Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (11)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB506
Act 712
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/5/2023 @ 8:00 AM) Added SB506 to Regular Agenda House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry,…”
|
TO TRANSFER CERTAIN ENTITIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND TO TRANSFER AGRICULTURAL PROMOTIONAL BOARDS … | B. Davis | Notification that SB506 is now Act 712 |
|
HB1033
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 Vaught REGARDING HUNTING LICENSES AND FISHING LICENSES FOR…”
|
REGARDING HUNTING LICENSES AND FISHING LICENSES FOR RESIDENTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE A MINOR WHO IS … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1549
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1549 Beck TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION; TO AMEND THE LAW … | Beck | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1645
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1645 McCullough TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT O…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT OF 2023; AND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1673
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1673 McCollum TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FOR VETE…”
|
TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FOR VETERINARY TECHNICIANS AND VETERINARY TECHNOLOGISTS. | McCollum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1841
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…t Rep. Harlan Breaux REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1841 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS" UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 12, § 5; … | L. Johnson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1843
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1843 Haak TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AGRICULTURAL PROMOTION BOA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AGRICULTURAL PROMOTION BOARDS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT … | Haak | Died in the House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1844
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AGRICULTURAL PROMOTION BOARDS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1844 C. Cooper TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INCIDENTAL SALE O…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INCIDENTAL SALE OF GOAT MILK, SHEEP MILK, AND WHOLE … | C. Cooper | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
SB339
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB339 Caldwell TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION; AND TO PROVIDE FOR WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION … | Caldwell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB464
Act 652
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB464 Hester TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ACT.”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Hester | Notification that SB464 is now Act 652 |
|
SB498
Act 661
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB498 Hester TO AMEND THE BUILDING AUTHORITY DIVISION ACT; AND TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE BUILDING AUTHORITY DIVISION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "UNPAVED TRAIL … | Hester | Notification that SB498 is now Act 661 |
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 6, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
I'll call a meeting to order. We've got one bill in front of us. Senate Bill 506. Representative Painter, are you ready to present your bill? If you'll
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
0:25
identify yourself. Stetson Painter, District 3, Baxter County in Western Fulton County.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
0:30
Brianne Davis, State Senate, District 25. All right. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. It's lovely seeing all of you again this afternoon after all the time we spent together this morning. I don't want to rehash anything, but I just want to make a couple of points. It's important that we realize we really do have a constitutionality issue on our hands, and it's something that has got to be addressed. We have to resolve it. If there is a challenge, which we fully anticipate that there will be this year, then there is a legitimate concern in the ag industry across all industries that a ruling or a court order could halt any spending of the funding that they have to do the work that they do for promotion and research.
So there are some real things at stake. it's not just saying hey you know we need to fix this constitutionality issue and if we can't get to it now it's fine we'll get to it in two years. The truth is there'll likely be a court case over it and the court will likely rule a halt and they will not be able to spend the funds that they need to on their on their research and in promotion and we'll see something similar to what we saw with the plant board which was that the board was dismantled and had to start over again from scratch and so we allow um for the boards as i said earlier to not do that that just as they
roll off we roll new members on according to the way that this bill is written um to ensure stability on those promotion boards um i also just want to re-emphasize that the money of the boards um it's the way that it's spent and who's in control of the boards it's going to remain with the boards. No money is going to be going to state government or Department of Ag on this. It's not at a cost to any of these boards. They can continue to spend their funds the way that they do now and how they so choose. This is really a bill that is fair to all farmers and we want to respect all
farmers across all different industries in the ag world and that's exactly what this bill does.
Speaker 8
2:35
I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. And I have a question. Could we have assurances that the appointees to the boards would consist of a large portion of the members that currently serve on
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
2:55
the existing boards? Well, that's an executive branch function, so I can't assure that as time
goes on it'll be the exact same people i don't i don't have the answer to that and don't know that um but i do think that it's important that we are not dismantling the entire board and starting from scratch that we are as each member finishes their term or their term expires that if there's a new member appointed um it's just going one at a time it's not you know completely starting from scratch um so we do it over time and the governor certainly has like that the governor's right as an executive branch function to appoint members to the board,
which is exactly why we're in this place in the first place
Speaker 1
3:41
with the constitutional issues. Okay. Members, do you have any
Speaker 13
3:47
questions? Yeah. Representative Hawke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm just wondering, since this is an executive bill, is the AG the one that is saying there's a constitutional issue with the other bills and not
Speaker 14
3:58
with this bill? Because this morning you said that both
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
4:03
bills were constitutional. This is not an executive bill. I guess I'm trying to understand what you're asking.
