House State Agencies and Govt'l Affairs Committee
Video
Transcript
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 John T. Vines
Unverified
0:00
Mr. Chairman, I am going to fill in for Senator Teague today on Senate Bill 73, if that
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
0:10
helps the committee in any way. If Representative Allen is not here, we'll go to you next. Okay, let's go to Senate Bill 73. Senator Teague, you're going to, without objections, the committee will go on down the agenda.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
0:42
the attendance today for this bill. It's a real simple bill, but I appreciate all the interest in it. I am appreciative of it. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I am here today on behalf of Senator Teague, Representative Williams, and our esteemed Attorney General. Senate Bill 73. It is an act that basically, without quoting one of her former colleagues,
does nothing. It actually does something. We need to shift some staff from our crime victims area into some other areas of the Attorney General's office. And this bill is a cautionary bill. It simply shifts the staff. The Attorney General wants to proceed with extreme caution and is asked that we passed this bill uh it asked for no new money no new staff it's simply a uh cautionary bill again that will allow him to move one of the prosecutors over into the
cyber crimes area that uh that they have over
Speaker 11
1:42
there i'll be happy to answer any questions uh at
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:47
this time any questions from the committee if not have a motion representative Cowling we have a motion do pass all in favor say aye aye opposed you have passed your bill for Senator Teague thank you and Bill feel privileged
because I told Larry he was going to be here in person
Speaker 5
2:19
but uh Is Representative Ingram here? Representative Nichols, are you ready? He's not in. We'll
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:30
get started if you're ready. We can't hold up the committee agenda. Well, I thank you, but
I think you're going to have the floor for a while.
Speaker 57
2:45
Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you committee. We're back again to consider House Bill 1013. This bill has required a lot of work, but those of
Speaker 19
3:15
you that are experienced with legislative
Speaker 57
3:18
process understand that. I pre-filed this bill, as you know, so basically put everybody on notice that this is something that was going to be on our agenda to let the various parties know that if they have any issues, they should contact me, and some did, some didn't. I have, after our last meeting, Representative Klemmer and I have met, and we have reached an agreement on her amendment, and that is there.
I met with some contractors yesterday evening. They had an issue that they felt was important. I think I have addressed that. And if the staff
would pass out my amendment at this time, I'd like to get that amendment adopted.
Speaker 57
4:21
I'm ready for the amendment.
If the staff will pass that amendment out, we will get right on it. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 30
5:05
Representative Nichols, it's your amendment, so would you be
Speaker 57
5:14
ready to present it? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the contractors feel like the e-verify system is something that they legally cannot use in certain circumstances, and basically what I have done is added the e-verify system if allowed by law. I feel like it is. They have some questions of whether it is allowed or not, so I think my amendment takes
care of that concern that they brought to me yesterday afternoon around 4 o'clock. So I would move the
adoption of this amendment. I'll take any questions on the amendment. We
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
6:06
have, Representative Nichols, you made the motion to amend your, to adopt your own
amendment. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. We need to do a little cleanup before we can go forward. If it's
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
6:22
okay, it was brought to my attention. We need to expunge the vote of House Bill
Speaker 57
6:30
1013 in which the amendment on 135 was adopted. In talking with Matthew Miller, since the bill did not pass out,
Speaker 31
6:38
that that amendment really does not exist.
It was adopted in our committee, and we've got to expunge
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
6:48
according to the staff. We need a motion to expunge the House vote on the amendment on House Bill 1013 of Lester. We have a motion. Any discussion? All in favor for the expunge? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried to expunge the vote. Thank you. Now, Representative Nichols, we can continue on with your amendment. Okay. And you have made a motion to adopt the amendment.
Any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions from the committee, what is the pleasure
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
7:25
of the committee? Okay, y'all ready? He's already made that motion. I'm sorry. All in favor of the adopting of the amendment say aye. Aye.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
7:33
Any opposed? Your amendment has been approved, Rep. Nichols. Now we're going to take up the new bill as it is amended.
Speaker 40
7:45
Correct. Are you ready to discuss that? Yes,
Speaker 57
7:49
Mr. Chairman. You have the floor. Okay. The vote that we just expunged a few moments ago, those changes were incorporated on the House floor through a member's own amendment. So we have put those parts in the engrossed bill. The other part that was taken care of with members on is the amendment that Representative Clemmer brought to the committee's attention last week.
She and I have worked together on that amendment, and your engrossed bill shows that agreed amendment. The system, the way it operates, and the opponents of the bill now are focusing on E-Verify, and E-Verify is the system that is used to supplement the I-9 process.
Just having the I-9 process, we've had that since 1986. The 1990s was the decade where the illegal population of this state and other states really took off. So just the I-9 system would not work. In 1996, Congress amended the law to allow E-Verify, and that has really caught hold.
And what I discovered last night is that 1,400 new employers a week utilize E-Verify. It's a relatively
user-friendly system. It's Internet-based. You do have to have access to the Internet. For those folks
that do not have that type of capability in their office, there are payroll companies out there that provide this service, that they can
be an agent for you to do the E-Verify, so it's not that big a deal.
But you may hear some testimony that it is a big deal and it's a burden on business. I think the burden on this state is the number of illegals that we have working in this state, and taxes are not being collected. I think I saw Mr. R.T. Williams here a while ago from the Department of Workforce Service, which is wrestling with the problem of trying to pay the 300-plus million dollars that the state of Arkansas owes the federal government in unemployment taxes.
But if you look at the E-Verify system, just go on the Internet, just do a search, E-Verify, you will have all types of resources and understanding of the law. The opponents of this that just want to keep the status quo, and that is the I-9 only, and that will not move this state in a direction to get a handle on contractors hiring the illegals.
Now, this is an important issue to the state of Arkansas. It's an important issue to a lot of the folks in this room, But it's a real issue that we have a limited area where we can deal with this problem, and that is through the licensing of our businesses. And that's all my bill does. It deals with the license of a contractor. And if that contractor knowingly hires illegals, then the contractor's licensing board has the authority to revoke or suspend that license.
Now, some of you may notice that I also took out the fines that was in the previous bill. And it's not that I'm trying to save contractors money. That's not my motivation for that. I just wanted to make sure that there was not a problem with the federal law, because federal law says they have the authority to deal with the criminal and civil penalties aspect of it. And I just want to remove the fines out of there so that could not be construed as a civil penalty.
That might be a federal responsibility. So the Contractor Licensing Board still has a lot of authority as far as revoking and suspending of a license. That is what the immigration law, the federal law, allows states to do, and we're just trying to fill that void. Also, in my research last night, I noticed the state of Florida, their new Republican governor, issued an executive order that every state agency will not only do an e-verify on their new hires,
but their current employees. Mississippi, learned this last night, requires their employers to do e-verify. State of Arizona, which I've talked about, requires everybody that has any type of license to do E-Verify. E-Verify is not the boogeyman out there. With our technology today, it's a system that works well. Over 97% of the information that's put in comes back okay.
There's no problems. And then the other less than 3%, they have to do a little bit more follow-up. A very small percentage, you know, indicates that this person is not authorized to work in the United States, and then that person will be let go. Or the employer can then, they can keep working them, but then they have a problem with the immigration laws as hiring illegals under the federal law. So states and the E-Verify system and the information they give,
they talk about the federal government requiring it of their contractor, and they talk about states requiring it. So it is okay for a state to require the use of E-Verify just when you look on their website. I know I'm spending a lot of time with E-Verify, but I think that's where now the opposition is coming from. And if you do away with the e-verify system in my bill, then you're back to the I-9 and you're back to the status quo.
