House Insurance & Commerce Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (14)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1816
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1816”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1615
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1615”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1806
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1806”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1846
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…ou, committee members. Just to avoid any confusion, this is House Bill 1846. And what this is, is what we're doing is we're establishin…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB45
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “to present SB 5? All right. All right. Senate Bill 45. We're going to pass over that right now.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1572
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Representative Woods, are you prepared to present HB 1572?”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1813
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1813”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1814
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1814”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1815
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1815”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1895
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1895”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1927
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1927”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB362
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB362”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB363
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB363”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB5
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “to present SB 5? All right. All right. Senate Bill 45. We're going to pass…”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
At the end, and I promised that we would let her be first on the agenda. Chairman Tyler, please have a seat at the end of the table, introduce yourself, and
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
0:16
be prepared to introduce your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
0:21
the committee, Linda Tyler, State Representative from Conway. Gary Isom, Executive
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
0:29
Director of the Arkansas Real Estate Commission. Members of the committee, House Bill 1615 does just a few things,
and I'll just talk about it briefly, and then we'll certainly take any questions that you might have. What this bill does, it defines the relationship between the licensees and the licensee's client. We're talking about real estate here. And it also provides for a pledge of absolute fidelity between the licensee and the licensee's client. In Section 1, Line 33, there's a list of duties there that are not waivable.
So it defines what the duties are that the licensee has a responsibility for. On page 2, line 23, it also then goes on to describe an agency relationship with the seller and those duties. And then page 3, line 14, describes the relationship between the agency and the buyer. And then page 4, line 10, provides the process for a waiver of agency relationship.
Some of the things that are defined in Section 1, line 33, are not waivable, but some of the other things that are defined there are waivable in terms of their relationship, and it defines the process for that. So that's what the bill does, and we'll take any questions you might have. Representative Wood, do you have a question? A motion at the proper time.
Are there any questions from the committee? Representative Catlett, please.
Speaker 11
2:17
Yes. Representative Tyler, has the Real Estate Association, have they approved this bill? Yes, sir. They have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are there any other questions
from the committee? Are there any, is anyone in the audience to speak for the bill, against the bill?
Seeing no other questions, Representative Woods, do you have a motion?
I would like to make a motion. Do pass. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
3:02
Congratulations, Ms. Tyler. You have passed your bill. Thank you,
Mr. Chair and members. Thank you. Next item on the agenda, without objection, we're going to recognize Representative Barry Hyde to go to the end of the table and present his bills.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
3:31
A footnote ahead of time, so to speak, make sure that
everybody knows in the committee that there's no river proximity exceptions to any of these bills that we're going to present this morning. Everybody in the whole state will be under the jurisdiction of these bills. Thank you so much for that. Yes. Thank you, Representative
Hyde. I'm sure Representative Ingrid would appreciate that. I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
4:04
Mr. Chairman, do you care which one we do first?
Do you want to start out with 1806? It's up to you, Representative Hiret. Okay. Members, 1806 is the omnibus bill for the Insurance Department.
Those of you who have been on this committee for more than just this one term know that each biennium we have a number of changes that have to be made in the laws governing insurance as seen over by the Insurance Commission. for a various number of reasons, from court cases that have occurred over the last two years
to new products in the market and also to federal regulations that certainly affect us. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize, I have Commissioner Bradford here with us this morning as well as General Counsel for the Commission, John Morris, And I'd like to recognize or ask Mr. Morris to present this bill for us, the explanation. Thank you, Representative Hyde. Mr. Morris, you're
Speaker 30
5:02
recognized. If you would state your name and your position, please.
John Morris
Unverified
5:07
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Morris. I'm general counsel for
the Arkansas Insurance Department. As Representative Hyde mentioned, House Bill 1806 is the department's general omnibus bill. It is intended to make corrections on various items throughout the insurance code that, through our enforcement and implementation, we have determined need tweaks, for lack of a better word, here or there. It also has, in our opinion, some non-controversial provisions concerning our regulation of the insurance market.
We have provided these to industry and all interested parties. We have worked very hard to develop a consensus on these items so that not only do the people that we regulate on behalf of are they comfortable with the provisions, but also the people that we regulate are also comfortable with the provisions. So, like I said, there's a lot of different items in there, a lot of tweaks to financial requirements, some changes to our authority over insurance producers as well as insurance companies,
and that is at least a general explanation of the bill. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Okay, on a personal
note, you're not revoking our ability to sell insurance, are you? Absolutely not. All right. I'm
Speaker 37
6:37
glad to hear that. All right. Mr. Hyde, do you have any further information for us? Mr. Chairman,
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
6:42
this is a pretty lengthy bill because it is the biannual maintenance bill. So in the interest of time, I don't think that the committee is going to want us to take you through a page-by-page report.
And this is standard operating procedure. This is the same type omnibus bill we've seen each year for the three terms that some of us have been here. All right, sir. And we're glad to answer any questions. I'm not aware of any opposition, haven't heard any bad or any questions, especially regarding the omnibus bill from any of the folks involved in the industry. So we'll answer any questions and go from there. All right, sir.
Are there any questions from the committee?
All right, Mr. Ingram, I recognize your motion in just a second. Any questions or any statements from the audience? Anyone like to speak against the bill, for the bill? All right, so no questions. Representative Ingram, what's your motion? Motion do pass. We've got a motion do pass, committee. Please signify by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed? Congratulations, Representative Hyde. You've passed your bill, lengthy though it may be. Thank
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
8:05
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Committee. We'll move right on to 1813, I'm assuming. All right. Yes, sir. It appears 1813 has an amendment. It does
indeed. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Would you like
to explain your amendment, Mr. Hyde? I would love
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
8:22
to. Thank you very much. I'm going to defer to Mr. Morris to explain that amendment for you.
John Morris
Unverified
8:27
All right, sir. The amendment changes the bill itself allows the department to receive annual reports from insurance companies who write property, casualty, and life insurance in the state. And this report, we receive financial reports currently every year from insurance companies, But this report will give us information about their market data, how long they're taking to pay claims, how long they're taking to handle complaints.
It is through this information that we should be able to better refine our enforcement and our resources to be able to look at those companies who are reporting issues with respect to their market conduct. The amendment, we were approached by some of the smaller insurance companies in the state, and they said that the reporting would be an onerous requirement for them because of their size. And so this amendment would limit the insurance companies that have to file this report to those who have
in excess of $7 million in annual premium. And the amendment also makes some technical corrections that were requested that we actually thought were very good and well-intentioned. And so that is an explanation of the
bill and the amendment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right. This
amendment, regardless of this amendment, this does not mean that you're not going to
keep looking at these, even though they may be smaller companies, you're going to still have oversight
John Morris
Unverified
10:14
over them, right? MR. Absolutely. We continue to have jurisdiction and oversight over them, but it will allow us to better use our resources to look at those companies that either we're receiving a lot of complaints about or now this report will show us who is not meeting the statutory time frames like they're supposed to.
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
10:33
MR. All right, sir. Thank you. Does the
committee have any questions? You're recognized for a question.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
10:40
If I thank you, Mr. Chair. If I understand this, the amendment just changes the dollar amount. Is
John Morris
Unverified
10:49
that correct? That's correct. The original bill said that if you had less than $500,000 in premium, then you didn't have to report. But in looking at the various companies that are domestic insurance companies in Arkansas, it was determined that the amount probably in order to truly get the small companies
so that they wouldn't have to report, that has been raised to $7 million
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
11:18
in premium. Would you give me an idea of the number of companies we're talking about? In other words, is it five companies are too small that have been approved and then we have ten larger ones that do have to report? Mr. Chairman, can we recognize Commissioner Bradford for that question, please? Yes, sir, you
Speaker 59
11:37
may. Commissioner? If I might, Mr. Chairman and Representative Carr and I, what we're really exempting are the, there's about 60 small companies
that are typically associated with funeral homes, burial policies, very small volume companies, that if we didn't move this up, they would have to go through the same reporting as the Hartford Insurance Company. And, you know, they have very small, low counts of policies, not many claims, and it would be, you know, it would cause them a lot of internal expense to do that, and so we just put that threshold.
They still have to file their financials with us, and we still supervise them and, of course, their agents and also their policyholders. But it's just kind of a one-size-doesn't-fit-all on this type of – Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All
right. The issue is the amendment. We need to vote on the amendment first. All right.
Representative Lovell moves for the adoption of the amendment. All in favor say aye.
All opposed? Okay. Representative, you have passed your amendment. On to the bill. Have we explained the bill? Mr. Chairman, I
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
12:57
think that you've received our initial explanation. We're glad to answer any questions.
All right. Any questions on the bill itself? Is there anyone like
to – Representative Catlett, you're recognized for a question. I don't have a question. I have a motion. All right. We'll entertain your motion in just a second.
