House Aging, Children & Youth Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1368
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1368”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HCR1004
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HCR1004”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1013
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR 1013”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1024
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1024”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HCR1002
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HCR 1002”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB119
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB119”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SCR3
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SCR3”
|
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 Lori Benedict
Unverified
0:00
Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is a very simple bill with some corrections in it for the Arkansas Guard and the reserves and their military leave. And basically what the law says right now is that any guard or reservist who's serving here in the state of Arkansas for leave purposes and to be able to come back to their job, What we need to be able to do in this language changes it if somebody is a member of the National Guard in Texas, this law would still apply to them.
So it basically just changes it rather than only somebody who's in the Arkansas National Guard, but changes it to a resident of the state of Arkansas, but is in the active National Guard in Texas or Louisiana or wherever. Do we have any
Speaker 3
0:56
questions from the committee? Representative Hickerson. Motion at the proper time, Madam Chairman. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
1:06
Seeing no questions, is there anyone here to speak against the
bill? Representative Hickerson, you're recognized for a motion. I move to pass. We have a motion of do pass. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations. MS. Thank you
very much. MS. You're welcome. Next up, we have Representative Steele to present House Concurrent Resolution 1004.
Speaker 13
1:36
Representative Steele. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair
and members of the committee. it's been our practice in the legislature to allow certain groups to come before the legislature with training purposes and mock sessions. I'll give you examples. We have boys state, girls state. We have the silver-haired legislators. And they come and they use our
facilities and they have mock sessions and come up with some pretty good ideas. As a As a matter of fact, a lot of the concepts and proposed legislation that come out of these various mock sessions actually turn into law. Actually, some of them are filed as bills. In the Senate last session, we passed a resolution in the Senate to allow another group that is very important, and that group is Arkansas People First, who serves people with disabilities.
They came in and had a wonderful session. The only problem is the senate facility was too small. We had an overwhelming response. We actually had to turn some people away. And so this resolution will allow us to just go move it from the senate side to the house side, which is a larger area where we can accommodate more people. The president of that organization is
here, Madam Chair, and he can speak to this issue
Chair
Unverified
3:16
or answer any questions. If you would please, sir,
Speaker 21
3:25
go ahead and identify yourself for the record. Well, thank you, Madam Senator. I'm the state
Chair
Unverified
3:31
president of what you saw, I mean, what this resolution would do, it would serve in two ways of legislating. It would allow individuals with disabilities to come in and understand the legislating process a little better but it will also allow also allow the lawmakers yourself to stay in the
gallery and actually watch and listen to individuals with disabilities and understand our issues better but it will also it also would help educate the staff of the staff on how to to handle disperse the issues thank you representative makes you recognized thank you madam thank you madam
Speaker 26
4:19
chair representative steel you know I believe
that this is something that we definitely need to do they've already done it on the Senate side but I was just wondering is there a financial impact by moving it from the
Senate over to the house no there's there is no financial impact and the Department of Human Services Division of Disability Services
I think pay for all the expenses and it's already in their budget thank you representative
Speaker 31
4:51
Walker you're recognized but I don't think it does
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
4:56
justice to her her work makes it seem as if she basically was involved in oh I'm sorry I withdraw my comments I thought we were talking about the resolution honoring this base and I wanted to indicate that it should go further but I'm premature I apologize seeing no further questions what's the will
Speaker 34
5:24
of the committee representative Harris I'd like to
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
5:30
make a motion for do
Chair
Unverified
5:32
pass we have a motion of do pass all in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries thank you madam chair committee representative Steele since you're at the end of the table if you'd like to go ahead and do your house resolution 1013 thank
you madam chair if I could I'd like to also call representative fielding who's actually going to be presenting the resolution on the floor to explain the resolution
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
6:13
you recognize representative fielding thank you madam chair this resolution is to, you know, when you look at the work of Daisy Bates, you know, you think of, you know, when it comes to mind, if you think of the civil rights work that is done, her community work that she has done in the community, it just brings out that passion that a person
that the drives to look for someone to look up to and to admire. And that's why I agreed to present this resolution for Ms. Day's debates at this time. MS. Representative Walker. Thank you, Madam
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
7:08
Chairman. I support this, but I think in terms of facts, some of your facts are wrong.