And I don't think that's going to change anything for the state of Arkansas and the hiring of the illegals by some of these contractors. Now, I have received a more positive response since last week on my bill. And there's actually a contractor here that plans on testifying in support of this bill about the frustration that he has felt in finding work.
And so he will be up here in a moment. I would be happy to entertain some questions from the committee at this time if that's what the chairman wishes. if there's any questions let
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
15:18
us know Representative Garner you were first thank you Mr.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
15:25
Chairman and thank you Representative Nicholson I do want to commend you for you have worked on this very hard I still I've looked at your amendment and we've discussed
this some I still have some questions about this I want to read a statement from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employees' Rights and Responsibilities. You mentioned the state of Florida as a state is requiring e-verify, but one of the regulations here says e-verify must be used for new hires only, cannot be used to verify the employment eligibility of current employees unless the employer is a federal contractor required
to use E-Verify under the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Are you saying that the state employees of Florida are federal contractors that would come under the Federal Acquisition Regulation? What
Speaker 57
16:23
I'm saying is the governor of the state of Florida issued an executive order requiring all of his agencies to run E-Verify. Now, you've raised the legality question. And my amendment covers that.
You use the e-verify system if allowed by law. So I think that covers that concern. I think it is allowed. Some people think it is not allowed. But if it is allowed, then they can use that. And that's for their affirmative defense. That's where the e-verify system shows up is in their affirmative defense. And so they don't have to use it. If they don't use it, they don't have the affirmative defense. But if they have normally hired illegals, they are still subject to sanctions by the contractor's license board.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
17:15
Is your bill still requiring a document to be signed between a contractor
Speaker 57
17:24
and a subcontractor saying that they've used E-Verify? That was Representative Clemmer's amendment that she
put forth the last time, And I think that's probably has been engrossed
in section, I think if you look on line 12
on page 2, that is where that particular amendment shows up.
So if the two contractors sign this agreement, then I think that takes care of the concern you raised last week, Representative Garner, about a contractor running E-Verify on the subs. This just
says that if the sub and the contractor sign an agreement that indicates that they did do the E-Verify, then they have the affirmative defense. And my amendment adds, after the word
system, if allowed by law.
So I think I've answered both those questions, Mr. Garner.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
18:35
Yes, sir, and I appreciate the change in the language. The contractor and subcontractor agree in writing. I think that clarified that. The new issue that is raised by this is that a subcontractor obviously could not legally sign a document had he not run E-Verify prior, I mean, within the 72 hours of hiring each employee.
So subcontractors that have a list of employees, four or five employees standing, that subcontractor may not have used E-Verify. He may not have an illegal alien in the bunch, but he can't enter into that writing, that document with a contractor because he could not have used E-Verify to verify those employees. Well, if he
Speaker 57
19:25
could not have used it because the law would not allow him to use
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
19:31
it, then he's okay. The subcontractor is, but the contractor now is back to being liable for knowledge of these employees.
Speaker 57
19:41
No, because the section of the law that deals
with this issue is the affirmative defense. The contractor's license board will still have to show that that contractor knowingly hired illegal. So that standard is still there. It's just that if you utilize a C there, then that's an affirmative defense. But, you know, if it's not utilized, then the burden is still on the contractor's board to show that it was knowingly done.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
20:16
Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I just want to, at the proper time, offer an
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
20:29
amendment. Okay. Representative Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Nichols, I'm in your corner philosophically and I'd like to vote for this, but I keep having problems arise probably because I'm not familiar with E-Verify. Your bill says that all persons offered employment must go through the E-Verify system.
What if a contractor hires a good old boy from Pea Ridge, Arkansas, and his family's been here for five generations, if they put his name in
Speaker 57
21:05
to E-Verify, what will happen? It will come
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
21:10
back as a match. So they have American citizens
Speaker 57
21:14
listed? The E-Verify system is a database that is maintained by the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security. What the e-verify system does, all employers are required to have an I-9.
Well, it takes the information from the I-9 and puts it into the e-verify system, and then instantaneously then it will come back a match or no match, and so
it's just done right then.
Speaker 73
21:42
Okay. So he can easily tell American citizen and a visitor who's here
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
21:48
legally, and if there isn't a match, then he would know that person is probably here illegally? Well, not necessarily.
Speaker 57
21:57
It could have been a problem entering the Social Security number, or it could have been a misspelled name. What it does, it sends it back to the employer, say you need to check a little bit further, make sure you did this right and that right. And sometimes that takes care of it. You know, there's just a, you know, transpose a Social Security number or misspell the name, and it will come back
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
22:21
as a non-match. So can the
Speaker 57
22:23
man hire this person? The person is hired. They've already been hired. Okay.
And then the E-Verify system will tell the employer whether there is a match or not. It doesn't, you know, E-Verify should not be used prior to hiring. Okay. And he used the
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
22:40
Pea Ridge guy on the lot? I mean, if there's a Social Security faux pas, does he have to say, well, you're hired, but I can't have you working
Speaker 57
22:51
yet? No. If it comes back a non-match, they just look at their records and see if they did everything right, you know, and maybe re-enter it.
Over 97 percent come back without any problem. And then another percent are taken care of when the employer takes a look at it to see if they did everything right in submitting the data. If it's still wrong, the employee's rights then is to challenge that and go to the Social Security Administration or whatever and find out what the problem is. And they cannot be, you know, as long as they're doing that, they cannot be terminated because of their non-match.
As long as they are trying
to rectify it, they're still
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
23:39
employed. Okay, would this contractor have a problem then proving that he went
Speaker 57
23:46
through the hoops? No, because you still have to show, the contract's license
board still have to show that they knowingly hired an illegal. That's still the standard. It's just that using the E-Verify gives the contractors a
safe harbor that if they've used that,
then they will not knowingly have hired
Speaker 88
24:26
somebody. All right. Thank you. Thank you,
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
24:31
Mr. Chair. Mr. Nichols, I have a couple of questions if I may. Help me on the second page when on line five and six so that if a contractor has no interest
annoyingly employed a worker without legal authorization, the board may suspend the contractor's certificate of license. Is this the general contractor's certificate of license, or is
it the subcontractor's certificate of license, or both, that's going to
Speaker 57
25:05
be suspended? Whoever has normally hired illegals. Now, if the contractor knows that the sub has hired illegals, They just
wink their eyes at the system.
Then both are, if they are contractors of a certain size, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the contractor's license board. So in that sense, I think when the contractor's license board looks at a case, they're all contractors. Okay. Some contractors work at subs sometimes. Sometimes they're their own contractor. So they will be looking at each individual entity that is licensed through them.
And that is, you know, I will give some recognition that the Contractors License Board may be responsible for 40% of the contractors in the state. So there is a number of contractors out there who are not under the jurisdiction of the Contractors License Board, and so they would have no authority to deal with them. But maybe we can look at some other legislation
that could expand that, but that's not on my radar screen right now.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
26:26
Don't we already have federal legislation that requires employers to not hire illegals? So the federal law provides that already? The federal law,
Speaker 57
26:39
and I think we would
all agree that we wouldn't be here today if the federal law was enforced. The federal immigration law, the biggest one is 1986, makes it a crime for employers to knowingly hire illegals.