Speaker 14
4:09
I'm asking if the Attorney General has said that this bill is constitutional
Speaker 15
4:13
and the other bill is not, because that's the statement you just made. I'm
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
4:20
sorry, I didn't know that. I did not say that your bill was not constitutional. I'm saying we're addressing the constitutional issues in here based on the McCarty versus State Plant Board ruling. Yes, ma'am. So that's what we're addressing is that ruling, and we know based on that state Supreme Court ruling that the way that the promotion boards are appointed is unconstitutional,
and we've written the language. We took language from all the industries to put in here for the way that the board members are appointed moving forward to ensure they were good with it and that it met the definition of what was constitutional in the way that appointments are made. So
Speaker 13
4:58
both bills really say the same thing, as you said this morning. The language is similar in both bills. Constitutionality of the way the boards are appointed. Well,
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
5:06
I think that's incorrect. I mean, you asked this morning if our bills were the same, and they're not. I think you took language from somewhere else,
and so some of our language with rice was different. I got my language from the rice industry in how they would prefer to have their board appointed, and
I use their language as I
Speaker 13
5:26
work with industry. I'm just asking on the constitutionality as to why you would make that statement that it's, as the Attorney General said, that the other
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
5:34
is unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court said that the way the State Plant
Board is set up based on, they said it was unconstitutional to delegate public power to private interest
and that's exactly what this bill corrects. Thank you.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
5:58
Thank you. any other represent an anchor thank you guys and I did want to confirm a statement that you guys brought to us earlier the current six boards that this is addressing they today are neutral on the language that's in your bill all six of them did you have a question
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
6:19
And Representative Lynch. I thought in testimony this morning, we had two people that represented those boards say that they
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
6:31
had not been contacted for comment. I got language from Ag Council, who was working with people in the industry for the language. And so I worked with everyone and with Beef Council to ensure that the language was what
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
6:44
industry wanted to see. but you didn't hear directly back from those boards saying they were neutral directly from
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
6:51
the board no but i was told that all the boards were neutral okay but with the with the people that i was working with in the ag industry which was ag council the beef council and several others rice and so i took their language um that they requested and put that into the bill i
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
7:07
just based on that on the testimony we had from the individuals that were actually a part of that board saying they had not been contacted so but you did not contact it you were just told they were neutral
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
7:18
i was given language like i said i worked with ag council and beef council to
get the language for all the promotion boards um and the industry for how they wanted to address the constitutional issues that needed to be addressed in this bill
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
7:37
okay just okay okay yes it's probably a follow-up to his so though the promotion board members The ag council and these other groups were the ones that told you they were neutral or good with this. It wasn't actually, as far as you know, it wasn't those actual promotion board members that said they're good with this.
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
7:53
Right. I worked with people in the industry that are down here representing all the different industry interests in ag. And I've worked with them for probably close to a month on language for how they want their boards to be set
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
8:05
up. So you did work on the promotion board members. and i did work with
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
8:09
language for industry to be satisfied like i used their language that they requested that i use i put that in the bill so i did i worked so you spoke with them they
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
8:18
said we would like we want this language they sent that to you so you did work with them on this
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
8:23
i did work with rice with um ag council and with the beef council on language and they they did provide language to me but the others did not they ag council provided language for the rest of the promotion board. So I had language for every promotion board. And it's my understanding that they worked on that language just to say how they would like to have their boards set up. And I was good with their language. I think it's entirely appropriate. It was fair. It met, you know, the constitutionality portion that we saw on how the state Supreme Court ruled on the
plant board case. And so that's what we put in the bill.