The first group of children to integrate Arkansas's public schools came from the area up near Dale Bumpers and up near Jonesboro. So in terms of facts, paragraph 4 is not factually correct. the other thing is this it's important to note Ms. Bates' work but I want it to be at least in this committee understood
that Ms. Bates was a pariah in this body for years and in the city and people disrespected her until she was near death and it should be noted that her work in Little Rock and her work in setting up the community of Mitchellville and her work on the national scene were all significant in seeking to try to change the relationships
between African American people and white people and to bring about a different kind of spirit and set of understandings. And it was simply more than as an advisor to the Little Rock man. And I don't know how you can change that, whether you need to. But I think that her words ought to be properly reflected, and the facts ought to be properly reflected as well. And, of course, I can't knock you very much on it, because what you have is a good beginning step, but it's not accurate and not complete.
But I will support it, because you present it, and I hope that you work on
it and make it stronger. MR. Madam Chair, if I may respond. MS. Yes, you're recognized. MR. Yes, I want to thank Representative Fielding for his leadership in this. I actually, the last time I was in the House, sponsored legislation to actually create the Daisy Bates holiday, which we put on the same day as President's Day.
So it would not be another day off for our employees, and it would not cost the state any money because we were we were already off uh... that will be that would be monday uh... so it's it's very important from a time standpoint and talking with the house parliamentarian that we we move forward with this resolution if it's going to be read on the floor uh... on monday the staff has researched uh... the facts as they do every year could have been longer with
uh... this great lady it could have been a hundred pages of war And it still would not scratch the surface of the work that she has done so faithfully in this community. We also know that there are other heroes and sheroes throughout this state, and I think the community that Representative Walker is talking about is Hoxie. The Hoxie community is very important from a historic standpoint in the state of Arkansas.
actually meeting with members of the Hoxie 21 this week with the Secretary of State to actually pay homage and actually to talk about putting a monument on the grounds of the state capital to honor the Hoxie 21. But I appreciate those comments. I think it's a good resolution resolution and honor of a great a great person thank you representative Steele
Chair
Unverified
11:01
seeing no questions from the committee what's the will of the committee representative Meeks you're recognized make a motion do pass we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye any opposed no motion carries thank you Thank you, Representative Steele. Thank you, Madam
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
11:42
Chair and Committee. And one or two other places.
And the people who carried the torch at that time are unsung heroes in addition to the Hoxley people because they were white and they were taking stands against popular positions in the state at that time. So paragraph four, when we say the first group, I mean, it's what I'm talking about. I think you want to make sure that it was a significant group. It's the one that got the most attention. But and then there were others in 57, in addition to those in Little Rock, and that included
George Howard's daughter at Dollar Way. So I think that one of the first, not the first, it was one of the first, it's the one that got the most attention. And having said that, I support it, and I think that it's appropriate, but it should be correct and perhaps even stronger, being redundant. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
12:42
MS. Thank you, Representative Walker. Representative Eubanks, you are recognized to present House Bill 1368. Thank you.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
12:49
MR. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. What I have found so far in the short time that I've
served here is that the bills that seem fairly straightforward and simple seem to get very complicated in a short amount of time.
And I see some of the members on this committee served with me on judiciary, and I'm not sure that's necessarily a very good thing for me to be presenting this bill here, because they always seem to have a lot of questions. This bill has to do with the visitation rights with a minor child, and it adds some language to the current law, where that a parent may petition the court with regards to asking for a criminal records check for determining custody and visitation purposes.
It also includes not only the Arkansas Crime Information Center, but also a check of the sex offender registry. The costs that are incurred are still borne by the petitioning party, and the added language basically states that it's a rebuttable presumption that supervised visitation, if any, with a parent listed on the registry is in the best interest of the minor child, but also that
the burden is on the parent listed on the registry to rebut that presumption. So, like I said, I
think it's a fairly straightforward bill that his purpose is to protect children. And I take
Chair
Unverified
14:45
any questions. Do we have any questions from committee members?
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
14:52
Vice Chair Powers, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eubanks, thank you for bringing your bill. So, current law, you know, I see that the language for custody and visitation, determination purposes.