So part of that law came up with the I-9 system. That's a sort of a verification. That is, when you hire somebody, they have to show you documentation that they are here legally. The problem with only that is that there is nothing to really verify that the documents you have seen are legitimate. And so a number of the illegals will have documents that would satisfy the I-9 requirements.
But if you go a step further and use the E-Verify, which is what Congress gave us as a tool, then it will show up that those documents may not have been proper documentation. So I will grant the position that if the federal government had been doing its job securing our borders, we would not be here today. But the federal legislation did give us a window in there to regulate our business licenses,
and that's what we're doing. That's what this bill does. Mr.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
28:09
Chair, I have some questions of the contractor's licensing board. Would it be appropriate any time this
Speaker 97
28:14
morning for us to ask them to come forward and answer some questions? They're on the list to speak after the
Speaker 99
28:20
bill is presented, and we go to the public comments. public comments. They're already on the list and they've already signed up to speak to the committee. Thank you, sir. I'll wait until then. Thank you. Are you
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
28:34
through, Representative Tyler? Yes, sir. Thank you. Representative Klemmer? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Nichols. I have a statement that I guess I wanted to make for clarification purposes and then see if you would agree. I mean, And you've used my name a couple of times in saying that this is my amendment that I offered. And I just think, again, for clarifications, we should say this is not exactly the amendment that is offered
because the amendment I offered last week did not have E-Verify in it. It just said verify. Now, you and I together have agreed to put this in. But for the committees, for sake of what we talked about last week, this is not precisely the amendment that was offered last week. We had to do some other tweaking, and in the process of tweaking, we put the E-Verify in. And I agreed to that. But for clarity's sake of what we did last week, I wanted to see if you would agree with that assessment.
Speaker 57
29:41
I would agree that you submitted a proposed amendment, and then you and I negotiated the document that
you had before you now. is not exactly the same as what you had put before the committee last week.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
30:01
Okay. Thank you for that. Representative Hobbs. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Mr. Nichols, as we talked about, I like the idea that you're presenting. However, I'm wondering about the practicality of it.
If E-Verify can only be used within that 72-hour window of hiring an employee, what happens with current employees? That's why
Speaker 57
30:21
I think the amendment that I just put on, if allowed by law, you
know, if it's allowed by law to do your current employees, you can do them. If it's not allowed by law, you don't have to do them. But remember, that is in the sections dealing with affirmative defenses.
The overriding issue is whether a contractor
normally hired illegals. That's still the question. Okay. So if it
Speaker 112
30:53
is not allowed by law, then how can you have the affirmative – what was
Speaker 115
31:02
the wording you used? Affirmative defense. Yes,
Speaker 57
31:05
affirmative defense. Then it goes back to the question, did they knowingly hire illegals? That's still the standard.
And then the contractor license board has the authority to investigate, hold hearings, and determine if
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
31:21
they knowingly hired. Okay. So if a contractor or a subcontractor doesn't ask, then does that mean he didn't
Speaker 57
31:31
knowingly hire an illegal? If the contractor and the sub sign this agreement, then the contractor is basically off the hook.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
31:41
Okay. I'm still unclear about the subcontractor.
Speaker 57
31:45
Well, the subcontractor would have to fall under the jurisdiction of the contractor's license board for them to have jurisdiction. So there may not be any sanction under my bill against those contractors who do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Contractors License Board. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Cheatham. Mr. Chair,
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
32:17
Representative Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple questions. And Representative Nichols, your issue is knowingly hiring illegals. Correct. But the method to
Speaker 57
32:35
do that, the verification method, is the e-verify. The standard
is the I-9 standard. And the E-Verify is the next step to show that the workers are here appropriately.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
32:56
And you're asking the E-Verify be instituted as a method? As a method for
Speaker 57
33:03
the contractors to have an affirmative defense that they did not knowingly
hire illegals. Okay. I've got a
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
33:11
couple questions about E-Verify itself. First of all, does a business have to subscribe to
Speaker 57
33:21
understanding, it's a very simple process. You go on the web.
It's a user-friendly system. You, as an employer, you sign up, I guess you're given an ID, and then when you, three days, I think three days of hiring somebody, then you run the e-verify, and it's an instantaneous response back. Is
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
33:48
there a subscription fee? No. And whose rule is
Speaker 57
33:53
the 72-hour window? That's part of the E-Verify, I guess,
the 1996 legislation, that it is mandatory
for certain federal contracts to contractors to do that, and it's a 72-hour window. Okay. Thank you,
Speaker 130
34:22
Mr. Representative Wilkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Nichols, I
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
34:27
have a, in reading this, I have a little bit of problem trying to figure out who exactly is the contractor's board responsible for investigating,
or do they have any authority to do that, or who is in charge of enforcing this?
Speaker 57
34:49
It's part of the jurisdiction of the contractor's license board. The act
specifically gives them, I don't think they necessarily need it. I think they have the authority now to investigate any contractor if some type of charge is made against that contractor. I assume they follow the Administrative Procedures Act. as far as if they bring charges, there's an opportunity to have a hearing.
And if the contractor does not like the result of that hearing before their peers, then it can be appealed to circuit court under the Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act. But remember, all they are dealing with is
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
35:31
the license of that contractor. One more question. One more. Okay. In reading page 2, line 4, it tells what's required, and it said the board may. Is there other options available to the board, or do they have to totally follow this law right here?
Speaker 57
35:51
I think they have discretion, you know, depending upon the severity of the action. You know, they may suspend or they may revoke. It's enabling legislation. It's not that it says they shall suspend or they shall revoke. They have the authority to hear all the evidence and come up with the appropriate sanction. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Garner.
Speaker 141
36:24
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer an amendment. Let's hear your amendment.
Speaker 98
36:31
You have a copy? I do. Staff will pass it out. Staff
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
36:53
will pass out the amendment. and let's give the committee a chance to look at it. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I can summarize this as it's being passed out and expedite things, I believe.
You have the floor, Representative Garner. Thank you, sir. Members of
the committee, this amendment puts the option for subcontractors to use the federal I-9 form, and Representative Nichols is right. This is the issue as to whether the federal I-9 form will be used as an affirmative defense. So the very lines that the previous amendment, which we adopted, addressed,
my amendment would put the words or federal form I-9 into the bill. My reason for offering this amendment is the 72-hour window basically says to a contractor who's acting as a sub who may not have used E-Verify in going through their existing employees that they are able to show federal I-9 forms. It is currently in use.
I believe that by putting into this law federal E-Verify system or federal I-9 that we begin to move in the direction of making people accountable for who they hire and providing documentation for that without the stigma or the problem of contractors hiring subcontractors who already have existing employees who have been hired
and E-Verify was not used, and they may all be citizens of the United States, but the contractor would not be able to sign an agreement with that contractor, the subcontractor saying that he had used E-Verify as an affirmative defense. That option is removed. So I would put this before the committee to consider using that this allows subcontractors to use the federal I-9 form as an affirmative defense.
Speaker 57
39:17
Any questions from the committee? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. My concern with this amendment is that you keep the status quo. This is brought this out in my meeting yesterday afternoon with the Contractors Association and the representative from the Contractor's License Board because a federal I-9 is a requirement right now for all employers.
