Arkansas Boys State
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (2)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1003
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “going to start today with House Bill 1003. And the reason that we're going to skip 1001 and 2 is that…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1004
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Bill 1004. House Bill 1004, an act to disqualify individuals who test positive for ill…”
|
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 Robert Moore
Unverified
0:00
that you have in the course of your life than to be an elected official and letting your voice represent the people who elected you. So I know you'll enjoy today. My colleague, I think you've met him, that's leading the charge here, Representative Jonathan Barnett, for those who don't. Raise your hand there, Jonathan. uh jonathan was uh i just found out earlier he wouldn't tell you this but uh he was i knew he
was in boys nation and uh was a counselor senior counselor for a number of years and is in the uh the arkansas uh boys state hall of fame and uh i was pretty impressed because i didn't know boys state had a hall of fame and now i know somebody that's in it any rate uh congratulations to you gentlemen. Have a good time today. Pay attention. It's a great learning process. Great privilege for you to be here and certainly a great privilege for each of us, myself and my
colleagues who do it for real to be down here and represent people back home. So enjoy your time here and good luck and congratulations. Okay, gentlemen, I think most of
Speaker 2
1:17
you met Mr. Barnett, but I want to present him and show him we appreciate him, and he's going to
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
1:26
Barnett. Thank you, Mr. Massinelli, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. By the way, I voted for the Speaker.
He had to be elected Speaker of the House, believe it or not, and so I think most of the members here voted for him, and he's done a great job, and we've all enjoyed serving under his leadership. It's my privilege today to welcome you to the House of Representatives. chiefs. We've got some good help here today. When I was at Boyce State in 1972, I actually was elected to the State Senate and served on the other end. And little did I know that one of these days I would have the privilege to serve in the House. It's been a real opportunity for me and I've really enjoyed it. In just a few short years, you all will be surprised
on you'll be running for public office yourself, whether it's at the local level or even at at a higher level, so congratulations to you. I want to introduce some members of the House here that are going to be helping you today. And these House members are going to be circulating around, and if you have any questions, you be sure and grab one of us and say, what can I do here, or what questions should I ask, or if you have any questions at all about procedure, be sure and grab one of these House members circulating around, because they're here to help you out and help you learn about
how this operation works here in the house and then they have a good experience so greg ledding from fedville's vice chairperson greg duncan duncan baird is from the lowell rogers area duncan duncan went to boyce state in what year 1997. okay jeremy gillam is from judsonia
Did you go to Boyce State? No Boyce State, okay. Justin Harris is from back here. Justin is from the Prairie Grove and from West Fork area. Did you go to Boyce State? Did not, okay. Alan Kerr, a representative from Little Rock here. Alan, right here. Alan's the only one that's got a Ph.D. in this group that I know of, anyhow. But Reginald Murdoch. Reginald, you're from Mariana. Did you go to Boyce State? Did you go? Okay. Gary Smith from Camden. Gary. I know you. Nate Steele from Nashville. Nate, where are you?
Okay. Nate was an alternate. I was an alternate. Randy Stewart from Kirby. And then I noticed we have Frederick Love with us. Frederick, we're right back here. Frederick and Frederick's from Little Rock. did you go to voice tape Ephraim Elliot Ephraim where are you he's out okay he's from
Alzheimer there you go anybody here from Alzheimer okay Mr. Parliamentarian we're ready to go and let's do this thing congratulations again thank you applause applause applause applause Thank you, Mr. Barnett. Gentlemen, the way the process works is the
Speaker 5
4:48
Speaker will start the session and he will appoint some people to go talk to the Senate and tell them we're in session. We'll read the first bill across the desk. If you are a sponsor of the bill, the expectation is that you will come down here and explain the bill. We're
Chair
Unverified
5:04
going to start today with House Bill 1003. And the reason that we're going to skip 1001 and 2 is that both those bills have amendments to them and we want to get you in the process a little bit further along before we
Speaker 12
5:19
come back to the one and two. So we're probably going to do three, four, and five, and then come back to one and two. But the speaker's in charge of the calendar, so he's the one that will control it. So, are there any questions about any of the process? As Mr. Barnett said, any time during the procedure, just wave to one of us, and we'll try to help you. So, Mr. Speaker, I think the preliminary work is finished, and we're ready to begin. The 71st
Chair
Unverified
5:47
session of Arkansas Board of State will please come to order. I invite the members, staff, and guests in the
gallery to stand and be led in prayer by the House Champion, Caleb McDonnell, and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Eric Williams. Let's pray.
Speaker 16
6:07
God, I thank you for this day and what you've done for us this week, and I pray that today will go really well, God, and we'll get a lot
Speaker 17
6:15
accomplished. Thank you for everything you've given us. Amen.
Speaker 5
6:32
You see, gentlemen, one more thing. You're operating in here under the procedures that the members of the House operate under, so I want to advise you no liquids in here, no food or drink of any kind here in the house chamber so please do abide by that rule thank you thank
Chair
Unverified
6:51
you mr speaker as the first order of business the chair appoints the following members jonathan williams landon turner and michael hannah to notify the senate that the house is organized and ready for business okay mr
stewart would you escort that group to the senate please and
identify the fact that we're ready if your name was called please join mr stewart to go to the Senate, please. Three names there. Who's the third one?
Okay. Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 1003. House Bill 1003.
Speaker 32
7:35
An act to require persons driving a motorcycle or riding as a passenger on a motorcycle to wear a helmet while the motorcycle is in operation and for other purposes.
Speaker 39
8:02
Representative Huggins, you recognize. The bill is to pass a law that
Speaker 40
8:07
It requires people driving the motorcycle or passengers on the motorcycle to wear a helmet in case of a crash or accident. That may cause them fatality. According to the National Highway Safety, I mean, you have a 35% chance of getting hurt or dying in an automobile while riding a motorcycle. okay okay well wearing a helmet you have a 40% chance of being and with a head
having a head injury and a 15% if you're not wearing a helmet you can receive fatality with that incident it would be passed that if it passes they would require that anyone riding on a motorcycle driver or passenger to wear a motorcycle helm a helmet and if you are found guilty of the charge you can pay a fine, not exceeding $500 and not exceeding 90 days in a sentence.
Yeah, I like a good vote, too. Mr. Pierce, for
Speaker 47
9:40
what purpose? I have a question. What is the opposition from a motorcycle rider? Do what? What is the opposition from the motorcycle? Okay. What are the oppositions from the backers? Oh. They oppose this bill? I do not know.
Speaker 56
10:05
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Huggins has explained
Chair
Unverified
10:20
the bill. Would anybody like to speak against the bill? For the bill?
Speaker 59
10:28
Mr. Huggins, have you closed for the bill?
Speaker 29
10:37
the question for the house is passage of hospital 1003 all in favor say aye
Chair
Unverified
10:58
all opposed say nay the eyes have it okay guys we're going to expect a little more enthusiasm than
Speaker 5
11:06
that now okay I bet we'll get it too sooner or later, but let's start off with some.
Speaker 32
11:24
Bill 1004. House Bill 1004, an act to disqualify individuals who test positive for illegal drugs from public assistance and for other
Chair
Unverified
11:35
purposes. Representative Mahan, you are recognized.
Speaker 74
11:58
All right. Welfare is taken from tax money, and I'm sure that taxpayers do not want to pay for those on welfare's drugs. Sorry, I'm not much of a speaker. I'll take some questions, if anyone has any. Representative Baker, for what purpose?
Chair
Unverified
12:24
Representative Baker, for what purpose?
Speaker 78
12:30
Do I ask the question now? Representative Baker,
Chair
Unverified
12:41
for what purpose? Ask a question. You recognize. So will this disqualification be
Speaker 78
12:47
permanent or only for a set amount of time? For a set amount of time.
Speaker 80
12:53
And how long would that amount be? I do not know yet.
Chair
Unverified
13:00
Representative Wolverine, you are recognized. What would you define
Speaker 84
13:05
as public assistance? Welfare checks, stuff like that. Representative Meeks, you're recognized for what purpose?
Chair
Unverified
13:17
You're recognized. What about families who have children?
Speaker 65
13:23
Are the kids going to be punished as well? Well, honestly, if the parent
Speaker 74
13:30
is caught using drugs, that's not a very good environment for the children to be in.
So maybe social services can help out with
Chair
Unverified
13:43
that. Representative Phenomenon, for what purpose? Further question? You recognize? I
Speaker 94
13:50
have a question about the overall sovereignty of the individual within this bill. Is it possible that a drug screen could, in fact, infringe on the sovereignty of the human being? And if so, I mean, wouldn't that hurt a human being's chances if they tried drugs once or twice, did it as a kid?
Representative Penards
Unverified
14:14
Is that going to hurt them for the rest
Speaker 74
14:20
of their lives? Thank you, Chair. Well, I'm dealing more with repeat drug users, those that are constantly using and using that welfare money to buy their illegal drugs. Representative Hickerson, for what
Speaker 99
14:39
purpose? Ask a question. You're recognized. Okay, you said the social services would pick up the kids. wouldn't that cost more taxpayer money
Speaker 100
14:46
other than what we're saving for the welfare checks for the drug tests? It's for the
Speaker 74
14:54
health and well-being of the children. So, yeah. Representative Sanders, for what purpose? I'm done taking
questions. Okay. Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
Speaker 111
15:44
somebody's here He yielded the floor, there was nobody here.
Speaker 43
15:51
So you either have to speak for or against
it. The bill, it says... You don't speak how? Against it? Against it. Okay. I'm against the bill, everybody, okay. They said that they're going to not grant public service for someone who tests a negative for a drug test. Well, what's going to happen to the person who tests negative? Like, are they going to get arrested? Are they going to get sent to jail or prison? Are they going to, I mean, what's going to happen to them? That's what my, against is, like, what purpose is we're against?
Speaker 120
16:25
Representative Sanders, for what purpose? Is there any questions I ask him? He's still in the will? Yeah. Would anyone
Speaker 102
16:49
like to speak for the bill? Representative Sanders, you're recognized.
Speaker 124
17:01
Guys, one thing you have to consider about this bill is that
Speaker 125
17:07
you notice that you have to take a drug test to get a job, right? and in order to, you have to take the drug test and once you test negative on that drug test, then you get the job and you make money. Well, I think that the person applying for welfare should be able to have to, you know, have a drug test
because they are getting money. and for one thing if they are tested positive for drugs how are you going to know that they are going to use it on their children or if they're going to use it for their sales on more drugs Is there anyone
Speaker 102
18:03
who would like to speak against the bill
Chair
Unverified
18:09
Representative English you recognize Um, Hobbs, you recognize.