How did the current law not cover that
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
15:17
particular issue? Well, when I went to legislative research, they were somewhat surprised that current law didn't address this
issue. dealing with the custody and visitation. Not being an attorney, I don't know how the current law didn't address that issue, but it does specifically address the matter of checking with the sex offender registry with regards to making determinations with this.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
15:39
So the way I'm reading paragraph one is it's kind of, to me, it seems kind of like universal language that would cover any situation. So what you're trying to do is just specify. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And I don't know a lot about the sex offender registry, but is everyone on the sex offender registry, are they convicted of a crime? I'm not aware of that.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
16:09
I know that there are different levels, and I believe that was the reason the last line in the bill was put in. that gives the parent that's listed
on that registry a chance to make a case that shows he or she is qualified to
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
16:29
have those visitation or custody. And finally, simply, it doesn't mandate that a court has to do a criminal background check. This still gives the judge discretion to deny the petition.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
16:43
Is that correct? I believe that's the case. I ran this by a judge and three different attorneys that serve in the House right now, and they all indicated to me that they were satisfied that it didn't tie the hands of the court. All right. Thank you. I'd appreciate a good
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:12
vote. Representative Hammer, you have a question? If you don't mind, just for point of clarification, the term parent, is that limiting it to just
a biological parent, or does that include step-parents when there's a divorce situation and you have a step-parent, is that term supposed to be all-inclusive of any parent? Well, that's
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
17:32
a good question, but I don't have the answer to that. Well, the reason
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:42
I'm asking is, and I'd like to ask maybe perhaps the vice chair, because I know this is a field you work in, if this is just parent only, does that exclude from
being able to run it on a step parent because it's not so properly stated? Because to me, it just seemed like the bigger risk factor is going to be involving step parents that maybe a mom or dad has gone out married and I just want to I want to protect the kids it's great bill I'm not arguing that point I don't
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
18:13
I don't necessarily know the answer to that but I would think that unless that step parent had adopted that child I don't know that they would
have in any necessarily any standing in that I don't know representative powers may have
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
18:26
more well I'll tell you what I what I do know I wouldn't answer that under any circumstance I see mr. miss McGee she may could clarify that a little bit for us I I don't want to put her on the spot but this is that's pretty broad topic miss McGee would would you recognize yourself and help us out a little bit okay Lisa McGee I'm gonna turn
Speaker 75
18:50
with the Department of Human Services it's my understanding it does not apply to step parents and I know I have a case where
brought with me where the Arkansas Court of Appeals recently had a case where there was joint custody. It was a mom and a dad, and then mom married a sex offender. And the court kept the joint custody even though the child would be spending half the time in the home with the mom and this person she married to was a sex offender. And they struggled with it. And so I thought this was something that didn't need to be changed this session about a presence of a sex offender in the home. And they did talk about the statute right now that there's a rebuttable presumption that
you're not going to award custody to somebody, but the problem in this case is that Mama wasn't the sex offender, she married the sex offender. And so that was an issue for them. So I don't know if you want to pull this back and amend it to include sex offenders and them in the home and then the parent having a visitation with that, but that's your choice. Representative
Chair
Unverified
19:54
Eubanks, that's a decision that you would have to make since it's your bill. Well, I think it's
Speaker 73
19:58
a good idea so i would like to do that okay i think it makes sense that we uh if the interest
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
20:03
is to protect the children then i think we need
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
20:11
to representative walker would you uh prefer to ask your questions once
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
20:15
the the bill is amended no no because i think that my question may allow them to
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
20:22
consider further amendment all right uh why don't we allow you to go ahead and
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
20:28
ask that question. We will table the bill. Well, I understand it will be tabled, but my concern is this. The bill that's drawn allows a parent, however that parent is defined,
to petition the court to order a criminal records check. And then the court has duties imposed upon it. So the court then has to make a determination. It doesn't say whether it's upon petition of a parent, but it's got to look at whatever the information is affirmatively without petition and then do some other things. And then if it determines that something more is done, it shall do something more as reflected in paragraph three. So this seems to impose burdens upon a court without the burdens being always upon petition
by a parent and review in an adversarial manner of the information. I mean, I just hate to have courts be petitioned to look at the criminal record of somebody and then going through a litany of events to make a determination whether something should be done because the court is a judicial body rather than an advocate on behalf of one person or the other.
