House Aging, Children & Youth Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1457
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1457”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1368
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1368”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1451
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1451”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1477
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1477”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1543
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1543”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1625
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1625”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1016
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1016”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1017
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1017”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1018
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1018”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1019
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HR1019”
|
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
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
0:00
I'm excited to know that nobody paid attention to my announcement I made yesterday that our picture
Chair
Unverified
0:07
was at 945. Just kidding. First up on the agenda is House Bill 1368 by Representative Eubanks. You're recognized to
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
0:16
present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse my voice this morning. I'm starting to get a little sick. It's been a couple of weeks since I first presented this, and there were some questions. And I've worked with DHS, and I think we hopefully we've addressed all the issues that the members may have had a question about.
This does deal with custody, visitation with children, with a parent who may be on the sex offender registry. and it allows a parent to petition the court to do the criminal background check including the sex offender registry to determine what that person's status is and we've expanded it to include not only that parent but any adult over 18 years of age
that may be living in that home where that child may have visitation. and I have Lisa McGee here to answer any questions she's from DHS are there any questions from the committee seeing no questions
Chair
Unverified
1:30
from the committee is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill against the bill and
what is the will of the committee representative deaf and ball you're recognized
motion do pass we have a motion to do pass all in favor say aye any opposed say no
motion carries and your bill passes thank you Next up on the agenda,
we have Representative Hoppers, Hobbs, sorry, I looked at Karen Hopper.
Speaker 15
2:15
Representative Hobbs, are you ready? You're recognized to present House Bill 1457. Thank
Tom Marks
Unverified
2:32
you, Madam Chair. That's okay. We often get confused. And if it's okay, I would like for Tom Marks, who is
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
2:38
a law clerk with DHS, to join me to answer any technical questions that may be from the committee.
Chair
Unverified
2:47
If you would, sir, please state your
name and who you're with for the
Tom Marks
Unverified
2:56
record. My name is Tom Marks, and I'm with DHS. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, I'd like to begin with a little bit
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
3:08
of background as to why House Bill 1457 is being introduced to you today. In July of 2010, headlines in the paper caught my attention. Arkansas mom, cotton baby adoption scam, lack of victim protection laws, angers officials.
The article stated that a lady who was having a baby had contracted – and by contracted I mean she had received money from three different couples to adopt her baby. Obviously because she had received monetary award from three different couples, there was no way she could allow her baby to be adopted by three different couples. This is what caught my attention.
The detective who worked the case said, there's nothing for me to do because there are no federal laws, there are no state laws, there's nothing except theft by deception. This was the first time in my law enforcement career I could not help the victim. It's frustrating. After reading the article, I contacted Detective Lee and told him, you know, do we need legislation to address this issue? From that, I met with the detective, I met with prosecuting attorneys from the area,
as well as area legislators and the private adoption attorney who blew the whistle on this woman. And from that meeting, we decided, yes, we do need a law on the books to address the situation. And from that comes the bill that you
Chair
Unverified
4:53
Powers, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
4:55
Chair. Representative Hobbs, just a question or two, and I apologize.
I just now kind of started looking at
the bill. I understand, sir. Could someone just simply back out of the adoption process for, I mean, what's constituting defrauding someone? Is it just simply a dollar amount? Because I guess this is
just my question. I know since I've been old enough to be aware of adoptions,
people have backed out of these things on a number of occasions, and I'm just wondering if they still have that right to do that without fear of being charged with a felony. Yes, sir. Legal counsel assures me,
Tom Marks
Unverified
5:48
and Mr. Marks may want to address this, but as you know, I mean,
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
5:53
some women will change their minds. And this law addresses those who have talked to more than one couple and accepted money
or some other kind of award, financial incentive or something from more than one couple. So the standard of proof is
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
6:10
basically what? And you may want to get your young man to answer that. I think
that's a good idea. Thank you, Vice Chair. What they're going to look at is purpose, and that's why they included that intent language, because it's a two-pronged test. You have to show that the birth parent purposely intended to defraud that adoptive parent. So they have to have that specific intent in order to be charged with this crime.
So if they back out of a normal adoption without having any intent to defraud one or multiple sets of parents then there's no chance that they could be charged well how and what are
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
6:47
some of those purposes uh you know how do how are we going to be able to define that well and that's
that's where it comes into like you said proof and that what i've talked to different prosecutors in the area one of the things that we've talked about is it's going to have to come from direct proof like direct testimony from something that they've done to let other people know that this was their
intent all along, and it won't be an easy thing to prove at all, but it will have to just come from, like I said, either direct testimony, direct evidence, some sort of – it's really going to be hard to
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
7:23
do with circumstantial, but it's got to be more to do with direct evidence. So you're comfortable that this law will not
infringe upon those that just simply get cold feet or for whatever reason want to back out of an adoption? They may have accepted some money, I'm assuming, somewhere along the line for prenatal care. I don't know what specifically.
Speaker 41
7:42
So you're comfortable that that's not going to be a problem? We don't
believe so. And like I said, with some of the prosecutors that we've talked to, I mean, it's – with the difficulty that it might have just in charging the offense, I don't think it'll – I don't think it'll be that much of an
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
8:02
issue. I don't believe it'll have such a
chilling effect. All right. Thank you. Representative Elliott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I beg to differ with that. And I say that because who actually will be doing the investigating?
Will it be the police department? Will it be DHS? And then how can you really define what the intent is? Let's say the mom goes the whole pregnancy and then she receives funds from it. And after the birth, she looks at the kid and says, you know, I want him. after that she has actually really received resources from this family, I think that's the woman's choice. So to have leverage on actually charging that person with a felony,
I don't think it's fair. And when they initially addressed it, I mean, they initially addressed it for the situation that Representative Hobbs was talking about for the girl up in northwest Arkansas who had two separate families, and she had three actually at that time, three separate families working at the same time. But you
Speaker 51
9:14
said one or multiple. Well, we covered one just in
the case that a prosecutor was able to ever actually do that. I mean, it's possible that we could change it to two to make it,
because I've heard from prosecutors as well that it's much easier if they have two families involved at that time because it's obviously a much easier way
to prove the fraud. Right. But I guess what I'm harboring on is what you said, one or multiple. If it says one or multiple, as law enforcement, I can still charge you with one. So that just gives, to me, it just gives more power into somebody else's hands other than
that mom who actually carried the child for nine months. other people may not feel the same way but I just think that that's too much leverage to put on a person who's making a life decision so thank you madam chair representative Harris you're recognized thank you madam
chair I'd like to make a motion at the proper time but also
have a question for the go ahead and ask your question okay I think this is a
good bill and I think since I'm not
familiar with this process of adoption and I understand I always err on choosing life you know an adoption over any other thing but does this protect like we'll go back to the one because there are people out there that have ill intent so if they want their baby paid for I like the I want to make sure that the even the one is protected if they want their baby paid for and had had no intentions of adopting that child in the first place, does this protect those
parents that have probably put $10,000 to $20,000, if not more, for this unborn child that they may never have intentions of getting in the first place? That's kind of the reason
it was left as one or possibly more, because, I mean, there may come a case to where they can prove that one mother intentionally defrauded one adoptive family and so we wanted to leave it open for that fact and like I said we have have heard from prosecutors that they it might be easier to do with two families but we want to leave the one in there just I mean because prosecutors
have discretion obviously to make that decision whether or not to charge that person so if they have the ability to do that
and to going back to representative Elliott's point you know they can charge but the burden of proof still has to be there, and so you're still going to have to find if that is the case or not. Is that correct? You have to have a burden of proof? MR. Of course. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Representative
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
12:05
Gaskell, you're recognized. Thank you. What you're in the business for, and I agree with you, is stop the illicit selling of babies,
right? Well, the defrauding, because, I mean, they can get reasonable costs, but there's no limit on those reasonable costs in Arkansas, so they can get as much money as they can from multiple adoptive families and basically have a windfall for just having a child without ever giving up the child or having basically the intent to give up the child.