Representative Debra Hobbs
Unverified
18:28
Ladies and gentlemen, this bill represents a complete ignorance of the hardships of drug addiction. If a
Speaker 134
18:34
person has a choice between drugs and food, the person who is addicted to heroin or methamphetamines will choose drugs and may even die. The way we solve these problems, represented by the people who would like to pass this legislation, isn't to go cold turkey on letting them have enough money to buy food. The answer is to set up programs like rehabilitation clinics for those who actually can't afford to check into most rehab,
to give them the health insurance necessary to overcome these addictions without harming them and their family who
Speaker 135
19:05
would not be able to eat if not for food stamps and welfare programs? The
Speaker 134
19:11
answer simply isn't to cut people off. It's to help them, and it doesn't help anyone if they can't eat, period. We also must think of their children. Perhaps they'd be using some of these welfare benefits to buy drugs or something, but the only way that they can buy food for their children is if they have these welfare benefits.
It's not as if if they can't buy drugs, they would buy food. If they can't buy drugs, they also cannot buy food. There's also been a misconception on what the food stamps program is. I don't know if your methamphetamines dealer takes food stamps, but usually you cannot use Snapcards to buy drugs. So I believe that that should be stricken from the bill also because you're just cutting people off from a program that cannot physically be used to buy drugs. It's also blatantly unconstitutional, because as we saw in the mock trial where C.J. couldn't be forced to take a drug test by the police and therefore was not,
you can't be coerced into taking a drug test by the federal government because it is a blatant violation of individual liberties and privacy. And this is coercion. Making you not able to eat because you need to take a drug test is coercion. The choice is between this and death for a lot of these people. So not only is this blatantly unconstitutional, and as we all know, we have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not only does it hurt children, not only is it a blatantly awful way of solving the problems of drug addictions and poverty, but it also doesn't address the systemic problems
that come with poverty and drug abuse. They are two things that are linked almost inherently, and we can't attack one without attacking the other. Driving people harder into poverty will only drive them harder into drugs, and this bill represents a flawed logic that I simply cannot stand and urge you not to vote for. And I now stand down for questions. Representative King, for what purpose? To ask a question? You
Speaker 138
21:09
recognize. So would it not be true that the kids are already going hungry if they're already spending the money on drugs?
Speaker 134
21:15
I don't think it's fair to say that they're spending all of the welfare benefits on drugs. For the example of food stamps, they have to buy food with food stamps. That's the only thing they can buy with food stamps. They cannot physically buy drugs with food stamps. So you're not only cutting them off from things that they can
Speaker 141
21:28
buy drugs with, but also things that they have to buy food with. Thank you.
Speaker 144
21:39
Representative Rogers, for what purpose? To ask a question? You recognize? You mentioned that being unconstitutional to force them to take a drug test. Wouldn't it then also be unconstitutional to provide them money
without figuring out if they're breaking the law first? because if they're doing things illegally, should we be sending them money to provide for that? I'm not sure
Speaker 134
21:56
which part of the Constitution you're referring to, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says the people who violate the law cannot receive benefits from the federal or state government. That's not at all part of the Bill of Rights or the state or national constitutions. The only side that is violating the Constitution is the pro side. Representative Steele, for what purpose?
Speaker 146
22:20
I'll hold out until you ask who's for the bill. Representative
Speaker 148
22:33
Sanders, for all of a purpose. Okay. I want to ask a question.
Speaker 125
22:38
You recognize? Okay. Why, my question is, why do people have to, who are trying to get jobs, have to have a drug test? You may or may not be able to answer that. I don't know.
Speaker 134
22:49
Well, you take a drug test before you take a job because coming to work on a dangerous substance will probably make your job performance less so than it would if you were sober.
Speaker 141
22:59
However, there's really no difference in how well you can eat when you're high or sober. So you take a drug test before you take a job because it impairs your ability to do that job. It doesn't impair your ability to spend food stamps on bread for your children if you've tested positive on a drug
Speaker 125
23:20
test once. Is there some way that, like the government, could possibly be in control of the money for the children instead of the parent if they are on drugs?
Speaker 134
23:33
Yes, that's called the Food Stamps Program or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which actually replaced Food Stamps a couple years ago. It's also countless maternity benefits and things that can only be spent at retailers and select stores that accept these benefits that must go expressly to things that benefit children and parents with children. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
23:57
Representative, word for what purpose? You recognize?
Speaker 159
24:03
Are you aware that people can potentially use their
Speaker 160
24:05
food stamp value to buy drugs off of a trade, kind of like a trade deal? I highly doubt that drug dealers would
Speaker 141
24:12
want to trade your food stamps for their far more valuable drugs. Well, this has happened before. Like, people were—I know people— Have you ever traded food
Speaker 162
24:19
stamps for meth? I have not, but I do have relatives who live in Minneapolis who do that. Who trade their food stamps for meth? Yes, they buy
Speaker 160
24:30
food for the drug dealer, and the drug dealer trades them drugs.
Speaker 141
24:33
Well, that's A, a very odd trade-off. B, pretty suspect when you
Speaker 134
24:37
look at actual statistics with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program with a 2% margin of error rate. And C, anecdotal evidence is probably not the best way to make policy concerning whether or not poor children can eat. I guess I'm done. Representative Wallace, for what purpose? No, no, no. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 165
25:03
Mr. Stubblefield. Motion to amend, Mr. Speaker. And
Speaker 111
25:08
make the motion while he's in the well, he's got close. Okay. Well, am I done questioning? Yes,
Speaker 168
25:17
I now yield my time to any main motions.
Speaker 107
25:22
Recognize the delegation from the Senate, okay.
Chair
Unverified
25:29
Speaker recognizes the delegation from the Senate.
Speaker 170
25:45
Mr. Speaker, the Senate is open and ready for business. Is there anyone to speak against the
Speaker 171
25:49
bill? Anyone to speak for the bill? Representative Gaskell, you recognize? I'm here to speak for the bill.
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
26:16
If we're providing our hard-earned money and taxpayer dollars, I don't think it should go to drugs. No offense, if they test positive for drugs, I say cut them off, because we are good citizens, and we're giving money to bad citizens that are on drugs. We don't need to do that. Now it's open for
Chair
Unverified
26:38
questions. Representative Hobbs, for what purpose? A question.
Speaker 141
26:46
Why does a history of drug use necessarily make someone inherently bad? Because they're doing illegal
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
26:53
activity, so illegal activity is obviously a wrong. Follow up? Go ahead. So that means we should allow
Speaker 182
27:02
them and their children to starve? They're using money for drugs. You know, they made the decision. Representative Hyde, for what purpose?
Chair
Unverified
27:18
Ask the question. Ask the question. You recognize? All right. Shouldn't we
Speaker 170
27:21
just, like, make a food account so they could go to the store and just buy food and nothing else, not drugs? That'd probably
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
27:29
be a good system, just letting them only buy food. That way there's no chance of them spending money on drugs. Probably a really good idea. All
Speaker 187
27:36
right, thank you. Representative Hubbard, for what purpose? You
Speaker 81
27:51
recognize. What's to say that the individual isn't around second-hand smoke all the time?
Is it right to cut them off because people around them are doing it and it gets in a
Speaker 177
28:03
system like that? I really don't know what
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
28:09
to say to that question. I'm going to step down from questions now. to
Speaker 46
28:18
make a motion Mr. Speaker that's a motion immediate consideration
proper motion not debatable question for the house immediate consideration house bill 1004 what
Chair
Unverified
28:32
you're voting on here is the motion to immediately consider In other words,
if you pass this, then the bill's going to come right up. You're not voting on the bill. You're voting on the motion to consider it. Everybody got that? All
Chair
Unverified
28:56
Votes say nay. Nay. The ayes had it. The
Speaker 63
29:01
question for the House. This House bill 1004. This House bill 1004. All in favor, say aye. All
Chair
Unverified
29:08
in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. Nay. The nay hasn't. Feel this fair.
Mr. Clerk, read the House Bill 1005. Mr. Steele, the representative, do you recognize? Do I
Speaker 203
29:39
see five hands? Do I see five hands? Okay, gentlemen, what's happening here is some of the membership maybe thinks
Speaker 12
29:49
that the speaker didn't hear well, and so he declared that the bill failed. When calling for a roll call now, it requires
Chair
Unverified
29:55
a person plus four others, which would be a total of five hands,
and then he's going to make you stand, and we're going to count them that way. So this is another way of voicing yourself as opposed to a voice vote. All
Speaker 204
30:07
in favor of the bill to stand. All in favor
Chair
Unverified
30:10
of the bill, stand. You're voting on the bill. Now, if you're in favor of House Bill 1004, you're standing. Otherwise, no. That's not 51.
Speaker 164
30:35
All the vote, I mean, please. you don't
Speaker 23
30:40
need the opposed how many did that get 40 so it
Chair
Unverified
30:43
failed it needs 51 so you don't need to take the nose it's dilatory to take the nose right you didn't get 51 noses Mr. Clerk the speaker was right there
Speaker 5
30:58
his hearing is good it failed okay everybody alright with that no I thought he said it failed
Speaker 203
31:06
I said it failed. Okay. Okay, to square it up, the bill
Chair
Unverified
31:17
failed. Everybody okay? All right. Mr. Clerk, read
Speaker 32
31:23
House Bill 1005. House Bill 1005, an act to increase the assistance and services for veterans and service members returning from serving our country in foreign wars and conflicts
Chair
Unverified
31:32
and for other purposes. Representative Land, do you recognize?