But this does not do anything but allow a parent to just file the petition, and
then all the other burden is on the court,
Speaker 64
22:00
and that concerns me. And Ms. McGee may want to respond.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
22:05
And I kind of asked this question earlier. Maybe you can clarify for me, Representative Walker. The original law, and Ms. McGee, you shake your head or whichever way, the original law allows that petition at this point.
Am I understanding that correctly? It just doesn't
Speaker 67
22:22
specify for custody and visitation. Am I mistaken? Well, here's the case that I brought
Speaker 75
22:28
with me. It says, The legislature has created a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interest of a child to be placed in the care and custody of a sex offender or to have unsupervised visitation with a sex offender, and it cites 9-13-101-D2. Well, it— I think this mechanism allows them to do that registry check.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
22:50
Okay, but it still gets back. I was kind of trying to make the point that I thought that the current law already allowed, regardless of whether we specified or not, and any parent of a minor child in a circuit court case may petition the court to order a criminal records check of the other parent of a minor child, and that would be the current law. And then we are adding and specifying for custody and visitation determination purposes.
And it kind of gets to Representative Walker's point and my point. I understand you're specifying, but I think that was kind of the track that Representative Walker was going down. Do you read that, Lisa, I mean, Ms. McGee, that the current language kind of envelops everything? The way that I'm reading this, that the Court of
Speaker 75
23:49
Appeals cited, is that right now there is a rebuttable presumption about not getting the unsupervised visitation with a sex offender.
So it may be that this is duplicative, and I think what's the new part
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
24:06
is the part about getting the registry checks. Okay. Mr. Chairman Mast. Yes, we're for it. A rebuttable presumption only presents itself in the event that there is a case to begin with. And it's not necessary to put all rebuttable presumptions in a bill. It seems superfluous language, unnecessary, and the present bill seems to be adequate
to address all the concerns that they
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
24:32
have expressed. All right. I think you're understanding of Mr. Walker's point, Mr. Eubanks, but you've asked to pull the bill down at this
Chair
Unverified
24:43
time. Representative Harris, do you have
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
24:45
a question? Yeah, it has to do with the polling. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're recognized. I just got to thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like to ask Ms. McGee for Representative Eubanks. Is this the first time you've discussed this with Representative Eubanks?
Speaker 75
25:00
Yes, he called me this morning, and before I got a chance to call him back, I didn't realize he was going to
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
25:06
run the bill this morning, but he asked that I could be here. Okay, is it your policy, just so when I'm running a bill that may affect DHS, to know what bills are coming across so we can have this maybe
Speaker 75
25:18
discussed beforehand? That would be great, but this bill actually doesn't impact DHS. It doesn't? No, this is over in the 913 section, and that has to do with
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
25:27
divorce custody cases. But you have, I'll just be honest with you, you have invested interest in this bill being DHS to protect children.
Yes, and the health and well-being of children, absolutely. And that's why I
just wanted to know, just so next time maybe we could have it settled before. That was my only question and
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
25:44
comment. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you for doing us a favor, aren't you, Ms. McGee,
Speaker 69
25:50
by just sitting down there? Okay. All right.
Ms. Malone. Representative Eubanks, you would like to pull your bill? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
26:04
Senator Chesterfield, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 119. Thank you, Madam Chair,
Speaker 97
26:25
members of the committee. I'm Linda Chesterfield, and I am asking your affirmative vote of due pass on Senate Bill 119 to create the Commission on the Status of Women and for Other Purposes.
Let me say at the outset that this has no cost attached to it, and I know that we're looking at whether or not money should be spent. There is no cost to this bill. We designed the bill to make sure that it did not. The individuals who will serve on the committee will do so by way of grants and other things, so we don't have a cost here, but we feel that the conversation is necessary. There is no major committee nor subcommittee which deals specifically with the interest
of women, and I think we are a conversation worth having. And so I would appreciate a good vote on this bill. You will notice that it enjoys bipartisan support. It sets no agenda for those individuals who will serve on the committee. It allows the Governor, the President pro-tempera of the Senate, as well as the Speaker of the House to make nominations to that committee or to make recommendations for that committee. I would appreciate a good vote. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
27:41
Representative Summers. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator, for this bill. I've got two questions, and part of it is my lack of knowledge on knowing how a commission would work. On page three under F for Frank, it talks about all state agencies shall furnish to the commission and its staff any information and assistance the commission or its staff may reasonably request. I know you've had several years of service here.