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
9:01
Okay. I guess my biggest concern with that was just, you would think, since it's really affecting these promotion boards, we would get all
those guys on page, not just assuming what some other organization said that they liked. So, I appreciate your answer. Yep. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 8
9:22
Members, are there any questions? Okay. Uh, we have, uh, one person signed up to speak against the bill, uh, Mark Lambert. Would you come to the table and recognize
Speaker 46
9:30
yourself? Members of the committee, Mr. Chair, Mark Lambert, State Affairs for Arkansas Farm Bureau. You're
Chair
Unverified
9:47
recognized to speak for the bill, against the bill. Again, thank you for awarding me the opportunity to come speak. This morning I had a prepared statement. I'm not going to rehash that um however i am going to express express a couple concerns um arkansas farm bureau as you
all know we're opposed to this bill we have drafted language that we have worked with arkansas rice um they're not comfortable with the with procurement and actively principally and actively engaged in the procurement and milling industry which um you heard on the house floor today that There's not four rice mills in the state of Arkansas. There's a rice mill in Pine Bluff. There's a producer's rice mill, Riceland, Tim Ralston, and there's also another rice mill over in Brinkley.
So there's your rice mills. Coming from the agriculture industry, coming from a small town in Stuttgart, Arkansas, I've been around agriculture my entire life. I've spent the last seven years being an administrator to these promotion boards, and there's pretty much nothing that has not come in front of me that I haven't seen or guiding around. We do abide by all Department of Finance and Administration travel guidelines.
Those travel guidelines are much the same in how you all spend money, get reimbursed either zip code to zip code, address to address, et cetera. We go through state procurement under RFPs, request for proposals, request for qualifications, and then we also abide by executive orders. There's an executive order in place, Executive Order 9804. All projects need to be reviewed by the legislative, I think the legislative council, before any dollars of these are spent.
However, when I go back and look in the dollars, where are the dollars? There's a misconception that Farm Bureau is sitting here holding those cash accounts. All of those dollars are sitting at the state treasury. You can go in Arkansas Gross Tax Collection through Department of Finance and Administration and see what the inbound, outbound, and holdings are of each promotion board each month on the very first day of the month. So those dollars are held in the Treasury, and the state treasurer takes a 3.1%, 3.2% charge of those dollars.
Now, 1% goes to the constitutional officers. The other 2%, it is at the discretion of the Department of Finance and Administration through miscellaneous tax, which hires auditors, first purchaser audits, and then goes back through and audits first purchasers. again before any dollars are received, and then they have an enforcement division where those dollars are. Now, you take a $10 million board for $300,000, I don't think you can hire a CPA firm
to do that more efficiently. So you're talking about very efficient at Department of Finance and Administration. Now, another thing, and what has been said, what has been reiterated numerous times is I have worked with each promotion board and each promotion board is neutral on this bill. The biggest issue in that statement right there, I've been on the phone with Daryl Chapman, the attorney for the United Soybean Board, and under the federal act and order that was enacted
under the 1985 Farm Bill and 1990 Farm Bill that established the Beef Council and the Soybean Board. The Beef Council is a qualified state beef council. The soybean board is a qualified state soybean board. What that means is the United States Department of Agriculture under Tom Vilsack right now is the person that puts people onto those boards to administer the national program. Now the Cattlemen's Beef Board and the USB allows us to keep half of those funds. The statement
that each board is neutral on this right now is in direct violation of that federal act and order. And that is why the United Soybean Board lawyer has called me numerous times today. He is worried that that could possibly get back to USDA and we could lose that QSSB and QSBC status. And then we would lose those dollars period uh there is a process there's only been about two states that
have lost that status and there is a process but it is a long and arduous process to get that to get that qualification back now um another thing is the the board's money will stay with the boards i said this i said this this morning and i'll say it again under section nine of senate bill 506 it strikes the Department of Finance and Administration and puts the Department of Agriculture. That means it's a clean sweep. The Department of Agriculture will have to hire CPAs,
will have to have enforcement, will also have to have enforcement of first purchasers and then have to comply with that to comply with the law. So I will raise that concern. Now y'all just voted a bill today to take the Department of Agriculture boards down from 16 to 4, and now you're going back to 10. And when the governor talked to you all, to all the members in the House of
Representatives on Inauguration Day, she specifically stated that she will not sign a bill. You bring me a bill i will not sign it if it grows government on the backs of taxpayers so i want you to go back and ask yourselves does this grow government on the backs of taxpayers and for the farmers and ranchers that are in your district what do they want so with that i'll take any question thank you members
Speaker 11
16:04
anyone have any questions Representative McCollum, we're recognized
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
16:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair And it's not necessarily a question For the individual we have At the other table right now Just maybe at the proper time I'd love to hear from Secretary Ward Okay Any
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
16:33
other questions? Thank you Representative Hawke Yeah I'm just trying to wrap my head around these whole boards. So one thing it was
asked to me after we got out of committee today, right now as it sits, are any of these boards FOI-able?