Does anyone in the audience like to
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
13:23
speak against the bill, for the bill? All
right. Seeing none, this is on Bill 1813. Is that correct? All in
favor, say aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Representative. You have passed your second bill this morning. Thank
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
13:43
you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Committee. Moving on to 1815.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recognize General Counsel for the Commission, John Morris, to
give you the explanation on this bill. All right. Mr. Morris
John Morris
Unverified
14:11
is represented, I mean, is recognized. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Currently, the Insurance Holding Company Act provides for companies to file with the Department for prior approval certain transactions that they enter into with other companies within the same holding company or their affiliates.
This gives us the ability to try to protect policyholders from companies who may choose to inappropriately remove money from the insurance company to one of the companies that are higher on the holding company, one of the parent companies. We've seen this problem especially in other states in the past where this is a potential. So the Holding Company Act provides a very good protection. there's an exception in the Holding Company Act for single-state insurance companies so
that if a company was only acting within the state of Arkansas, they would not have to comply with the Holding Company Act. It's the Department's position that the protections afforded under the Holding Company Act are important, no matter if a policyholder buys their insurance from a company that is in just one state or if it's in all 50 states. So this bill would essentially remove that current exception for single-state insurance
companies. It does have an exception, however, much like the market conduct annual statement that we talked about before for small companies who would – this type of reporting would create an onerous responsibility on them, and it has the same threshold of $7 million of annual premium. All right. Thank you, Mr. Morris. We've heard an explanation of
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
15:55
the bill from Mr. Morris. Representative Hyde, do you
have anything to add? No, Mr. Chairman. We're happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 71
16:04
All right. Are there any questions from the committee? Are there anyone here to speak for the bill? Against
the bill? All right. Seeing none, what is the pleasure of the committee? Representative, I'm sorry. There
you go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do pass as amended. There you go. Okay, thank you.
Do pass as amended. Oh, I'm sorry. There was no amendment. We probably should have done that last time, huh? Okay. Having the motion of do pass, everyone signify by saying aye all opposed okay Mr. Hyde or Representative Hyde you've passed
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
17:00
your bill thank you Mr. Chairman thank you committee and the last bill that we'll present today
for the insurance commission will be HB 1816 and again I'll ask Mr. Morris to give us a
brief description of that bill before Mr. Morris jumps in representative is It was 1814. I'm going to pass on 1814 today, sir. All
John Morris
Unverified
17:27
right. Thank you. All right. Mr. Morris, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1816 gives the Commissioner the authority to grant an additional amount of time to Farmers Mutual Aid Associations to comply with new financial requirements that
this body passed a couple of sessions ago. These are small companies that really provide a needed property insurance to farms and other owners of things that have trouble getting insurance on the regular market. And so they have a very good, useful purpose. The financial requirements that were placed on them were very good, however, some of them I think need more time to comply with these new requirements.
We will continue our oversight of these companies in the meantime and make sure that there is no risk to the policyholders, and should we have issues with FMAA who does not meet these requirements but gets an extension, then we will still have the authority to take swift and proper action in that event. okay anything to
Speaker 37
18:41
add representative Hyde no Mr. Chairman we're glad to answer
any questions all right any questions from the committee is anyone here to speak for the bill against the bill what's the pleasure of the committee representative Barnett recommend do pass I have a motion to do pass all in favor by saying aye All opposed? Congratulations. You're on the roll, Representative Hyde.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
19:11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members. We'll bring these other ones back on Friday.
Speaker 81
19:15
All right. I'd like to add my thanks also. Thank you, committee and Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. All right, getting back to the order of the agenda, Representative Barnett, are you in the mood to present your bill? Are you now?
You're not? You want to pass over it today? All right. Is anyone here
to present SB 5? All right. All right. Senate Bill 45. We're going to pass over that right now.
Representative Woods, are you prepared to present HB 1572?
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
20:21
I would like to go, but we're going to switch that with 1846, which is on the second level. But I would like to take one. All right. We're going to go ahead and let you jump up and do HB 40. Which one is that? 1846. 1846. Okay. All right, Representative Wood, you're recognized.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
20:58
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. Just to avoid any confusion, this is House Bill 1846. And what this is, is what we're doing is we're establishing the Small Loan Act to help Arkansans that don't have credit establish credit and also help those that are in time of need to get the financing they might need in tough times. I'm pretty passionate about this issue, and I felt privileged to run it. It is not something that I feel
controversial at all. And what 1846 does is we stay under the 17% interest rate, which is already law. We're not going to go above the current interest rate. So if anyone, you know, is concerned about a higher interest rate, that's not the case in this legislation. What this bill will do is it will define the small loan industry, and it brings the small lending of loans of this magnitude under close regulation and public supervision.
This industry is a well-respected corporate citizen in other states, but it's still unknown in Arkansas. It will also bring this industry under the supervision of the state, like I mentioned earlier. It gives the Securities Department strong regulatory authority over small loan industry, which has never been done before. They regulate mortgage companies and money services so they know what they are doing. We're working with the department to make sure that they have all the tools they need to get the job done. The legislation also sets up a licensure, procedure, and standards.
We want to know who is making these loans and to who. Right now, we have no idea. It requires credit bureau reporting, which helps those that can't establish credit establish credit. And anybody that's been in banking knows it's difficult to turn somebody away for a loan because they don't have credit. They might be a good person. They might have just got a job. They might need that car or that washing machine or whatever it might be, but they don't have credit, and there's nowhere for them to go to build credit in Arkansas.
They have to drive across the border and pay a higher interest rate. In Oklahoma, 26%, 27%. Those are jobs that are being created out of state. That's money that's going out of state. There's just a lot of unnecessary struggles and links that our Kansans are having to go right now for a small loan, and I just don't think that that's necessary. And so, you know, I can go on about the bill a little bit more,
but I think at this time what I'd like to do, I think it's just pretty straightforward. I'd like to leave it open for questions
from the committee at this time, And if there's no questions, then I'll be
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
23:59
glad to let the public speak for and against. All right, Representative Woods, I have
a question just real quick. What's the dollar value of these loans that
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
24:09
we're talking about? In the range between $250 and $5,000.
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
24:12
Okay. All right, I see. And the maximum interest rate we're talking
about? Current law. We would go by current law, which
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
24:26
was established 30 years ago. We're not going to tinker with the interest rate. It's 17%. All right. Any questions from the committee? All right. We've got a
couple. Representative Barnett. All right. Representative Barnett, you're recognized for a question.
Oh, did I really? Sorry. I didn't mean to
jump in there on you, man. Murdoch, you're recognized for a question. Murdoch Murdoch, thank you,
Speaker 100
24:52
Chair. Representative Lewis, thank you. A few questions at the start. I may have some more before we finish up. I've met with a couple of people on this. We've talked about this, but a couple of things I do want to get some more or get your interpretation of. Now, we're talking about a 17 percent cap, okay, per existing law.
Speaker 103
25:15
Now, are there any other fees, associated fees, with this that would make that 17% in effect become a different number, meaning origination fees, loan dock fees, those different things that we sometimes see as fees that will make that 17% become a different percentage when you
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
25:35
add that into it? What this does, not with this legislation. I think with legislation, perhaps if somebody else is interested down the road, they could probably do that. but we're just setting up the infrastructure, just the groundwork for small lending practices to be regulated.
This isn't going into the micro level of what they do in the office yet. So, no, this doesn't cover that, and it's not in this bill. So your question wouldn't apply to this legislation, but a lot of practices do have origination fees like most lending institutions do. I'm very familiar with that. But no, the answer would be no, not with this bill. We're just laying the groundwork and setting the kind of like the skeleton, you know, right now for hopefully, you know,
small loan companies will just want to come into Arkansas and just charge the rate. So, but not in this bill. The origination fee doesn't exist in this, no. Right, but I guess in
Speaker 108
26:38
your attraction in trying to bring them here, I would think that if I was an
Speaker 103
26:43
entity that was interested in this, I would be interested in one day how I'm going to make profit and what are my limitations. So if we're putting something out here, then I want it to be clear because I don't want to start something that I can't finish with you. I don't want to endure something today that then tomorrow,
the next piece that comes behind this forces me to go the other way. So I want to know where I'm going with this because typically a piece of legislation like this or, you know, in the world that we live in of capitalism, there's not a lot of people just out looking to help folks that can't do well for themselves. There's not a lot of people that do that. So when I see legislation or anybody talking like this, I usually want to know where is the devil in this. When I say the devil, I don't mean devil in a bad way. But there's some money in here somewhere that an entity obviously is trying to make off of this situation.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
27:32
I like the way you think. And I think that you got it. You have to make a profit if you're willing to get into this industry. And under this bill, we're trying to work with different groups that have concerns about those that don't have a high level of income. And we just felt like this was a good area to reach. We'll just enact legislation that just falls under the current rates.
but I do think that it's going to be a little bit more difficult, you know, to attract as many institutions that want to come in to do small lending practices without, you know, an origination fee like every bank does right now. So, yeah. And am I
Speaker 103
28:19
allowed to follow up? Sure. Okay, to follow up with that, because I just want to get a good understanding. If you can go with me to page 12, line 5 and 6, And I think it's just an example of as legislators, as we try to protect,
because these are typically unbanked people, as you have in your bill. So these are people that may not have in the past been as responsible or some conditions or situation have led them to become unbanked. These are not for the people that have the business acumen as someone as yourself that can kind of see through some of these things. They just see an opportunity, there's some money, And they kind of jump on it. But let's go to page 12. And this is what kind of I'm afraid of. You know, you've got that 5% if the payment is five days late.