Or would that basically be providing services such as the staff provides us for this type meeting? Well, I think that that will be a moot issue. If the bill
Speaker 97
28:23
that cost $600,000 yesterday, they cleared the Senate, then all they will have to do is go to that website and they'll be able to ascertain that information. So it will be simply merely a click if you guys pass that particular legislation. That would be a moot issue. But the members of the Commission right now under the Freedom of Information Act can ask
for any information that they wish without limit. So I don't see that that creates any more difficulty than anything else. My
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
28:53
question is more about the assistance that the staff might have to provide. No, no, no. We
Speaker 97
28:58
specifically wrote that so we will not have staff assistance. I wanted to make sure that staff would not be impacted. I wanted to make sure that the budget would not be impacted. And the individuals who will serve on this committee will act in their own behalf. They will not have to meet publicly if they choose not to.
They can meet via web conference. But we have put into place what we think is a revenue-neutral bill. I talked with the staff. I wanted to make sure that there was no cost and no staff allocation. That was asked specifically of me by the staff. And I said let's write the bill to make sure that we do not utilize the time of the staff nor their expertise I do believe however that under the Freedom of Information Act they can gather what information they need it seems to me that if says just the opposite I may
be misunderstanding it all state agencies shall furnish to the Commission and staff any information and assistance the Commission or its staff may reasonably request it does not say legislative staff the individuals can bring in their own staff and that is how we have written it so that they
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
30:07
will staff their own committee okay all right thank you and then the other question was on G the last line it said could be reimbursed for non-state funds would that basically be donations that would
be it okay thank you for
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
30:29
running this you're more than welcome representative Elliot thank you madam thank you madam chair senator I just have two questions the first question is I've been married for 20 years and I still don't understand women so but you're working I'm working it so once this thing is passed I would like the first copy of it so I can kind of figure my wife out but the second
Speaker 110
30:55
The thing is, what exactly is it going to study women? Is it going to be health? Is it going
Speaker 97
31:03
to be personality? Is it going to... It can be whatever the members of that group deem it to be. I deliberately did not put in a laundry list because we are not a monolith. What may be of interest to me may not be of interest to my colleagues here on this House committee. I've spoken with several people. As a matter of fact, Senator Bledsoe and I were just talking about abuse of children, a disproportionate number of whom are women and girls.
I've talked with her about the increased prison population that's affecting women. That does not mean, however, that that is what that commission wants to talk about. It's just of interest to me. And as legislators, if there are things that are of interest to us, we can certainly take them to that commission. But I deliberately did not put in a laundry list because I did not want to tie their hands. I would respect what they decide to discuss and the information
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
31:53
that they would choose to get? Well, those are very pertinent issues, and I would just suggest after they finish
with those real good issues, I'd like them to study why I keep getting in
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
32:15
the doghouse. Did you bring candy for Valentine's? Representative Hickerson. Yes, Senator. Thank you very much for this bill. I just have a question on the language that says the Commission may accept and solicit funds gifts donations grants or bequest or any federal funds is there a category of federal funding
available now for this type of Commission not that I'm
Speaker 97
32:36
aware of but what they wanted to do was just apparently the staff knew that there may be monies that are available for this and if so we would be able to or the Commission would be able to solicit those and it's pleasure meeting your met your husband and your son at the football game, and my brother is one of your husband's clients down there in Texarkana, Arkansas, Ricky Pondexter, so I know that has nothing to do with this bill, but I just thought I'd throw that in there since we're all from southwest Arkansas.