That is part of the law. So saying that doing what the law requires you to do is an affirmative defense, you're not going to stop the hiring of any illegals if you adopt this amendment because that's what we operate under now. So I consider this a poison pill type of amendment, and I will be voting against this amendment because then if this is just giving people cover to say they have voted
to stem the tide of the illegals working in this state, this amendment is a sham because this amendment only deals with what is already required by all employers. So if it's already required by all employers and that hasn't stopped the flood of illegals in this state, then you are just allowing the status quo to continue and allowing employers that are covered by this bill
to continue to employ illegals. any questions
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
41:03
garner well no sir i wouldn't because what we're adopting here is both
language e-verify and federal i-9 form so i think it's moving in the direction that you're seeking if you want
Speaker 57
41:15
to put uh remove the word or and put and, I would agree with it, but not making it optional. You are just keeping
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
41:26
the status quo. I understand your objection. The
issue that I'm raising is that you have a 72-hour window to use E-Verify, and we have lots of subcontractors out there who do not, have not use that, and
Speaker 55
41:44
they already have a standing list of employees. And I think
Speaker 57
41:49
my amendment took care of that concern if allowed by law. But there's
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
41:55
no way that that subcontractor
can enter into an agreement with a contractor
to say that they used E-Verify for their
Speaker 57
42:05
employees. Those subs, as you call them, have to do due diligence to comply
with all the laws. And if it requires getting some assistance from a payroll service agency to take care of the paperwork, which a lot of them use now for figuring their payroll, then that's all it takes. But if you're going to give it either or, either E-Verify or I-9, then you're not doing anything to stop the flood of illegals in this state.
Speaker 59
42:37
Well, I would disagree with that. I don't view it as
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
42:43
an out. I view it as an option, and I think we all agree that we want to stem the tide of illegals in this state. But at the same time, I have a little bit of resistance in putting burdens on subcontractors. I mean, I envision a man that has two guys in his employment, and they hang sheetrock. and he may have had those fellows working for him for years.
He hasn't used E-Verify. He has documentation I-9 and a subcontractor might be, or a contractor might be reluctant to do the work to protect himself and that subcontractor can't legally enter into an agreement with that contractor saying he's used E-Verify because he hasn't. So, I think my amendment moves in the direction that you're seeking and raises the awareness, and I think it's a good amendment.
Speaker 57
43:47
Well, Mr. Garner, when I was negotiating with the contractors yesterday evening, and this was put before me, and I said this was in effect nullify the entire bill, or worse that effect, and the general contractor agreed. So even though you think it moves us in a direction, they know that it does not, that it just keeps the status quo. I haven't had that conversation. I have a contractor here who would like to speak in favor of this bill.
If we can move to him, Mr.
Speaker 99
44:24
Chairman. The amendments before that. We have an amendment on the table before that. We'll have to get to your witness
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
44:31
a little later when we get these amendments taken squared away, Representative Nichols. Okay. Thank
Speaker 99
44:35
you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Hobbs, we are speaking on the amendment, right? I
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
44:40
hope so. I'm going to try. Because I would like to have some information before I vote on this amendment, and so you can tell me whether or not it's a proper question.
But since the line 17 says the board shall promulgate rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, does that mean the board can set an effective date for this so that subcontractors know all new hires have to be verified to take care of that 72-hour window?
Speaker 57
45:15
My understanding that the board has rulemaking of power now, and in their adjudication of
these cases, I think they can take those factors in consideration. They can come up with rules on how to implement this law. That's why that sentence is there. So I think the contractors have that authority, and when they testify, you can ask them that. So they
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
45:38
could possibly grandfather in current? I think they have the authority
Speaker 57
45:42
to issue rules and regulations regarding the implementation of the act. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hutchison.
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
45:54
I guess my question, Mr. Chairman, is somewhat on the same line. Ms. Nichols, I don't see
an emergency clause. Does this mean this will not take effect until July? I believe,
Speaker 57
46:06
what is it, 90 days after we adjourn? So it could be up in, you know, past July 1st, you know, just depending on when we adjourn. Thank
Speaker 99
46:19
you. We have an amendment, a motion on an amendment. What's the pleasure of the committee?
Representative Klemmer, I'm sorry. I didn't recognize
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
46:30
you. Just, I don't know that this is a question, but I think it is a fact that maybe is an impartial answer to what Representative Hobbs asked. I mean, we currently have 72 hours to get I-9s done also. So the 72 hours is not different for E-Verify. The I-9 is also required in the first 72 hours of employment.
Speaker 57
46:51
Thank you. I believe the I-9 is required before the offer even.
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
46:57
I'm not sure about that. I don't think there's a penalty. I think you're right. It isn't required in advance, but I think there's a 72-hour grace period or something. I could be wrong. It could be, but anyway, that's the. But it is
Speaker 57
47:08
not any longer than the E-Verify. I don't think so.
Speaker 25
47:13
And I'm not sure if it's a pre-hire or after-hire. They have to provide the documentation, but they do have to require the documentation. Representative Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
47:28
Representative Nichols and maybe Representative Garner, would you all possibly be interested in maybe specifically stating that if you use E-Verify on new hires and you have an I-9 for existing hires, that that's an affirmative defense?
Speaker 28
47:44
Do you think that would be something that would improve this amendment possibly? It would clarify, and it would
Speaker 91
47:51
keep the E-Verify system there going forward. Because
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
47:55
it seems like your concern is the existing employees
and the fact that it doesn't sound like you can use E-Verify on an existing
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
48:07
employee. Is that that that's yes, that's a substantial part of my concern is
that there's no there's no ability for an affirmative defense of signing an agreement for someone who has had existing employees. So
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
48:24
maybe there's the possibility we could just specifically say if you use E-Verify from this date forward
and you have an I-9 for your existing employees, do you think that would be a possible
Speaker 57
48:39
compromise? That's a possible compromise, and that would have
us moving in the right direction. Okay. Thank you. and I would if Mr. Garner is agreeable a lot of this stuff could have been taken care of if I had been notified before the meeting that there is going to be an amendment but I will promise
that if this bill gets out that I will have it amended on the Senate side to reflect what Representative Dr. Barrett,
as you say, as you said, if Representative Garner is agreeable. Representative Steele, you're next
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
49:26
on the list. Mr. Barrett has covered
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
49:30
my question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Representative Kellen.
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
49:37
Mr. Nichols, let me ask you a question. If I'm a subcontractor and I'm out on a job, and I don't have but one or two employees, and one of them walks off the job, and I need that, it's costing the taxpayers money for me to do a job. And I need some help, and a guy walks up and says, I'll be glad to work for you. How am I going to verify him at that point? You have 72 hours to verify. I have 72 hours. Yes. I'll be done in 72 hours
Then I think you're home free Mr. Cowley
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
50:19
Thank you We have a motion of amendment By Representative Garner We need a What's the
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
50:24
will of the committee Representative Garner Do you have a Motion Move to pass on the amendment We have a motion to do pass on the amendment from Representative Garner. Is there any more discussions from the committee?
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
50:44
Representative Clemmer? I just want to be clear what we're voting on. We're voting on Representative Garner's amendment as written or as
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
50:56
altered by the language. As is written, unless Representative Garner amends his motion. It is a motion to
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
51:02
do pass as amended, as it's written as present. Thank you. Unless Representative Garner wants to change that wording. You said do pass as amended.