Typically, these folks have been late with payments. I mean, that's what make them unbanked. So it's 5% or $15. There's a one-time dishonor check fee. Again, I understand that you, and it is in here, so you're not hiding it. Don't give me that part of it. I understand. But as we try to protect those that we serve, then we want to make sure that all of this is kind of brought out and that this opportunity that you have, and accountability is good.
So I'm not all the way, I want you to know I'm not just against this. I'm just trying to get there. So with the accountability piece that you have for the individuals, I'm trying to make sure that we all understand where this is really going to benefit others. Where is this really going to benefit people? I can see where it can ultimately benefit an entity that gets someone in some of these situations, and they're going to have to have volume because if they're unbanked people and they only can charge 17%, they're not going to make money off of two or three.
So they're going to maybe go into a situation to deal with people that haven't had opportunity And then they're going to jump in here,
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
30:28
to be concerned about. And you're concerned about the consumer. And so, right. And my thoughts on that are I appreciate your concern for the public at large, and I think that these rates are very reasonable. And I think that a returned fee on a check or, you know, in banking right now is currently what we're doing, $25.
Some banks are $30 or higher. So I think it's pretty fair. In cases of helping others, there were people in this last ice storm that had their heat turned off and electricity turned off because they didn't have money. They'd been unemployed for 60 days or 90 days, and this could have prevented that. And I think that there's a lot of times where, you know, I think, you know, as you are longer in the legislature, I know that I've had several phone calls where somebody, I've had to refer them to a hotline.
They're contemplating suicide because they don't have enough money to pay their bills and there's no way out. And I think that as a legislator, as a lawmaker, I could say, you know, there is a group. I'm sorry to hear that the bank turned you down. I know you need $400 to re-register your car tax so you can have a car so you can go apply for a job. And I know that it seems like there's no way out and you're spiraling down, but here's an opportunity that you're going to have to pay this back. The rate is 17%.
It's not that high, but tell them I sent you, and hopefully you'll get approved. And I think that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. And I wish I could have had those conversations with some people that I got phone calls from in the last six months due to the downturn in the economy. I think there's people in some really tough jams right now. that, you know, like there was a report the other day that said the economy is picking back up, you know, 92,000 or 192,000 new jobs in the last quarter or whatever it was. But there's just some people that are in tough jams, you know, for 30 days or 60 days or 90 days,
Speaker 103
32:22
and I think this will just kind of help them get through that. So this bill is to help.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
32:29
You're saying this is a consumer bill? So you're doing this to help the people? Oh, I think so. This rate is very low, and it's going to be very difficult
to make a profit. Yeah, absolutely. This one, yeah. Are you a four-minute? Okay. Representative Lovell? Okay.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
32:47
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This was not where I was going to start, but if 17% is extremely low and hard to make a profit on,
what are our banks doing in service? I mean, why are they not broke? They're not
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
33:08
charging 17% today. Well, they can charge insurance, which this bill doesn't do. They can do mortgage lending, which this bill doesn't do. They do a lot of construction and commercial lending, which this bill doesn't do. That's where the real money is. How
Speaker 123
33:23
close is this to the payday lender bill? Far from it.
In what respect? Night and day, black and white. Okay. Would you anticipate any loans being made under this
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
33:36
law at less than 17%? I would think it's up to the financial
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
33:43
service representative or that branch manager to make that decision. I think it's possible, sure. Okay, on page
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
33:54
12, line 31, explain to me what the small loan fund is and what's its purpose.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
34:03
Mr. Chair, with your permission at this time, I'd like to bring someone from the audience to help answer that particular question. Sure. Without objection. The former speaker, Mr. Wills, if you don't mind. Yeah. You're recognized. Right.
State your name and the company you represent.
Speaker 129
34:33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Robbie Wills, and I'm here today in the capacity as the Executive Director of the Arkansas Installment Lenders Association. And to answer Representative Lovell's specific question, the small loan fund is a fund created by the licensure fees and application fees that the installment licensees will pay. And that fund then pays for the regulation and the oversight provided by the Arkansas Securities Department. This is a completely self-funding program by the people
Speaker 131
35:05
who are applying for and getting licenses.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
35:10
Will this create another cash fund agency, if you will, that we'll have to approve appropriations
Speaker 129
35:19
for? It will not create a new agency. It is a new responsibility for the Securities Department that would be, in effect, self-funding. So to answer your question, this is a cash fund, but it doesn't require the generation of any general revenue or anything like that. It's completely funded by the licensure fees and application fees.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
35:41
MR. But the answer to my question is yes, we would have to appropriate funds for
Speaker 129
35:48
it. MR. Yes, Representative Lovell, in order for the Securities Department to have access to the funds generated by the licensure fees, then the legislature would have to and I think Bank would want to have control over those funds to make sure
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
36:04
that they're spent for the intended purpose. Okay. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. Allow me, if I may, to follow up on something. Representative Lovell, you asked how were banks making money and weren't charging this
rate of interest? Is that what your question? That's correct. Okay. Isn't it true, Representative Woods, that most banks
will not loan the type of people like you all trying to service
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
36:29
money? MR. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
MR. And why wouldn't they loan the money? MR. Destroyed
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
36:36
credit or no credit at all. MR. And high risk. MR. And high risk. And these are people that deserve at least a chance or even a second chance. MR.
Okay. Thank you. MR. Representative Barnett? MR. Ask that question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually live in a borderline city with Oklahoma, and obviously a lot of the used car dealers and a lot of the people who are furniture stores that are trying to sell furniture and used cars in my area that are trying to help people obtain that credit can't get it, so they go across the line, and it's available across the line even at a much higher rate of interest, of course.
So, I mean, my question, I think everybody in the room probably has a credit card, and some people in this room probably are paying, some of you all are probably paying rates even on your credit card that are even much higher than this. And so I guess my question is, I mean, if you want to compare this to something, I mean, You could almost compare it to people who have credit cards and are paying even a much higher rate of interest even in this state on their credit cards.
And there are certain fees that are late charges that go hand-in-hand with that as well. So in some ways, this might be a better deal for a lot of consumers in this state than even a credit card would be. Is that correct? I
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
38:15
agree, Representative Barnett. I think that there are some people that would kill to have a balance transferred to something like this. They might be paying, you know, 25%, 27% higher, and the fees are double or triple what we're doing. I agree. Thank you.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
38:34
Representative Hyatt, do you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Woods, I know you were there two years ago when legislation was moved through this group to constrain and eventually get rid of the payday lending group, which we all agreed was not beneficial to the people of Arkansas. And one of the things that really rang true for me is the First Sergeants Association,
being the chairman of the community council at Camp Pike and Camp Robinson and affiliated with the Little Rock Air Base out in Jacksonville, The First Sergeant Association was really pressing us to try and get rid of payday lending because it was wreaking havoc to the credit and the future of our young airmen and members of the armed services to the point they weren't able to deploy because they had those problems that they had to clear up first. But it also, once we achieved that getting rid of payday lending, as I recall,
and hopefully you will too, we identified a group of people through the testimony that was presented through all those hearings that we had that had a great need, what we might loosely refer to as the folks who are living paycheck to paycheck. And either there's an ice storm and they miss two paychecks or the refrigerator burns up or the transmission falls out of the car. And, of course, you know, if the refrigerator burns up, they can always go to another type industry and do something on a rent-to-own basis, which far exceeds 17%.
I think it would – I'm not sure I'm capable without a big spreadsheet of figuring out what those people actually end up paying in the end on those. Not that there's – not that that's – that's not something else that provides opportunity for those people to get through, to, you know, kind of live to fight another day. But we, in fact, identified this group. And I remember Chair of Budget at the time, Bruce Malick, who has an extensive career in banking, worked very hard, and I'm sure that had many conversations with Mr. Miller, who's here today with the Bankers Association,
in trying to figure out if there wasn't a way for the banking industry to try and put together some kind of product that would be able to help these people who are high-risk credit folks and were kind of stuck in the spiral. So I'm really glad to see this today. And going back to my first point, wouldn't you agree, isn't this a product that, in fact, the armed services actually promotes as an opportunity for these young airmen and service members to build their credit
and to bridge those needs that may arise to get them between paycheck to paycheck or get through tough spots? I agree, Representative
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
41:25
Hyde. I have several friends in the military, and one in particular that was in the green zone in Baghdad. And he came back, and he just got deployed to Afghanistan not too long ago. And sometimes they get delayed in paying. I mean, the military payment system is far different than the private sector or even us as legislators. And sometimes they don't get reimbursed for months.
