we have that definition.
Can we ask the staff to help us
obtain that code, please? That reference, again, you said was 5-2-216? 5-2-615.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
25:26
actually defines rather than just references the term. It doesn't change the intent of the bill.
Representative Stubblefield. Yes, ma'am. We have no other questions. Well, wait, I see
Mr. Mayberry's hand up. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
25:50
Referring back to Representative Lee's comment a couple of moments ago regarding Amendment 68, Amendment 68 to the Constitution was voted on and approved by the voters of the state of Arkansas, and this strictly is an opinion question for you regarding that, But what would you believe was their intent when they said to protect an unborn child,
the definition of unborn child, when they say from conception to birth? What would your intent or what would your belief be that they intended by unborn child with regards to that? Well, you want to answer that?
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
26:30
I believe the intent of this bill was to protect the child from conception to birth. The unborn child definition was intended to cover from conception to birth. Not 12 weeks after conception or 24 weeks after conception, but conception to birth.
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
26:46
And I don't think anyone on this committee would like to see any woman in Arkansas have to go and spend time in prison for trying to protect her unborn child. Representative Stubblefield,
we have no more questions before the committee. I think what I'll do while we're waiting on that, if the committee is agreeable to this, is to see if we have anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill or speak for the bill. Do we have anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill?
Do we have anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for the bill? Yes, ma'am, if you'd like to, you may take your place at the end of the table and introduce
yourself with the record. I do not understand. As I sit here, it's... Wait, wait, wait, let's stop. Let's kind of do it in order a little
Speaker 134
27:50
bit. Introduce yourself, please, for the record. I'm Nancy Emmons, and I'm from Hot Springs Village in Arkansas.
Now, let me ask you one thing to do also. Yes. Please keep your testimony to the topic
Speaker 134
28:01
of the bill. I will. Okay. Thank you. All right. My question is, as I sit here as a citizen of Arkansas, I can't for the life of me understand why you would even question or deny. Why is a woman always having to defend her right as a mother and defend her fetus, her baby, and the gentleman over here saying he can't understand this?
There has been many a woman who has had her fetus abused by her spouse in her marriage because he decides that he's the one that has the authority over this woman's body. Why would you, I really want you to explain to me, Mr., what is your name? Why, as a woman, I have... to
ask us questions. That's just kind of the way the rules are. I appreciate that, and I thank you
Speaker 134
29:07
very much. But I really want you to understand that women today are tired of having to defend their children in their bellies. We have the right to protect our children, and we have the right to protect our child. And as a result, we have to come to meetings such as this to try to get our legislators to understand that there is very much abuse toward pregnant women
out in your communities and you just don't know it. And that's why this bill is very appropriate and very – I cannot urge you enough to vote for this gentleman's bill because you do have women in your community that are being abused, that the fetus is being abused by doctors, by husbands, by people in the community.
And we should not have to stand and come and defend our bodies. That should just be something that you would understand, that
we need that protection. And I thank you. Ma'am, thank you very much for coming before us. appreciate that. Representative Stubblefield, we have been instructed by the staff that the citation of 5-2-615 has been repealed. It is not an active citation. However, Mr.
Fehan on our staff is researching the definition of unborn child and hopefully will be here in the next few minutes for us to continue this testimony. Committee, this is what I I recommend. I recommend Representative Penartz. Madam Chair,
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
31:02
I think I know the answer to the question. I'm going to withdraw my question. If the presenter doesn't know the answer, then that tells me something about the presentation of his bill. So that's fine. Motion for immediate consideration.
We have a motion for immediate consideration that is non-debatable. All in favor of immediate consideration indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. We have immediate consideration for House Bill 2159. So we can take no more debate. What we'll do is go ahead and take a vote on House Bill 2159. All in favor of House Bill 2159 indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No.
We have a roll call. The way the roll call works for members and guests is that Mr. Price will go down the roll. and we will call them in order of, I didn't say the ayes have it, but the ayes did have it, and we are having a roll call. Thank you, sir. So we'll call roll, and Mr. Price will call each person in order of seniority. Representative Allen.
Speaker 140
32:20
Representative Allen. Representative Gaskell. Yes. Representative Lovell. No. Representative King. Yes. Representative Hall. Representative Hall. Representative Hyde. Representative Hyde. Representative Penarts. Representative Wagner.
Representative Word. No. Representative Lee. Yes. Representative Smith. Representative Smith. Representative Wilkins. Representative Wilkins. Representative Perry. No. Representative Malone. Yes. Representative Letting.
Representative Wardlaw, Representative Lampkin, Representative Mayberry, Vice Chair Woods, Chair Mr.
Stubblefield, with a vote of 9 to 5, you failed your bill.