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
51:27
Yes, ma'am. As written. Okay. As written. what's the uh all in favor of the motion as written say aye any opposed no the amendment has failed representative garner okay we are taking we have uh is any other questions on that amendment? Do you want to make any changes? Okay. Representative, are you ready
to discuss the bill as the original amendment that you presented? Yes,
Speaker 57
51:55
Mr. Chairman, and I have a contractor here who would like to tell his story about what's happened to his business. He'll introduce himself to the committee. Yes,
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
52:06
sir. Will you introduce yourself and where you're from, sir, and you have
John Hannibal
Unverified
52:11
the mic. Yes, sir. My name is John Hannibal. I live in northwest Arkansas in a small little town called Oden, Arkansas, which Mr. Bell is our representative there.
But I'm not a politician, and I don't know a lot, but I do do construction work and subcontract work. It says, I'm a 50-year-old man of faith, and being a man of faith, I can stand here before you and ask you to help and support Bill 1013. I was born in San Diego, California in 1960 and moved to Arkansas and was raised 90% of my life as being an adult. I must follow the rules that the government has laid down.
The most important to me is putting God first, my family second, and my country third. I am married with a stepbrother to which we are raising. He will be 16 in March. He will be wanting his first car, but I will not be able to afford to buy it for him. My family depends on me to support them in a manner in which they can feel safe and secure, but at this time I cannot fulfill my duties because of my trade as a subcontractor and a craftsman
on which I can frame, hang sheetrock, paint, lay tile, roof, along with siding. My job is in serious danger with all the illegal immigrants taking my jobs in the construction field. The job sites I have checked on for jobs that are filled with workers who cannot speak English and the contractor is not on site nor the subcontractor. For example, when we were doing roofings, I used to do a one-layer tear-off roof on a walk-on roof
for $60 square starting as it progressed up as the pitch got higher the amount of layers of roofing the price went up well the illegals will come up there now it doesn't matter if it's five layers four layers which is not really supposed to but they'll do it for $55 a square I can't compete with that the excuse me illegal immigrants will tear off $55 square I
cannot compete with the price my hourly wage is usually thirteen to eighteen dollars per hour illegals will work from seven dollars and fifty cents to ten dollars an hour I cannot pay my bills and support my family on their wages I I cannot condemn any man for trying to support his family, but the law-abiding taxpayer American cannot compete with the immigrants that work for less and do not have to have work visas or any credentials to work in America.
They must follow the same rules as I have. After all, though all of us live in a democratic government, they have to follow society's rules. This not only affects me, but also the hard-working people who have the right to work here. The taxes alone they do not pay affects our state deficits. Our contractors can't enforce the subcontractors in several ways, with the state IDs, Social Security cards, passports, green cards, work visas, birth records.
When our American applies for a job, we are required to show a driver's license, security cards, which are verified through proper channels. The contractors or subcontractors can hire a company to verify their right to work in our state and our country. The wage they have in our American is a fair wage. After all, they have to take out taxes and insurance. Most subcontractors will bid a job, then hire illegals at a lower hourly
wage than he would our American, mostly in framing, sheetrock. I would not do this. After all, a man is worth his hire. That's, ladies and gentlemen, that's about what I got to say. I just don't, I'm 50 years old, and I cannot go out here. We can go out to West Little Rock and different places now, and I'll supply the gas, even buy you lunch but we'll go on job sites and we will not see an American on that job site
and it's it's not fair when I have to travel a hundred and something miles to find work when I get to the place that there's no work for me to have so I cannot support my family I've never in my life taken anything from the government such as food stamps welfare or nothing But at this point in my life, I might just have to because I cannot provide
Speaker 5
57:15
for my family. Representative, Mr. Hamill, would you take questions?
Yes, sir. Thank you. Representative Callahan, did you have a
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
57:24
question to the – Yes, sir. You said, if you hire somebody, what is the process you go
John Hannibal
Unverified
57:29
through? I make them fill out job applications, and I take a driver's license, look for social security numbers and try to verify as best I can
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
57:38
through that. But as anyone else would do, you'd take their driver's license and social security card. Well,
John Hannibal
Unverified
57:43
sir, I'm not a man with a computer. I do not know how to use a computer. Thank you.
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
57:52
Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir, for coming down today. We appreciate it. You spoke in favor of the bill. we have a list of interested parties and first on the list against the bill is Greg
Speaker 5
58:09
Crow are you here will y'all if y'all move out
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
58:14
of the way we'll let the Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board come to the table if you would would you
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
58:25
state your name and who you're with for the record please sir
Speaker 190
58:31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Scott Kopis. I'm the current chairman of the Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board.
Greg Crow
Unverified
58:39
Mr. Chairman, my name is Greg Crow. I'm the administrator of the Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board.
Speaker 5
58:45
Welcome to committee today, and y'all are here to speak against House
Speaker 194
58:52
you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the committee. I also want to thank Representative Nichols for visiting with us yesterday evening.
And we're here, even though I am a contractor, I'm here speaking specifically on how the licensing board would address this law if it was passed. We agree with the issue. We told Representative Nichols yesterday, we agree with the issue, and we know that the issue is out there. And he's already stated that part of the problem is that we only have jurisdiction of less than 40 percent of the contractors in the state of Arkansas.
And most of those are on the commercial side. The issue does exist in the residential side, but we have 8,146 licensed contractors as of yesterday. We do not, by law, are required to license residential subs. We're not required by law to license general contractors in the residential industry that strictly do renovation work.
And there's no volume amount on that. Someone, a general, could do $12 million renovation, and they're not licensed under the law. And currently, on the commercial side, any general or sub that does work under $20,000 is not required by law. That's the reason we have very little jurisdiction on contractors. The second issue that we have concern with is the proposed law finds some if there's two.
It says that we may find them in violation, and we can only do two things. They've got to admit to guilt, and they have to be found guilty by another agency or in court because we do not have the authority to ask or see an I-9. We can ask if we cannot see it. We can ask, did you fill out an I-9, and they can say yes or no. Or did you do e-verify? They can say yes or no, but unless the Department of Homeland Security gives us the authority
to do that, we cannot see that information. So if I was a contractor, I'd probably say yes to both questions. So just looking at it from a board, how we would address those issues, the only way we'd ever find somebody in violation is if they admitted to the guilt or if they were found in violation by another agency. Assuming that the law, and this has been discussed, and we'll be open for any questions you want
to ask, assuming that the law is passed and 90 days after Sonny died, all employees that currently exist in our industry are exempt. So we're only talking about employees that are hired after the law goes into effect. So the vast majority will never be able to say, yes, I did, and you verify in the industry currently right now. And I know this is a temporary situation.
Nobody's hiring. We have currently have the authority under a different part of our law, which deals with misconduct. In fact, Mr. Crow will visit with you a little later about a current contractor that we're looking at now, under the law, we can fine, we can suspend their license, we can revoke their license, and we can issue a cease and desist order.
Under this proposed law, it appears that we may only revoke their license or suspend their license. In the construction industry, that's basically a death sentence. Because if we do either one, they cannot bid,
Speaker 192
1:03:04
and they're basically out of business. The last
Speaker 194
1:03:15
thing, and we just heard it from the contractor that spoke for the bill, we
just ran a check. We don't think he's licensed. You may have asked that question, and that's no problem because he probably doesn't have to be licensed. But the people you're asking us to regulate don't fall under our jurisdiction, and that's the biggest problem the licensing board has. Now, we have an alternative to solve this problem down the line, but it's not by this bill.
Speaker 197
1:03:46
Mr. Crowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Trying to go on to pause this side, we certainly recognize that there is a problem out there.