Chair
Unverified
16:46
All these boards are FOI-able, which if you send a FOIA request in, I mean, I've complied. I've had numerous FOIs. basically all i do is i'll send you a spreadsheet all the way back from 1990 and then i'll send you however however many legislative audits that are on the legislative audit you know you may reach back five years i'm probably going to send you 25 because it's online it's on legislative audit which also they work for you all to provide transparency to provide
that we are abiding by those state guidelines now the the board minutes i will i will send those i think there is a place, uh, on a website. Um, I've seen it before, just digging around on, on Google, um, where those state records are, are kept. So. Okay. Thank you. Representative Brough, you
Speaker 69
17:44
have a question? Did you just say that it would cost us more money the other way, uh, if we, if this bill
go through, then it would be without it, leaving things like they are. So
Speaker 71
17:59
if you leave things like they are, fix the constitutionality. I'm not
Chair
Unverified
18:04
arguing that. That is set forth in the McCarty v. Plant Board case, and there was also a lawsuit trial settled out of court, the Leathers v. Gulf Rice case in Louisiana, and that was in the case law in McCarty v. Plant Board, so there's kind of an unsettled. But if you leave it at the Department of Finance and Administration, the collections, the disbursements, the audits, the records and everything, you know, there would be no change.
Go in here and fix the constitutionality and move on. So I don't, you know, where would the money be taken out for administration cost? i mean does the department of ag have more appropriations than last year i don't know that i answer your question
Speaker 69
18:59
yeah i'm just thinking about that if i want to see something better than what we have right now anything if it can be improved that that would be better
but you're saying it wouldn't improve
Chair
Unverified
19:16
to the department of ag Under the Soybean Board and the Beef Council, there's a 5% cap on administrative costs. So you can't go over 5%. And that's under federal statute. They could only take up to that 5% for administrative costs, which that 3.1%, 3.2%, whatever it may be this year from the Treasurer's Office, that falls under that 5%.
So can they do it cheaper? That's a question to be asked. All
Speaker 8
19:53
right. Thank you. Representative Ward, would you be willing to come to the end of the table and entertain questions? Yes,
Speaker 78
20:11
sir. Wes Ward from the Arkansas Department of Agriculture.
Speaker 11
20:13
Thank you. Representative McCullough. Thank you,
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
20:16
Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate the perspective of all the individuals we heard both this morning and, um, this afternoon or evening as well. I just, I think it is important for this committee to understand when we hear, um, reminders of quotes from the governor about the thought of growing government at the expense of the back of the taxpayer. I do want to get your thoughts on this bill in regards to that statement
and how we can process that as we look at this. Thanks. Yes, sir, absolutely. And
Speaker 80
20:52
I'll try to answer that as best as I can. But if I miss anything, please don't hesitate to have me follow up on anything that you would like for me to. But I will say, just to start off, Governor Sanders is 100 percent supportive of our agriculture industry. will never do anything to hurt that industry or set us back or create disruption or create unnecessary burdensome regulations on industry. And as was mentioned, she said that on day one.