Representative Roy Ragland
Unverified
31:40
First off, I'd like to thank Mr. Speaker for giving me the
Speaker 213
31:53
floor. There we go. That's much better. I'd also like to thank all of
Speaker 94
31:59
you and welcome you to the House. This bill basically goes over the main points points behind getting veterans more assistance, more rights, and basically, I mean, it reiterates the GI Bill in some respects, but as a representative of veterans and as a relative of veterans,
I truly believe that the GI Bill needs to be reiterated on a state level. Also, I'd like to direct your attention to section one, subtitle B-1, which states job training and employment placement assistance to all veterans and active duty service members who have served our country in foreign war or conflict. See, our veterans are coming back. They're coming back from war
with a broken leg with a broken arm you know with mental issues and what happens they go into a job interview and they're told them no you can't have that job you can't have that job because you have a broken arm even though even though you did serve for my freedom I'm still not going to give you that job because you don't have an arm because you don't have a leg because you have suffered from PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. This bill eliminates that. This bill gives
equal opportunity to all veterans that serve for our freedom so that we may sit here today and debate what is right and what is wrong as it pertains to the Constitution. Now let me
Speaker 214
33:41
be clear, it is not, it is not our right to tell veterans what they can and cannot do. I mean, they have the highest honor in my opinion. I don't know about you guys, but in the highest honor, man, they're giving up their life. They're giving up their life
for our freedom. All I'm asking in this
Speaker 213
34:11
bill is to simply give them more rights whenever they come back after serving our country so that they may adjust back into the life of a citizen so that they may actually know what they are
Speaker 215
34:26
fighting for. I yield my time to questions, please.
Speaker 78
34:33
President Baker, do you recognize? Okay, so how
Speaker 218
34:41
much would this program cost? Well, actually, you know, I was – this
Speaker 94
34:47
bill wasn't actually written by me. It was written by my assistant, apparently. But in the initial bill that I had drafted, I wanted to impose a –
Speaker 213
34:58
Basically, what it would have been is something similar to a sin tax.
Speaker 94
35:06
And it wouldn't have been a whole lot. It would have been like 3%, 3.5%. And what that would have done
Representative Penards
Unverified
35:13
was that would have put a tax, like a sales tax. So what you don't spend, you aren't taxed for. So therefore, it is a win-win situation. Plus, it stimulates the economy, not only for
Speaker 219
35:26
this bill, but for every bill. And what the money would do is it would go back into the budget, and then whenever the budget, whenever the House reconvenes and decides on readjusting the budget, they'd include this program within their budget.
Speaker 213
35:42
Also, the Department of Workforce Services strictly has opportunities. They have funds laid out
Speaker 219
35:49
so that whenever a program is built or is designed, that they can get it up and running. Also, we'd ask for donations from private organizations that are willing to help out with veterans. Thank you. Representative Overby, for what purpose?
Speaker 84
36:17
Question, please. You recognize? Would this bill affect soldiers who are given
Speaker 213
36:26
an honorable discharge? Actually, truly it would, and I will tell you why. Most of the time in an
Speaker 219
36:36
honorable discharge, normally it is, it's not something necessarily, you know, that
Representative Penards
Unverified
36:41
they did extremely wrong. It's that they messed up. You know, they had a friendly fire or they, you
Speaker 219
36:48
know, they had too many demerits, which just means, you know, they're a little bit of a troublemaker.
It means that they don't necessarily keep their
Representative Penards
Unverified
36:59
uniforms nice and tidy. um as this bill states it is um for all veterans so um you know it's really it's it's struggling for me to grasp the fact that our soldiers are you know 18 19 20 they're barely an adult i mean i've got friends right now who are at boot camp and they're 18
Speaker 219
37:25
they're right on the dot 18 years
old, and I mean, honestly, we're 17, and I don't know if I personally could go through
Representative Penards
Unverified
37:35
and do the, and every single merit that the military had, I do not know if I could personally live up to those standards. So in order for this bill to pass, yes, it would take on honorable discharge, with exceptions, obviously. Thank you, sir. You can answer that with a yes. I wanted to explain it though
Chair
Unverified
38:02
and it was Shepard for what purpose
Speaker 40
38:10
question you recognize so you think that whenever a veteran gets back say they lost an arm they go to have an interview you think
Speaker 213
38:20
that the employer shouldn't have the right to
Speaker 219
38:23
say yes or no no what I'm saying is is that veterans should have the opportunity to get equal opportunity for jobs, for services, basically, like, truly I believe that sometimes
a veteran can work better with one arm than a civil servant can with two. And I say that, I say that, you know, a little bit jokingly, a little bit serious, but truly I believe
Speaker 94
38:49
that each and every one of our veterans is dedicated, they're loyal, and they are dedicated to their service and their duty and that carries over every single
Chair
Unverified
39:00
veteran that I've ever met has been dedicated to his work and has gotten the job done
Speaker 40
39:11
also what about the people who couldn't go to war that wanted to I
mean they I don't know they just were not able to become a veteran what about You're saying that veterans come back, they should have more rights. Why? I mean, yeah,
Speaker 226
39:26
you went and fought for your country, but that's your civic
Speaker 228
39:32
duty. Why should they deserve more rights than me? Well, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is
Speaker 219
39:39
that in veterans' rights, I feel that because, I mean, let's look at it. more veterans have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder,
which is basically a mental illness that has affected them since 1980 than any other time in the history of the world. More United
Representative Penards
Unverified
39:59
States veterans. And the reason why is they're seeing atrocities all over the world, things that we couldn't even imagine. And what
Speaker 219
40:07
I'm saying is that, I mean, these guys deserve a break. And I would challenge you to go to a veteran's hospital directly out
Speaker 94
40:17
of combat and you will see why these veterans deserve more rights.
Because they have six bullets in their head and they've barely survived. They've got two arms cut off and a leg, okay? They are shot, they're beaten, they're taken prisoners of war. They are verbally, physically beat up. And they did it for you, for me, for everybody in this room, everybody in this state, everybody in this country's rights. They did that so they could protect our freedom, so that we could stand up here and debate over issues, including veterans' rights.
Speaker 40
40:57
I get what you're saying. It's just someone who has been in a car accident. I mean, can they not have, I mean, they lose an arm, leg or something. i mean what i mean sure they went and uh they didn't go fight they didn't get shot up and everything but i mean there are people who do get shot and have also go undergo rigorous training and everything why shouldn't they get more rights does
Speaker 94
41:22
that mean well they should but that's not what this bill is covering this bill is specifically directed towards veterans and their rights it has
absolutely nothing to do with car wrecks or any opportunities now
Speaker 219
41:32
whether or not they have the opportunity to do so is a totally different bill. It's a different reference. I would suggest that in the future, if you
Speaker 98
41:44
would like to address that issue, come up with a bill. I'll support
Speaker 3
41:52
it. Representative Stewart, for what purpose? No question? If you
Speaker 138
41:57
recognize. Would you pull down the bill to amend N to Deering to clarify eligibility in lines 29 and 32?
It says, members who have served our country in foreign wars and conflicts, but people serve in different countries in the war, but not in the actual foreign country that war is in. I think people could be stationed in Germany to help injured
Speaker 219
42:38
I understand. And what I truly would like you to interpret out of
Representative Penards
Unverified
42:43
that is that the reason our soldiers are over there, it doesn't necessarily mean, like, our wars. It could mean the genocide in Darfur. It could mean, you know, I don't know, whatever would happen. It could mean that. And what it means by who has served our country in foreign wars and conflicts, it means that they've seen the atrocities happen from war. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are, you know, fighting in a specific war like in Afghanistan.
It can mean Darfur, it can mean
Speaker 219
43:20
the Balkans. What that means is that they've served our country in protecting the United States' policy within a
Representative Penards
Unverified
43:29
certain war or conflict. I agree, but wouldn't you think it would be better
Speaker 138
43:38
if we clarify in to Deering? Oh, well, if you'd like
Chair
Unverified
43:44
to make an amendment, I'd be more than happy to address that.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
43:50
Okay, thank you. Representative Wilkins, for what purpose? You recognize? In line 31, when you first explained about equal opportunity, What is the difference between that and the law that already states equal opportunity employment for every employer that they can't?
Speaker 230
44:20
Are you talking about veterans in general or are you talking about like the entire like every citizen?
Speaker 241
44:26
Veterans, what's the difference between the one you want to pass and the one that's already
Speaker 222
44:35
in place of equal opportunity? Are you talking about the
Speaker 94
44:41
GI Bill? Yes. Okay. Well, in that sense, basically what this bill is trying to do is it's trying to reiterate that. And
Representative Penards
Unverified
44:49
we feel like sometimes that the national laws and the national bills are sometimes overlooked, especially by jobs,
Speaker 219
44:55
say, in Arkansas, in rural counties, in areas where they can slide.
um we feel like if the arkansas
Speaker 94
45:03
state legislature made a made a bill that specifically said this this this this and this would happen and this is why and this is what our veterans need and we're going to try to find them jobs and that's the whole purpose of this organization is it's trying
Representative Penards
Unverified
45:23
to find jobs equal opportunity for veterans they're coming straight out of afghanistan iraq
Russia, China, Japan, everywhere else, that they're coming back into America and they're having to adjust. They're having to understand what it's like to live a citizen's life in America. And all
Speaker 213
45:44
this is saying is it's trying to find them, you know,
Speaker 94
45:49
like even on that same line, 31, the very first part, job training and employment placement. That's what it's saying, is that it's trying to put soldiers so they can have a steady income,
so that they're not having to try to find a job while living wherever.
Representative Penards
Unverified
46:09
It's really tough on someone who has to come back from a war, who has no support network and nothing to base themselves off of. What will a reiterating past
Speaker 244
46:23
bill do that it couldn't do the first time? Well, like
Representative Penards
Unverified
46:29
I said, I think I already addressed that.
Speaker 213
46:34
Wouldn't it be repetitive? Well, not necessarily. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying
Speaker 94
46:41
is that it will create jobs within the state of Arkansas. That was a national law, right? That's federal. This is state law. We're trying to make it a
Speaker 213
46:52
state law so that the jurisdiction stays within the state and we can
Speaker 247
46:59
enforce it better. Thank you. Representative
Speaker 249
47:04
Engel, for what purpose? He's still in the will?
Representative Steele, for what purpose? Where are
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
47:19
All right. You mentioned post-traumatic stress disorder, which is a key thing. But the cold hard truth is that could range from mild depression to flashbacks, reenactments. They could suffer extreme accounts of anxiety, anxiety taxed on the job.
So here's a hypothetical statement. You hire someone with PTSD, and during a job, he immediately sees someone who's probably of Asian descent since he's fought in the Vietnam War. or immediately he goes into the gun's aisle, grabs a shotgun, and points it at the poor customer. This could happen. Anything could happen with being that that's there. So maybe we should rethink on that because...
Speaker 219
48:13
Well, I actually did look into PTSD in studying for this bill and the questions that might come up. And PTSD is usually maintained by a
Representative Penards
Unverified
48:28
drug called Repositil. And what that drug is, is it's basically an antipsychotic pill. And what it does is it's used basically for depression, for, like, people who they think might go postal, right?