Speaker 116
33:05
Well, thank you for letting me know that.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:14
I know Ricky very well. All right. Thank you. Representative Walker. Yes. Yes, of course I support this bill, and it's important because women do have a different status in the state of Arkansas than men, and I know that there's a good old boy system. I don't know that there's a good old girl system, but I think in order to equalize things
you have to have just a good old system which does not favor men or women. But my concern is the reason why you have chosen not to seek any funds for this. If it's going to be effective, it's going to need some funds. It's going to need at least a telephone number where other women may access you all other than just calling the governor's office and asking who's on it and then calling one of
the nine of you who may be appointed. Can you tell me, I mean, whether other commissions on the status of women in other states operate without money that is legislatively appropriated? MS. There is a –
Speaker 97
34:21
there are approximately 39 other commissions on the status of women. I did not check into how they are funded, but we wanted to make sure that if in this climate of economic concern, if we were going to be able to at least move apace with the
discussion about many of those issues, as many of you know, that disproportionately affect women, then we needed to do this in a manner that did not impact the fiscal condition of the state. There are monies. There are people that have been supportive of this bill, know how to obtain those funds, And so I'm satisfied that we will be able to fund this commission because women have always been able to do more with less, I think. And perhaps that's not fair, but I do know that in this environment where we really don't
like task forces and we really don't like this or that, that if we could get a commission set up that would be cost neutral, then we would have a greater chance of passage. And if we see at the end of two years that it is not working, then
we can come back to this body and you can
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
35:33
tell us yes or no on funding. If I may, to follow up, the House has recently passed a bill to, in effect, eliminate task forces and to have all of the work of study commissions done by legislative committees or subcommittees.
Are you aware of that? Yes, I am. How does this jibe with the already passed bill in the House?
Speaker 97
35:58
It was my understanding of the bill in the House is that you would discourage the creation of task forces. And the majority of those task forces consist of members of the House and Senate. And therein lay the problem in that we were spending money bringing representatives and senators into meetings and it was not cost effective.
And for the most part those committees, commissions, I mean those task forces could be covered by subcommittees or committees of the body. There is no subcommittee in the House. There is no subcommittee in the Senate. There is no major committee in the Senate or the House which deals with the issues directly impacting women. We have eliminated the financial or the fiscal impact of it by not costing anything. We are willing to provide our own staffing so that, again, it does not take away staffing
that is so needed in other areas. And so we have done what we could do to answer those concerns that I hear very clearly from the House, but that does not mean that we should not have this conversation, and it does not mean that we should not have this commission on the status of women. We are worth that conversation. We deserve to have this commission as women, and the women who will serve on this committee will be able to do so in an effective manner and provide information to those of us who who need it, including myself. And I do not anticipate members of the House and Senate serving on the committee, but people
from around this state who know that we have got to have a conversation about those things that might have a deleterious effect on women
too long. Representative Dickinson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Chesterfield. I just want to make sure that I understand, is this any way, any method to determine whether
or not women have equal rights? No. It's not going to be about...
Well, when you were listening... I
Speaker 97
38:22
already feel equal, so that's not where I'm coming from. I am equal, okay? And I know you are, too, because
you're a representative. Right. When you were listening, some of the issues that could be discussed, you sort of answered that, but I just was wondering if this was a...
Speaker 117
38:42
This is not some backdoor effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. In order for that to take place, it would
Speaker 97
38:52
have to go through state agencies. This is not a commission to go to state agencies. This is about things that are happening with women, and one of the reasons I was reluctant to say what was of concern to me is I do not want to limit or expand the scope that that group which would be appointed would have to deal with. But we have dealt with the Equal Rights Amendment in the last several sessions, and that bill
went nowhere. It did not come to aging children, youth, and military services. It went to state agencies because it would impact constitutional issues. If I were trying to do that, I would have taken it to state agencies. And I think those of you who know me, I don't choose to do backdoor stuff. I'm right up front with everything it is that I do. I believe strongly that we need this commission. I believe very, very strongly that it is in the best interest of government to know what is going on. I have received numerous letters of support from women of both stripes, Republican and
Democrat, because we are worth that conversation, and I continue to say that, and I'd appreciate your
support. Yes, ma'am. I agree. Thank
Chair
Unverified
39:59
you. Appreciate your answer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Benedict, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr.
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
40:06
Chesterfield, I just wonder if this commission is the first of its kind in the state, or is this modeled after some other commissions that perhaps pertain to seniors or children or maybe some other minority, or is this the first of its kind?
Speaker 97
40:20
MS. This is the first of this particular bill. There was a commission at one time on the status of women. It went away. I don't know why, and I don't know what its goal was, but this is freshly written. I took this to the legislative research area and I said, number one, I want to create a commission on the status of women. Number two, I want there to be no fiscal impact. Number three, I do not want to impose on our overworked staff. Those were the three things that I set in place.