She wants to make sure that our industry is set up for success and to keep unnecessary regulations and burdensome processes from hampering the industry. And she supports that. We support that from the Department of Agriculture. I think there's a couple of things that I would point to you. You know, I think there are questions about the funds, both funds that are collected and what the cost would be to administer those six research and promotion boards. So as Senator Davis and others have mentioned already, you know, we've been already under the governor's direction
looking very hard at state government, not just within the Department of Agriculture, but state government as a whole on, you know, what makes sense, what is, what's necessary, what's unnecessary and how do we streamline, how do we better serve our state and our industry. From the Department of Agriculture, you know, one of those steps is the consolidation of those 16 different boards and commissions into four. That opens up additional time and resources for us to do other things. You know, we've already identified a few other things within the department that we think that we can get rid of or streamline to make sure that we could
administer these six research and promotion boards without additional cost. So that's one piece of it, just internally within the department. Separately, I know there's talk about the Department of Finance and Administration. I don't think that their role changes. Personally, I think that we would have heard from Secretary Walther or Department of Finance and Administration if that was the case on this bill. I have not heard that. But even if it did, that there was some sort of reporting change or collection change, there would not be an additional requirement on the Department
of Agriculture to hire additional accountants or, you know, or anything else. You know, I think if there's a role that Department of Finance and Administration plays in the collection of those, those checkoff funds, and we would work with them to make sure that that continues in the way that it's supposed to without increasing the cost to the state or taking additional funding from the producers. So that's one piece, just internally on the cost of being able to administer those, those research and promotion boards. separately on the funding is also the funding that's derived from the producers' checkoff funds
themselves. And we've made that as clear as we can that we would not use any of those funds, those checkoff funds, for any purpose other than what they were intended for. So it wouldn't go to our own administration costs. We wouldn't use those for other purposes outside of what those individual, those six research and research and promotion boards decided of what they needed to be used for, those research and promotion decisions. So it's one, our commitment that we would not use, not need or use any additional funding from the taxpayers,
no additional general revenue or other funds, whether that's state or federal special revenue, and then two, the funds that's collected through those checkoff boards would continue to be used for the purposes that they were collected. So that is our commitment. That's the
Speaker 79
24:18
commitment from the governor. That's the commitment from us and, uh, within the Department of Agriculture as well. Okay. Representative
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
24:26
Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, well, I want to piggyback off the chairman's question earlier, um, being, if this were to
happen, right, and it go into the Department of Ag, do you feel comfortable with your relationship with the governor? And I know we're, this is moving forward, but to where you could, uh, say we want this person on one of these boards to keep farmers that are in the industry on these boards do you feel comfortable with giving those recommendations to the governor uh if this
Speaker 80
24:55
were to happen i do yes sir i do feel comfortable we've got a great relationship between the department and the governor and the governor's office uh you know certainly if there's a position that we feel strongly about we would certainly make sure that she's she's aware of that uh but i don't necessarily
think that she necessarily needs our help i think she's she's got great relationships with within the agriculture industry and agriculture producers. She hears from them directly. She doesn't necessarily have to have me there to do that. We're there to help and to assist in that process. The governor just had a roundtable last week for Ag Week and had producers from across the state in her conference room where she was hearing directly from them. So we're happy to help as a department. I'm happy to help personally as the secretary of the department. She doesn't necessarily need that, but we'll be involved and engaged and as helpful as she needs and wants us
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
25:42
to be. Representative Danker. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And to piggyback even further off of Representative Hawke's question and then kind of to relay back to what we discussed earlier. From my observation, it does appear that these boards and their members do have some serious concerns in the autonomy that they have. And obviously, moving this into a more streamlined version under your direction certainly gives that merit. I would like to hear that you are
committed to providing them with a direct access, that their nominees will have a direct opportunity to seek your endorsement as they make recommendations to the governor's office. Absolutely.
Speaker 80
26:26
Yes, sir. You know, I think, you know, regardless if it's individually or organizationally, while the statute may change, they're welcome to submit their recommendations uh, to myself or, or to the governor's office, you know, there, there, there is a portal. There's an online application for people to apply for, uh, appointments to the, all the boards and
commissions that exist across the state. And certainly, uh, they are more than welcome at any time to, to submit a recommendation to me that we'd be happy to share with the
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
26:56
governor and the governor's office. Uh, and they can- But for, for your endorsement individually, would they have a mechanism to request an
Speaker 24
27:09
endorsement from the secretary of the Department of
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
27:13
Agriculture as they seek? Yes, sir. Absolutely. Okay. Yes, sir. Any other questions, members? Representative Lynch? Yes. Secretary Ward, what is the advantage to the job that the promotion boards are currently doing coming under your direction rather than the current structure?
Speaker 80
27:29
The advantage of moving it? I think we've talked at length about the constitutional issues. I think we've kind of got past that piece. I think the good governance piece is the other aspect of that. You know, I do think that there's an argument there on, you know, who should administer a board or commission. And, you know, not to be theoretical, but, you know, in Arkansas, who gets to administer boards and commissions, and what boards and commissions do they get to administer?