The only way I can think of, and I've thought about this for two years and plus to resolve this issue, is not with this bill. It would be to, and this probably isn't very palatable, but if we license everybody, then we can check when you apply for a license on your status. Alcoholic Beverage Control does that. They won't give you a liquor permit. They check to see if you're here legally. You don't have to be a citizen. You can do all the process. if everybody on that job site had to have a license
or you couldn't be there, and then we could check that. To ask us to go in and try to determine, one, if a certain employee is legal or not, two, if the employer did his paperwork or not, we're not allowed to see that paperwork. I've checked with multiple different attorneys in the employment law area. They tell me I cannot ask to see. an I-9 or an E-Verify, and the contractor can't even volunteer to show it to him.
If he does, he's in violation of federal law. That's the problem on the enforcement side. It's not that there's not a problem. It's not that we don't want to attack it. I just don't believe. I don't know. Again, unless some contractor tells me I did it, I don't know how I'm going to prove it. We do have one current investigation going on where this is part of the allegations. The only reason we are able to even touch on proving it is there was an employee who got mad, and he was actually a cousin of the contractor who got mad and left the company,
taking records with him that weren't I-9 records, that there were other things that will indicate that they forged Social Security numbers. So we are certainly looking into that. That's not the only issue from this contractor or other issues as well. But I can't see his I-9. I can't see his E-Verify. My investigator, unless the Department of Homeland Security authorizes my agency to ask for those, they can't, and contractors can't even voluntarily give them to us. So that's my concern. We're open for questions, Mr. Jim.
Speaker 157
1:05:59
We're open for questions. Representative Wilkins, you have
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:06:04
a question? I did have. I think Mr. Crow answered them. I was concerned with how they would investigate any allegation of someone hiring illegals, what authority they would have and what investigative arm of their, I'm assuming they must have one if they're going to do this. So how would they investigate that? We do have investigators.
Speaker 197
1:06:30
I have five field investigators currently right now. They're used to looking at contractors and subcontractors and figuring out who's a subcontractor and things. That's what they do. They're not used to looking at immigration issues. If we had the legal authority from Homeland Security to then, you know, to one, make the determination that employee X was illegal, and two, then look into the I-9s or the E-Verifies or whatever to see what the employer did to get them there, we could do that. But I don't believe we had a legal authority.
And also, my experience in dealing and talking with the contractors, most of the illegals who are on the job site aren't employees of anybody. So you wipe out all illegal employees. You haven't touched the problem. The illegals who are on the job site, as my understanding, are independent contractors. And, again, we're not licensing them. And a contractor can't fill out an I-9 or E-Verify an independent contractor. He can do that for his employees. you can't do that on a subcontractor.
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:07:37
Mr. Chairman. Representative Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Crow, is what you're testifying before the committee is that even the amendment that I tried to run, and we're talking about affirmative defense, my amendment, Representative Nichols' amendment, there's no affirmative defense because no one can present you with the records that this bill addresses legally.
Is that what you're saying, that you cannot legally look at these records? There is no affirmative defense? That is absolutely
Speaker 197
1:08:13
my understanding. I'm sure we'll have to ask the attorney general for an official opinion, but I've not talked to any labor law attorney who's told me different. I've talked to probably ten, and every one of them has told me the same answer, that we can't and the
Speaker 153
1:08:27
owners and the contractors can't give it to us. So are
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:08:31
you testifying? It's not just a reluctance here. You legally can't do what this bill is asking you to do.
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:08:37
That is my understanding, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for coming. There's no other questions signed up for you all at this moment, but we have on the list Mr. Dow Worsham. Worsham, speaking for the bill, if you would state your name and where you're from, sir, for the record, you have the floor.
Dal Worsham
Unverified
1:09:08
My name is Dal Worsham, and I'm from North LaRock. I can
Speaker 207
1:09:14
only offer my opinion and my concerns as a small business. I own a commercial cleaning company and lawn care company that I believe in an article Monday, Mr. Wright with the NFIB made reference to concerns in the future of cleaning companies and property management companies, and I'd like to say something about that. But I also own a small decorative concrete company that does have a license with the Arkansas Contractors Association.
And in that company, I only have three employees. and that company's existed for about 10 years now my cleaning company has existed for about 25 years and the problem that I have as a business is competing with not only competitors that are knowingly hiring illegals whether they're illegal or not they're not a legal business and paying them on the
side, and they're not having to pay taxes as I do, they're not having to bear the expense and the burden and time to verify that these employees are legal, they're legal businesses, they're paying taxes, and it's creating an issue for us to go out there and play the game that the government has told us we have to play about verifying all these issues with making sure they're legal and it's it's creating a burden on us just like the
contractor that testified I'm a larger company and we try to play by the rules and our competitors are not and there's nothing out there to prevent them or punish them for not playing by the rules and I also have a problem with the companies that are hiring the contractor they don't care and they don't seem to want to verify themselves that the contractor has hired legal employees and are playing by the same rules because they're getting it at a discount.
And so now I'm fighting competitors that are not playing by the same rules and dealing with customers that are hiring them because, bottom line, they get it at a less price. And so I agree with the bill as it is, but I also would like to see some additional of ways of enforcing companies and customers and contractors to be legal and show proof that they're legal.
Again, just saying you are, nobody follows up. Nobody verifies that what I'm charging at $20 an hour and someone else is charging at $12 an hour is because they're not paying any taxes. And, again, I spend a lot of money with an HR department verifying all this to play by the rules that I feel, you know, we all should be playing by.
Speaker 158
1:12:21
So, again, I'm for the bill. And if you have any questions of me as a small business, I'll be more than happy to answer.
Speaker 145
1:12:30
Yes, sir, we have a question. Representative Bernard?
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:12:41
Thank you, sir, for being here today. Let me just clarify, were you testifying for the bill or against
the bill? I am for the bill. Okay, I was a little confused by some of your remarks, but let me ask you a question with regard, do you pay unemployment taxes on all of the employees you directly employ?
Yes, ma'am. and do you use subcontractors mostly no ma'am I
Speaker 207
1:13:13
think I have one subcontractor that does window cleaning we verify that he pays his taxes we verify that he has insurance I am a contractor that uses all employees because I get more control and, again, playing by the rules.
My cleaning company is too large a company to be exposed to getting an audit and finding out that I'm not playing by the rules and the penalty that I'll have to be forced
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:13:56
effort and expense to make sure that our employees are legal. So, in your opinion, sir, it's just good business practice.
Those things that you're doing is just good business practices, right? Yes, ma'am. And legal practice.
Speaker 207
1:14:10
Yes, sir. We're required to. Thank you, sir. But nobody seems to enforce that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Representative Hutchins, do you have a motion? there's a
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:14:33
motion on the floor you have a substitute motion to adjourn for till 1230
because you have a an event y'all have an
Speaker 73
1:14:41
event planned yes sir i don't know if
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
1:14:44
i should make any motion or just a suggestion that uh the women's caucus has some um obligations we have to meet from about 11.30 to 12.30, so I hated for all the women just to get up and leave at 11.30, but so we were wondering if we could come back and start our meeting again at 12.30. Is that a motion?
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:15:06
Is that a motion? A motion? Is that a motion? I'm sorry. A substitute a
Speaker 216
1:15:13
motion? No, it's just a request. I don't want to
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:15:17
override. It's not debatable. We ought to have a vote
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:15:22
of the committee, but we are going to finish this issue
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:15:26
today. We've got people who have come a long way. They had to come down before, and we're going to conclude this bill today sometime before we leave today.