And to see somebody have to go and sell their guns or sell their belongings just to get by on their current rent status and after what they're doing for our country is not a
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
41:57
good thing. Well, I appreciate your effort. There are definitely folks out there that need the support. I think
we need to make sure that we have good regulation. Thank goodness we don't have to reinvent the wheel. There's almost every state around us that is already doing this, so we've got their regulations, their laws that we can start with. And I appreciate your effort. And, Mr. Chairman, I'll have a motion when the time is appropriate. He's right there.
Chair
Unverified
42:18
Westman is right there. Representative Westman, you're recognized for
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
42:24
a question. My question has
been answered, Mr. Chairman. Representative Wilkins,
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
42:33
you recognize our question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most of my questions have been answered as well. One additional question I did want to ask, and it relates to the issue of payday loans that was brought up. When that was first brought up, you responded by saying the difference between this and
that is like night and day, like black and white. Would you elaborate a little bit more on what those distinctions are? MR. I'll just make
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
43:06
a comment, and then I'd like to just hand over to Speaker Wills, but just to fairly address, since that was a comment that I had made, you know, when I was in banking, there were individuals that had high interest rate credit cards and payday lending, and I always told them, never go to a payday lender. I helped with a lot of
consolidation loans. We had one gentleman, we cut up seven credit cards on the desk one afternoon and had a strong, firm handshake that he would never do that again, and a couple payday lending places as well. I've never associated myself with that industry. I don't agree with it. As a banker in a former life, it would have been great to have been able to give somebody a light at the end of the tunnel when they're at the other side of the desk and you can't
help them. But say, if you would just go down the road, there is a
way out potentially. and it would be great to have that person establish credit because they could be a future customer down the road. They just need a chance or an opportunity. The banking restrictions are pretty tough and very little wiggle room for a big heart when you want to help somebody that needs it and just have to say no a lot in the banking world if you want to survive as an industry.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
44:36
And I appreciate that comment there. There are many of us that just want to make sure that people are
Speaker 129
44:43
not victimized, and I appreciate your comment on that. Thank you for the question, Representative Wilkins. The difference between this and payday lending is night and day. This is not even in the same species. And let me explain. Payday lending, which I opposed as a legislator, and frankly our industry opposes in every state where we operate because it has been absolutely nothing but trouble for us.
Payday lending depends on people rolling over a loan every two weeks, and it's really a gimmicky financial product that allows somebody who loans money to charge 300 or 400 or 500 percent on an APR basis. It depends on that for a profit. Our industry, this functions just like a bank loan. Someone comes in and borrows a principal amount. They make a set number of payments. The minimum amount that they're allowed to pay this back is six months. months. So they have six months to pay this loan back, not two weeks or 30 days. And then
at the end of those payments, they are completely out of debt. The interest is amortized over the life of the loan. Everything that's charged to the borrower is fully disclosed on the front end, fully explained. The biggest difference that I think speaks to the need that's out there right now is this requires a lender to report to the credit bureau, both to run a credit check on the front end and to report each month so that a borrower who has a low credit score or no credit score gets the benefit of their payment, whereas a pawn shop or a payday lender, none of those folks report to the credit bureau.
They could make their payments on time and not see any benefit out of that. But more to the point of this bill, the biggest difference between that industry, which we vehemently oppose, and what we're proposing here is that we're going to make loans at 17 percent. All right. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Members, I don't mind us asking questions, but I need to remind you that we have a full agenda. I had breakfast this morning, and I'm prepared to stay to 1.30.
Speaker 160
46:45
Representative Murdoch. I really don't know what to do behind that. I do want to say again I'm going to try to go
Speaker 100
47:01
fast Representative Allen in the interest of those of us that missed breakfast that I want to help as well for the unbanked people a lot of people
Speaker 103
47:12
in my district that I represent are unbanked
but I want to represent them I want them to have help But I don't want to be a part of the formalization of a legalized way of being, of a predatory type situation. This is what I mean by that. And I spoke with Representative Wills about this. If you look into the bill and you look at the fees that go to those that are delinquent, those that come up short,
Well, the reason why they're unbanked is because of some reasons where they hadn't been accountable in the past, probably. So how does it really help them? It gives them an in, but at the end of the day, it's just going to make them possibly end up in the same situation. It gives them a chance to get the money, but does it really help them? Why not, I'm just throwing out stuff that I need to be concerned about, have something in here that helps to educate these people because these loans that you're going to get, they're going to come from people that need education in this area, that need some type of, besides giving them the money and letting them run and then being late and then charging them all these fees, there's going to need to be accountability as not just an opportunity.
Accountability, a part of accountability is education. So why not tie something to it? I don't have the legislation per se, but I want to see us do something besides tie my good friends and people back into something that just because it's a lower threshold, you've lowered the standards, you've called me what I am unbanked, but still you haven't helped to fix my real problem. So I want to address some of that as well if it's possible, or at least have that considered, there's something to be put into this bill that for the people
that's really going to be using this service, then they are able to somehow gain from it from an educational standpoint that can help them in their quality of life. Wait a minute. Last thing, then, you answer this. Representative Barnett, he's left. I do want to say the two bads don't make a good. He talked about there were some of us that may have credit cards that are bad interest rates, higher interest rates, and we made a comparison to this.
I don't want to do that. If I'm a victim of that, Representative Woods, I don't want to pass legislation that's similar to that. So two bads don't make a good. That's not a reason to pass a bill because someone may be doing something similar to that. We need to do good things for good reasons to improve, And that's my effort. And I think that's yours, too. We're just working it out. Representative Murdock, I don't think you're going to make it to lunch.
Speaker 129
50:23
I believe the question was, do I agree with that? Or does Representative wish? He's asked me to respond. So first of all, the 5% late fee is a one-time late fee. Any industry, business, your light bill, anything like that is going to have a small late fee that is assessed if you're late. If you don't want to pay the late fee, then make your payments on time. This is a very commonly accepted practice. It's limited to 5%.
On the issue of training and financial literacy and that kind of information, on page 9, starting with line 25, you'll find that this requires lenders to not only work out a budget with someone so that they understand their own finances, but to provide financial literacy information to the consumer. So this is a big component of the help that's provided to someone. Not only do they have the funds, but this is a way for them to build their credit it while learning how to manage their finances.
Okay. Members, without objection, we have some people in the audience that want to speak against the
bill, so without objection, can we allow those
Speaker 165
51:39
people to come forward and speak? Okay. I know we can. Okay.
Speaker 166
51:47
Are they short questions? Okay. Who's the
Where are you going? Is Jim Dupreece here? Well, come to the end of the table and tell
Jim Dupreece
Unverified
52:08
us who you are. Okay. I know where you are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of
Speaker 171
52:13
the committee. My name is Jim Dupreece, Deputy Attorney General for Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. I'm Deputy of the Public Protection Department. And I come here to tell you that the Office of the Attorney General opposes this and all other bills that are pending related to abusive lending practices,
and that is certainly what this bill is aimed towards. We've spent quite a long time. I've spent my time through four attorneys general fighting abusive lending in the state of Arkansas, And we have a fine tool to fight abusive lending. We have our Constitution, the Constitution of 1874. It prohibits high-cost lending, and it wasn't the first Constitution to do so.
Our previous Constitutions also prohibited high-cost lending, and that is the only thing that has saved Arkansas consumers from the abusive practices of loan sharks. Now, the question has been asked here today whether this bill is anything like the check casher's bill from 1999. It is essentially the check casher's bill of 1999 warmed over, brought back in the hopes that you will pass it again. It took us 10 years to undo the harm of the check cashing bill of 1999.
In 2001, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck the operative provision in that bill that allowed loan sharks to charge fees, and those fees would not be deemed to be interest. The Supreme Court ruled, as it has ruled many times in the past, in all the past attempts by the loan sharks to get into this state, that it's the Supreme Court who defines interest and not the General Assembly, and that these attempts to define fees as something other
than interest were constitutionally void. That's what protected us. The loan sharks went to several other ruses before we were eventually able to drive them out in 2009. The land-based loan sharks are gone. Now I've heard some question with respect to cross-border transactions, and there's There's not a whole heck of a lot that we can do about those transactions if those states don't choose to protect their consumers like we have chosen to protect ours.
However, I can tell you that the difference in volume is substantial. There may be dozens, there may be hundreds, there may even be thousands of borderline consumers who go across the border to obtain high-cost loans and be
Speaker 172
54:52
abused by the loan sharks. However, point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
54:58
to ask a request that we refrain from the use of the word loan shark, and I'll refrain from the use of the term ambulance chaser. Could we make that deal? Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir.