We've got several within the department. Should someone else administer those? You know, I think that's one. I'm not saying that they should or that I'm arguing for them to be. But then, too, if someone else outside of state government is administering things, who gets to decide that? I think certainly the legislature plays a role in that and passing the laws. But, you know, is it one entity over another entity? And so I think it just from that standpoint, it boils down to a good government's argument. And I think that's where, you know, I get it that a lot of people are comfortable with Farm Bureau.
and there may be people that are
Speaker 79
28:36
not comfortable with farm zero and want to have a more neutral place to be able to access those research and promotion
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
28:43
boards. You're assuming that government is neutral. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Yes. Thank
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
28:55
you, Chair. Go ahead. So how could you explain that the Department of Ag would be more set up to keep everything out of overspending, compliance or making any mistakes that cost these guys money? I mean, who has, I mean,
has there been a track record of Farm Bureau making mistakes that cost money? And has there been a recent track record of Department of Ag making mistakes that cost us some non-recoverable
Speaker 80
29:19
money? Sure. No, I completely understand your question, sir. And, um, you know, I don't know that there are anything that I, or any specific instances that I could point to that Farm Bureau has made a mistake or done anything, certainly not intentionally to do that, and certainly nothing from the Department of Agriculture standpoint there as well. So I understand your point. You know, we, you know, from a department standpoint, if those six research and promotion
boards came over to the department, we'd be subject to audit, as we are currently. We're subject to coming in front of the legislature. Senate Bill 506 includes a provision for an annual report that we're required to submit to the Governor, to the House and Senate Chairs of the Ag Committee. And so, you know, I think there's an additional accountability mechanism built into Senate Bill 506 to make sure that we're being responsive, not only to the Executive Branch, but to Legislative Branch and then, you know, making those reports public for the producers in the industry as
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
30:14
well. A follow-up? Yes. Are those mechanisms set up to have each Promotion Board separately audited, similar the way Farm Bureau does that, or will it be just one audit for Department of Ag? I believe it would be part of one audit. So for transparency, you see where I'm saying on the transparency end of this? I mean, these guys, soybean farmers probably don't care what the beef guys are doing, but they do want to see the transparency of their individual promotion dollars. So that's not available with Department of Ag's plan?
Speaker 80
30:44
It would be a comprehensive audit. I think it would be part of one audit as opposed to six separate audits, I believe. But, you know, I say that, you know, that's my personal opinion, but that may end up being different if an auditor was looking at that and decided that there needed to be a separate one. All right. Thank you. Yes,
Speaker 8
31:05
sir. Okay. Any other questions, committee? Thank you, secretary. Sir. Because of the short notice of this meeting, I'm going to give some latitude, and if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill,
We'll allow that. If you would, just go at
Speaker 100
31:33
the end of the table. If somebody wants to speak, introduce yourself. Is it on? Yeah, Andrew
Speaker 101
31:38
Grubmeyer with the Agricultural Council of Arkansas. I'm here to speak on the bill, not for or against it. As Senator Davis has mentioned, our position is neutral on this bill, as is our position on the other bill. Our primary concern is fixing the constitutionality question that was brought out in the two court cases related to the plant board.
And our primary concern is making sure that that gets addressed so that the research promotion boards can continue to do the important work that they do for the real crop industry for each commodity in Arkansas. saw. We did communicate with the bill sponsor. We provided suggested language. The bill is not an exact reflection of our presentation on that, but we were able to, I think, get it to where we were comfortable in knowing that the funds will be protected, that they
will be at the controls of farmers for the purposes by which they're collected and for for which they're collected. So, um, just wanted to clarify that and also want to speak up, uh, on an issue that's sort of been mixed up here, I think, is the research and promotion boards themselves are not taking positions on this as boards. They're not as, and I heard about this gathering, uh, when I was away from the building, did pull it up on the screen and heard, uh, Mr.
Lambert speaking to that issue. Uh, he's absolutely right. They're not allowed to engage and take positions on policy. Organizations like ours, Arkansas Rice, Cattlemen's Association, Catfish, others have sort of done so, but not the research promotion boards themselves. And I know that some of the individuals serving did express their opinion today, but that was not the board's position. All right. Thank you. Members, do you
Speaker 8
33:33
have any questions? Thank you. Is there
anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak, either for or against the bill? For or against? Okay. Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Would you like to close?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
34:00
That'd be good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Breanne Davis,
State Senate District 25. Just go ahead. Okay. Okay. Well, Andrew took some of my closing comments.