So it's either now, after lunch, after the session, but we're going to complete this
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:15:44
bill because these citizens have been down here twice, and we're not going to ask them to come back again.
Speaker 217
1:15:50
Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Would you like a motion to recess from 1130
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:15:54
to 1230? I'll take that motion. Representative McLean, can you have a comment? There's
Speaker 218
1:16:01
a rules meeting at noon for anyone on the committee besides myself. That's a conflict as well. I just wanted the chairman to be aware of that.
Speaker 73
1:16:11
Will they be, excuse me, will the rules be finished by 1230? Well, the
Speaker 220
1:16:22
Rules Committee has four agenda items at this point.
Speaker 27
1:16:30
Representative Rogers, did you have a question? A
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:16:33
statement to make that the Joint Energy is scheduled to meet this afternoon immediately upon adjournment, And it would, and that's a previously scheduled meeting.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:16:43
Representative Bernard. I'm going to, Mr. Chair, I know that there are many planned meetings. I'm, basically, I would ask
Mr. Cheatham to withdraw their motion. I think that this is an important issue. And those of us who feel compelled to stay will stay. And those of us who feel compelled to leave will leave. And I think the business of the committee is important. and needs to be taken care of. And as a gesture to all of the people that have come
and those that have come back, I feel compelled that we must
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:17:26
do our business. Representative Cheatham. Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was detained. I think Representative Pernard has asked me to withdraw my motion. Does that mean the ladies are going to stay until? Mr. Chair, excuse me.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:17:44
That means those who feel compelled to go will leave and those who do not will
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
1:17:49
stay. I see seven ladies in red. I don't know where all those will go, and I see two not in red. Does that mean seven are going to go and two are going to stay? I'm sorry, eight in red. Mr. Tiedemann, it would help if you weren't colorblind. I'll withdraw my motion, Mr. Chairman, but I agree with what you say. We need to finish this today, but I do not want to finish this conversation with a committee that has nine people left on it when we know what the outcome will be at that point.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:18:17
I concur with that. So would you withdraw on your motion? We withdraw. Okay. Rep. Klemmer, do you have
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:18:25
a question? Could we establish a time limit? That might help everyone. I mean, we have debated this already for a couple of days. All we
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:18:33
need is a non-debatable motion. I don't have a specific. I
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
1:18:36
guess my suggestion would be for the chair to set a time limit. Representative Rogers.
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
1:18:42
I move that we limit debate to 10 minutes
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:18:45
per side. Non-debatable. All in favor of limiting debate on either side to 10 minutes.
In favor, say aye. Aye.
Speaker 30
1:18:55
Any opposed? So moved. Representative
Speaker 57
1:18:58
Nichols. I'd just like for the staff to notify me when there's three minutes left because that also
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:19:05
includes my time for closing. Yes, sir, and we'll do that.
Speaker 5
1:19:13
Okay, we have on the list now is the Dan Wright against the bill.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:19:27
all right sir well you have ten minutes so it's up to the committee on
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:19:39
how long they want to ask questions if you would when you sit
Speaker 39
1:19:43
down would you state your name and who you're with and you have the floor
Speaker 234
1:19:51
my name is Scott McDaniel I'm the current chairman of the associated builders and contractors with me today day is Bruce Cross. He is our chapter attorney. A little bit about the association, 200 member
companies in Arkansas, 23,000 nationwide, employed 2 million people. Most of our complaints about this bill are technical, so I will turn that over to our attorney, Bruce Cross. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 236
1:20:13
Chairman and representatives. I'm fortunate enough to know Jim Nichols for a number of years, and he and I go back a long way, and I have a lot of respect for Jim. I have spent a lot of time over the years working on immigration bills and immigration reform on behalf of ABC nationally.
And our firm, our law firm, Cross Gunner, Wetherspoon, and Gousers does a significant immigration practice. So with regard to this particular bill, I concur with Representative Nichols that there is a lot of illegal immigration that occurs not only in this state but in a lot of states. The problem is is that this bill piecemeal addresses this particular issue. It's addressing just a very small subsection. Some of the witnesses that have testified already will not even be covered by this bill. What happens to the group if you do enforce this bill?
Where are those illegals going to go? Are they going to flee the state? No, they're not going to flee the state. They're going to go into the hospitality industry, they're going to go to manufacturing, they're going to go every place else. So what you're attempting to try to accomplish is not going to be accomplished by the use of this bill. In addition, the first provisions right out of the chute of this bill have significant legal problems. They talk right in terms of workers without legal authorization to work in the United States. What is the definition that's used?
It's the I-9 definition that's used, but it does state valid and appropriate documentation. What's valid and appropriate? Who makes that determination? If you start to do that as an individual contractor, you violate the law. It's discrimination, and you can be sued immediately for doing so. You have to accept the documents as they exist. E-Verify is not an answer either, gentlemen and ladies.
It is not at all. In fact, the most recent studies that I've been looking at, which came out in December from the GAO and from the Homeland Security have indicated federal agencies have taken steps to improve e-verify, but significant challenges remain. E-verify is not an answer. In fact, in most of the cases where there are questions of whether or not there's compliance with an e-verify situation, in fact, 54 percent of the cases when they go back up, the documentation
when they come back still allows an illegal to continue to work. The documentation does not support it. The studies have shown that and proved that over the years. E-Verify, unfortunately, is a flawed system. It does not have the fix that it needs to have. The federal government needs to spend the money to really do the job properly, but where we go through and we try to piecemeal it, as we're trying to do in this situation, it does not solve the issues in question.
Many of the other comments that were made earlier by the Contractors Licensing Board are right on in terms of what their authority is in terms of looking at these documents. They don't have that authority to do that. Unless they get Homeland Security's approval, they do not have the authority to even do it. If you want to risk putting yourself at risk from a constitutional standpoint, from a preemption of federal law standpoint, and from a lawsuit standpoint, pass the bill. but I strongly would recommend against taking any action with regard to this particular piece of legislation.
The concept is a great one. I agree 100% with Representative Nichols on that concept, but this does not solve the problem. It only adds to the problem or moves it to some other industry within this state. That's all you're doing, and I thank you for that. And
Speaker 234
1:23:58
I'd like to add one thing, too. One thing that Representative Nichols kept discussing was it's return to the status quo, return to the status quo, return to the status quo if we use I-9s in the language. I disagree with that completely and primarily because this issue is about enforcement.
You are expanding the ability of enforcement to a state level. Right now that enforcement is solely federal. So by giving the power to the licensing board to enforce I-9 compliance, you are actually improving the current situation. So I just wanted to correct that, and I think Representative Gardner's amendment would have been appropriate personally. Are you all willing to take questions? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Representative Haupt?
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:24:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there any department or agency within this state that has the authority to address the issue of undocumented workers working in our state? Not in my opinion. Not in my opinion. Without the authority
Speaker 243
1:24:59
of the Homeland Security Division, they would not have that authority to take that action. Thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 57
1:25:10
Mr. Chair. Representative Nichols. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Cross, thank you for those kind remarks. When was the first time you saw the first draft of this bill?
Speaker 236
1:25:20
Unfortunately, it was about two days ago. Okay.