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
12:30
MR. But we have organizations in the state and in the nation, too, that just sell babies. MR. I'm
sure. Not that I'm specifically aware of, but I'm sure. MR. But, you
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
12:39
know, I don't care what you do with a guy that's selling a baby, but thank
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:44
you, Madam Chair. MS. Representative Walker, you're recognized. Thank you. Let me say, I may
differ with Representative Harris a bit. Can you speak into
your mic, please? I may differ a bit with Representative Harris. I don't believe that everything is a crime simply because somebody looks up in the paper and says that that's something I don't like, and
you indicated that you saw in the paper or had some experience with a situation, and you didn't like it, and you therefore decided
that you wanted some legislation for it.
Tom Marks
Unverified
13:22
Is that correct? Actually, sir, it wasn't – I mean, I didn't like the situation, obviously, but what caught my attention was the frustration of this detective who worked the
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
13:34
case, who tried to find a law that dealt with this specifically, and there was no law in the book. And if I may add, in 2003, this same woman had accepted $18,000 from a woman who lived in New Jersey.
And, of course, the woman travels to northwest Arkansas, spends the night with the baby, had bonded with this baby. At that point, in her mind and in her heart, this baby belonged to her. It says, let's see, and it was a baby boy, and it says, before the birth mother came to the hospital and took the child away. And this is when she bonded with her. It said, a woman who was with the birth mother at the
Tom Marks
Unverified
14:22
hospital referred to the adopting woman as a baby thief.
And, I mean, I cannot imagine an emotional ordeal. And, again, it was a frustration of this young detective. I'm
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
14:33
not looking to correct every wrong with the law. However, after having this meeting with the people I had stated earlier, it was the consensus of that group of people that
there does need to be a law on the book to address this situation. All right. Now, my
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
14:52
questions are several. First of all. I expected so.
All right. Has the leadership of DHS endorsed this bill? They helped. No, no. Has the leadership, meaning John Selig and his group, have they said that they want this bill? Madam Chair, if it's okay to recognize. But that's yes or no.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
15:08
I don't need an explanation. I think the DHS person is the one to answer this question. All right. Can you tell me what's your name in? My name is Lisa McGee.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:19
I'm an attorney with the Department of Human Services. Has John Selig adored this bill? No, this is not a DHS bill in our DHS packet.
We were asked to participate, and John and Janie are fully aware that we've been working with Representative Hobbs on this bill. Well, as
Speaker 85
15:33
I understand it. I worked with Representative Edwards earlier on the bill that he ran. That's something that we did.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
15:40
So this is not a DHS bill? No, not in our family. Which agency is the progenitor of this bill? It's not an agency bill. All right. I want that clear. The second thing is this. Your concern is that the detective was frustrated.
Now, oftentimes detectives are frustrated because they may want something. that they cannot have and the idea of theft by deception is one option that he explored apparently a prosecutor told
him or did you ascertain that a prosecutor told him that this situation was not reachable by theft by deception did some prosecutor tell that person that
Or did he just conclude it on his own? If I could address
Speaker 88
16:34
that, I was also at the meeting in northwest Arkansas when this was discussed. They ended up charging her with, I think, theft of property or theft by deception. And that's the question I think that the detective had that this bill addresses is, so in terms of are we sending more people to prison by passing this new law? And the answer is going to be no. So this is a more accurate capture of what the crime is as opposed to the theft by deception.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
16:57
Well, I'm worried about that because it was first represented that there was no law under which the person to be charged. And the person was not only charged but apparently
prosecuted. Is that right? That's correct. All right. But to
Speaker 88
17:13
do so, he had to say this baby was property, and that's why the detective said this doesn't feel right to me. We need to have something that more specifically
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:22
addresses it. So you're trying to change the definition of property or of a baby in this situation.
Speaker 85
17:29
No, what we're trying to do is retitle it to when a birth mother has the intent to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
17:35
defraud adoptive families and take the money.
Well, let me see. I'm concerned about that for a lot of reasons. Let's assume
that the child is 14, the birth mother is 14, 15, 16, or 17. You are aware that in Arkansas, the birth mother cannot enter into a contract. Yes. All right, but nonetheless, the birth mother would be subject to prosecution if she's under 18
and had some ostensible intent to defraud. And she would be, if a
Speaker 88
18:06
prosecutor went forward and if her intent was to defraud, the charges would be down in juvenile court. But don't you have
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:13
to have a contract in the first place?
Speaker 88
18:17
My understanding of the adoption law is that they appoint, no, they have counsel. What happens is for minors who are going to relinquish their children for adoption, their counsel is specifically appointed for that minor mom. So mom will have an attorney who can guide her through this process.
Very reason because she, to your point,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
18:37
she is a minor mom. Well, this law applies, if I'm not mistaken, to any person, and it doesn't say one who has a lawyer. It says any person who is a prospective adoptive parent. I mean, if you can draw my attention to
the point which says that that person has to have counsel, I'd appreciate it. That's over
Speaker 85
18:56
in the adoption code on what happens for minors for adoption when it's a minor mother and they're going to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:02
adopt. Well, you can't adopt until you have a living child, that is, a full-fledged child.
You cannot have a child adopted in gestation, can you? No. All right. So the child has to first be. Now, Mr. Powers pointed up that, and I think he's right, that a parent, especially a young parent, may change her mind with respect
on adoption. And we get that, and we're
Speaker 85
19:27
absolutely supportive of birth mothers who say, I've changed my mind. I want to raise my
Speaker 88
19:32
child. And that's why Mr. Marks, when he was talking, said it's two-pronged.
It's not just following through with the adoption. You have to show that purpose, which, by the way, and I know you do criminal stuff. So that's a very, very high standard. In fact, I think it's the highest standard that
Speaker 101
19:49
you have to prove is that not recklessly, not knowingly,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
19:53
but purposefully you intended to defraud those adopted families. All right. Now tell me, who initiates the proceeding in this case? Is it the allegedly defrauded parent? It would be like any other
crime. It's going to have to come to the attention of law enforcement.
Speaker 103
20:07
Well, now, it seems like. And you know how that works. and then the law enforcement investigates it, and if they think
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
20:14
there's a file, they're going to send it to the prosecutor. Well, my concern is
this. I mean, if you read something in the paper and then you don't like it and then you say something to the person and then you go to a detective, the person who is the victim is then induced to go and initiate a prosecution, it seems. That's what happened in this case.
That's what Detective Travis Lee was
actually working. Why doesn't the person who was victimized, who obviously has means, because otherwise they wouldn't be paying, why doesn't that person be left with
the responsibility to try to retrieve his or her money under a fraud statute that's civil and go into court and himself or herself bear the burden of proof, rather than passing that prosecution cost, and there are a lot of costs associated with the prosecution, on to the state?
Speaker 88
21:08
You can always do the civil prosecution along with criminal, and I think O.J. Simpson is one of the best examples of that one. You have the criminal,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:17
then you have the civil thing. So the civil action still exists. What we have seen, I know, with the Ed Webb situation, he was an adoption advantage
Speaker 88
21:23
agency here in Arkansas, that he defrauded adoptive families and took money from them, and sometimes he took all their money. So when you talk about these people having means, sometimes it's all they can do to raise the money to give it to this agency, and then the agency defrauded them. They had no more money to pursue a civil fraud action.
And plus, I think it has to do with the public policy of the state. I mean, I think the policy of the state, which is what you guys said as legislators, is whether or not it's acceptable for a birth mother to purposely say, I'm going to take money from
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
21:57
families who are desperate for a baby, and all along my intent is not going to be to relinquish this child. Well, I guess the last question I have is this. Why should the state take on the responsibility which is involved here for protecting a person
who's obviously intelligent and who has resources as over against a person who may not have resources simply on
the basis that somebody believes that there has been some kind of civil fraud induced or engaged in. Why should we take that on? MS. Because this woman got charged. She's
Speaker 88
22:38
in prison. They just had to do it under a theft statute, and what the detective was saying is we need
what's happening here that fits under theft to be more properly characterized as a crime. That's why I said it's going to be neutral on the charging, but it will more accurately capture the crime
Tom Marks
Unverified
22:59
that's occurring. And if I may add that, Mr. Walker, I think by your statement, you assume that if someone is
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
23:06
going to adopt a baby, they have resources. My husband and I were married 10 years before we had our baby, and we thought about adoption. But the thing that scared me from it was thinking this baby belonged to me
and then having someone come and take this child away from me. I've also talked to parents who have, you know, asked their churches, other people to help them raise the funds to adopt a baby. And, yes, I understand that birth moms have the right to change their mind. However, even a 14-year-old should recognize that if she has one baby, she cannot place that baby with three different families or even two different families.