And PTSD is an issue that does really, really, really plague returning veterans.
Speaker 219
48:53
And it's a very, very important and timely issue. But I'd really ask for you to refer to line four on the second page. That's, yeah, all right, I think I covered that. It says, statement three says, referrals to the other state and federal agencies
and programs for health issues. And what that basically means is we're going to allow the state to do
Representative Penards
Unverified
49:28
what they need and federal agencies to do what they need and what they're doing to cover the health issues. Now, if you would like to talk about that in an upcoming bill or something along those lines, you're more than welcome to. But this bill covers nothing of the sorts. All it covers is their transition back into the country and their job opportunities.
Speaker 143
49:56
All right. Can we give this a 30-day trial to see
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
50:04
how it works out? We don't do business that way
Speaker 219
50:15
in the House. Thank you all for your time. I yield my time to Mr. Secretary.
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
50:26
Representative Barnett, you recognize? We've had two more dignitaries that have come into the presence of the House, and I want to recognize them at this time, even though the one gentleman here, Representative David Sanders from Little Rock, he does not have a tie on. He's not dressed appropriate for the House today. And Representative Sanders, if you'd present your bills even close as good as this young man did, you'd pass some of them. But anyhow, but I wanted to recognize David Sanders, Representative Sanders. Sanders. And then a very, very distinguished gentleman that's with us back here, a former
member of the House and presently the Secretary of State, Mark Martin, right back here. Is there anyone who would like
Speaker 105
51:15
to speak against the bill? Thank you very much. Would
Chair
Unverified
51:23
anybody like to speak for the bill? I have a motion. For what purpose?
Speaker 170
51:35
Motion. Let's hear your motion. I'd like the motion to limit debate to two minutes on each side. Proper
Chair
Unverified
51:46
motion? Not debatable. Request before the House? Limit the debate? Two minutes
on the side. All in favor say aye. All
opposed say nay. The ayes have it. The debate is limited.
Speaker 24
52:09
Would anybody like to speak against the bill? Ladies and gentlemen, up at the speaker's podium, there's a couple of clocks up there, and they're setting those clocks
Speaker 12
52:19
down, and the procedure here will be to set the clock for two minutes on the side. He's going to be asking for somebody speaking against the bill now, and remember, you've got two minutes, so if you're trying to save some time for a colleague, you don't use it all up, but you've got two minutes to each side now. Yeah. Representative Sanders, you recognize?
Representative Rick Saunders
Unverified
52:53
I respect my soldiers and veterans 100%, but my question is, how
Speaker 125
52:59
is a person, say a person has two arms cut off, how are they going to be able to obtain a job, and what kind of
job would that be? That's a question that I'm
Speaker 148
53:13
not sure about to myself, but that's what I wanted to ask a while ago, but I didn't get a chance, so, yeah. Is there anybody who, like,
Speaker 254
53:21
speaks for the bill? Representative Steele, your regular list?
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
53:42
The veterans are, they are, they call for America, our rights. So why deny them the pleasure? As you see, I sat there and asked what would we do about certain disorders like post-traumatic stress disorder and that's been remedied. Realistically speaking, why would a veteran without any arms go for a job that requires the use of them?
Speaker 146
54:04
So something to think about. is there anyone who would like to speak
Chair
Unverified
54:13
against them he's left away would you like to speak
Speaker 270
54:37
against I believe that if we're going to allow all veterans that would consider veterans that come back for a certain
amount of times to the U.S. and then they get called back out to go service and they do not go. That's considered AWOL. So I guess I'm against it if we're considering that we should support people that go AWOL in the military to consider, like I guess if we consider people that go AWOL in the military, I don't see why.
They did do some time in the service, but why should we help them out for not going back to serve the country?
Chair
Unverified
55:29
Does anyone like to speak for it? Representative Mayberry, are
Speaker 271
55:41
you recognized? In the same way that the strong must help the meek and the wealthy must help the poor, so we must help our veterans. This is the same as we give money to welfare to help the
poor, right? We give money, we provide equal opportunity for people with mental and physical disabilities because it's equal opportunity that's what america is about is freedom and equality of opportunity and that's why we should
Speaker 272
56:04
pass this bill thank you is there one would like to
Chair
Unverified
56:10
speak against it senator gaskill you recognize i'm just
Speaker 175
56:19
going to say that now that we're in the 21st century there are several
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
56:23
jobs that don't require you having full functions of your legs
or even have in both your arms. I mean, computers, they don't care if you have one arm or you have two. You can still get many jobs working on Internet, calling. And besides that, if a veteran is missing a limb, they're probably not going to try to get jobs that are hard labor. They're probably
Speaker 273
56:47
going to try to get jobs that are online or work with technology.
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
57:16
Warriors Program, I spoke to dozens and dozens of wounded veterans, and this is just a thought to consider but they told me personally that the
hardest thing they ever had to do was to go back to that citizen life so I think this bill would greatly benefit them. Thank you. Is
Chair
Unverified
57:38
anybody else for the bill? Representative Carter, you recognize? People seem to go
Representative Davy Carter
Unverified
57:54
for, just because they don't have any arms, they can't work, but just because they can't work, they can still receive the medical treatment to keep
Speaker 282
58:00
them in this world, to be with their grandkids, to be with them for as long as they possibly can.
And it's not all about work. Like, if they wanted to get a high school diploma all their life, because I know some people that they've dropped out of high school at 18 and they wanted to go serve in the military, and then they came back and realized they wanted to get their GED just because maybe their father or they wanted to be one of the first in their family to get a high school diploma, which is what I want to say. Is there anyone else for the bill? In the roadbook, you recognize?
Speaker 284
58:47
Nothing says that they can't get. Time's expired. Question
Speaker 285
58:50
before the house? Pass it to the house bill 1,005.
Speaker 249
58:55
No, sir. Question before the house. The question for the house? Pass it to the house bill 1,005. Pass it to the house bill 1,005. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Chair
Unverified
59:03
All opposed say nay. All opposed say nay. Aye. I say aye.
Speaker 64
59:18
Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Bill passes. We're going
Chair
Unverified
59:43
Representative Cadillac, you recognize it?
Speaker 5
59:52
Okay. Under the House's rules, that would not be permissible at that time because if you heard the same thing I heard, you
Speaker 12
1:00:01
heard the Speaker say, now we'll go to House Bill 1001. Did anybody hear him say that? Okay.
Chair
Unverified
1:00:06
So that means you've gone to another issue. You can't go back and have a roll call on the past issue. So all this is timing, fellas. So you have to do it before the next
Speaker 5
1:00:17
situation comes up. but he had already announced it. So while we're on that, I want to explain to you that, as I said earlier,
we started with House Bill 1003 because House Bill 1002 have amendments on them. And you're into the flow of the situation enough now for us to talk about that a little bit. Anytime a bill is introduced, a proposition, and given a
Chair
Unverified
1:00:36
number, it's open for amendments. And in many cases, the sponsor himself or herself will put the amendment on it and
Speaker 5
1:00:43
pass it as my bill, my amendment. That's the case here. I notice that the sponsor of the bill and the sponsor of the amendment are the same two people.
Chair
Unverified
1:00:51
Generally, you would let the sponsor of a bill put his amendment on there.
You know why? Because he could just go right over to the bill drafting department and draw up another bill
Speaker 5
1:01:03
and have the amendment in it, right? So you let him go ahead and do it. This first bill has an amendment in it. The
Chair
Unverified
1:01:09
procedure is to take the amendment up first. Consider whether or not you want that amendment to be a part of the bill. If the amendment passes, then it becomes a part of the bill for passage. If it fails, then the bill just stays like it is. So, Mr. Speaker, where we are now is we have Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1001,
and so without objection, I ask the amendment to be read and an explanation of it. Mr. Clerk, would
Speaker 13
1:01:34
you read Amendment No. 1? Thank you. Amendment number
Speaker 293
1:01:44
one, the House Bill 1001. Okay, so Mr. Roberts. Mr.
Speaker 80
1:01:53
Roberts, you recognize. You recognize. All you got to talk about is amendment. You talk about the bill,
Speaker 111
1:01:58
talk about the amendment. What does that amendment say?
It's pretty simple if you read it,
Speaker 296
1:02:07
it doesn't say what does it say. All right, the amendment number one to the House
Speaker 233
1:02:13
bill, is that right? All right, do I say that we... It simply changes the exemption
from $5,000 to $10,000. Yeah, it changes from $5,000 to $10,000. All
Speaker 110
1:02:23
right, exemption. Appreciate a good vote. Appreciate a good vote. I appreciate a good vote.
Speaker 169
1:02:30
Would anyone like to speak against it? For Question for the Is it Passment of amendment number one
Chair
Unverified
1:02:43
House bill 1001 House bill 1001 All in favor say aye Aye
Speaker 5
1:02:51
All in favor say nay Okay Under normal conditions here
Chair
Unverified
1:02:55
That bill would get Sent to a place we call engrossing And that is A clerical work
So the insert then would go in there and changing that figure of $5,000 and taking it out, and the exemption then would be $10,000. That's what you will be considering when the bill is coming up, and it's coming up right now. We're going to bypass engrossing for the purpose of you being here one day. So right now, the bill reads there $10,000. That's what's going to be before you. Everybody clear on that? Okay. Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 1001.
Speaker 32
1:03:31
House Bill 1001. An act to provide income tax relief for citizens that provide voluntary service in their
Chair
Unverified
1:03:43
community and for other purposes. Representative
Roberts, you recognize? All right, this bill is basically for people who are voluntary firefighters, any emergency
respondents, people in the community or city. They receive 0% interest on the first $10,000 that they receive. And the reason why is because they volunteer their time, they have other jobs, and they can get calls in the middle of the night. I believe that they
Speaker 304
1:04:26
deserve the 0% interest on their first $10,000, and I'll take questions.
Speaker 305
1:04:37
Senator McCallum, for what purpose? To ask a question. Do you recognize? Volunteers in a hospital, if they worked a few hours a week or
Speaker 306
1:04:44
a day, would they still have to pay the same amount of taxes? Would they still be exempt? I believe they would. yes all right representative may be for what purpose your question
Speaker 271
1:05:02
you recognize um i guess it all depends what is your definition of volunteering are you going to include people
who volunteer in homeless shelters people
Speaker 272
1:05:09
who volunteered in food banks things like
that well it states in the bill volunteer service in their community so yes it would But if they're receiving money, like if they're volunteering usually for what you just stated, then usually they don't receive money, do they? If
Speaker 272
1:05:31
they are not paid, then they will receive the tax-exempt status. Exactly. Okay, thank you.