Speaker 171
55:13
However, at the time that in 2009 when the abusive lenders left the state, Some of them were making hundreds, hundreds of thousands of loans per year to Arkansas consumers, and it was costing Arkansas consumers $25 million a year in illegal interest charges. That was over a period of 10 years. That's a quarter of a billion dollars that Arkansas consumers spent on paying the lenders.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
55:47
point I don't need a history lesson on another industry this bill is not what he's saying I would ask him to speak on
Jim Dupreece
Unverified
56:01
the current bill please mr. chairman thank you speak on certainly this bill has a
Speaker 171
56:07
provision that allows the lenders to make charges and those charges will not be deemed interest that's unconstitutional that's to start let's go back to the purposes of the loan of the legislative findings. They are incorrect. It provides here in the legislative findings
that this is dealing with unbanked individuals. Typically, these lenders will require their borrowers to have a bank account. It provides that the small loans made on unsubstantial security to wage earners and salaried employees, these guys will require their borrowers to be wage earners or employed. So we're not talking about loans to unemployed people. Provides that the loans cannot be profitably made under the current constraints. However, if that is true, which it is not, but if it was true, then what's the purpose of this
bill? It doesn't change, or at least extensively, it's been represented to you that it will not change the current rates. So it is, there's no need for this regulation. We've heard talk about people who can't buy a refrigerator. I think I heard something along those lines. We have lenders with respect to refrigerators. They're subject to the 17%. They're making the loans. They're furniture stores. They're car dealers. They are making loans now. They are not regulated on their lending, and it is not necessary to regulate them so long
as they stay under 17%. So this bill does not do anything that would be worthwhile. But you really need to ask the sponsors of these bills if they will put in their legislative findings that it cannot be profitably made at 70 percent, then what is their intent? Once they get this bill passed, what is their intent? Keep in mind that Amendment 89 can only be amended by a three-quarters vote. Do they intend to take this bill to a three-quarters vote and then subsequently ask you to raise the rates as a simple majority vote on the basis of this bill?
If so, that will be opposed because that is unconstitutional. It will take a three-quarters vote. And if, in fact, it will take a three-quarters vote to raise the rates later, then why don't they just bring that legislation to you now and show you everything they're going to do? There's a legislative finding that persons who are low income do not have access to credit and cannot have access to credit. That finding is false. There are legitimate lending programs, if we will have the political desire to see them
through, that exist that provide legitimate sources of credit to low-income persons. The federal, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve have a program which they will promote to local financial institutions to provide loans. It is currently in operation in 28 banks across the United States. It currently has 34,400 outstanding loans for $40.2 million, and those loans are being
made at 13 to 16 percent. And the charge-off rate, that means the ones that go bad, the charge-off rate for those loans is 6.2 percent, which is lower than the charge-off rate for credit cards. The state of North Carolina, through its federal credit union for its state employees, has a program in place to make loans to state employees who need loans. Their rate is at 12 percent. They've been in existence for 10 years. They have 150,000 current loan customers.
These things are available. The FDIC is here in town and will work with local financial institutions to set up these loan programs that will legitimately help these consumers. You heard today that this is being, you heard from a representative of an organization called the Arkansas Installment Lenders Association. This association consists of five out-of-state lending organizations.
Just so you know, you talked about the sponsor and his representative talked about how this is different from payday lending because there's no rollovers. There in fact is no prohibition against rollovers in this bill. These loans are renewed prior to the sixth month. One of the members of that organization is an organization called Service Finance. There are other states which allow this type of lending but have at least supposedly in
place prohibitions against rollovers, but they're not recognized. Service finance has had its license revoked, or actually I think more accurately, it surrendered its license in the state of Colorado because of its rollover practices there and because of other abusive practices to consumers there. Again, will you speak
on the bill? I will
Speaker 171
1:01:15
speak. Yes, Mr. Chairman. What I want to say is if you think that this provides protections against abuses, you won't.
Mr. Chairman, motion to limit debate. Appropriate. How about five
Speaker 181
1:01:28
minutes each side? Okay. Proper motion. None debate. We're
all in favor. Unlimited the debate to five minutes. Let it be known by saying aye. All right. Okay.
Jim Dupreece
Unverified
1:01:48
Motion carries. You're on the clock. All right. I know there's others who want to talk. The only way
Speaker 171
1:01:55
you'll protect consumers from abusive lending is to maintain the current
17 percent max, not change it, not allow lenders to get through it. To the extent that they say they can't make money at 17 percent, that should be a tip to you that they intend to charge more. I'll let other opponents and proponents have the rest of the time. Thank you for your attention. Would you be willing
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:02:24
to accept questions? Yes, of course. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt.
Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. Representative Hyatt. work. To this bill, and specifically to this bill, which is not any particular company specific, it's just enabling legislation to solve a problem that most of us agree we have in Arkansas. Does this bill somewhere that I missed authorize loans above the 17 percent
rate right now? Yes. This bill does. Can you tell me which line it says the interest rate will be more
Speaker 171
1:03:09
than 17 percent? The effective interest rate will be more than 17 percent because they can charge additional fees that are not deemed to be interest. And that is exactly what the Check Cashers Act did.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:03:21
What fees are those? Are those the fees back on page 12, the late fee? Yes. Is a late fee customary in just about any credit arrangement in business?
Just like, matter of fact, my utility bill. If I'm late, when my electric bill comes, there's two amounts due on it. If I don't get paid on time, then I've got to pay the second amount that, you know, my mortgage. I can't think of a single bill that I have that doesn't provide a late fee. So that's kind of business as usual in Arkansas. If that's some kind of hidden extra interest rate, why would the AG's office not be moving to prohibit that late fee, which I would support, by the way, across the board in the state of Arkansas?
Speaker 171
1:04:04
Thank you, Representative. Actually, I was referring to subsection number three. While a late fee may, under certain circumstances, be deemed interest, that decision, of course, will be made by the courts based upon the facts of the case. But let's take a look at subsection number three. I'm talking about lines 11 through 13. fees or taxes paid to be paid to a public office or official for filing, recording, and here's the key one, or releasing any document related to a small loan. In other states, this has been used, this sort of language has been used,
to charge an extra fee for refraining from filing certain documents with the court clerk. And this fee is required, and it's simply just, I mean, And we have a long experience with people using arcane fees and charges in place of interest. And this bill allows them to do that. That looks like a
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:05:00
far reach to me, but I understand that legally you could maybe get to that place.
To the folks that have this need, these paycheck-to-paycheck folks who aren't necessarily unemployed, be interrupted or just had an unexpected expense that they don't have a reserve to handle. You spoke that there's already credit vehicles out there for them. I'm at a loss. Can you tell me where, you know, where these entities are and how they receive loans of
Jim Dupreece
Unverified
1:05:37
these small amounts at high risk? There's a program out of the Arkansas Federal
Speaker 171
1:05:42
Credit Union for military borrowers
I believe you'll hear today from someone who's developing a program in another bank or offering a program to another bank. The 28 banks I was talking about, none of those are in Arkansas, but any bank in Arkansas could take
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:06:00
advantage of those programs. So there's really not that opportunity for the average person living paycheck to paycheck
family man trying to keep things paid? There's any other number of
Speaker 171
1:06:11
charitable organizations that can help people? Excuse me, Mr. DePriest, I want to let
you know that you have one minute left.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:06:20
Yeah, and that's for discussion against the bill. The
point being, and I'll relinquish it, but the point being, Mr. DePriest, is I have lived paycheck to paycheck, and I have had those unexpected expenses come up, and I've got constituents who deal with that today, and there's not an easy result for them. and beginning to work on some vehicle that's going to provide those people the opportunity to step up is essential. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Frank, want to talk? You have 15 seconds. But we said five minutes on both sides, and that's always
Speaker 153
1:07:12
included asking questions. even in public health. AARP
Speaker 172
1:07:15
opposes this bill, too. Okay. Thank you. Your time is up.
Mr. Hank Klein, you're recognized to... No, wait a minute.
Maybe he's against it. I'm sorry. Mr.
Chair
Unverified
1:07:34
Klein, your time is up. We only have five minutes to speak
for or against Dr. Ricky, Dr. Keyes, you're recognized to speak for the bill, and you have five minutes. Okay. Okay. That's fine. Former Speaker, Robert Wills, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Speaker 195
1:08:05
Chair, will there be time for us to ask questions of
Speaker 129
1:08:13
him? You don't have five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll use those judiciously. I don't really know where to begin after that presentation from Mr. DePriest that was erroneous in so many ways. I'd be happy to visit with members after this meeting to begin the long job of trying to correct that. Let me be very clear. This bill does not raise interest rates. It leaves the consumer loan rate at 17%. It will help create safe, affordable credit options for the unbanked and underbanked Arkansans out there who have no good options right now.
There have been some suggestions that there are some maybe programs out there in the future in other states that we might bring here. Where are those bills? The Attorney General's Office hasn't proposed that. We've proposed this. This works in other states. What this does, which is the most important thing, is defines the small loan industry and brings it under public supervision. because the one thing I've learned in this whole process is some folks out there have no clue what the small loan industry looks like in the rest of the country. What we have right now in Arkansas is what some of these groups are afraid of,
completely unlicensed, unregulated, wild west of, forgive me, Representative Hyde, loan sharks. We don't know who they are, who they're lending to, and under what terms. This would bring that industry under a light so that we would know what's going on. This gives the Securities Department strong regulatory authority over the small loan industry. I can't understand why anyone would be against regulating small loan practices if we're all so worried about people being taken advantage of, Representative Murdoch. So this is what this bill does.