And I think, you know, to me, when you talk about human life as property, to me that's degrading the value of life. And that's the reason I think we need this specific law is to
recognize that a baby is not property. So
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:12
the only thing this does is it redefines a baby. But the law is not necessary because you have a law that allows you to get to the results you want.
I'm sorry. Say that again, please. The only thing that this proposed bill does is it changes the definition of a baby so as not to include the baby as property. But this bill is not necessary in order to prosecute the acts or the conducts that you have described. You had referred to a
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
24:45
while ago about saving the state money. No, no, my question. Listen to my question. My
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
24:51
question is. What is it, Walker? I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Chair
Unverified
24:57
I feel like it's kind of getting away. Was that your last question? We have several other people to sign up. All right. I feel like we're debating back and forth. But
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
25:04
let me just state it. In order to get a conviction for the conduct that you have represented, this bill is not necessary, is
it? I believe it would be easier to get a
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
25:15
conviction setting this on the law, in law. Thank you. Representative Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
25:27
Thank you, Representative Hobbs, for bringing a good bill to this committee. And I appreciate you, you know, seeing an issue, studying it out, and then coming forward to us with this type of legislation. It is my understanding that we already have laws on the books for defrauding, not necessarily adoptive, but there are other laws currently on the books concerning people who might defraud somebody else. I believe that's right. Okay. So this is not something that prosecutors are going to have to try to figure out
because they already have other laws that concern defrauding. I believe so. Okay. And so I appreciate, you know, this is just another tool, like you said, for them to use if there are people out there trying to defraud somebody who's trying to adopt a kid. And, again, I commend you on this. And I would ask that the other people on the committee support
Chair
Unverified
26:24
this bill. MS. Thank you, sir. Representative Benedict, you're
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
26:29
recognized. MS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Representative Hobbs, for bringing this up. I agree with Representative Harris and Representative Gaskell on the comments they made. I was going to make similar comments. But I believe this issue is we have a court system to decide if these people did this purposely or not purposely. But this makes it easier to get into that court system, and to me it prevents this of turning into a scam of any women that happens to be pregnant and decide, well, this seems
to be an easy way to make a few thousand dollars off of a lot of people, and none of them will go through the trouble of taking me to court because it's just a few thousand dollars. This could turn into a commonplace issue if we don't make it
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
27:18
easier to get into that court system. That's my comment. Thank you. Thank
you, Manager. MS. Representative Elliott, you're recognized. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a
couple last questions. Representative Meeks stated that – and you agreed that there were laws on the books
in reference to handling this sort of issue. So my first question is, if that is the case, then why do we need this? I don't think that it's fair to just to try and make things easier for our prosecutors or even our criminals. A good detective, a good policeman is going to make sure that he gets the charge that he needs for the person committing that act because I'm in law enforcement.
Second thing is, in reference to children, we have to be very careful because Because it seems to me that the lady who did this incident and a kid that's 14 or 15 who has a child, both of them can still be charged with the same crime. Yes, because I believe it, I mean, I
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
28:31
would hope our laws aren't, you know, specific for one age group or the other.
But again, I think even a 14-year-old girl recognizes that she cannot place her baby with
two different couples. Well, again, I'm harboring on what the attorney and the other gentleman said. They said one or more. So a child who is 14 who has this baby and has intent to give it but sees the child afterwards could decide, okay, I'm not going to do it. I don't care how much money you've given me. I'm going to keep my child and be charged. Or, and I say being charged because sometimes, especially to a minor or to a family with low economic standards that cannot afford a lawyer,
you can throw a charge on this family or this child and scare them into making a decision which is kosher to the other side. So to me, that is very, very serious. If
Tom Marks
Unverified
29:34
I may address that, please. Since you
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
29:38
are in law enforcement, I'm sure you deal with prosecuting attorneys a lot more than I do. And I cannot imagine a prosecuting attorney prosecuting a situation just like you stated.
Well, see, now I beg to differ with that because there are people in prison and there are people who have charges that have pleaded down to different things just because they didn't want to be charged with other felonies. So
Speaker 51
30:04
our system is full of those things. However, I think there is
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
30:08
still a level of evidence that has to be shown. And as far as getting an attorney, I think that's the reason we have the public defenders to represent people in that situation. Well, I'll say that. We may just have to disagree on the bill.
We can agree to disagree in reference to that. But I still say that we're
walking dangerous grounds when we give people that amount of authority. And in reference to DHS, has DHS ever taken custody of a child and the mother ever wanted back? Yes, absolutely. That's what
Speaker 114
30:47
I'm saying. This should not have a chilling effect because
it's two-pronged. Well, and what you said, it would,
Chair
Unverified
30:56
Representative Elliott, is your question directly towards the matter of the bill, or?
Yeah, it's in reference to the bill, because what it shows is that even in DHS custody, mothers make a decision to get their kids again, and they're not going to be charged. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Committee members, I would
Chair
Unverified
31:16
like to remind you to strictly
keep your questions to what the content of the bill and not throw in personal remarks or comments. Representative Stubblefield
you're recognized for a question can I not say
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:32
one personal comment I disagree with mr.
Elliot you know I think I think I think it's law-abiding citizens we ought to do whatever we can do to make it easier for our law enforcement to do their job and you know it's like mr. I see what Mr. Walker was saying, some of his testimony, but it's like harboring a fugitive. If someone is harboring a fugitive, it's our responsibility as law-abiding citizens to turn
that individual in. And I think we're missing on this bill the intent of it, and the intent of it is to defraud. And that's where the key word is, the intent to defraud someone. And I think we're taking this. He cannot respond, Madam Chair.
Speaker 147
32:24
Let me just kind of reiterate what the chairman said. We've
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
32:28
been talking about this up here. The purpose of this committee and this point and time in the committee is to ask questions.
If anyone wants to testify for or against the bill, I think that to move forward as quickly and as efficiently as possible, to keep everything into a concise question regarding the bill and to Ms. Hobbs and her folks down there. So I think we're getting a little bit off track with our comments and our personal opinions, and we can certainly do that. There is a time reserved in this committee meeting exactly for that. So we'll just end it there and finish up our questions.
Chair
Unverified
33:08
Representative Hammer, you're recognized for a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:12
question. Representative Hobbs, would you remind me again, because it's been a little bit back, about what the difficulty
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
33:21
the detective had, what was the charge, was what? When we visited, it was theft by deception, and in our conversation, I mean, they had to search to find something to apply
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
33:35
to this specific situation. Okay, and that is implying that it was regarding property.
Did I understand that? Yes, that is correct, sir. Does this bill then, in all three of y'all's opinion, who would ever like to answer the question? By the way, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. So do all three, does this then bring it to the level that if this situation occurs again, the charge would be not necessarily a piece of property but a human life? Correct. Is that my understanding? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
34:13
And I have what is going to be the final question before we take a motion.
And I don't need a long explanation, but there may not be an explanation of this because I'm not sure how you would accrue the data. Ms. McGee, Ms. Hobbs, I'm sorry, sir, I forgot your name. Marks. Mr. Marks. Is there any way to determine the prevalence of this problem in our state? And that's simply the question I have. That's a good question.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
34:43
When the bill was filed, as it is with all criminal bills, Normally, you know, they hit over in Judiciary, and this one came over here in Children and Youth. I got a call from the Sentencing Commission, and they were having to do a fiscal impact. That's not required in this committee, but it is over in Judiciary, so they're getting it ready for over in the Senate side. And when they contacted corrections,
Speaker 103
35:03
because it's all lumped now into this theft statute, they were not able to tease out any other adoption fraud
Chair
Unverified
35:11
cases. Thank you. Representative Harris, you're recognized for a motion.