Chair
Unverified
1:05:38
Representative Smith, for what purpose? Representative Mayberry, for what purpose? You recognize? how much
Speaker 305
1:05:50
money will this lose us I don't believe it loses any
it's just we're exempting taxes because they volunteer their time so if your house is on fire a voluntary firefighter comes over there and puts your house fire out don't you believe that he should be exempt
from what little he has the taxes cutting
Speaker 100
1:06:19
out half of his his salary the state's going to lose money in taxes anyway with the exemption of
taxes it's not like we're well you pay tax money for people who don't even have a job I mean you pay
Speaker 304
1:06:32
for their food stamps you pay for their basically their homes but you won't pay for somebody who actually has a voluntary job and even possibly another job you won't
Speaker 149
1:06:41
pay for their taxes I just want to know how much we're going to lose
Speaker 296
1:06:48
I just want to know how much we're going to
Speaker 313
1:07:01
lose I don't have an answer for that how much we're going to lose to ask a question so like people that people that just go down and they clean up their park maybe once a month do they also receive a break on $10,000 of their taxes which is
For normal citizens, like, in my family, that would be a third of our taxes that we wouldn't have to pay. I don't understand. Ask that again. So someone that they go down and they just, like, clean up the park or they pick up trash on the side of the road once a week or so, do they also receive not have to pay taxes
Speaker 159
1:07:36
on the first $10,000 that they make?
Speaker 296
1:07:39
Well, if they make, I mean, the first $10,000, yes, I mean, you would.
Would. Yeah, they would receive 0% interest. Yes, they would. They would receive. Is that what your question states? Yes, they would. Is it why? So just pretty much anyone
Speaker 132
1:07:57
who goes out and does volunteer work. If they receive money, that's like a
Speaker 304
1:08:02
person who cleans the park. I've never seen a person who cleans the park voluntarily go and say, hey, I need some money for cleaning the park. It's voluntary. They don't get paid. Basically, this is the people who have the salary that they get paid as a volunteer.
Speaker 313
1:08:20
But I don't know a volunteer that gets paid. I mean, volunteer firemen, I understand, but like volunteers in homeless shelters and stuff, I don't know that they actually get paid. Well, how many
Speaker 304
1:08:29
homeless shelter volunteers, how many of those people require a salary? I don't know. Exactly. Representative Meeks here, right?
Is it an amount of hours? Do you have to do it? No, it's nothing about hours. It's just the first $10,000 receives 0% interest. So you
Speaker 319
1:09:00
could do it for, like, what, two hours, and you won't have to pay?
If you get paid $10,000 in two hours, then yes.
Chair
Unverified
1:09:15
All right. Representative Woodley, for what purpose?
Speaker 68
1:09:18
You recognize? Hey, is this true that it's based on his actual job, not his volunteering?
No, it's on volunteer. It might work 10 years to get $10,000. But that first $10,000, as their salary as a volunteer, receives 0% interest. Does that answer your question? Because it's a taxpayer, and if
Speaker 68
1:09:43
you're a volunteer, you're not getting paid. What? Because if you're a volunteer, you're not getting paid for it. You just volunteer. And it says a taxpayer, you're getting paid.
Speaker 323
1:09:57
If that makes any sense. The taxpayer is getting paid? Because it's what I see, he's getting
a tax exemption from his job. So you're saying he, I still don't understand what your question has.
Speaker 299
1:10:29
Thank you. I appreciate a good vote. He's
Speaker 105
1:10:37
explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against it?
Representative Keith Ingram
Unverified
1:10:58
Representative Ingram, you recognize? It is to my understanding that there aren't really regulations on how this would work,
so there's nothing to stop, say, a person like me from going and ladling one bowl full of soup to a homeless person and then getting a tax exemption on the first $10,000 iron, is that really adequate, like, does that really make that much sense to where my small amount of service would, I guess, cover that? Like this would, if I ever wanted, I don't know, a little bit of help, I would just go
ladle some uh some soup to a homeless person and then not have to pay a whole lot of
Speaker 261
1:11:44
taxes i don't see how that makes any sense or how that's even uh justifiable what
Speaker 322
1:11:55
i have no idea what you mean questions um
Speaker 261
1:11:59
i yield my time i don't know what to say I'm going to exit the wall.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:12:11
Is there anyone who likes to speak for the bill? Steele, you recognize? This is for a clarification on the bill. When you volunteer, for some people, there is some minimum amount of pay, like $1 per hour, $15 per three hours. What the bill is stating is that for that money, $15 per three hours,
earned up until $10,000, that will not
Speaker 147
1:12:49
be deducted from tax. You will get to keep that money because of your voluntary services. Does
Chair
Unverified
1:12:59
anyone like to speak against it? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 94
1:13:19
I think what this bill's main issue is that it lacks clarity and the issue is, is that I think it's all on line 25 where it says the first $10,000 of income received by a taxpayer is exempt from the state income tax. Well, quite frankly, as a representative, I am completely confused as to what that means. It doesn't make any sense.
And then also, you know, there needs to be more definition into what voluntary services are. Like Representative
Representative Penards
Unverified
1:13:58
Ingram said, you know, you can
Speaker 219
1:14:06
go and someone, anybody can go and, you know, serve a bowl of soup and they get $10,000 off
Speaker 94
1:14:16
on their taxes. I mean, where I'm from, they call that good service.
Also, as far as Representative Steele is concerned, I've never heard of a voluntary, quote-unquote, service that pays
Representative Penards
Unverified
1:14:33
money. My definition of voluntary is without pay. So if I could have some clarity there, that'd be great. Thank you, Speaker. Is there anyone who would like
Chair
Unverified
1:14:51
to speak for the bill? Representative Gaskell, what's your motion?
Speaker 175
1:15:02
I'm using Baker's by the way of my son. I move to, we refer this to a committee due to the fact of lack of
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:15:08
details on this bill. is the proper motion is to
Speaker 63
1:15:15
have representative gas recognize the motion he's going to explain
Speaker 5
1:15:28
the motion to refer to committee all you can speak about is the motion to refer you can't talk about the
details of the bill you have to say why you think it ought to
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:15:41
be referred and so I think it should be referred back to the committee due to the fact that we've all been confused about the details of exactly what volunteering is, what tax and tax deductions that we have. And I think we need to go back to
Speaker 188
1:15:55
the committee so they can draft up a more detailed version of the bill.
Chair
Unverified
1:16:04
He's explaining the motion. Would anyone like to
speak against the motion? For the motion, I'll pay the question for the House. Is the motion to refer House Bill 1001 back
to the committee? All in favor say aye. Aye.
Speaker 333
1:16:43
in favor. Send the bill back to the committee. gentlemen as i mentioned to
Chair
Unverified
1:16:48
you earlier house bill 1002 also has an amendment if you'll notice it
Speaker 12
1:16:54
there it too is an amendment that's sponsored by the author of the bill so it categorizes his own bill on amendment. So the procedure here would be to give consideration of that amendment first to make a decision as to whether or not you want that to be a part of the bill or not. And it appears that it just adds a
Speaker 5
1:17:11
section there on the end. So, Mr. Speaker, it's an order now to have the amendment read and then considered. Mr. Clerk, read
Chair
Unverified
1:17:26
amendment Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1002.
Speaker 284
1:17:28
Representative Fagan, you recognized? Yes. Please don't submit. The amendment to this bill is to
Speaker 337
1:17:49
say as in that people who have committed crimes in categories Y, A, and B, or felony of a sexual offense, should not be
Speaker 338
1:17:58
able to get jobs along with children and other actions as such.
Speaker 236
1:18:08
He's explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against it? I think
Speaker 342
1:18:34
this is a good, I think this is a good bill because not anyone would just
voluntary time for nothing, because I know I wouldn't, not just no $10,000, but it take a lot just
Speaker 64
1:18:45
to help other people. He needs to speak on the amendment. Speak on
Speaker 294
1:18:51
the amendment, he's speaking on the bill, speak on the amendment, all right? 1,001. We're on
Chair
Unverified
1:19:02
House Bill 1002. we're on amendment number one
Speaker 294
1:19:09
for hospital 1002 you gotta speak, you gotta speak on the amendment you gotta remember all we can talk about is what the amendment said Representative Steele for what purpose talk about
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:19:37
the amendment are you for or against it I am for it you're recognized some of the bills that we have discussed lacks clarification but in that amendment
that was supposed to be that we are voting on currently it shows the clarification that's needed would you like someone convicted of sexual offense work and places like water parks anywhere or
Speaker 251
1:19:55
just anywhere near children, that's a clarification to restrict such things. So, I am for it. Would anyone like
Chair
Unverified
1:20:04
to speak against the amendment? For the amendment?
Question for the house. Oh, Senator, was it Eubanks? Eubanks, you recognize? Question about the- There's
Speaker 346
1:20:30
Do you recognize speaking against the amendment?
Speaker 282
1:20:48
All right, my question was Is the bill stating that opportunities for people that have gotten in trouble with the law would be allowed to get jobs in areas that they broke the law? I didn't understand that part of the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill, for the amendment?
Speaker 105
1:21:11
Against the amendment. Against the amendment. The House.
Chair
Unverified
1:21:20
The question for the House. Passage. This passage of Amendment No. 1, House Bill 1002. All in
favor, say aye. Aye. All in favor, say nay. Nay. The eyes have it. Send
the bill to engrossing. Okay. We're going to go ahead and
take up the bill now. Clerk read House
Speaker 32
1:21:50
Bill 1002. Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 1002. House Bill 1002, an act to provide education programs and employment opportunities for convicted persons and for other purposes.
Chair
Unverified
1:21:58
Mr. Gallagher, I guess it's good for what purpose? What's your motion? Properly. Proper motion. Not debatable. Question for the House. Question for the House. Postponed temporarily. It's postponed temporarily. House Bill 1002. House Bill 1002. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say nay. The nays have it. Representative Fagan, you are recognized.