This sets up a licensure procedure and standards to be a small loan license holder. Not just anyone can show up and raise their hand and say they're a lender. Another very important part of this bill, which has not been discussed, This implements the very consumer protections that the advocate groups have been calling on, not just here in Arkansas but around the country. It's in the bill under a section that says consumer protection. There is a provision where someone can't renew their loan more than three times in one year. So there is a protection there.
It gives the consumer reasonable access to their credit that they've been awarded by a lender but keeps them from getting in trouble. This requires credit bureau reporting so the consumer's credit score will improve. And also importantly, does not apply to banks, credit unions, car dealers, furniture dealers, retailers, or casual lenders. And I will point out that banks and credit unions aren't under any APR cap whatsoever and can charge whatever they want. And some of the institutions that have come out against this, in fact, offer credit cards at higher rates than 17%.
What we are saying is it's time to bring this industry into the public domain under public supervision with the General Assembly setting the rules and regulations. Now, all the things that you've been told to worry about, that's not in this bill. Brothers and Wheels, you
Speaker 129
1:11:10
Chairman. All those things that none of us liked about payday lending, that's not in this bill. This bill sets up a regulated industry that, once again, is respected in the other states we operate in.
They may have higher APR limits than Arkansas does. This industry follows the law. And one other point, Mr. Chair, and I'll yield for any questions. Mr. DePriest mentioned a company called Service Finance. I have no idea who they are. They're not a part of our association. But that does make a good point. When there are bad actors and they're caught, their licenses are either suspended, revoked, or given up, there are bad consequences for bad behavior under small loan acts. Right now, there are no consequences.
If you did catch a loan shark, we have nothing against them. There's no criminal statute on the books. There's nothing that happens to them other than they can't collect their loan. So this is a step in the right direction, and I would hope that this begins the process of educating all of us on an industry that even the
Department of Defense has said is beneficial credit. Representative Monock. Thank you. Again, Representative Wills and Wood, Representative Wood,
Speaker 103
1:12:26
I think we're going the right direction. There's a lot of good about this that I do like, so I'm trying to get there. If you would, for me, do you think that we could possibly look at on page 12 and possibly look at line 11 through 13 that talks about the fees or taxes paid or to be paid to a public official for filing a recording or releasing any document relating to the small loan, that language leaves open a lot of what you're hearing.
That's part of the language, the legal language that leaves open that. If we can clean up some of that and that education piece, I'm not going to go away from that because a lot of the people that you're going to be serving would be people that need some education too in
Speaker 102
1:13:12
this area. So there is a little give and take. There's some good in this now, but help me out. First of all, the recording theme. Representative Murdoch, Representative
Speaker 200
1:13:20
Fulman, Speaker of the Wheels. I understand, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your time.
You're recognized. I have a motion if it's proper at this time. I have a motion. I see your motion. I
Speaker 206
1:13:52
have a motion that we do pass. Okay. Okay. Okay. What is the place, wait, what is the, what's your motion? Pass. Okay.
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The ayes
Speaker 165
1:14:14
have it. Let's do it. Three, six, nine. Okay.
Speaker 202
1:14:19
That's the first person. Why would you
Speaker 213
1:14:34
got two nods? I know, but. Representative Woods. Representative Woods. Representative Lovell. Representative Pierce. Representative Pierce. Representative King. Representative King. Representative Hyde. Representative Word. Representative Word. Representative Carnine.
Representative Carnine, Representative Rice, Representative Barnett, Representative Ingram, Representative Wilkins, Representative Wilkins, Representative Wright, Representative Viviano, Representative Wren
Representative Wren Representative Catlett Representative Murdock Representative Westerman Representative Westerman Representative Wardlaw Law? Representative Kerr? Yes. Representative Allen? Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
can you let me? 1, 2, 3. Congratulations. Representative Wewishabeeal passed 11 and 3. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair
Unverified
1:16:45
Thank you, committee members. Representative King, you recognize the presidential bill.
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
1:16:48
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully this one will be much less controversial. In fact, I'm pretty sure it will be. I have a guest here at the
John Harriman
Unverified
1:17:04
end of the table. I want to have him introduce himself. My name is John Harriman. I'm with Mitchell Williams Law Firm. Mr. Chairman, this is SB 45, Senate Bill 45.
Basically, what we're trying to do is clean up some language that will allow some insurance businesses to do business a little easier in Arkansas. Currently, if an insurer wants to write a surplus lines contract in all 50 states, two companies must be created and capitalized. The primary insurance company would be domiciled in Arkansas to write policies in 49 states.
And a secondary insurance company would have to be created and capitalized just to write some surplus lines policies in Arkansas. First off, a surplus lines policy is something that a normal carrier, like a primary carrier, like State Farm, all state farmers, would not be able to write or would not find it adequately to underwrite those. A good example is insurance for a one-time event or for maybe a sports team, something along those lines.
What this does, it creates a situation where a company can write that business and not have near as much expense and just have domiciled to one company, if I'm understanding that
correctly, and I'm going to let this gentleman take it from there. Representative Kerr
Speaker 157
1:18:50
is correct. Right now, currently under the statutory scheme, if you're a surplus lines insurer and you're domesticated in one state.
Excuse me, will you state your name for the record? Yes, sir. I'm John Harriman. Thank you. I'm Mitchell Williams. Currently, if you have a surplus lines insurance company domesticated in one state, they can write surplus lines insurance in all the other 49 states but cannot write surplus lines insurance in that state in which they're domesticated. This bill would allow them to write surplus lines insurance in all the other states in addition to the state they're domesticated in. We've worked closely with the department, Property Casualty Insurance Association,
Stevens Agency, independent agents, and everybody's okay with the bill. All right. Okay. Any questions
from the committee? You recognize? I'd like to make a motion at the proper time. Okay. Seeing no questions. With that,
I'm closed for my bill. Okay. Anybody in the audience that want to speak for
or against the bill? Okay. You recognize my motion? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to make a motion. Do pass. Okay. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Ayes have it. No. Any no's? Ayes have it. Congratulations. You've passed the bill. Representative Pong, you recognize the bill in House Bill 1895. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Recognized. Thank you. We do
have an amendment, Chairman Kerr, that we would like to introduce regarding House Bill 1895. Have we passed the amendment out? It's on its way, Representative. All right. Thank you. While we're passing the amendment out, Chairman Kerr, I'd like to introduce the folks with me. To my left is David Matthews, Stephen Kuffman, and Ark Monroe, and these gentlemen provide
legal counsel to AEP Swepco, and they are here with me today to help explain our legislation to the committee, and the co-ops are here also. I would like to say that we have great interest that all of you get a, especially the chairman, get a hot meal, so we are going to expedite and be as concise as possible in our presentation and answering your questions. And so we will try to be helpful in that regard.
Speaker 239
1:21:48
Thank you. You prepared to explain the
amendment? Yes, sir. If I might, the amendment, the first page of the amendment provides really minor changes that don't really change the substance of the bill. the substantive change to the original legislation, comes on page two in the emergency clause. And what has happened there is the original bill had some retroactive language that we have stricken
and taken out of the bill that has satisfied the governor's office. So that is the primary change in regards to this amendment. In that case, Representative Woods, I think, has a motion. I'd like to
Speaker 197
1:22:34
make a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor of adopting the amendment, signify
by saying aye. Aye. Okay, your amendment is adopted. You may
explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will be brief in my opening statements.
Most of you know the situation with the Turk Power Plant down in Hempstead County and what has happened over the course of the last few years. And the legislation that we bring about today, we think some people call this a Turk bill, and it is in some ways, and in many ways it's not. It's a bill that we think is good for jobs and industry in Arkansas. So we do have some changes that we think will clarify the statute, be helpful to the PSC,
and certainly in bringing industry and keeping industry in our state. And if you have any questions in regards to any part of the bill, we have folks here, and I will certainly be helpful to answer any questions you might have. But I'd like to recognize Mr. Matthews just for a quick opening statement.
I'm sorry. Go ahead and introduce yourself, sir. You're recognized.
David Matthews
Unverified
1:24:00
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Matthews, and I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today. You know, our founders created three branches of government for a good reason, and the court back in 1958 said we have repeatedly said that the question of the wisdom or expediency of a statute is for the legislature alone. And this General Assembly, starting back in the 70s, recognized that the availability of power was very important,
And so it created the statute that we call the CECPN law to be sure that any review of the building power plants or major transmission facilities would be done in one place. And we've all followed that for 30 years. Then in 2003, the legislature said we want utility companies to plan ahead. We don't want to ever be in a situation where we don't have adequate resources. so you created legislation that authorized the Public Service Commission to have rules to require utilities to do resource planning.
When SWEPCO decided to build the Turk plant, at the request of the Public Service Commission, we did a need proceeding first rather than do it through the CECPN law, and the court said, well, you did it wrong. This bill would at least in the future allow the Public Service Commission to utilize the resource planning process that it requires utilities to go through that allows all stakeholders to participate.