Thank you. I would like to make a motion for a
Speaker 155
35:20
due pass. We have a motion due pass from the committee. Discussion. Discussion on the motion due pass?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
35:29
Yes. I mean, there's normally an opportunity for discussion after you make a motion.
Okay. You're recognized. All right. Now, members of the committee, we have an opportunity from time to time to
review laws that before they are enacted, and we should have this discussion. The premise of this is that it would make it easier for the prosecution. Well, the justice system that we have is one that provides protection to defendants as well as to the public. The prosecutor protects the public, and then the defendants have certain rights. The defendants in this case have the right, if I'm not mistaken, to be treated in a fair and non-discriminatory way.
If you take the position that we want to make things easier for prosecutors, all you have to do is take all the protections away. Y'all can take all the protections away from all these criminals. You can just simply say that a prosecutor may proceed by a coerced confession. A prosecutor may proceed with tainted evidence. You can do whatever you want, but the question is do we want to just make things easier simply for the sake of making them easier?
In this situation, we don't have demonstrated evidence to show that this is a problem that cannot be addressed by current laws or by existing laws. And I'm not satisfied that there are not other laws that could be addressed to this particular problem. The question is not what a particular policeman thinks. The question is, why is something necessary? We have laws on the books, and they are there, and we put more and more on each day. You can put in whatever number of laws you want, but the question is, are our citizens entitled to a presumption of being innocent, and are they entitled to fair treatment?
And must we prosecute everything simply because somebody happens to think it's wrong? I think that we don't need any more laws than we have on this particular subject, and it can be prosecuted as it is, and it can be prosecuted in any number of ways. and it raises far more problems than it cures. And I hope that you all would at least think about it. I understand that the tendency is to support another and I hope you understand that. I would support you simply because you're another representative.
But we're not here to just cooperate with and support each other. We're here to do justice and good things for the people of the state so that they will be fairly and non-discriminatorily treated. And in this situation, the victims in this case are the mothers, and the mothers may not have the capability of making intelligent judgments when they're 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. And the fact that you may say, well, they should know, like you say, Representative Stubblefield, that this is wrong.
I mean, they may not know what their rights are, and they certainly don't when they make this decision. They don't have counsel. when they go into the process of asking somebody to give them a somebody offering to give them five hundred thousand dollars to two thousand dollars to get from one point to another so you should be sensitive in it I hope that you would at least listen to what I'm saying it's submitted in good faith representative Walker has spoken against the
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
39:09
motion would anybody like to speak for the motion if not we have a representative Deffenbaugh I'll just ask
representative Hobbs or one panel if we pass this law will it representative Deffenbaugh
Chair
Unverified
39:29
it's you question time is over this is
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
39:32
for the motion of do pass would you like to speak for the motion or against the motion okay sure
thanks again what I know it appears instead in the form it just appears that this would put more teeth and more meat in this law to prosecute somebody like this you know
we talked about contracts what difference does that make if you're operating illegal in anyway so I
Speaker 160
40:03
like the bill I don't see any problem with
Chair
Unverified
40:08
thanks okay we have a motion do you pass before the committee all in favor
say aye any opposed say no congratulations representative Hopper your bill passes
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
40:20
thank you thank you madam chair sorry
Chair
Unverified
40:26
representative Hobbs representative Summers are you ready do we have the
We don't have the amendment yet, okay. Next up is Representative
Stewart to present House Bill 1477. Representative Stewart, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
40:57
This is 1477. This is a product of the Governor's Yellow Ribbon Task Force for Veterans Affairs that met for the last two years.
It is a kind of an enhancement of some privileges for retired military persons who have reached the age of 60 drawing retired pay. And what this does is accelerate their ability to buy a lifetime hunting and fishing license. The current law says you can buy one at age 65. This would move that forward five years. And we chose the age 60 because that's the age that you retire from the National Guard or the Reserves.
You retire at age 60. So upon your retirement, you'll be able to go through the normal process as if you were 65 and apply for a lifetime hunting and fishing license for the fee of $35.50. So it's not a big reward for these service members, but it's a token of appreciation that we do give them a license five years earlier upon their retirement from the Reserves or Guard. And we'll be happy to answer any questions.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
42:09
I have a question. I guess I'm the one who asked the question.
Chair
Unverified
42:14
Just a second. You haven't been recognized. Representative Harris was first. Representative
Harris. Representative Stewart, I had a... Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a constituent contact me just recently about hunting license and fishing license, in other states around us they give free license to their
vets. Is that not something we can consider?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
42:39
It's something we considered, but we thought we would start doing this. If you notice on the bill, and it shows some of the language we already have there, we already have one for a totally disabled veteran at any age, and then this one would be the next one. The problem with giving a free license, and I'll let the director explain that, it's to do with some matching funds we get from the federal excise tax, and I'll
Speaker 172
43:07
let him explain that for you. Madam Chairman, Lorne Hitchcock, Director of Game and Fish, Representative Harris.
We operate under a formula when we deal with federal funding, sport fish restoration, wallet Bro funding in which they take the license that we sell and they inject those into this formula and any value that a license is given, we can count it as a federal match and in the end it brings back more federal dollars to the state.
Speaker 173
43:35
So a free license, we couldn't do that, sir.
Okay. So we make money off of the veterans because they pay for the fee, correct?
Speaker 172
43:48
Is that where you're? There's more federal dollars available if there is a fee
paid, yes, sir. Well, I think I like the bill. I mean, I'm in support of it, but I could care less about federal dollars when it comes to giving our vets a benefit that doesn't cost us very much money in the first place. But I support the bill, so thank
Chair
Unverified
44:10
you. Representative Walker, you're recognized for a question.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
44:15
Thank you. While you get money from the federal government, I support the bill. I want you to know that. But while you get money from the federal government, you're also losing money in the process to the state.
And are you losing, what amount are you losing each time you make this gift to a military person? How much per person? Is it $35? Representative Walker, our early
Speaker 172
44:43
analysis of this as we worked with Representative Stewart, and we looked at the five-year window that they would be given to purchase a license instead of waiting until age 65, and if all the veterans that were eligible applied the
first year, we estimated the percentage to be the amount to be somewhere in the quarter of a million dollars that run out over the five-year period. All right.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
45:11
Now, a quarter of a million dollars is in a budget-cutting situation fairly substantial MR. Yes, sir, it is. MR. And if you lower the age, as Representative Harris suggests, to maybe 55 or 50, then it increases the amount considerably, doesn't it? MR.
Yes, sir, it does. MR. I see.
Chair
Unverified
45:34
All right. Thank you. MS. Representative Hickerson, you're
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
45:37
recognized for a question. MS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just have a question about who is eligible. It says military retirees. What about just those who served in the
military, not retired, but just served a length of duty or
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
45:55
whatever? MR. No, ma'am. This is strictly for retirees, those persons who have served 20 years or more.
MS. Okay. MR. And this was a – to answer Representative Harris's question, we did look at several states, and this was an initiative that several states have done to put in place – it's It's kind of an in-between measure, and still giving them a complete free one at any age. It was a compromise situation that we thought we could justify. It does have an impact on their budget, but at the same time, when they purchased a license for $35, it generates some federal funding, and the federal funding is not just general
revenue. It is revenue from the Pittman-Robertson Act is coming from excise tax on sales of firearms, fishing equipment, ammunition, so it is a sportsman's revenue stream that goes back to the sportsman. So it's a very appropriate revenue stream, and we just reached a compromise on the best way to give a benefit and not hurt the game of fish, but at the same time, give some token of appreciation to our people who have spent at least 20 years in the military. May I ask one more question?
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
47:06
So a wartime veteran, someone serving that has perhaps just served in Vietnam or Korean War or anything else, I guess Korean, even World War II, this age would not be eligible for this. No,
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
47:19
ma'am. The number of retirees right now that are a retiree age between 65 and 60 is 14,000. If we were to go back to just veterans, then you're talking about a quarter of a million people. Thank you.