Speaker 353
1:22:40
In this bill, I'm stating that I believe that people who have been convicted
Speaker 337
1:22:45
as minor crimes should be able to reenter to the workforce after they have either went through their parole or they have completely been, they have served all their years of prison. And that is what this
Speaker 338
1:22:58
bill is mainly about. Any questions? Representative Gasco, for what purpose?
Chair
Unverified
1:23:03
You recognize that. Does this bill
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:23:09
go to people that were convicted of violent crimes?
Speaker 354
1:23:13
Yes, they do. So someone that murdered someone, if they got out of prison
Speaker 150
1:23:20
in time, they could get the job? That is also
Speaker 337
1:23:23
debatable. But the main thing in this is saying, as the amendment has said, we're allowing them to get a job. Because right now, you can even have somebody that has maybe probably had hurt someone go to McDonald's. They won't allow them to get that job because of that they had hurt someone. But, you know, that also gives people, they went and they tried to get that job.
Well, that also gives us, them, more money because they can go, since they applied for them, they can go get welfare also. What about rapists? Rapists, we would not allow them to, as the amendment had said, we wouldn't allow them to be anywhere near children or people of the vulgarity of the crime of which they had committed. Thank you. Representative Hobbs, for what purpose?
Speaker 141
1:24:19
I'd like to ask a question. You recognize. Should we really allow people who have histories of selling heroin, burning down centers for the elderly, or committing
Speaker 178
1:24:30
manslaughter to get public service jobs rather than individuals who have followed the law to a T throughout their entire lives?
Speaker 338
1:24:38
Why would we not? Why would the working people have to pay for them to still be able to live?
Speaker 337
1:24:44
Because, I mean, this is also going back on the welfare issue. Saying that they shouldn't pay for
Speaker 178
1:24:49
them to be able to get a job
rather than someone who hasn't sold heroin to 14-year-old kids. Well, you know,
Speaker 337
1:24:57
you can also have somebody that hasn't. But, I mean, yes, we have more and more people coming into the workforce, yes. But the only problem that I'm trying to state here is that, you know, people can go out and just because they had committed a crime, they can go out and say that they submitted for, and they can come back and try to submit for welfare as well. So what if, yes, they have probably sold heroin or something like that, but getting them a job could keep them out of keeping on doing what they had done before.
And with our children, correct? No, they would not be with our children, as such as the amendment said. I'm a representative of
Speaker 53
1:25:47
an archipel of purpose. Ask a question. You're recognized. Can you explain, because I think we're all a bit fuzzy, on the actual duty of the State Board of Career Education?
Speaker 214
1:25:59
It first talks about it in B1. Yes. That's
Speaker 337
1:26:03
just meaning as in, like, they'll probably have classes away from other people, but they'll still be able to get vocational technology programs, as in they'll be able
Speaker 218
1:26:18
to learn. well what my question though is that what what authority what under what
Speaker 94
1:26:25
system do they operate are they are they just for criminals or are they for like the education as a whole are they for
education as adults just for criminals just for criminals
Speaker 359
1:26:38
okay and um with that in mind And where would this Board of Education,
Speaker 94
1:26:44
where would it find the funding to create new opportunities, to create, you know, to give these criminals like computers to do research on, books to study from, teachers to teach them? Where would they find the funding to pay for these things?
Speaker 17
1:27:05
Honestly, I do not have an answer to that question. But personally, if it kept people, more and more people out of trouble and was able to keep them from committing that crime again
Speaker 337
1:27:15
because they have a job or they're going to school and trying to make themselves better, then I would personally, I would actually start trying to pay for that. I'm done taking questions. Thank you. He's explained
Chair
Unverified
1:27:30
the bill. Would anyone like to speak against it? Representative Penards, is he recognized?
Representative Penards
Unverified
1:27:37
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to call to
Speaker 94
1:27:49
the attention of everybody in the House that, you know, under this bill, it specifically, I mean, it denies the right for people who have been committed of a sexual crime, basically any rights whatsoever. Just that on a side note, the main issue is this whole idea of the State Board of Career Education.
I have no clue what it means. I have no clue what basis it's run off of. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that states anything about it such later on in the bill. I mean, it talks about, all right, we're going to do this, this, and this. than this, but it doesn't give any backing. There's no funding. There's no specifics as to where it will happen. Where are we going to get the teachers?
Where are we going to get the computers? Where are we going to get the books? All these things have to come into play. And if it is not on this bill, if it's not directly in writing here, it can be interpreted. It can you can take it any way you want it. You see, the whole idea of this bill is to say that, you know, this is the law and whenever referring to the law, this is what they're going to see on that. And they're going to find a bunch of claims, a bunch of things that have no backup and no structure
Speaker 162
1:29:22
and no opportunity, because it doesn't provide funding, doesn't provide any source of direction.
Speaker 105
1:29:29
Thank you. Would anyone like to see for
Speaker 102
1:29:37
the bill? Representative Wilkins, what's your
Chair
Unverified
1:29:45
purpose? that's a proper motion not debatable question for the house is immediately considered house bill 1002 all the papers
say aye all opposed say nay
the nays have it the bill is failed the motion failed
Speaker 361
1:30:08
Would anyone like to speak before the
Chair
Unverified
1:30:12
bill? Representative Mayberry, you're making us. You were voting on the
Speaker 24
1:30:22
motion to immediately consider it. The motion failed, so the bill is still before you, and it's time for someone to speak for
Speaker 271
1:30:34
it. in our prison systems today it's clear with statistics people who go to prison are more
likely to get out of prison and then commit more crimes to get them right back into prison it's what this bill is is it's trying to help prison prisoners become re-assimilated into society and I think it will lower crime I think it will reduce statistics showing that prisoners uh, convicting felons are, will be repeat offenders. So vote for the bill. Thank you. Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
Representative Debra Hobbs
Unverified
1:31:10
Representative Hobbs, do you recognize? What the pro side of this legislation fails to consider is who wouldn't be getting these jobs. Morally upright
Speaker 134
1:31:36
American citizens who have consistently followed the law to a T. If a person has a college degree but has been convicted of domestic abuse or selling crack cocaine on our city streets,
in my mind, he is less qualified than the honest high school graduate who has never broken the law. And I think most shopkeepers would agree with me. However, under this bill, the business owner wouldn't have the power to deny this person the job for selling heroin or doing any number of despicable things that have made them the plague upon society that has prevented them from keeping a job in the first place. I think a lot of the harms of this bill are greatly overstated. If someone has a misdemeanor on their record, say possession of a small amount of drugs or some sort of accidental petty theft, then it's not going to have that much of an impact on whether or not they can get a job.
It's the felons. It's the drug dealers. It's the domestic abusers who this bill is protecting. This bill is not for those who have maybe robbed a store just to afford food for their family. This bill is for people who have polluted our city streets with the kind of thievery and drug dealing that has made this country less than it was 50 years ago. And so I ask you to negate this bill simply because the person who has followed the law to a team wouldn't be giving these public and private sector jobs that they so need in this economy.
And they'd be rather going to the perhaps better educated, but less qualified people who have committed heinous crimes in the past. And I now open my time for questioning. Representative Brown, you recognize? I mean, for a purpose? Make a motion. He's
Chair
Unverified
1:33:19
still in the way. Representative Brown, for a purpose? Make a statement. no uh we're asking we're taking questions representative dickinson you recognize
how many for a purpose question you recognize so what you're saying
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
1:33:30
is we should deny convicts the right to get a job whenever they come out and my other question
Speaker 364
1:33:35
is what are we going to do with them when they get out of jail are we just going to like keep them in jail forever i mean what are going
Speaker 141
1:33:45
to do? Well, we're not necessarily denying convicts the right to get a job. That's a pretty common misconception that's been going through these debates. We're denying them the, we're denying, or this bill would be denying shopkeepers the ability to deny someone a job based on their
Speaker 134
1:33:58
criminal record. Someone with some sort of petty theft would probably still be able to get a job fairly easily, at least a low-end job. It's the felons. It's the people who have committed voluntary manslaughter. It's those people who are not able to get a job in the status quo. And I I think that's probably
Chair
Unverified
1:34:23
good, because those jobs go to hard-working,
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:34:28
law-abiding American citizens. Representative Malone, for what purpose? My question is, does the bill state that we will give the felons jobs or education and opportunities?
Because we're not giving them the
Speaker 368
1:34:40
jobs, we're giving them the educational
Speaker 134
1:34:43
programs. I understand, but it states that shopkeepers would no longer be able to discriminate against these people because of their criminal record. And regardless of how much job education we're giving them, give them all the job education you want. It's your money that you're wasting. We're still, you know, limiting the shopkeeper's ability to not hire people based on their dangerous pasts. And that's something that we need to
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:35:07
consider before the job education. But if a criminal completes an educational program, is it not kind of like heightening their reputation, giving them the reputation back?
Speaker 136
1:35:19
Perhaps, but as much job training as a former heroin dealer has, I still don't want him working at my
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:35:25
store. Even if he had completed a program that showed that he is trying to better himself? Even if
Speaker 165
1:35:42
he's completed all of the job training programs in America. Representative Valls, for what purpose? The bill says that we will rehabilitate them to the furthest extent possible, so my question
to you is, do you not believe that they deserve a second chance,
Speaker 141
1:35:55
or...? I believe they deserve a second chance, but rehabilitation rarely works. That's why we have such a high
Speaker 134
1:36:01
recidivism rate. People with histories of dangerous or even petty crimes rarely lose that sort of mentality that causes them to go out and commit more crimes, just like the heroin dealer usually goes back to dealing heroin. Even if it's good to rehabilitate people who have been caught with possession and things like that, and I think that those people should be allowed to have jobs, and oftentimes they do have a fair shot at jobs.
I have often worked with people who have had drug problems in the past but have gotten their jobs because they have completed rehab sessions, but it's the people that have committed dangerous and violent crimes that are a plague upon society that you cannot really rehabilitate to the point where it would no longer be a reason to not give them a job. That's what I'm saying. And
Speaker 141
1:36:43
I yield my time to a friendly speaker.
Speaker 313
1:36:53
Anyone like to speak before the bill? Representative Smith. If we just say that the murderers and the crack dealers, they don't get to have a job after they get out of prison, then what are they going to do? They're going to be sucking the fat off of the welfare programs, and there's nothing
that they could do to benefit the society that they have marred. They, we have nothing to do with them. They can't do anything once they get out of prison. This, I don't understand why we cannot allow these people that have dangerous pasts that they've been rehabilitated to have jobs and hold jobs in society and repay their debts. Thank you. but they don't like to speak against it
Chair
Unverified
1:38:01
representing the power what's your purpose? make a motion let's see your motion limit debate name debate to two minutes each side proper motion not debatable The question for the House is limited to two minutes on the side.