I was going to clarify that this is not an ad council bill. I was just trying to directly answer Representative Perrier's question that, you know, as legislators, we try to, whenever we're doing something, especially when we're doing something that we know is going to be controversial or be a big change, we do try to work with, I think most of us try to work with all the players and try to get to a place where maybe we know it's still going to be controversial or contentious or we can't all agree, but we can go as far as we can to come to a place where, you know,
at least there's some compromise. And that's what I work to do on this, working with some of those, the Cattlemen's Association, Arkansas Rice, and Ag Council to get language for the industries. And so that part I worked really hard on to try to bring everyone to the table and get to a place where we could be neutral or we could be good with it. And I think we worked pretty well throughout that process over the last month or so. There are just some parts that other groups may agree to disagree on on this bill, and that's where we're at, and that's why we've been here for so long, of course.
But, again, this bill, it does not grow government. It fixes an issue that we all agree, even those opposed to this bill, agree that we have to fix, and that is the constitutionality issue. And it's not just because that's an issue hanging out there, but it's because it could impact the way that boards are able to spend their money for a period of time in the future when this case ultimately goes to court, which we believe that it will. So that's going to be a huge detriment to those promotion boards,
and we need to address that now and not wait for two years. There's also the accountability and transparency measure that we put in there, which I think is just good governance. It's something that, you know, as I said before, producers have talked about, producers that are paying in checkoff funds into these funds for promotion, for research. They say that they are lacking some of that transparency and accountability, and they want to see it. And so we work to do that. And finally, I think this is fairness to all farmers.
Not every farmer on these promotion boards are members of the Farm Bureau. um a farm bureau and um it's a it's a wide industry there's a lot of people in it and farmers from a lot of different places um and this houses the administration of those boards the taking of notes the setting up of meetings taking minutes um setting out a call for those meetings it places that in a neutral place which is the department of ag which is doing it at no cost to any of their promotion boards so they can continue to carry on their mission with the money
that they get from their producers and that's really important as I said earlier I would have never filed this bill if that had not been the case I tried to take my time and do the due diligence to work with the governor's office to work with the department of ag and to work with people across the industry in the six different promotion boards to come to a place where most of us you know we could be comfortable and I know some people are not but we worked really hard at that. Um, with that, thank you for your time, your multiple hours today, and I ask for a
Speaker 8
37:23
good vote. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Senator Davis has closed for the bill. What's the will of the committee? Okay. We have a motion do pass. Is
Speaker 1
37:35
there any discussion? Okay. Uh, Senator Beatty, I believe you referred Senator Beatty. So I'm sorry, dude, I mean, I don't need that. I didn't insult you. Go
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
37:43
ahead. Representative Beatty. I just want to say what I said earlier in this committee and some of my comments on the floor. I think that's a very important matter. I sat back last session. I watched all the discussions from the beginning to the end on plant board and
all the issues there and saw what a contentious subject matter this was. Figured these promotion boards were going to be about the same thing. It's turned out that way. Try to stay out of it and just vote my district. I do think it's an important bill in 506. I think Representative Hawks bill is an important bill. I'll say again, my vote in this committee today when I vote yes is not a yes vote that I fully endorse and support Senate Bill 506. It is a vote for the members of
the House of Representatives to hear that bill and ultimately make a decision. I understand the rule of the committee. This is a contentious process. This is something that I think everyone will be affected by, and I want the full chamber to vote on that. I respect the committee process, but that's why I'll be voting yes. It's not a yes vote for the bill. It's just a yes to allow other members in the full body to hear it.
Speaker 8
38:56
Thank you. Thank you, Representative Beatty. Representative Hawk, Jr.? Thank
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
39:00
you, Mr. Chair. I also want to echo what I said this morning.
You know, when we were on the chamber floor just a moment ago, I was really hoping that
we could table representative hawk's bill just so the entire body could hear both of these bills that that was what i said this morning was i wanted this bill to get out this morning and that way the body as a whole could be able to hear both these bills the goods and the bads and we didn't we weren't able to do that uh in the chamber and so with that being said exactly what i said this morning i'm going to be a yes vote on this just so the entire chamber can hear this not
so much to be an endorsement for this Senate bill but just so all 100 members can hear this bill.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
39:45
Thank you. Representative Wayne. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that all of us knew heading into this session is that this issue had to be dealt with, that we absolutely have to answer the question of constitutionality and this is the session to do it. And so with that, this is the bill that remains. And so this is the bill that needs to go
before the rest of the House. Because where we are in the session, this is where we are. For those of you who may have been uncomfortable with this bill prior, especially when other options were available, this bill is not going boldly where no one else has gone before. Forty-six other states handle this situation in this way. And so that can give you some comfort as well. But this is where we are in the session. We absolutely have to deal with the constitutionality of this issue.