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
47:36
seeing no further questions from the committee is there anyone who would like to speak for the bill against the bill representative Benedict you're recognized for a motion thank you madam chair I make a motion we do pass
Chair
Unverified
47:55
we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye any opposed say no motion carries congratulations thank you very much
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
48:15
next on the agenda is House bill 1543 by
representative rice you're recognized to present your bill
Speaker 189
48:23
committee members we have an amendment
Speaker 192
48:26
with this bill so the will be passing it out and
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
48:33
we need to first vote on the amendment before we move to the bill
Speaker 195
48:47
representative rice would you like to explain the amendment thank you madam
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
48:55
chair self-explanatory if you look there we just urge adoption of that and then we're go
Speaker 198
49:03
into detail I'm sorry representative rice could
Speaker 190
49:12
you repeat that and we couldn't hear you down I'm sure let
Speaker 200
49:16
me drag the microphone a little closer on
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
49:25
On House Bill 1543, I would just ask for adoption of the amendment and I will give the details of the bill. Representative Summers, you're recognized. Motion at the proper time,
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
49:39
do pass on the amendment. We have a motion do pass on the amendment. Would anyone
Chair
Unverified
49:46
like to speak for or against the amendment? If not, what is the will of the committee?
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any
Speaker 195
50:03
opposed, no? Amendment passes. Thank Madam
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
50:09
Chair and Mr. Vice Chair and Committee for allowing me to present today House Bill 1543. In the first session that I served in the interim child welfare is something that kind of came to me and not me to Ed, and I think while we all know that's an important issue
that we would all want to help with, that is my goal here today for this bill that DHS is bringing. In the overview, the Child Welfare Agency Licensing Act, known as the Licensing Act, is a law that provides for licensure and assistance to child welfare agencies. Child welfare agencies and entities that care for children on a 24-hour-a-day basis or engage in activities that place a child for 24-hour-a-day care. Child welfare agencies include foster homes, residential facilities, and adoption agencies.
The bulk of HV 1543 will be to ensure the Licensing Act is DHS division neutral as per current code style. The change to current code style also corrects three inconsistent passages of text that arise when DHS director exercises his authority under the current licensing act to designate which DHS division will administer the provisions of the act. Other changes are for the purpose of style, clarify or restore some provisions for the
purpose of internal consistency of the licensing act or consistency with other statutes including the Arkansas Juvenile Code, Arkansas Child Miltreatment Act, and the Arkansas Adoption Code. HB 1543 restores formal language regarding requirements for foster parent and adoptive parent to submit to background checks. The formal language was dropped in error as a result of DHS legislative change in 2005.
The 2005 legislative change was in response to a federal law requirement specific to DHS Division of Children and Family Services, DCFS. In the course of that change, state law provisions applicable to all child welfare agencies were inadvertently dropped. The restoration language mirrors language further in the same subsection of the Licensing Act as well as the Arkansas Adoption Code.
HB 1543 also clarifies that a juvenile under the Arkansas Juvenile Code who are adjudicated by the juvenile court to dependent, neglected, or in need prior to the juvenile's 18th birthday and elect to stay in a foster care until age 21 to receive education or training need not be discharged from their child welfare agency placement upon turning 18. HB 1543 further cleans up confusing and outdated language regarding documentation of the results
of licensing visits as well as correcting contradictory language concerning transfer of license upon sale of the Child Warfare Agency. The same section makes a minor change which gives DHS flexibility regarding paper copies of publications without restricting or encumbering citizens' access to such publications. Lastly, Madam Chair, HB 1543 amends two DCFS-specific provisions found in the current Licensing
Act. One amendment is to more artfully state that DCFS in view to relative provisional foster homes, the fiscal home itself will be visually inspected by DCFS. The other DCFS specific provision would explicitly state DCFS may share information for the purpose of modified research assuming confidentiality of the information is insured.
The amendment with the exception of proper style code is identical to the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act, which already allows DCFS to share information for the purpose of modified research that DCFS has determined will benefit the administration of its child welfare program. And with that, Madam Chair, I would ask that you allow DHS counsel to introduce himself today. MR.
Speaker 209
54:52
Madam Chair, Charles Thompson with DHS.
Chair
Unverified
54:55
Thank you. Do we have any questions from the committee? Representative Walker, you're recognized
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:07
for a question. You indicate that after 18, a child need not be discharged from foster
Speaker 212
55:15
care. Is that correct? Representative Walker need not be discharged from their foster care placement. Under the Arkansas Juvenile Code, they're already allowed to elect to stay in foster care up until the age of 21 to take advantage of services regarding training and education,
perhaps go to school or go to a college, go to a trade school. However, the licensing act itself is confusing because these children, these young adults upon turning 18 may in fact be in a foster home that's absolutely appropriate for them at the time. They want to stay there until they're 21, but there's confusion whether they can stay there until they're 21, as the juvenile code allows them to do regarding stay in foster care. Again, it goes back, can they stay in that placement in that foster home up until the
age of 21? And that's unclear in the licensing act right now. The intent was for it to be as such, but we wanted to make sure there was
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:10
explicit language so there's no confusion regarding as such. Does this act as amended address that need of
Speaker 212
56:17
children? It absolutely ensures the best interests of children and addresses their needs, especially young adults that are working on leaving the foster care system. They're turning 18. They're interested in higher education, interested in training, but to ensure that they don't
have to worry about, well, I might have to move to another placement because this law isn't clear whether I can stay in this placement until 21. I can stay in foster care and receive these services, but I actually might have to
Speaker 213
56:45
move my physical residence. And so it ensures continuity and normalcy for that young person that's trying
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:52
to engage in training and education further on as they leave the system. And finally, does it
provide continuation of state and federal benefits to that child
in the gap period between 18 and 21? Those benefits
Speaker 212
57:04
are already provided for. There's going to be no financial impact here. This is strictly as to where the child is actually going to stay. So it does not interrupt the flow of
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
57:13
benefits to the children if they choose to stay or if an order is entered allowing them to stay in the foster home? Correct. It does not increase or decrease any
Speaker 214
57:22
benefit. It simply ensures that they're able to stay in the same place where they're hanging their hat. All right. Thank you. Seeing no further
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
57:32
questions from the committee, is there anyone in the audience who would
like to speak for the bill against
Chair
Unverified
57:47
the bill representative Summers you're recognized for a motion move do pass we
have a motion do pass all in favor say aye and you oppose they know
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
58:02
motion carries congratulations representative rice your bill passes thank
Speaker 210
58:06
you madam chair thank you committee yeah but we're Next on the agenda is House Resolution 1016 by Representative Hopper.
Chair
Unverified
58:14
And since I've been calling everyone else Representative Hopper all morning, I'm glad to
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
58:24
get this one right. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as Representative Hobbs said, it's a daily occurrence, so it wouldn't be a normal day if it didn't happen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the committee. I must tell you this morning that I'm both honored and humbled to bring this resolution before you.
As it clearly states, it honors the All Three Wars Veterans Association. This group was brought to my attention back in the fall, and I just did not, I was not aware there was such an organization, and the membership of this elite group is composed of those that have served our country in not only World War II, Korea, but also Vietnam.
And I think that pretty much just summarizes it, but I would like to share something with you further, and that is I think every time I have had any kind of interaction with the members of this group, I walk away almost speechless. And such an occurrence happened this morning as I was preparing to come to the Capitol. My phone rang, and it was a member of this group who was making preparation to hopefully be with us tomorrow when this, I hope with your blessing and your vote, will make it
to the floor. And this senior master sergeant, Charles Ray, I asked him to tell me a little bit briefly of his story this morning. And this is what he said to me. He said, I've lived in the Ozarks all of my life. And ironically, he was first in the Navy and served aboard the U.S.S. Ozark. He went on to tell me a little bit more of his story that included then service with the Air Force later on and 27 years total in the military, and he retired
in 1970. But I think the thing that struck a chord with me the most this morning is when he talked about his 18th birthday. And I don't know about you all, but that was a time of with with most around this table but he didn't use the word celebrate he said I turned 18 and he turned 18 at Iwo
Speaker 221
1:00:53
Jima and I think that just pretty well
summarizes this request for your approval of this resolution and I would ask for a good vote representative
Chair
Unverified
1:01:09
Hopper has explained the resolution are Are there any questions from the committee?