All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Aye. Aye. The debate is
Speaker 56
1:38:40
limited to two minutes for each side. Would anyone like to speak for the bill?
Chair
Unverified
1:39:07
Senator Maloney, I recognize. I would like to
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:39:20
point out that earlier it was said that the majority of drug dealers that go to jail and get out, just go back to drug dealing. I believe that that's because we don't have a bill that's been passed like this that gives them another option to make money.
Speaker 375
1:39:37
If we pass the bill like this, then it would probably lower the statistics on how many drug dealers go
Chair
Unverified
1:39:50
back to their criminal ways. Thank
you. Senator Dickinson, for what purpose? I personally don't want to spend government
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:40:09
money to send a convicted person after they have gone through prison to get a job when there are plenty of good people out there that don't have a job.
Why should we help murderers and rapists get a job when there are good people, your neighbors and friends, that have no job and can't find one? We should use the money to better our neighbors and not the felons. Representative Dickinson, for what purpose? Movement, motion. What's the motion? I'd like to move to postpone temporarily. Proper motion and active aidable.
Speaker 262
1:40:50
It's not debatable. Question for the House.
Chair
Unverified
1:40:55
It's postponed temporarily. House Bill 1002. All the papers say aye. Aye. The polls say nay. Nay. Nays have it. Is there anyone who
would like to speak for the bill? Representative Benedict, you're recognized.
Speaker 380
1:41:20
You recognize? All right. This bill is stating that if we provide programs and employment opportunities opportunities for people coming out of prison. It is saying that, as we have all said, that
it will help our society better because if you offer these people that are in prison an opportunity to change when they come out, chances are they probably will and they'll be able to get a job because we know the people that haven't been in prison, they have degrees and everything, they're going to be fine. It's going to be an opportunity for them. What about the people that are in prison that's wishing they could get out and have an opportunity to go and get a good job, just like the people that haven't been in prison. And they all deserve a second chance.
I mean, nobody's perfect, so why make it seem like that those people that are in prison and that are behind bars, and they don't have a chance to go out and do what we can do because we haven't been in prison. I think that this bill should be passed so that the people that are in prison, whenever they get a chance to get out, they should have an opportunity, just like we do, the people that are free, to go and get a good job and take care of their family, just like they were trying to do before they went to prison,
even though it was wrong and against the law and everything. When they get out, they should be granted the same opportunities that everyone else that is free has. Because when they are released, they become free again, and they're free just like us. So I believe that they should have the same opportunities that we do to go and get a job and do everything that we can do. since they're free I mean I was inspired
Chair
Unverified
1:43:21
all right would anyone like to speak against it representative Dickerson be recognized
let's hear your motion immediate consideration my promotion not debatable the question for the house may consideration the house will 1002 All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Aye. Aye's have it. The question for the house. This passage of house bill 1002. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Aye. Nays have it.
Speaker 3
1:44:03
Representative Powell, for what purpose? Motion. Motion, motion. The governor is
Speaker 339
1:44:11
outside the door, and I move to the House to allow him to come in to address us. A proper
Chair
Unverified
1:44:18
motion, not debatable. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay. Aye's have it. And meet the governor.
Speaker 22
1:44:33
Aloha. Governor, you're recognized. It's nice
Speaker 369
1:44:47
to see all of you guys in here. You guys look
Speaker 383
1:44:54
all official. I like it. Just keep doing what you're doing. you guys might just be in here one day in the future
doing what all these people do just remember to soak it all in be like a sponge right now this is awesome this is like the coolest thing I believe getting the first-hand experience and being a house representative that's awesome keep doing what you're doing guys Mr. Clerk, read House Bill 1006.
Speaker 57
1:45:34
We moved on. Mr. Shepard, for what purpose? What's the motion? Do you roll call? We've already moved on to the next bill. Ready? We're going to read or are you ready? Mr. Clerk, read Bill 1006.
Speaker 16
1:46:08
House Bill 106, an act to remove certain restrictions for drivers under the age of 18 and for other purposes. Representative Gaskill, for what purpose? What's
Chair
Unverified
1:46:18
the motion? To reconsider the vote on
Speaker 175
1:46:23
Bill 1004. that's a proper motion not debatable it is it is debatable please
Chair
Unverified
1:46:29
come down and explain your motion to the fact that i believe that
Speaker 184
1:46:48
we did not have a very good vote it was a voice vote as i believe
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:46:54
and we did not have a roll call after that and i do not think we had fair enough debate on that motion and we need more time
Chair
Unverified
1:47:07
to fully think it through he's explained the motion would anyone like to speak against it representative pen arts recognized
Speaker 218
1:47:24
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Honestly, I think that the House has had enough of
Speaker 94
1:47:31
this issue. For the sake of time, I think we ought to move on to another bill. It's getting late in the day. And we have other bills to cover. And honestly, you know, we're questioning the Speaker of the House's authority and right to whether or not he thinks the vote was yes or no.
Speaker 219
1:47:55
So with all due respect to the Speaker, I would like to move on. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
1:48:06
Does anyone like to speak for the motion?
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:48:17
I mean, Representative Steele, you recognize? I feel as if the bill was left with untied ends and open strings because not everyone had a chance to speak exactly what they felt, and it was cut tremendously short, even though
it was slightly long. So I do hereby apologize if the Speaker of the House feels offended, but I would like to read back and rewind back to that there's anyone against the motion representative for what purpose motion sorry let's
Chair
Unverified
1:48:45
see your motion let's see your motion? To refer to committee.
Speaker 369
1:49:00
You can't refer that to the committee. It's an improper
Speaker 157
1:49:08
motion. So, Mr. Gaskill, would you like to close for your
Speaker 57
1:49:18
motion? Would you like to close for your motion. You're recognized.
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:49:37
I think you all just need to think that
about reconsidering this because we did not we just went through it really quickly and I don't think all of us had a fair sure to think about what this is actually doing and what bill we just enacted, and I think we need
Speaker 388
1:50:05
Okay, where you are, gentlemen, is a motion on the floor to reconsider House Bill
Speaker 5
1:50:10
1004. I think if I'm not mistaken, it failed, did it not? It declared failed, is that correct? So if you vote to reconsider it, the bill will come right back up. There's
Chair
Unverified
1:50:20
no more debate on the bill following reconsideration. So you're voting now whether or not you want that bill to come back up again or
not. That's the question. The question for the House is the motion to reconsider House Bill 1004. All
in favor say aye. Voters say nay.
Nays have it. Normally in the house we wouldn't have even taken that motion today would make you go on the calendar but since y'all are just here one day then it won't affect you the same way but ordinarily that motion wouldn't have wouldn't have come up at
all representative ben you were recognized to explain house bill about 1006
Speaker 306
1:51:25
to get rid of the restriction on a driver's license of a
Speaker 400
1:51:30
16 and 17 year old that pretty much states they're not allowed to have more than one passenger in the vehicle with them when it goes against Arkansas state law which says in code title 27 chapter 51 sub chapter 1 that you're allowed to have the maximum
number of passengers as seat belts in the car and I yield my time to questioning
Chair
Unverified
1:51:57
he's explained to be willing to like to speak against it for
Speaker 402
1:52:08
Are you taking questions? I was yielding the question. Okay.
Chair
Unverified
1:52:14
He said he'll take questions. Senator, I mean, Representative Hubbard, for what purpose do you recognize?
Speaker 403
1:52:20
Are you worried about people getting distracted while they're driving? Honestly, I don't look
Speaker 404
1:52:25
at it like that. You think if you have a car of maybe five
Speaker 400
1:52:29
teenagers and they're going down a 70 mile an hour interstate, who would want to jeopardize their life by distracting that driver and possibly end up crashing, hitting someone else and ultimately killing themselves? Who would want that? Well, honestly, whenever you're just talking to hang out with your friends,
Speaker 403
1:52:42
I don't think you're really thinking, hey, I'm going to try and kill you. I think you're just thinking I want to have a good time. So whenever I hang out with my friends, we're not too worried about, you know, getting killed or anything like that.
So, I mean, I'm just wondering, are you worried about people, you know, talking in the background to each other or
Speaker 400
1:53:01
just? No, because I feel if there's enough people in the car, the driver doesn't need to be involved anyways. He should focus on the road and what's it's to hold the conversations. You can have two of the passengers talk and the driver wouldn't even have to be
Speaker 407
1:53:13
distracted. He doesn't have to be. But are you worried
Speaker 400
1:53:16
that he might be? That's always a possibility. But also the driver should not be involved if there were more than one person in the car. Well, he shouldn't be. But, you know, you never know.
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:53:26
what's your point too long it's just simple questioning and they do not be need to leave more time
Speaker 332
1:53:43
for other representatives to have questions point
Speaker 410
1:53:53
taken Higgerson what's your purpose do you recognize do you think the inexperience of teenage drivers is not
Speaker 310
1:53:59
enough to actually let five people in a car at one time
Speaker 400
1:54:04
with them? I wouldn't go as far as to say five. That's a great number. But in terms of having more than one, yeah, I do think that it should be allowed because if we are growing adults, when you grow 18, 19, then you will have. So why not get practice
Speaker 404
1:54:19
early and take on the responsibility. Why not get practice first and then take on the responsibility? This would be their practice. I mean, when you get to the responsibility
Speaker 400
1:54:29
of an 18-19, then you're going to have to do it, whether you have a family or anything. At least this is ahead of time practice.
Speaker 64
1:54:37
The law states that when you're 18, you get the right to have more than one. It's just 16 and
Speaker 405
1:54:43
17. Exactly, and that's what this bill is about. It's to take away the restriction for 16 and 17 to give them maybe a chance and more practice before they officially
Speaker 404
1:54:53
turn 18? Why not wait until you're 18? It's only two years. Why would you? I mean, if you have a license, and in Arkansas state law, it says that you
Speaker 400
1:55:06
are allowed to have more than one person, why would you wait?