Committee, we have a couple of other bills I think that we can get underway today. I know we have to be back in session at 315, so let's try one more bill. we'll be doing Senate Bill 213 Representative Johnston are you here to
run that bill Senate Bill 213 Representative Johnston are you passing no
Speaker 149
34:40
what did he say he'd run a different bill I guess Johnston would you come up here because
I can hear you I can't hear you 764, he
Speaker 149
34:49
wants to run that one, not that one. Not 213.
All right, 764, then. That's what we'll do. Yes, ma'am, Senate Bill
Speaker 151
35:08
764. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. Senate Bill 764, and with me I have Ms. Teresa Marks.
Speaker 152
35:14
She's the director of ADEQ, and if it's all right, but she's going
Theresa Marks
Unverified
35:21
to explain it to you. My name is Theresa Marks. I'm the director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. And this bill is one that was drafted initially by the Arkansas Environmental Federation, and they graciously worked with us on it to address some of the concerns that we had at the Department. It basically recognizes the authority to issue general permits in a situation where you have a class of facilities that are basically emitting the same type of pollutants.
And this is done when you have thousands of facilities that will need this type of permit. They're all going to be operated the same way, and they all will be able to follow the same type of regulations. So these general permits are very efficient. They help to run the department in an efficient manner, and they also help industry in that they can get their permits immediately. There was an issue that came up not long ago where we had a general permit that was actually appealed, and once that permit is appealed, there's an automatic stay in place.
Well, it's a little bit different than it is with an individual permit, because once that permit, someone who's holding an individual permit can hold over under that old permit while the appeal is going on on their new permit. Under a general permit, once an appeal is made, this general permit has expired, and those who have filed a notice of intent can continue to hold over, but it was unclear whether or not the permit was still in effect. So we wanted to clear it up to make sure, give that certainty to those persons in the industry
that need to be able to continue to operate while an appeal process is going on. So this has mandated time frames for the department to do their job. A year in advance, we have to go ahead and get a draft permit out. That permit has to be finalized in the department 180 days before the old permit expires, and that will give it time to actually be drafted for comments and to get through before the year is up and the older general permit expires.
Chair
Unverified
37:21
Representative Lee, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Marks, I really appreciate all the work you've been doing at ADEQ, and, you know, we've had to have a lot of conversations because of Polk County, and I appreciate that, and I appreciate bringing this bill today, Representative Johnston. And at the appropriate time, I have
a motion. Thank you. Committee, any other questions? All right, Representative Lee, you're recognized for a motion. We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 764.
Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for the bill? If not, then the question before the committee is the passage of Senate Bill 764. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Johnston, you passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you. Committee, I think the work of our committee is done for today. I think we'd, unless, wait, Representative Woods is giving me a
high sign here. I'd like to just ask the committee real quick.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
38:23
Senator Disping asked if we could amend his bill,
and that way it would give us time the next few days to read the amendment. Would that be okay if I just go down the other table and just pass out an amendment and vote to amend a bill instead of running it. Phil added this onto the calendar last night, but the amendment is pretty big, and even if I presented the amendment in a committee, I still would like the committee to have several days to review it. Is that okay if I present an amendment to a bill real quick? Is that okay?
Committee, it's up to you. Are you all right with
Chair
Unverified
38:58
that? All right. Representative Woods, you're recognized. Linda. Yes. Can you
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
39:05
break away from your city to come into the city Thank you,
Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. It's Senate Bill 846-846. I believe it's the last item on the agenda. And Senator Dismang and Senator Laverty asked if it needed to be amended,
and I have Dusty here, and he'll help explain the amendment if we need to. But I don't want to vote on this. I just want to add the amendment and let it
Speaker 39
39:40
be engrossed, and then we can all have several
days to review it, if that's okay. All right, committee,
Speaker 168
39:47
we have an amendment. It won't be engrossed unless he does it on the floor. It will not be engrossed unless you do it
Speaker 109
39:55
on the floor. Okay. I'm Dusty Maslow with Pathfinder
and representing Developmental Disabilities Providers Association. The amendment ends up being the bill because there was a mistake made that confused another bill that's already been passed, disclarified everything and put it straight, and it's just one of those oops. I understand that, sir. That's a good explanation, but
we still, it wouldn't be engrossed unless you did a member zone and filed it today. So,
Representative Woods, you have a choice to make. I'll just file
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
40:25
it in a minute on the floor.
I'd like to give everybody time to review it. I think that makes sense. So
thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned until Thursday morning. We're not coming back. Oh, excuse me, excuse me. Before you leave, remember we do have a joint meeting with the Senate tomorrow afternoon upon adjournment to learn more about Medicaid if you're interested.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1991
HB2159
SB213
SB764
SB846
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 13
Speaker 14
Speaker 18
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
Speaker 35
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 47
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Danny Gunderman
Unverified
Speaker 57
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
Speaker 68
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 99
Speaker 103
Speaker 104
Speaker 70
Speaker 115
Speaker 119
Speaker 134
Speaker 140
Speaker 149
Speaker 151
Speaker 152
Theresa Marks
Unverified
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Speaker 39
Speaker 168
Speaker 109