It doesn't exclude people from the process. It includes people. And I guess the other important point is it does not require the Public Service Commission to only use the resource planning dockets, but it does permit them to do it. And so we believe that's an important change that will save ratepayers money and, in fact, provide more opportunity for people to express their preferences on the types of resources that should be used to meet power needs or transmission needs. In fact, there's a very elaborate resource planning guideline
that's on the Public Service Commission's website site that tells all the things that utilities have to go through. There are other clarifications in this bill. In particular, it clarifies that the Public Service Commission can utilize the services of other state or federal permitting agencies to review the environmental impacts to and can depend upon those permitting processes. It clarifies that a major utility is exempt from the CECPN requirements if they're not
going to collect the cost of that facility through its rights. It also provides that there's no waiver if a utility starts out on a CECN process and then decides that it will utilize the variance measure instead. That's a brief explanation. I had a lot more planned to say, but I'm mindful of your lunch needs as well. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Representative Woods, you're recognized. Motion at the proper time.
Okay. Thank you. Any questions from committee members? Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, if I
may, before we get much further down the line, I want to point out that there was a
rumor and some things going around. This bill is not opposed by our governor. We satisfied what he wanted in this language. This bill is completely supported by our lieutenant governor. The attorney general's office does not oppose this bill.
The PSC is neutral on this bill. And we have overwhelming support, as you can see, by the 53 sponsors and 13 Senate sponsors on this bill. So we are ready to answer any questions and do the bidding of the committee. Okay. Okay. Since
there are no further questions, we have some people that have signed up to – oh, Representative Rice. I'm sorry. For question? Thank
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
1:28:16
you, Mr. Chair. Just make this comment that not everybody is worried about lunch.
We have rules committee at noon. Could I make a motion to limit debate to ten minutes per side? That's appropriate. Undebatable. Undebatable.
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Mr. Chairman, the only request I would make is
would you let me know when we reach eight minutes. I would like two minutes to close for the bill. Well, it looks like
you'd want somebody to speak in for
it. Well, I'll take ten minutes. I'll still take my two minutes.
Okay. Thank you. Okay, we have Mr. Frank Kelly who's signed up to speak against the bill. Would you
state your name and organization? My
Speaker 248
1:29:20
name is Frank Kelly. I'm a citizen of Arkansas.
Speaker 249
1:29:25
You're welcome, I asked. Okay, thank you. I would like to refer to page 3, line 31, section 4, and page 12, line 24, section 9, and to remind everyone that creating electricity with coal is not efficient. And I actually have a handout that I'm hoping someone will be able to bring up for me. I don't know if it's proper to turn that in at this point or not.
It was a diagram of a coal-fired electric generating facility. Is that available? All right. If the true life cycle costs were counted for creating electricity with coal, coal would be priced at over 18 cents a kilowatt hour. And right now it's priced about two to four cents.
It does not make sense to continue down a path where we will be currently importing over 60% of our energy sources to create electricity in Arkansas. There are 1,000 coal cars a day coming to the state, and we need to go in a different direction. Thank you for your time, and I'll turn to question if you
– okay. Representative Burnett, you recognize
the question? How do you propose that we buy cost-effective energy? Do you recommend we bring it in from offshore?
Speaker 248
1:31:01
Oh, no, no. What do you recommend? I recommend that we embrace renewable energy sources. The deal with a central fire coal plant, it starts
Speaker 249
1:31:10
out 100% of the embodied energy in a lump of coal. Seventy percent of it goes up the smokestack. It's got to be hot enough so it might somewhat disappear, but it never does disappear. By the time you plug your iPod into the outlet, it's 9.5% efficient. If we were to put a solar array on this building and pipe the electricity right into it,
test, we would, that solar module converts electricity at a 20% efficiency rate. So we have enough sterilized locations. Every other warehouse rooftop between here and Bentonville could be covered with solar modules, and we wouldn't need any more coal-fired plants ever in the future. We might have to keep the ones we have, but we don't need any new ones. Thank you. I want to
follow up that question, if I can, please.
If you're talking about liquid hydrocarbons, 73% of all the liquid hydrocarbons come offshore. Now, we have some resources in this state that, in this country, and that's natural gas, and we have that in the state of Arkansas, of course, and we have coal, and these are two resources that we actually have in this country that keep us from having to bring in energy offshore, which, again, on the hydrocarbons right now, we bring in about 73 percent. So how would you address that? Well,
Speaker 249
1:32:34
sir, I appreciate your question. I'm on a minute.
You have my time. Thank you. Sir, are you Ken Smith? No, he's
Speaker 255
1:32:52
yielding to me. Okay. Will you come to the table and state your name? My name is Chuck Nestred. I represent the Hempstead County Hunting Club, who was one of the opponents to the Turk plant. And I'd like to just make a couple remarks to what Mr. Matthews said. And he is correct that one of the issues that the Supreme Court ruled on is whether need can be resolved in a separate proceeding.
And that is being changed by this bill. So the concept that this is not overturning the Supreme Court's decision, they said that procedure is illegal. You are trying to make it legal by this bill. But another provision that we lost in the Supreme Court was that transmission lines should be resolved with the power plant. We won that at the Court of Appeals unanimously. We lost it at the Supreme Court. We didn't come before you with a bunch of lobbyists asking you to fix that. We dismissed our transmission line appeals and we moved on. We recognize and we appreciate and we honor the decisions of the Supreme Court and we
moved on, and we suspect that everybody should do that. They shouldn't try to change the law. This law was adopted, as Mr. Matthews said, 35 years ago. Hundreds of certificates have been issued in those 35 years without any problems. Every one of them. This is not fixing something that's been done a number of times. Every certificate of need application, Every decision, except the Turk plant, had need resolved in the proceeding with the plant.
This separate proceeding, a declaration of need proceeding, is something that was made up by SWEPCO for this application. So you are not endorsing something that's been done for 35 years or even 10 years or even one year. It's never been done before except for the Turk plant and the Supreme Court said that was illegal. So I urge you to leave the law the way it is. But what I heard the governor say yesterday and reported this morning is that this is not a Turk plant bill. It shouldn't be a Turk plant bill and it should not impact the Turk plant litigation and proceedings
in the future. There are lots of ways to craft bills and Mr. Matthews is very clever. And he's done it in a way to make sure that this bill can be backdoored into the Turk plant litigation. And I have asked the PSC, I have asked them to make, to just make a simple statement in this bill that says it will not apply to the Turk plant, or it will not apply to facilities that are under construction, it will not apply to facilities that are in litigation, they don't want any of that language. They don't want any of that.
I asked Chairman Honorable this morning, can you assure me that if this plant proceeding goes forward, that these new provisions will not apply as the governor said? She couldn't answer that question. She doesn't know. Do you know? Do you know whether what the governor said this morning is actually going to occur if you adopt this bill? You don't. You don't. The governor's office is still looking at this bill, and they want to make sure that this bill, as it is drafted, does not impact Turk plant proceedings.
That's not fair. You don't go to the legislature in the middle of litigation and ask the legislature to change the law to impact how you're arguing the case. We have a case pending before the Supreme Court right now. The briefing just concluded last week. Every issue Mr. Matthews addressed to you that this bill is addressing, every one of them is an issue that's currently pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Every one of them. To say this is maybe not a Turk plant bill, you're only being asked to address issues that we are currently briefing
and currently arguing before the Arkansas Supreme Court. You can't get around that. many of you have probably seen the statement that Swepco has put out to discuss this bill and explain what it means and I'm going to pass that around for you there is nothing in that statement that is true first is this a Turk plant bill no it absolutely is a Turk plant bill it is only addressing issues
that are currently pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Does it make it easier to build a coal-fired generation plant in Arkansas? They say no, absolutely it does, and maybe it should, but every time you make a change to an existing law that has worked for Arkansas and Arkansans for 35 years, you make it easier on one side, you hurt somebody else. You're hurting the environment, you're hurting the industry, you're hurting landowners, you're hurting property owners, you're hurting somebody. If you don't make that balance correctly, you might be making it easier for SWEPCO to
permit this power plant, but you're hurting somebody else. Before you make changes to a law that's worked effectively and efficiently for 35 years, you need to consider those things. Does this bill make it easier for a utility to charge costs to ratepayers? No. Well, of course it does. It makes it easier to site a power plant. Mr. Nestor, you only have
Speaker 206
1:37:44
a couple of minutes left. MR. I would like to yield to Ms. Moody. MR. Okay. Ms. Moody, you
are recognized to come to the end of the table.