Why not get the experience to better yourself for the future? You would
Speaker 100
1:55:13
get the experience of driving, not with people in the car. You have to
Speaker 149
1:55:18
be a good driver before you can take on the liability of other people's lives. But who
Speaker 400
1:55:22
are you to say that someone's not a good driver? You could have the most responsible driver, and it's up to them to choose
Speaker 405
1:55:28
if they want to drive around multiple people or not. You could also have the most
Speaker 149
1:55:33
irresponsible driver driving around with a bunch of people. Then who would get in the car with him?
Speaker 169
1:55:50
Just questions. Representative of English, for what purpose? Can you give me some legitimate
Speaker 167
1:55:55
reasons for why we should get rid of this bill, other than needing practice of driving? Honestly, it's not even
Speaker 17
1:56:03
enforced. I know I live in Cabot, Arkansas, where the day I got my license, I had to
Speaker 400
1:56:08
sign a reform saying I wouldn't have more than one person.
But it goes against Arkansas state law, where it says I'm allowed. So why should I sign over my rights when it says by state law that I'm allowed to drive with more than one person as a passenger? Are you asking me a question? No, I'm just saying that it's a statement in general. Why would you sign over your rights when you have
Speaker 383
1:56:35
state like laws that say you're allowed to? I guess like the reason behind that would be that hundreds of kids die from drunk driving accidents when there's multiple people in the cars. And although there are many kids who don't drink and drive, there are still some.
And having them being restricted is a good
Speaker 400
1:56:51
thing. How can you say drunken drivers when you could easily get killed by someone who hits you and not you hit them? I mean, it's whatever way you're going to look at this one. Representative Roe
Speaker 273
1:57:11
will be for what purpose? That's a question. You recognize. So what you're
Speaker 84
1:57:16
saying is that we should pass this bill in order to give 16 and 17-year-olds responsibility,
to take on that responsibility of not being distracted, not talking to other passengers. Is that correct? Exactly.
Chair
Unverified
1:57:33
Representative McLean, for what purpose? representative not for
what happens you recognize um okay there
Representative Penards
Unverified
1:57:46
we are um i'd be curious to see the statistics um in both ways
if you have them there'd be i don't have them on me but um would it
Speaker 94
1:58:00
not be the very distraction from noise of more than two people in the car that would ultimately cause a distraction, therefore, you know, creating, you know, impaired
Speaker 162
1:58:17
hearing for other impaired distractions.
Speaker 280
1:58:21
Well, you could look at it like that, but also you could look at
Speaker 400
1:58:25
it if there's multiple cars. You could have racing, which I know plenty of teenagers do, so you have multiple cars racing. It's the same effect of having them all in one car. I mean, you could easily just get distracted racing 90 miles
Speaker 64
1:58:39
an hour down an interstate. But does the bill talk about that? Does the bill address racing, or does it address multiple people within a car? My version of the bill does, but your version of the bill isn't being debated currently.
it's this bill and you're the author of it so shouldn't you be representing this bill i yield my time to the speaker would
Speaker 280
1:59:00
anyone like to speak against the bill representing dickinson you recognize what's your
Chair
Unverified
1:59:08
purpose let's hear your motion I'd like to move to immediate consideration. I'll have a motion.
Not debatable. Raise the question for the
House. Immediate consideration. House Bill 1006. All in favor say aye. All in favor say nay. Nay. Nay
is there. Motion fails. Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
1:59:53
Representative Gaskill, you recognize. Arkansas has implemented a plan for a gradual change
in license to give teens responsibility.
So you first begin with your permit at 14, where you have to have a parent in the car. Then by 16, you can drive by yourself but with only one passenger. And then by 18, you can have more than one passenger in your vehicle. If you were to pass this bill, it would get rid of that process that we had already implemented, and therefore, it would make responsibility given to a younger-aged driver, which I think is a bad idea.
Chair
Unverified
2:00:34
Would anyone like to speak for it? Representative
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
2:00:53
Burnett, do you recognize? All right, yes, I think that this bill should be passed because we all know in this room, everybody under the age of drinking ability goes out and parties most weekends.
There are people out there that do that. So let's say you have somebody at this party. Let's say I go to the party, but I do not drink. and I have, these four guys right here are completely wasted. Do you want them getting in their vehicle and driving, or would you rather have somebody be able to put them in your car and drive them home safely and not have drunk drivers on the road? I yield my time to the questions. Representative Bernard, what's your purpose? Ask a question.
Speaker 222
2:01:36
You recognize? Would it not be suitable for the person who is responsible
Speaker 94
2:01:43
in that situation to call their parents or a responsible adult who could have possibly kept them out of that situation of breaking the law in the first place originally? And my second question is, is I don't understand how drinking, underage drinking, has to do with more than one person in the car.
Speaker 358
2:02:09
That's not what we're talking about. We're
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
2:02:11
talking about. But it has to do with if they are drinking, would you want to be driving on the road while these four guys right here are driving their car 70 miles an hour
Speaker 94
2:02:23
down the road intoxicated, swerving into your lane? Well, personally, that is their fault and it is the fault of their parents because their parents are a guardian. My
Speaker 421
2:02:32
question was the first one that I asked. Okay, you
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
2:02:38
asked why would you want to go drink.
We're teenagers. We do that. What's the fun in not doing it? And
Chair
Unverified
2:02:58
my opinion. Representative, what was
that, I'll tease, what's your purpose?
Speaker 165
2:03:07
Make a motion for immediate consideration.
Speaker 415
2:03:12
Because it is lunchtime. representative of me
Speaker 273
2:03:25
for a purpose question you recognize so you don't believe that you believe that
Speaker 84
2:03:31
instead of you know going through that that quote unquote metamorphosis process and slowly giving them the responsibility that by the age of 16 you just want to give the full responsibility and give the full trust
Speaker 354
2:03:43
to have more than one passenger in their vehicle. Do you
Speaker 182
2:03:49
think you're a responsible person? I do. Okay, then you should have the responsibility to do
Speaker 84
2:03:58
that. But do you not think that as a driver ages and matures, you don't think that he should slowly start getting used to just having one driver and just, you know, just focusing on proper driving.
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
2:04:14
You have been getting used to having one driver and possibly more drivers while you're 14, while your parents are in the vehicle with you. There are two years of experience there.
Chair
Unverified
2:04:24
Thank you. Representative Steele, for what purpose?
Speaker 147
2:04:33
Questions for the speaker? You recognize. Break for
Chair
Unverified
2:04:37
lunch? I yield my time to the speaker. He's standing well. Representative Allison, for what
Speaker 165
2:04:42
purpose? I would like to make a motion for immediate consideration because it is lunchtime and I'm sure we're all hungry.
Chair
Unverified
2:04:49
Proper motion, not debatable. The question for the
House, immediate consideration. House Bill 10006, all four
Speaker 264
2:05:09
say aye. Aye. All say nay. Nay. All in favor, say aye.
Chair
Unverified
2:05:16
Opposed, say nay. Nays have it.
Speaker 203
2:05:24
Okay, gentlemen, gentlemen, I want to take just a minute
Speaker 5
2:05:27
here. That was the last bill. The leadership has notified us
Speaker 12
2:05:30
that lunch is at 1130, and we're already past that. But I want to just take just a minute again to remind you of the gentlemen who have been here, working with you all, have applied themselves and dedicated themselves to this day to be with you guys. So let's recognize them again for all of us. Thank you. And thank you guys for a very stirring session.
And hopefully some of you all will be in here one day to do it for
Chair
Unverified
2:06:03
real. So, God bless you. Safe trip home. Mr.
Speaker 264
2:06:06
Chairman, Mr. Speaker, you can declare an adjournment, please. The 71st Session of the Arkansas Boys State House of Representatives is now adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Robert Moore
Unverified
Speaker 2
Speaker 5
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 16
Speaker 17
Speaker 32
Speaker 39
Speaker 40
Speaker 47
Speaker 56
Speaker 59
Speaker 29
Speaker 31
Speaker 74
Speaker 78
Speaker 80
Speaker 84
Speaker 65
Speaker 94
Representative Penards
Unverified
Speaker 99
Speaker 100
Representative Tiffany Rogers Chair
Unverified
Speaker 107
Speaker 108
Speaker 110
Speaker 111
Speaker 43
Speaker 120
Speaker 102
Speaker 124
Speaker 125
Representative Debra Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 134
Speaker 135
Speaker 138
Speaker 141
Speaker 144
Speaker 146
Speaker 148
Speaker 159
Speaker 160
Speaker 162
Speaker 165
Speaker 168
Speaker 170
Speaker 171
Representative Billy Gaskill
Unverified
Speaker 182
Speaker 187
Speaker 81
Speaker 177
Speaker 46
Speaker 197
Speaker 63
Speaker 203
Speaker 204
Speaker 164
Speaker 23
Representative Roy Ragland
Unverified
Speaker 213
Speaker 214
Speaker 215
Speaker 218
Speaker 219
Speaker 226
Speaker 228
Speaker 98
Speaker 3
Speaker 236
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 230
Speaker 241
Speaker 222
Speaker 244
Speaker 247
Speaker 249
Speaker 251
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 143
Speaker 105
Speaker 24
Speaker 254
Representative Rick Saunders
Unverified
Speaker 270
Speaker 271
Speaker 272
Speaker 175
Speaker 273
Representative Jody Dickinson
Unverified
Representative Davy Carter
Unverified
Speaker 282
Speaker 284
Speaker 285
Speaker 64
Speaker 289
Speaker 13
Speaker 293
Speaker 296
Speaker 233
Speaker 169
Speaker 304
Speaker 305
Speaker 306
Speaker 149
Speaker 313
Speaker 132
Speaker 319
Speaker 68
Speaker 323
Speaker 299
Representative Keith Ingram
Unverified
Speaker 261
Speaker 322
Speaker 147
Speaker 188
Speaker 19
Speaker 333
Speaker 337
Speaker 338
Speaker 342
Speaker 294
Speaker 180
Speaker 346
Speaker 353
Speaker 354
Speaker 150
Speaker 178
Speaker 53
Speaker 359
Speaker 361
Speaker 364
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
Speaker 368
Speaker 136
Speaker 375
Speaker 262
Speaker 380
Speaker 339
Speaker 22
Speaker 369
Speaker 383
Speaker 57
Speaker 184
Speaker 157
Speaker 388
Speaker 400
Speaker 402
Speaker 403
Speaker 404
Speaker 407
Speaker 332
Speaker 410
Speaker 310
Speaker 405
Speaker 167
Speaker 280
Speaker 358
Speaker 421
Speaker 422
Speaker 415
Speaker 264