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:01:14
Representative Stubblefield, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:01:18
Representative Hopper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the highest respect for our veterans also. But I want to ask you a question. Yes, sir. There was a Korean War.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:01:31
did not. I missed you. Okay. It's World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. I'm sorry. It's okay. I'm not questioning you. I apologize.
Speaker 23
1:01:38
I'm saying did I misspeak? representative Elliott you're recognized for a question motion of do
pass at the proper time you're seeing
Chair
Unverified
1:01:52
no other questions from the committee is there anyone who would like to speak for the resolution against the resolution
representative Elliott you're recognized for your motion thank you
Speaker 129
1:02:04
madam chair motion of do pass please we have a motion
Chair
Unverified
1:02:10
do pass before the committee all in favor say aye any opposed no motion carries congratulations
representative hopper your resolution is passed thank you all if if it's okay
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:02:31
with the committee we're going to kind of be jumping around so
we can get everything out today since we will not be here on Friday is there any objection from
Chair
Unverified
1:02:50
the committee okay representative Summers will come back to you on the agenda to present House Bill 1451 and
committee there is an amendment with that so we will be passing that out we need to vote on the amendment first
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:03:05
Okay, the amendment pretty self-explanatory.
here obviously you've amended some of the language with it and it's agreed upon amendment with DHS I'm carrying it for
them and I'll just ask if there's any questions representative Summers has explained the amendment
Chair
Unverified
1:03:48
are there any questions from the committee on the amendment is there anyone who would like to speak for or against the amendment representative Benedict you're recognized MS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I make a motion to do pass the amendment. MS. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. MS. Any opposed? Motion carries. Amendment is adopted. Representative Summers, you
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:04:19
are now recognized to explain the full bill. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is an act concerning various adoptive provisions, and I said I am working for DHS on it. It's got basically three or four tenants on it. One is that the age of a minor for consent is moved from age 10 to age 12.
It also has a provision in it that if a child is ill in a children's hospital or Arkansas pediatric facility, that child can be adopted along with the sibling even though they're not in the home. It also eliminates the means test for adoption for the adoptive families, whereas they would not have to qualify from the standpoint of dollars and cents to receive eligibility or dollars, subsidy dollars, and in addition to that, in the year 2018, all state-funded
subsidies will be eliminated. And I have several experts here with me when we get into the questions. Thank you. I'd ask
Chair
Unverified
1:05:30
for a good vote. You're experts. Representative Summers has explained
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:05:39
the bill. Are there any questions
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:05:41
from the committee? Representative Walker, you're recognized for a question. I do hate to ask all these questions. I'd be the only one. On page 2, lines 7 and 8, it says the minor must reside outside of the home to receive
medically necessary health care. Can you explain that to me, why a person who is going to be adopted in order to get medically necessary health care has to be outside the home. My name is Lisa McGee.
I'm an attorney with the Department of Human Services. We have some sibling groups where we
Speaker 88
1:06:23
had one recently where one of the little kids resides at Arkansas Pediatric Facility, and I don't know if you're familiar with that, but that's a facility for kids who have very, very low functioning.
Sometimes it's brain stem functioning. Sometimes it's zero to three months. So these kids who are medically compromised, and this child was a part of a sibling group, and the family that agreed to adopt the sibling said, we'll also adopt this child in this facility, knowing that she would never leave that facility. Well, the way the adoption code is structured, as a part of your petition to adopt, you have to say, and this is the date this child was placed in my home. We couldn't say it for that child. And so what we're doing is asking in a couple of places to change it so that if it's a medically fragile child who needs this health care, that we can still have that child adopted.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:10
Ms. McGee, wouldn't it be better to have May language than must? Well, and
Speaker 88
1:07:15
we want the must on there because if the child can reside in the home, we already have the capacity to petition for adoption on this one. So this is a very narrow exception for children who must reside out
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:27
of the home. All right. So it's places like the children's colony. Correct. Thank you. Are
Chair
Unverified
1:07:37
there any other questions from the committee?
Seeing none, Representative Dickinson, you're recognized. Motion due passed. Thank you. We have a motion for due passed before the committee. All in favor say aye. Any opposed, no. Congratulations, Representative
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
1:08:00
Summers. Your bill passes. Thank you, Committee.
Chair
Unverified
1:08:17
Representative Love, you are recognized to present House Resolution 1017. Thank
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:08:28
you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. resolution is
simple. We're not going to be arguing about adoption and laws and different things like that. Basically, I know it's a little untimely because this resolution reflects on the month of February as celebrating Black History Month, but please charge it to my
head and not my heart. This was one of the first resolutions that I filed and I didn't know what I was doing, so it came late. But actually it is timely because one thing that I would like to say is that we should be in continuous celebration of black history throughout the year. And this resolution is simple. It's just stating that we should celebrate Black History Month during the month of February
2011. It's simple. I would just ask you all for a good vote. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:09:28
Lev has explained the resolution. Are there any questions from the committee? Representative Walker,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:09:36
you have a question? MR. Could we not make it not pro-tunc? In other words, as if it had been submitted at the
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:09:45
time you submitted it. MR. That would be fine if that's the pleasure of this
Chair
Unverified
1:10:00
committee. Representative Deppenball, did you have a question?
You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Love, I just wanted to do, is there not, we don't have a Black History Month already in place. I didn't know that. that. I thought I've seen some information, but I
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:10:20
sure… Yes, sir, we do, but this is just, you know, a resolution that we bring just
basically honoring Black History Month in the House. Thank
Chair
Unverified
1:10:31
you. Seeing no further questions, Representative Summers, you're recognized.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:10:34
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'd be proud to make a motion to pass and approve this resolution. Do
Chair
Unverified
1:10:41
pass. We have a motion. Do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed say no. Representative Lev. House Resolution 1017 passes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Representative Murdoch, you're recognized to present House Resolution 1018.
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:11:06
Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair. House Resolution 1018 is simply a resolution that recognizes Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, which is the first African-American or black fraternity that provides social as well as community contributions. It's just a commemoration to be done in the House.
There are various members and former members, current members and former members that are
Speaker 247
1:11:43
members of this organization. And I just would ask for a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
1:11:50
MS. Representative Murdoch has explained the resolution. Are there any questions from the committee? Representative Elinit, you're recognized for
a question. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Murdoch, I was wondering would you mind amending this and making it blue and white instead of black and gold
Speaker 248
1:12:12
I mean I would mind I would mind a minute to make
it blue and white but I will support a blue and white resolution are there any
Chair
Unverified
1:12:23
other questions from the committee seeing none what is
the will of the committee representative Summers you're recognized move to pass you have a motion do you pass before the committee all All in favor say aye. Any opposed, no. Motion carries. Congratulations. Your resolution passes.
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:12:42
I have another one, 1019. Do you want me to do that right quick or keep?
Chair
Unverified
1:12:47
Go ahead. You're recognized to explain House Resolution
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:12:50
1019. Okay. Thank you for your indulgence. Committee, this is a House resolution that commemorates Alpha Kappa, Alpha Sorority, who They are the first African American or black sorority that was established, and it was established on the premise of community service and service to all mankind, and this resolution would honor them as such. Ask for a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
1:13:17
Representative Murdoch has explained the resolution. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, what's the will of the committee? Representative Summers? Move, do pass. We have
a motion do pass before us. All in favor say aye. Aye. opposed no motion carries the resolution passes next up we have
representative Smith to present House Bill 1625 representative Smith you're recognized to explain the bill thank you madam chair thank you committee members
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:13:48
for allowing me to appear today before this astute body I have
House Bill 1625 which is an act to prevent heat related illness and death and children and who participate in peewee athletics and for other purposes. This is something that was brought to me by a constituent. Sometimes we, in the adult world, may not understand the stress that we put on youngsters in our attempt to have a winning team. And so this bill, I don't know, it's a first endeavor for me.