And so I think in that instance or in those three instances, it's
Chair
Unverified
40:57
rather unique. Thank you. Senator. You're welcome. Meeks, you're recognized. Thank you,
Speaker 26
41:04
Madam Chair. Senator Chesterfield, definitely I think this is something worth discussing. I mean, I've been married now for about two years, and, you know, I'm still going through that process, too. I see that glow still of newlywed on your face, too. I'm trying to make sure, you know, of course, we want to do things in the best way possible.
And this was something that I posed to a lot of the women that I know. And one of the things they questioned is the need for this type of commission. You know, is there a possibility that the women in the legislature could form a women's caucus and go about in the same manner that this commission would go? My other point or my other question is, is there are other women's groups.
We know, you know, National Organization of Women advocates on behalf of women. Is there a possibility that, you know, through a women's caucus here in the legislature that you could get input from those types of women's group to do the same thing that this commission would actually be doing? Well, one of the things or one of the reasons that we said
Speaker 97
42:16
we didn't want task forces was because it takes away so much time from those individuals who are currently serving in both the House and the Senate.
The Women's Caucus of the legislature, of which I am a member, meets, but we also have the responsibility of serving on each of our committees, our subcommittees, our A and B, our joint committees. And so I don't think it's fair to ask those of us who are in the legislature who are women to take on another responsibility. This work, I would anticipate, is time-consuming. Most of us are working women who have jobs, and those individuals who would choose to
serve on this should have the time to do it. I, for one, am busily going about the business of representing my district. I've got some 70,000 individuals that I represent. I would not want to be on the commission because I do believe that what I do, even though we're part-time legislators, it takes an incredible amount of time. And the Women's Caucus, in my view, is not designed to do this. I think this should be a citizen group. I do believe that members of the Women's Caucus would be welcome to come to the Commission and talk about those things that are – that may be impacting us as legislators.
But I would not think that the Women's Caucus could supplant this in this time. Okay.
Speaker 26
43:42
question. With the people that are appointing – you have the governor, you have the – of course leader of the Senate, leader of the House. Right now we know that all three of those are controlled by Democrats. There's a possibility that in the future all three could be controlled by Republicans. Would this be a good way to make sure that you choose a diversity of women to make sure
that women's issues from both a conservative and a liberal viewpoint would be taken into account by this commission? Well,
Speaker 97
44:13
it is my hope so, and I ask you to look at the individuals who are co-sponsors with me. They range from individuals like me who like to consider herself a moderate to conservative legislators. They are made up of both Democrats and Republicans, and they're made up of women and men. I solicited their input. I listened very carefully to their concerns, and I come to you today with no agendas except to establish this commission.
If the makeup changes, that individual that comes in, we appoint some for only one year. We appoint some for two years. And so if there's a changing of the guard vis-à-vis Republican, then it's not a problem because those individuals don't have life terms like we have in too many commissions, I believe. But these individuals would be able to be changed upon the impact of the individual who is elected to these various positions.
Chair
Unverified
45:13
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Representative Elliott,
Speaker 132
45:23
you have a question? Motion. We have a few more questions. Representative Hubbard? Well, I just wanted to make a statement in reference to what Representative Walker said a while ago. I've always been under the assumption that there was
Speaker 124
45:39
indeed in charge of the good old boys. MR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. MS. And your wife will appreciate that, Reverend.
Speaker 132
45:45
MR. Well, I can speak not like Representative Meeks. MR. Meeks. MR. He's two years. I've been 42
Speaker 136
45:53
with mine, so I've been well aware of that situation.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
46:00
MS. Thank you for your comment. Representative Walker, you have a question? MR. Yes, I do. But I must – Representative Meeks indicated that there should be some consideration given to conservatives and liberals, and then seemed to suggest that the Democrats were liberal
and the Republicans were conservative. I'd just like to observe that there are quite a few conservative Democrats, and I've observed in my short time here that there are some liberal Republicans. I mean it depends on how you define the term I don't want that I don't want that to sort of color the representation but you in response to miss representative Dickinson's question the Commission while it may not be devoted to bringing about an equal rights amendment
Will the commission shy away from equal rights considerations for women, such as equal pay, equal health care, equal access to, for instance, the specialties in medical school and anything else where women are underrepresented in a negative way and overrepresented in a positive way and overrepresented in a negative way? There is a reason that I did
Speaker 97
47:25
I did not want to tie the hands of the Commission. The Commission will discuss what the Commission will discuss, and I don't presume to tell them what that will be. As I stated in the past or just a few minutes ago, it seems like eons ago, as I stated a few moments ago, members of the legislative body, the executive branch or whomever, have the right to come before the Commission and ask that they discuss issues that are of importance. But I am not going to sit here and say what that will be.