Speaker 57
1:25:22
Were you aware that your law partner saw
the early draft of the bill? I was not aware. I'm sorry. I've been out of town. I was
Speaker 236
1:25:30
out of town all last week, so I was not aware. Were you aware that your law partner
Speaker 57
1:25:35
said if I would accept a particular amendment that they would not oppose my bill? I have no idea what my law partner may
Speaker 236
1:25:42
or may not have said, but I don't know who that might have been. Mr. Gunner. Okay. Okay.
And I assume he was talking probably on behalf of a different association. But
Speaker 57
1:25:55
so your law firm, maybe not you personally, but your law firm did have a copy of the bill, and they did offer an amendment, and I accepted their amendment and put it on. and now some of the people who it was implied would not oppose the bill are now opposing the bill. Would you agree with that? Well, I can't agree
Speaker 236
1:26:12
with that because, number one, I can't speak for what Mr. Gunner said or didn't say with regard to his representation to you. You know as well as I do.
You've known Russell as well as I do for a long time, and he was speaking on behalf of his association. I'm speaking on behalf of the Association of Builders and Contractors, which specifically is addressed by this bill. You're not addressing the hospitality industry. You're not addressing manufacturing industry. You're not addressing, in fact, any other industry other than construction in this whole bill. No other group, despite the fact that you made the statement that we're trying to stamp out illegal aliens in the state of Arkansas. Okay, what's the number of contractors that we're dealing with in the state of Arkansas?
The Contractors Licensing Board talked about 8,000. That's it. That's it. How many small businesses do we have in the state of Arkansas? How many large businesses do we have in the state of Arkansas? What about all of
Speaker 241
1:27:07
them? Sir, sir, you're kind of drifting off of this bill. If you would kind
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:27:12
of bring it back down to addressing the bill specifically, we would appreciate it because you have a time limit, and we'd like to get
Speaker 196
1:27:19
everybody an opportunity to have their say. Thank you. I
Speaker 243
1:27:22
apologize, and I didn't mean to get sort of wound up,
but it's an issue over which I do
Speaker 236
1:27:29
have a personal stake because I have spent so much time on immigration issues for such a long period of time. And I do agree and concur with Mr. Nichols on the issue itself. I just do not see the viability of this in the construction industry for this particular bill. That's what I'm saying. Representative
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
1:27:51
Garner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for Mr. McDaniel. You made this statement that you liked the amendment that I put forth,
but it was the testimony of the contractor's board that my amendment, that they do not have the legal authority to look at these documents. In other words, under federal law, their testimony was, as I understood it, that they do not have the legal authority to enforce this bill, my amendment, any of the
amendments that have been put because they cannot look at those documents. Do you concur with that?
Speaker 234
1:28:30
I have a general problem with illegal laws, yes. I mean, what I meant was when I said that I liked your amendment on an island, it is enforceable, et cetera, et cetera, I'd be okay with it. But with it being uneforceable, being illegal, as Mr. Cross and Greg has both testified to, And, well, no, we're not going to support a law that's illegal. No. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Garner, are you there?
Speaker 248
1:29:02
Director Entrepreneur. You know, when you
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:29:08
get to lawyers talking, you all get to talking about what's legal and what's not. I just want to know currently, do you believe that it is the state's business to be involved in dealing with illegal immigrants? Do I personally believe that?
Do you believe, as a lawyer, professional lawyer, assume those two words can go together, that I apologize, sir. That's okay. I'd probably say the same
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
1:29:47
you. That illegal immigration is the business of a state. Yes or no? I'd say no. Excuse
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:29:57
me, Reverend Bernard? Yes, sir. The ten minutes has expired on this side.
I yield to the chair. Thank you, ma'am. Thank
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:30:07
you, sir, for appearing today. Thank you very much. Is there anyone that has in the audience that wants to speak for the bill at this time? Anyone
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:30:20
that would like to speak for the bill? If not,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:30:25
Representative Nichols, are you prepared to close?
Speaker 57
1:30:44
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank the committee for being here.
I know we've lost a couple of members or a few members to the Women's Caucus, but this This is an important issue, and this committee needs to take a stand on it, and I think we need to send a message, and even though my esteemed colleague Bruce Cross has one legal opinion, this is like Harry Truman wanted a one-hand economist. There are other legal opinions that indicate that this law is constitutional, it's legal,
And the state needs to address this issue like other states are and attack this program from the area that we can attack it, and that is dealing with the business license that the state awards these contractors. And if they knowingly hire illegals, then they should have their contract or their license sanctioned in some way. So, Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of or do pass House Bill 1013.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:31:59
Thank you. We have a motion to do pass from Representative Nichols on House, as amended,
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:32:07
as amended, Representative Nichols. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to adopt House Bill, I kind of
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:32:18
forgot the number of it, we talked about it so often, as amended, 10-13 as amended. What's the pleasure of the committee? All in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 57
1:32:52
rule first, Representative Rogers. I move
Speaker 206
1:33:00
the ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. committee we'll get
Speaker 5
1:33:12
in there if the committee was set
back down we'll take up representative Ingram's bill House bill 1120 Representative Graham, you have
Speaker 260
1:33:26
the floor. Mr. Chairman and Madam Chairwoman, Vice Chairman, I'd like to ask for Sherry Middleton to come sit next to me. This is a very simple bill. We are asking the committee to approve the name change from the Department of Human Services Division of Volunteerism to the Department of Human Services Division of Community Service and Nonprofit Support.
Speaker 259
1:33:49
This better recognizes what they are doing. I'll be happy
Speaker 260
1:33:52
to answer any questions. If you would state
Speaker 5
1:33:54
your name and who you're with, ma'am. Yes, I'm
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
1:33:57
Sherry Middleton, and I'm with the DHS Division of Volunteerism. Middleton, you have the mic. I'd be
Speaker 260
1:34:07
happy to answer any questions. Either one of us would. Any
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:34:18
questions from the committee? Representative Bernard? Motion do pass.
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
1:34:20
We have a motion to do pass on Representative Ingram's 1120.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? You passed it out.
Speaker 262
1:34:30
Thank you very much. I appreciate the committee.
Speaker 99
1:34:36
Anything else before the committee? Thank you all.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB73
HB1013
HB1120
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 11
Speaker 5
Speaker 57
Speaker 19
Speaker 25
Speaker 30
Scott Mcdaniel
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 40
Representative Ed Garner
Unverified
Representative Donna Hutchinson
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 88
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 97
Speaker 99
Representative Ann V. Clemmer
Unverified
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 115
Speaker 119
Representative Tiffany Rogers
Unverified
Speaker 127
Speaker 130
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 141
Speaker 98
Speaker 147
Speaker 55
Speaker 59
Representative Duncan Baird
Unverified
Speaker 28
Speaker 91
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Representative Larry Cowling
Unverified
Speaker 178
John Hannibal
Unverified
Speaker 190
Greg Crow
Unverified
Speaker 193
Speaker 194
Speaker 192
Speaker 197
Speaker 157
Speaker 131
Speaker 153
Dal Worsham
Unverified
Speaker 207
Speaker 158
Speaker 145
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 216
Speaker 217
Speaker 218
Speaker 220
Speaker 27
Representative Eddie L. Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 39
Speaker 234
Speaker 236
Speaker 243
Speaker 241
Speaker 196
Speaker 248
Speaker 247
Speaker 123
Speaker 206
Speaker 214
Speaker 260
Speaker 259
Speaker 262