So therefore, this is our option. This is the way that we can go forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1
40:46
Is there any, Representative Hawks, Sr.? Representative Hawke, Sr.? Do you want to go?
Speaker 13
40:56
goes. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. I just want to say this is how the farmers feel. This is how this program will be administered. Their voices will not be the ones at the end of the table. It will be executive, administrative voices
determining how their checkoff dollars will be spent. So I know there are other farmers on this committee, but you heard from the people today. They were not in favor
Speaker 15
41:33
of administrative oversight to coordinate these programs. I don't understand why there's a fight with the farmers over giving them any kind of voice in the programs in which they eke out their living.
Eke it out. I just don't quite understand that. I know you know what I'll be voting no against this bill, but this is the way this program will go, and I will call it today that
Speaker 13
42:08
this is the way farmers will be treated in this program under this bill. Thank you. Representative Puryear?
Speaker 33
42:17
You know, as everybody's said it, but, you know, I'm still no. No
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
42:22
information has come out for me to change my vote on this.
Maybe you guys caught something new out of the meeting here, but I'm still no, want to go on the record, no. We roll call it again, I'll say no that time. So thank you all. One more thing. I do respect Mr. Secretary Ward. I think
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
42:47
just have one statement. Okay, thank you. Representative Lynch? So basically what we're doing here is the different
boards will lose their ability to choose their own agent.
All right? It goes to the state. The boards will no longer be able to choose Farm Bureau or any other entity to help them administer their program. it becomes a state
program so that's that's the big difference that's all okay thank you
Speaker 1
43:11
representative anyone else okay we have a motion do
Speaker 8
43:20
pass all in favor say aye aye all opposed no the ayes have it
Speaker 11
43:29
your bill has passed thank you uh members for coming uh we probably need to get back over the house
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1841 L. Johnson TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS" UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 12, § 5; AND TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL FACILITIES THAT QUALIFY AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
HB1843 Haak TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AGRICULTURAL PROMOTION BOARDS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF MEMBERS OF AGRICULTURAL PROMOTION BOARDS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1844 C. Cooper TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE INCIDENTAL SALE OF GOAT MILK, SHEEP MILK, AND WHOLE MILK THAT HAS NOT BEEN PASTEURIZED; AND TO CLARIFY THAT THE INCIDENTAL SALE OF RAW MILK IS NOT LIMITED TO A SALE ON THE FARM.
SB464 Hester TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ACT.
SB498 Hester TO AMEND THE BUILDING AUTHORITY DIVISION ACT; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "UNPAVED TRAIL PROJECT".
SB506 B. Davis TO TRANSFER CERTAIN ENTITIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND TO TRANSFER AGRICULTURAL PROMOTIONAL BOARDS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BY A CABINET-LEVEL DEPARTMENT TRANSFER; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1033 Vaught REGARDING HUNTING LICENSES AND FISHING LICENSES FOR RESIDENTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE A MINOR WHO IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A HUNTING LICENSE OR FISHING LICENSE TO PAY THE RESIDENT FEE WHEN VISITING A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN.
HB1549 Beck TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND
CONSERVATION; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF PRODUCTION AND COST FOLLOWING AN INTEGRATION ORDER; AND TO
Notice: Silence your cell phones. Keep your personal conversations to a minimum. Observe restrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'.
DEFINE "PROCEEDS".
HB1645 McCullough TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT OF 2023; AND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HEALTHY FOOD RETAILERS IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
HB1673 McCollum TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FOR VETERINARY TECHNICIANS AND VETERINARY TECHNOLOGISTS.
SB339 Caldwell TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION; AND TO
PROVIDE FOR WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION IN COUNTIES.
Page 2 of 2
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- HOUSE, Apr 5, 2023 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 13
Speaker 14
Speaker 15
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Speaker 46
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 69
Speaker 71
Speaker 53
Speaker 78
Speaker 80
Speaker 79
Speaker 24
Speaker 100
Speaker 101
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Speaker 33