I toyed with even running it, but I think it's something we need to talk about and look at, and so I decided I'd go ahead and file it. That's why it was as late in the session as it is that I filed this bill. The opportunity for young people to be athletically inclined, I think, is something we need to encourage. And I know there are situations where youngsters become disenfranchised with athletics because they feel so much stress on the first or second day of the practice, and not everyone is going to be a pro football player anyway.
But I think we need to encourage athletic involvement because obesity is an issue in our state, and we've talked about that in different occasions. And so that's another reason that I felt necessary to go ahead and file this bill. It has no penalties involved, and you've read the bill, I'm sure, and I won't belittle your ability. You can read as well as I can. But this includes things that are not currently under any direction of an athletic entity
because Pee Wee Sports is a volunteer from the coach's standpoint. But if we encourage youngsters to be involved athletically, then someday they might be a superstar if we approach it correctly and allow for them to have time intervals for water breaks, et cetera. And I'll be glad to take any questions, and I'm
Speaker 6
1:15:40
sure you'll have some. Vice Chair Powers,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:15:43
you're recognized for a question. Thank you. Representative Smith, I understand the intent of this. I'm wondering how it's going to affect in about four months, five months,
these little all-star baseball games. They don't have anything to do with practicing, but I can tell you that when the tournaments get to going, that we may exceed the heat index that you're
Speaker 256
1:16:09
talking about. How is it going to affect the actual playing of the games for these youngsters?
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:16:16
Well, that's a good question. My intent from running this bill, and we've had a lot of involvement in finding information,
is that once they get past the practicing schedule, they'll have some sort of temper of their ability, or if I could say that, they'll be more in shape. And so by the time they get to the tournament level, I think they'll be able to handle that. But, again, that's my opinion. I understand. And I thought we should start somewhere. When practices, usually when that youngster is out there pressing a remote control and watching a television program and then he decides he wants to play peewee football, he's not going to be really in shape day one.
And I think if we can instigate some sort of ruling, and I'm not trying to discourage adult supervision or adult participation. It takes adults to make peewee athletics successful. I understand that. And these are non-paid positions. But I think we just need to bring some attention to the fact that these little folk are not exactly tempered to the heat and the stress that they'll be involved in on the very beginning of the practice. So by the time they get past the practices and start actually playing games and get to tournaments, I think they'll be more in shape, and that won't be such an issue.
Speaker 258
1:17:27
Good question. Well, and I'll just kind of follow up, and I'm
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:17:34
just trying to read. So there's not really anything that consequential could happen to one of these coaches
if they were playing a game in July, which is certainly very possible. Right. So we don't see that as being a problem. I'm not trying to penalize the adult. You just want to make more people aware that may not be experts.
And Mr. Deffenbaugh, when he and I started in football, they didn't even give us water breaks. Do you
remember that? In fact, we didn't have helmets either. Oh, I know. I could tell that. But
Speaker 237
1:18:11
that's fine. That's another point. But I think
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:18:14
that it's probably something we need to make some of these folks that are a little less understanding and maybe educated. I don't mind the awareness of it. And that's the intent. And
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:18:27
I appreciate that, Co-Chair, of the question and the comment
because a lot of times, I mean, I like to win just like everyone else does. And I know all these coaches do. But you utilize the players that Mama sends out there to play with and to participate. And if we could allow for that youngster to become a developed athlete, I think that's the intent of what I've got in this bill. But it is my first shot at something like this, So I really don't feel I'm not quite as good at this as I am at league night, if you can understand. But that's another point.
Chair
Unverified
1:19:03
All right. Thank you, Reverend Smith. Representative Benedict, you're recognized for a
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
1:19:10
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Smith. I appreciate also the intent of your bill. My concern is, and I'm asking you this question, do you not believe that if we pass this bill into law that it would put more liability on the coaches thereby discouraging some of them from even becoming coaches because they might be afraid that under this law they're going to be held liable for something if a child does get sick
and just discourage them or they won't volunteer at
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:19:37
all? That is a good question. And I believe in volunteerism, and that's another reason that I really I wrestled with whether or not they even should file this bill, but there's no penalty involved in there, and that youngster would just drop off the team. I'm not trying to discourage coaching. I believe volunteerism is something that we need to encourage. I'm a board member of a volunteer fire department, and I believe volunteerism is what makes America a real American work. But on the last page, line 17E,
if a coach violates the sex in the parent of a child who is a member of the team is entitled to a full refund of all fees and costs associated with registration of the child for the Pee Wee Athletic Organization for that season. And just prior to that, it talks about that they're not held liable as such. But I don't think it will discourage them, and I may be going out on a limb here, but I think the good adult coaches are going to pay attention to the fact that we're even talking about this. I think it will just make the good coaches better, but I may be wrong.
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
1:20:36
Do you not think that it will place more liability on a coach for the possibility of a lawsuit? I
Speaker 263
1:20:44
don't think the liability will be there if they follow what we've tried to
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:20:48
lay out in this rule, if they'll give the water breaks. I don't know the answer to that question other than that's just my personal feeling. Thank
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:20:58
you. Thank you. Representative Summers, you're recognized for a
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:21:00
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as usual, Mr. Smith, you present good arguments, although I don't see anything in
here about floating teeth. No, we're not floating teeth on this one. All right. Not putting horseshoes on either. I think I understand your intent, but to me it's just too encompassing to vote on it where it is now. Do you think perhaps a study on this could be done and have all the
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:21:27
players involved? Well, as usual, Representative Summers, you always bring up good comments, and that is a good comment. And I think if I could see if that would be the committee's option, that would be a very productive avenue to pursue
because I really don't want to make anyone not involved in peewee sports at all. But I think if we did an interim study, that that would bring this to the forefront where the public at large could have their comments both pro and con. You know, Boys and Girls Clubs may have some issues with this. It could be a larger issue than I've even been able to explain thus far. But if that's the will of the committee, I would feel very honored to have that happen. Thank you for that
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
1:22:05
comment, sir. Well, I'm just concerned when we try to legislate common sense.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:22:10
Well, sometimes we have to do that if you would agree. There are some people that don't have the common sense
that you and I do because we've been around a little longer than some of them. But I'm not saying we're better than anybody. I just think the school of hard knocks and that playing
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:22:29
without a helmet has made us learn a few things the hard way. Let me step in here, Representative Smith. Am I understanding that you would – that's what your intent would be, is to look at an interim study on this?
because we have about at least six more questions in regards to this. Let's hear the questions, but I think at the end
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:22:49
of the day, that would be a rather adequate avenue to pursue. Well, let me ask a question while I've
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:22:55
got the mic, and it's two. Do you know of any heat-related deaths that's directly attributed to the essence of your
bill? Not at this point. I had a constituent
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:23:05
that had a complaint. He thought his child had been stressed, but he did not pass on, thank God.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:23:12
All right, and is there anything in this bill regarding hydration and water breaks and things like
that that are mandatory along with not practicing during certain temperatures? Well, the water break is talked
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:23:22
about, and then a 10-minute break between each session, one of the two sessions each day, that's on page two. So we've talked about some of that, but I have to be honest, I didn't draft this legislation. I had an attorney that did some extensive research with Department
of Health and other medical personnel, and that's where we are right now. All right.
Chair
Unverified
1:23:42
We'll continue with the questioning. That's what you want. Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:23:54
question. Representative Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, my question got answered, and if we get to a discussion period, I'd just like to share thoughts
Speaker 273
1:24:03
under discussion, not a question. Representative Harris, you're
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Smith, for protecting my children and the children of my district
for this. This is a concern that we have. One thing I want just to point out and ask you a question. On going back, since I have young children, I've noticed that it's not that they're any more fit when it's time to start the season. They have more of an opportunity to get water. during practice, it's a uniform effort. Do you agree with that, that during the season they actually have the opportunity to go to the water jug or have the Gatorade bottle, where in practice they're not given that opportunity?