Speaker 263
1:37:59
MS. Good morning. I just have a limited issue that I would like to discuss that I think is not really very well – hasn't really been discussed much, and that is I represent the property owners of Arkansas. And in Arkansas at this time, under the Constitution, the right and the privileges afforded to landowners are some of the highest in the Constitution. And one of the rights and one of the problems, one of the issues that landowners face is
condemnation. And condemnation is something that is already a part of the CECPN bill. Under the CECPN bill, once a utility or an entity has a CECPN, they have the right to to then go out and institute condemnation proceedings. And as part of those condemnation proceedings, under the CECPN bill, the landowners are not entitled to the right to challenge the necessity of the taking, only the value. This is okay under Arkansas law right now because the necessity for the taking is done
in the CECPN proceeding. So a landowner can come to the CECPN proceeding, participate in the determination of necessity, And then later, when their land is condemned, then they get the second prong of the right to challenge the value of the taking. The problem with the amendment that's proposed today to the CECPN law is that it allows the removal of the whole need question from the CECPN proceeding, but leaves the condemnation proceeding alone. So what then happens is a landowner is given no notice of this need proceeding, no ability
to participate because they don't know about it. When the CECPN proceeding is later instituted, the landowner can come and participate in the CECPN proceeding, but need has already been determined, so they don't get to participate in the need part of the proceeding under the CECPN, and then eventually their land is subject to condemnation, and they still have never had the right to challenge the need determination. This to me seems to be a fundamental problem, and it's a fundamental problem under the Arkansas Constitution, and it puts landowners at risk. And I mean, I understand that... Ms. Moody?
Speaker 243
1:40:07
Yes. Your time is up. Thank you. Okay. Representative.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand, we have ten minutes. I'm going to allow Mr. Matthews to take a few of those minutes, and
David Matthews
Unverified
1:40:29
then I will close for my bill. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As Representative Will said earlier, there is so much to say in response to the things that you were just told.
First of all, this bill does not eliminate the requirement for a need determination at all. It simply says the Public Service Commission can rely upon a determination of need that it has made in a utility-specific resource planning docket. Those are very expensive processes. SWEPCO's last integrated resource plan cost just a little less than $400,000. There was a stakeholder process that we sponsored, hosted at the embassy suites here in Little
Rock that had representatives from our competitors, from other utilities. Indeed, the Sierra Club was there present for that discussion. All this bill says is that going forward, if the Public Service Commission has done a utility-specific need resource docket, they can rely upon that finding. But they don't have to. If they want to restrict the need finding to the CECPN process, they may do so. So the suggestion that we're eliminating the ability to question need
and then have condemnation is just wrong. But the truth is that there's all kinds of processes to build power plants in Arkansas today that don't require CECPN. And I know Mr. Nestor knows that because he represented the owners of the Plum Point power plant. the last coal plant to be built in this state that didn't get a CECP in. What we're talking about doing here is clarifying some law. And to the suggestion that we're trying to address issues before the Supreme Court,
that is the way our process works. You, the legislature, are the one that has the authority to establish what the public policy of the state is. That's your job. And we're asking you to say, as a matter of policy in Arkansas, what we want to say is that if you're going to be an owner of a utility plant and you're a public utility but you're not going to seek to recover the rates, then you have the same right to build that plant as any other entity does.
You made that exception in 1999 in order to allow the Integra plant to be built in Eldorado. There's four or five power plants that have been built in this state without a CECPN. SWEPCO or EAI or the co-ops, any other public utility, ought to be able to do that if they choose to do it and if they commit that they're not going to seek to recover the costs of that plant through rates. If a utility is going to try to recover its costs, it's still got to go through the CECPN process.
It's still got to give notice to anybody that might be traversed. We're not changing that. This is a good bill. It does make clear to the business community throughout the nation, Arkansas is not an anti-competitive state. Arkansas is not an unfriendly regulatory state. Arkansas is a state where you can come in and you can depend upon the regulatory process that's in the law that the legislature's created and not worry about somebody coming in later and pulling the rug out from under you.
I'll yield back to Mr. Powers. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Mr. Chair, I think the debate has been made at many hearings, judicial and administrative. I think you have the gist of what we're trying to do. I would simply ask and let you know that this is about jobs in our state and for our citizens, and I would ask for a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
1:44:14
John Woods. Representative Woods, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:44:21
I'd like to make a motion. Do pass. Okay. I'd like to make a
motion do pass as amended. All in favor, let it be done by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Representative Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair and Committee. Don't go anywhere, we have a few more. Representative Ingram, you're recognized to present your bills.
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
1:44:54
You have another one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Representative Ingram, you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, I
appreciate everybody staying to hear these bills. The first one is SB 362. It's an act to clarify the definition for a broker-dealer
and establish supervision requirements for broker-dealers and investment advisors in Arkansas. I have here with me the Arkansas Securities Chairman, Heath Absher, who can answer any questions that you might have about this legislation. Basically, both these bills are technical in nature and cleanup and clarification. Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to take any questions. Okay.
Are there any questions from the committee members?
Representative Hyatt, you're recognized. Motion to pass. Okay. We have a motion to pass as far as appropriate. Anybody in the audience want to speak for or against a bill? Okay. All right. The motion before us is all in favor. Let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Opposed? Congratulations, Representative Ingram. You passed your bill. Thank
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
1:46:22
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. The next bill is Senate Bill 363 that I'd like to take up, if you might.
Speaker 163
1:46:35
kidding. No, this is the last one. If
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
1:46:38
it had been anybody but Representative Hyde. 363 is an act to amend various portions of the security laws and to make some technical changes. Again, I have Heath Absher with me, with Chairman of the Arkansas Securities Commission, and I would be happy to answer any questions, but I would defer
Speaker 206
1:46:58
to Mr. Absher. Okay. Representative Wilkins?
A motion at the appropriate time. Are there any questions from community members? Okay. Is there anybody
in the audience that want to speak for or against the bill? Okay. All right. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Congratulations. You passed the bill. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And committee, thank
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
1:47:22
you all for staying late to hear this bill. Appreciate it very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.
Representative Hyde, back again. By popular demand, I think it's 1814, something like that, or 1614. No,
Speaker 37
1:47:49
sir, it's 18, HB 1814. MR. 1814. You're right. Thank you. And this
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:47:55
is another commission bill, the last one we're going to see this week. And I will
ask Mr. Morris to give you a brief explanation of the bill and answer any questions.
John Morris
Unverified
1:48:06
This bill would – thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill would allow the department to promulgate rules that would provide requirements for a health insurer who wanted to leave the health insurance market, individual health insurance market, in the state of Arkansas. Currently, there aren't any real requirements. All they have to do is give their policyholders a 90-day notice, and this would allow the department to promulgate rules to protect consumers
when they find themselves in an awful position of having their health insurance being canceled because the health insurance company no longer wants to do business in this state. Okay, I
have a question. How much notice? You said
John Morris
Unverified
1:48:58
it's 90 days now? Correct. Okay. How much notice would you like? Well, it's not about the amount of notice. Okay. This will allow him to promulgate rules to set reasonable requirements,
which would go through the legislative body on rule review as to what would be fair and reasonable for these policyholders who are losing their insurance. So it is essentially a consumer protection measure to ensure that people are protected when their health insurer wants to cancel their coverage and withdraw from the market. All right.
Speaker 71
1:49:36
Thank you. Representative Wilkins, you have? Yes, a motion.
Motion. All right. Let's hear your motion. Do pass. Motion is do pass. Is there any questions from the audience, any discussion on the motion? Not seeing any at all. What is the committee's pleasure on the motion? Signify all by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Once again, Representative Hyde, your bill has passed. What a streak this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee.
committee and the chairs. If you all can indulge me for just one more view. Yeah, one more. Representative Summers, you'll
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:50:25
recognize the presidential view. Representative Summers has been patient, very patient this
morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I believe this one will go fairly quick, too. It basically clarifies the general investment authority for cities and county governments,
and it's endorsed by the Municipal League, the Association of Arkansas Counties, the Arkansas Government Finance Officers Association. And I've got Mr. Paul Young from the Municipal League who is an expert on municipal finance and we'll let him talk only if there's questions.
Any questions from the committee members?
I'd like to have a motion do pass. Okay. A motion do pass. Is there anyone in the audience that want to speak for or against the bill? Okay. Seeing none. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Congratulations, Representative Summers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further bid since we stand adjourned. um
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1615
HB1806
HB1813
HB1815
HB1816
HB1846
SB45
HB1895
SB362
SB363
HB1814
HB1927
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Fred Allen Chair
Unverified
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Representative Allen Kerr Chair
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Bryan B. King
Unverified
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Speaker 30
John Morris
Unverified
Speaker 37
Representative John Catlett
Unverified
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 71
Speaker 81
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Representative Jonathan Barnett Chair
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 103
Speaker 108
Speaker 95
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
Speaker 123
Speaker 129
Speaker 131
Chair
Unverified
Representative Bruce Westerman
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 160
Speaker 165
Speaker 166
Speaker 167
Jim Dupreece
Unverified
Speaker 171
Speaker 172
Speaker 181
Speaker 153
Speaker 195
Speaker 199
Speaker 102
Speaker 200
Speaker 206
Speaker 202
Speaker 210
Speaker 213
John Harriman
Unverified
Speaker 157
Representative David "Bubba" Powers Chair
Unverified
Speaker 239
Speaker 197
David Matthews
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 248
Speaker 249
Speaker 255
Speaker 263
Speaker 243
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
Speaker 275
Speaker 163