We are not a monolith, so there are a variety of things that may be of interest to me and other women that may not be of interest to the other women that we're talking about. I do not want us to have our hands tied by saying that this and only this is what we will discuss. Should it be ruled out? No, it should not be. But I would leave it in the hands of the commission as to what that commission of women will discuss. I'd appreciate
Chair
Unverified
48:26
a good vote. All right. We have a motion from Representative Hammer.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
48:30
You're recognized for your motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd
Speaker 58
48:41
like to make a motion. Do pass. We have
Chair
Unverified
48:44
a motion of do pass. there anyone out there who anyway sorry I speak against the bill all in favor say aye all opposed say no congratulations the motion carries thank you members of the
Speaker 117
48:56
committee and I'm proud to be back here I did share this committee my last
Chair
Unverified
49:00
term in the house thank you very much representative Bradford you're recognized to present Senate concurred resolution number Number 3.
Representative Toni Bradford
Unverified
49:38
You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. The purpose
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 is to commend the successful elimination of the chemical weapons stockpile at the Pine Bluff Arsenal. Since World War II, the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Jefferson County has safely stored the second largest cache of chemical weapons in the United States. For a number of years, the Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility at the Pine Bluff Arsenal has been involved in destroying more than 110,000 rockets, more than 9,000 land
mines filled with nerve agents, and more than 3,700 tons of containers filled with mustard blister agent. The destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile at the Pine Bluff Arsenal was completed on the evening of November 12, 2010. Numerous safety awards were received during the 14 million work hours without a workday accident or without any agent-related exposure to workers or the environment. Madam Chair and Committee, I would hope we'd receive
a good vote on Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, which recognizes the Pine Bluff arsenal for a job well done. Do we have
any questions from the committee? Representative Summers, you're recognized. Motion do pass.
Chair
Unverified
51:04
We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Motion carries. Thank you, Representative Bradford. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee.
Next up, we have Representative Fielding for House Concurrent Resolution 1002.
Representative Fielding, you're recognized to present your bill – or resolution, excuse me. MR. Thank
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
51:33
you, Madam Chair. I come before you this morning for a memorial resolution for a dear man that is received the ranks of bishop in this denomination who have answered a call on this week and will
be finalized on tomorrow. Bishop Wallace Johnson presided over the four Jewish traditions, consists of everything from Southwest Arkansas, a man for his work in the community, but not just only Washtenaw County, but throughout Southwest Arkansas, I ask you to grant a due pass on this moral
resolution for Bishop Wallace Johnson do we have any questions from the committee representative
Chair
Unverified
52:40
Summers you're up do you representative Walker we turn your mic on and do you have a question yes I would like to know okay you're recognized
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
52:58
is the late bishop a member of a particular denomination church of God in Christ is that listed in your
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
53:07
resolution I don't think so isn't about them on the next page all right thank
Chair
Unverified
53:21
you any other questions representative Elliott motion at the
proper time seeing no other questions we have a motion from representative Elliott you're recognized to explain your motion thank
Speaker 151
53:35
you madam chair I motion do pass we have
Chair
Unverified
53:39
a motion of do pass all in favor say aye any opposed no motion carries thank you madam chair thank you committee thank you representative fielding there being no other business to come before the committee today we are we will be adjourned till
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1024
HCR1004
HB1368
SB119
SCR3
HCR 1002
HR 1013
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Lori Benedict
Unverified
Speaker 3
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 13
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 26
Speaker 31
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 34
Representative Justin T. Harris
Unverified
Representative David Fielding
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 73
Speaker 64
Speaker 67
Speaker 69
Senator Missy Irvin Chair
Unverified
Speaker 97
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Representative Efrem Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 110
Representative Mary P. "Prissy" Hickerson
Unverified
Speaker 116
Representative Jody Dickinson Chair
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 130
Speaker 132
Speaker 134
Speaker 124
Speaker 136
Speaker 58
Representative Toni Bradford
Unverified
Speaker 151