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:24:45
That's what my understanding is, yes, sir. I don't think anyone's been denied any water. I just think it ought to be at intervals where they could be, because they are not mature adults. Their bones and muscle structure is not completed yet, and I think if we're careful about this, will realize a more healthy next generation, and that's what my intent was
with this as well. Well, I would like to just state that in the fall, when
peewee football begins, it's still summertime at the end, and there are children who are denied water breaks
because they're seen as not physique enough. So it does happen. That's why I appreciate your bill. Okay, thank you.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:25:24
I wasn't quite aware of how deep it went, but at the surface it was a good thing.
Chair
Unverified
1:25:31
I thought, and it was a constituent promise. All
right. Thank you. Representative Deffenbaugh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to comment to Vice Chair Powers. I did have a helmet, Casey. He may not.
No comment there. Okay. And I want to tell
you, Representative Smith, I really do appreciate this. With some considerations, I'll preface it by saying this, you know, coaching most of my life, when I was coaching somebody else's child, I know we're talking about high school, you know, as the years went on, we became more and more aware of this with trainers and all that in high school. That's a good deal. And I didn't worry about my players until my son got there,
and then I had more of a respect for heat-related problems. So I want you to know I appreciate that. Yes, sir. Probably the biggest thing that I look at is, well, Representative Summers is not here now, but he's talking about responsible adults. But the problem is that this age group, watching this through the years, Boys Club and all that, they're not all responsible. I shouldn't say it exactly like that. They mean well, and they're volunteers, but they're not as aware as they should be,
and some of them are a lot more gung-ho than they should be. So I'm saying all that to say this. Just consider or ask you to consider how would you police
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:27:11
that. And that's the question that I ask. and I asked if there was an entity that would accept that, and the answer I had so far was that they didn't know how deeply involved
they'd have to be. But your point that you made is something I haven't stated yet, but as a professional coach or someone trained to be a coach, you're more aware of what the needs of your practicing youth are
as far as the stress that you're putting on them. And in volunteerism, we don't require that. And I'm not trying to be native, But I'm trying to say that maybe there's not that professionalism that we really need to have healthy youngsters grow up in our schools and our systems. I want everyone to win, but sometimes we lose, and we need to teach them. And I think priority one is teach them how to play as a competitor to win and lose with grace and with pride.
And if we do that, and that wasn't in this bill, but that's another reason that I think this needs to have some attention brought to it. And so if that's what happens out of today's venue,
then I've accomplished what I wanted to do. I appreciate that. I'll just say this, that I'm known
coaches that lost players even in high school. And it just destroys everybody. So I can't say that I'm exactly against this. I understand. I understand.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:28:30
And I'm not trying to get on anyone's toes.
I didn't intend that at all. I just believe
it needs to be brought up to let folks know that there is a better way that I think as adults we can make sure our youngsters are treated and keep them athletically inclined because I think health is one of the issues that we've got to work at. And to be active physically makes healthier people. Thank you. Representative Hickerson,
Chair
Unverified
1:28:54
you're recognized for a question. Well, I thank you
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
1:28:58
very much, Representative Smith, for this bill, and I think some parts of it are definitely needed, and I think it's great that you're going to allow it to have
more study. One of the questions that I was going to ask, but I'm sure that this can be just checked off for review by an interim study, about the outdoor practice time between the hours of 11 and 3. I mean, that's five hours on a Saturday that if you have a beautiful day like this and it's Saturday your your volunteer coaches cannot practice and I thought that was really you know that was pretty pretty restrictive and and you you can play a game but you can't practice so you know just I just wanted to ask you
your thoughts on that and I know that some of those things will be addressed if
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:29:47
this is further studied they will and this is not a perfect bill well I'll recognize that because sometimes it's hard to put a
Chair
Unverified
1:29:54
constraint or even a a measuring device in there and that's kind of what we've
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:30:03
attempted with that but it needs some
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:30:05
further venue I'm sure representative Walker you're recognized for a question thank you the last provision of the bill allows the parent to get a refund if the provisions of
this bill are not followed. When you do the study, you think it would be appropriate to tighten this up a bit so that a parent cannot use this particular provision when to just get his or her money back simply because the child does not get an equal opportunity, not an equal opportunity, an opportunity to
participate in games or because the parent may fall out with the coach. That's a very
Speaker 270
1:30:44
good point. But I could expect that from you, sir, because
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:30:47
you are one that tries the law anyway.
But your point's well made. That is an opportunity for someone to have some reciprocity, and maybe we need to tighten that up because, you know, if Junior doesn't make the first-string quarterback, I
Speaker 269
1:31:01
want to make it mad. Give me my money back. I want my money back.
Chair
Unverified
1:31:08
I want my boy and my money back. Thank
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:31:11
you. Vice Chair Powers, you're recognized. Representative Smith, the concept is okay, but, you know, I'll just say this
before I ask my question. This bill is just too loose, I mean, you know, for lack of a better description.
Do you think that if you place this in an interim study proposal that you could – and my thoughts on this are simply this. all peewee athletics are associated with a boys club, a little league, a parks department, whatever. There's very few, you know, cowboy organizations out there, I guess. Some of them go around and play independent all-star type stuff. But I would think that one of the ways to, I mean, we make people aware of it, that's fine.
But if that's all we do, I'm not sure if we've done anything. I would suggest that some type of uniform educational program be drawn up, possibly by the AAA or whatever body you might depend on. Do you think that something like that, we could get some type of uniformity in this bill that would actually be helpful? And though I don't
think, I'm not sure there's a need for it, but I'm not sure there's not.
Do you think some type of educational program could be added to this legislation to actually create hopefully a good outcome? You mean for the coaching that would be involved? That's
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:32:43
correct. I think, you know, and frankly the
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:32:46
parents too. I'm not sure if that's such a bad idea. instead of just going down to the park and signing your kid up and, you know, letting the coach babysit him
for six weeks and so on. So I don't know. Well, I agree. I think the
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:33:01
parents should be involved in helping that youngster to eat the proper kinds of food,
drink the right kinds of liquids, you know, to keep from dehydration. Is it your intention
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:33:10
to put this into interim study at some point, or what would you like for us to do? I
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:33:15
would like to see that happen. And that way I don't want you guys, this committee, to step out and say, we'll pass his bills because we like the guy. I don't want that, and you may not like me at all. But I would like to see you look at it. I don't want to ask that. I would like to see that this be placed in an interim study
because I think the points and discussions that have occurred this morning lead me in that direction. That's really what we need to do. But I haven't failed in that attempt if I've done that because I've still brought it to the attention of the public. Good point. So, if that's the will of the committee, I would agree
to allow this House Bill 1625 to be placed in interim study, if that's a proper motion. Madam Chair.
All right. By request that, I
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:34:12
mean. Sorry. Representative Smith, what I'm going to do is make a motion, if I'm proper,
that no action be taken on this bill today and it be placed on the deferred list in order for you to do what you want to do with your bill, which would be, as I understand it, be to put it into an interim study proposal and assign to one of our committees. All in favor of that motion, say aye.
All opposed. All right, that's what we're going to do. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:34:44
you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, committee members.
Chair
Unverified
1:34:47
there being no other business to come before the committee today we stand adjourned thank you
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1368
HB1457
HB1477
HB1543
HR1016
HB1451
HR1017
HR1018
HR1019
HB1625
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 15
Tom Marks
Unverified
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Representative Efrem Elliott Chair
Unverified
Speaker 23
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 41
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Speaker 51
Representative Justin T. Harris Chair
Unverified
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Speaker 85
Speaker 88
Speaker 101
Speaker 103
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
Speaker 114
Representative Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 147
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 155
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh Chair
Unverified
Speaker 160
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 172
Speaker 173
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 189
Speaker 192
Speaker 195
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 198
Speaker 190
Speaker 200
Speaker 209
Speaker 212
Speaker 213
Speaker 214
Speaker 210
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 221
Speaker 129
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
Representative Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Speaker 247
Speaker 248
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 256
Speaker 258
Speaker 237
Speaker 263
Speaker 273
Speaker 270
Speaker 269